Torture poll

[amrchaos]

Because person A is immoral, then I have a right to be immoral.

Dunno, a lot of people are using a similar approach to defend Obama's actions since entering office.

I need to ask, because I think sanders is going to tell a witty: What did Obama do that was immoral?

 

[elvis]

so no libral will ever be upset that we bombed the crap outta hiroshima and nagasaki then will they.. torture is off the table,, people can die by the hundreds of thousands yea, even millions, we can kill people in all manner of evil ways,, that's fine,, just don't make them uncomfortable.

Yup! That mental disconnect is fairly obvious, isn't it?

If a terrorist targets a public bus with innocent civilians, he's a terrorist monster.

But if a general targets an entire city filled with innocent civilians, he's just doing his job.

dead is preferrable to uncomfortable.. Librals have their circuits screwed onto the wrong plates! so I wake up this morning and find on the news the outstanding events in Pakistan.. taliban are going to overrided the Pakistani government and the Pakistani government isn't going to lift a finger.. nukes,, rigth there for them to pick up and use.. Netanyau is PM is Israel,,I gotta feeling the left is going to watch a lot of us die.. but don't mind me,, I got a bogeyman under my bed.

Yeah, your argument is really for completely unlimited no holds barred war, isn't it?

And you are RIGHT, Willow, that the world's attitude about what is a war crime and what is not is completely insane.

Nations target and kill civilians all the time and we don't call that war crimes, do we?

which general are you referring to?

 

[editec]

I'm the first person with the balls to vote yes. You guys are a bunch of cowards.

The problem here is that I oppose war in general, but in the event of war, I know that both sides are fighting for something. I'm not naive enough to say that our side should be the only one to use whatever means necessary to win.

Pointing out that American expects a higher moral attitude about prisoners than the terrorists have is, I think, a point that has merit.

The question is, I think, does torture help us more than it hurts us?

Experts in interogation are giving us mixed messages about its efficacy.

Experts in the war of propaganda likewise give us mixed messages about whther our use of torture actaully do our cause more harm than good, too.

Since I'm not an expert in either field, (and as far as I know, neither is anyone else on this board) I think we're spinning our wheels on this issue.

I think our foreign policy should ALWAYS ask itself whenever it questions any policy, what gives us the greatest good?

In this case, I'm not sure any of us really know.

 

[amrchaos]

Meanwhile Muslim Terrorists routinely just MURDER captives, usually by beheading them. But hey that is JUST fine with you dumb asses. Remind me how international law applies to none State terrorists. I saw in the future to solve this problem we just announce all captured Terrorists will be tried for Treason by the Military ( not civilian) and hanged if convicted with only one appeal. I mean they belong to no country so we will just assume they are ours after capturing them, then since they were under arms at the time we will assume they were OUR military and since they were attacking us, TREASON applies.

There ya go, they get all the rights of any US Military personnel. Happy now?

So let me understand your point:

Because person A is immoral, then I have a right to be immoral.

Or--were you trying to make a logically based point?

yeah, the death penalty would be wrong, too. as is imprisoning someone against his will. might as well fight to get KSM a trial in the US so he can be set free and blow up another skyscraper...oh wait, Obama's already doing that.

So I guess thats that. Tell us, why do we need justice again?
OH --To build a civilization. Without Justice, we would have Anarchy in the streets!! The whole point of founding a nation goes out the window if we no longer distinguish what is moral and immoral.

Now I am starting to sound like a preacher!! I dislike you elvis!!

 

[elvis]

So let me understand your point:

Because person A is immoral, then I have a right to be immoral.

Or--were you trying to make a logically based point?

yeah, the death penalty would be wrong, too. as is imprisoning someone against his will. might as well fight to get KSM a trial in the US so he can be set free and blow up another skyscraper...oh wait, Obama's already doing that.

So I guess thats that. Tell us, why do we need justice again?
OH --To build a civilization. Without Justice, we would have Anarchy in the streets!! The whole point of founding a nation goes out the window if we no longer distinguish what is moral and immoral.

Now I am starting to sound like a preacher!! I dislike you elvis!!

