Will we torture again?

[Pop23]

Oh, got it, so the German soldiers in WWII were murdered cause they never physically killed the Jews.

You slow or what?

Ever heard of Nuremberg?

So what country are we fighting against?

Ohhhhhh, not a signee of any convention?

Too bad, so sad

 

[Missouri_Mike]

"The report adds nauseating new details to the already substantial record of the CIA’s enthusiastic descent into savagery after capturing its first terror suspects, post-9/11.

"There’s the image of the CIA’s first fully documented torture victim, Abu Zubaydah, becoming 'completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth' after a session of repeated near-drownings on the waterboard.

"There are descriptions of sleep deprivation that 'involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads.'

"The report identifies 26 detainees, out of the CIA’s 119 in total, who the agency itself determined should never have been held at all.

"That unfortunate group includes 'Abu Hudhaifa, who was subjected to ice water baths and 66 hours of standing sleep deprivation before being released because the CIA discovered he was likely not the person he was believed to be,' and 'Nazir Ali, an ‘intellectually challenged’ individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against his family member.'”

For CIA Truth about Torture Was an Existential Threat - The Intercept

I'm supposed to care about that why?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Those who approve torture are similar in approving racism; they are simply not moral people.

Don't children play with such children. They may marry one another, and then the grandchildren will not be shining little lights of you. I am so grateful for the decent, goodly parents I had.

These people you call children kill with no remorse, No morals and certainly no regard for any of your laws. So what exactly do you think we should do with them? Pass another law?

 

[georgephillip]

So what country are we fighting against?

Ohhhhhh, not a signee of any convention?

Too bad, so sad

War of Aggression, remember?
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'"[2]
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Accumulated evil of the whole.
Get it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Can we now say with confidence that our government will not use torture again and that Americans in the future will rise up to prevent it from doing so? In light of the reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, I fear that we can’t." Dionne Will we torture again The Salt Lake Tribune