I'm saying waterboarding does not equal what the victims of 911 went through. I could care less if you like me or not.

edit: If KSM is given a trial in the US, he will walk. the judge will throw the evidence out. I don't want Obama to push for a trial for this individual for that reason.

 

[Valerie]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Whoa whoa whoa feeeeelings.




NO.

 

[Jon]

I'm the first person with the balls to vote yes. You guys are a bunch of cowards.

The problem here is that I oppose war in general, but in the event of war, I know that both sides are fighting for something. I'm not naive enough to say that our side should be the only one to use whatever means necessary to win.

I voted that American troops should not be tortured. You voted that they should be tortured.

Should be tortured??? I'm in a coward, then at least I'm one that reads how the fucking question is worded.

I know how the question is worded. But I know the art of war. We capture their guys and torture them for information, and they do the same. That's the ugliness of war, and one of the many reasons I don't support war in general.

 

[Jon]

Because person A is immoral, then I have a right to be immoral.

Dunno, a lot of people are using a similar approach to defend Obama's actions since entering office.

I need to ask, because I think sanders is going to tell a witty: What did Obama do that was immoral?

I never said he was immoral. I said those that defend him use the same argument to do so. That argument being, "Because person A did it, it's okay for Obama to do it." It's been used a few hundred times on this board.

 

[Jon]

The question is, I think, does torture help us more than it hurts us?

Valid question, and as you said, no one really knows. According to some reports, torture has led to information to stop attacks similar to 9/11. So, who knows?

 

[NOBama]

What a fucked up poll. It's a No Win Scenario...

Yes. Torture our sons and daughters.

No. Blow us to smithereens at will.

Even Capt. Kirk had to cheat on that test.

 

[elvis]

What a fucked up poll. It's a No Win Scenario...

Yes. Torture our sons and daughters.

No. Blow us to smithereens at will.

Even Capt. Kirk had to cheat on that test.

The Kurbayashi test?

 

[manu1959]

they already torture our guys......no if i could get them to only:

stack our guys up naked
have dogs bark at them
play s+m games
pretend to drown them

then ya i would be for a quid pro quo

think we can get them to agree to it.....

btw when are the al queda hearings to prosecute the guys the beheaded daniel pearl....

 

[tigerbob]

I'm the first person with the balls to vote yes. You guys are a bunch of cowards.

The problem here is that I oppose war in general, but in the event of war, I know that both sides are fighting for something. I'm not naive enough to say that our side should be the only one to use whatever means necessary to win.

I voted that American troops should not be tortured. You voted that they should be tortured.

Should be tortured??? I'm in a coward, then at least I'm one that reads how the fucking question is worded.

I know how the question is worded. But I know the art of war. We capture their guys and torture them for information, and they do the same. That's the ugliness of war, and one of the many reasons I don't support war in general.

But that wasn't the question. If the question had been "Should we have the right to torture foreign combatants if they do the same to our troops?" then maybe I would have some sympathy with your answer.

 

[amrchaos]

Dunno, a lot of people are using a similar approach to defend Obama's actions since entering office.

I need to ask, because I think sanders is going to tell a witty: What did Obama do that was immoral?

I never said he was immoral. I said those that defend him use the same argument to do so. That argument being, "Because person A did it, it's okay for Obama to do it." It's been used a few hundred times on this board.

Oh, just deflection. I thought you were going to say something like "Spend us into a 4th world nation staatus!! We now beg 3rd world nations for money!!"

 

[elvis]

I voted that American troops should not be tortured. You voted that they should be tortured.

Should be tortured??? I'm in a coward, then at least I'm one that reads how the fucking question is worded.

I know how the question is worded. But I know the art of war. We capture their guys and torture them for information, and they do the same. That's the ugliness of war, and one of the many reasons I don't support war in general.

But that wasn't the question. If the question had been "Should we have the right to torture foreign combatants if they do the same to our troops?" then maybe I would have some sympathy with your answer.

But the people we have tortured planned 9/11. I don't think waterboarding and the what the 9/11 victims went through are equivalent. I'm not saying torture is right, only that waterboarding is not equivalent to what these men did.

 

[Gunny]

If it's ok for us to torture, why isn't it ok for them to torture?

Us good, them bad?

This poll is stupid.

why is it stupid? Because he is flipping it around on you?

Flipping it around? You mean playing a semantical game? Because that's all it amounts to.

Define "torture." Then define "terror." Every time you threat to punish your child or DO punish your child, it can be dishonestly misconstrued to say it's one, the other, or both. There is no honesty to the argument, and as is typical of most leftwing arguments/accusations, it then just becomes a matter of misconstruing words or using broad, general terms they can twist to mean whatever they want.

And for some reason, this board seems to have recently attracted quite the little group of leftwing, word-game players. Unfortunately for them, they aren't even good at it.

The simple facts are, we, as a Nation, do not torture. We as a nation have ALWAYS used coercion to obtain information, and the limit gets pushed every time. By every administration; regardless, which side of the aile they are on.

Until one of the blabbermouths on here can provide an instance where waterboarding was used AFTER it was ruled illegal in a US court, then this is just more leftwingnut, beating a dead horse to take the attention off their own fuckups bullshit.

Losers.

 

[Jon]

But that wasn't the question. If the question had been "Should we have the right to torture foreign combatants if they do the same to our troops?" then maybe I would have some sympathy with your answer.

I'm not asking for sympathy. I'm not an apologist. The question was clearly worded to bait people into saying that it's only okay for America to torture foreign captives. That's not how I feel.

So, if you would answer yes to "Should we have the right to torture foreign combatants if they do the same to our troops?" How would you answer, "Should foreign countries have the right to torture our troops if we torture theirs?" THAT is the question at hand.

 

[Jon]

I need to ask, because I think sanders is going to tell a witty: What did Obama do that was immoral?

I never said he was immoral. I said those that defend him use the same argument to do so. That argument being, "Because person A did it, it's okay for Obama to do it." It's been used a few hundred times on this board.

Oh, just deflection. I thought you were going to say something like "Spend us into a 4th world nation staatus!! We now beg 3rd world nations for money!!"

How is answering a question with a clear statement deflection? Idiot.

 

[amrchaos]

If it's ok for us to torture, why isn't it ok for them to torture?

Us good, them bad?

This poll is stupid.

No it isn't, Gunny.

In fact this turnabout is fair play poll is one of the more intelligent posts that DavidS has penned in some time.

Supporters of torture like to use the example of torture to save lifes as a MORAL justification for allowing torture.

DavidS asks us to put our MORALS to the test to see if our concept of torture as being moral is entirely hypocritical.

Are supporters of America's right to torture (to save American lives) willing to acknowledge that if it's moral for America to torture, it is moral for our enemies to torture our people (to save their people's lives)?

This IS an important question.

Assume that the USA gets into a war and uses torture.

And so does the enemy.

Now assume we win the war.

Do we have the high moral ground to take their torturing leadership to trial for torturing our people, if we were torturing their people?

Hold it, there is a way to answer yes to both polls. And that is if some one takes a moral Relative point of view to torture and ask "Will the torturer benefit?"

If the whole notion is to ask whether the person performing the act can benefit then you can answer yes to both polls HONESTLY.

Of course, this leads straight into logical madness and why systems of civility and justice are not based on Moral relativitiy.

 

[Gunny]

If the people of this country are willing to accept that their government has the right to torture suspects in their custody, and ignore international laws and treaties as well as domestic laws banning torture, there is no reason for any other nation, state, or faction to comply with these laws either.
In the future any American held captive outside of this country can be questioned by those claiming authority using any interrogation technique they deem necessary. The term “those in authority” will be interpreted as those claiming jurisdiction in the location at the time of the interrogation.

Got news for you chumly ... did you miss the guy who got his head whacked off on youtube, or what? They ALREADY do and they laugh their asses off at us for letting fools like you distract from them.

Ho Chi Minh taught the world a lesson. Stay alive long enough and you can divide this nation because sooner or later all the morons who haven't seen the ball since the kickoff will come out of the woodwork and whine.

Provide the legislation that states the United States of America condones and as an institution carries out systematic torture of POWs or shut the fuck up.

It's no harder than that.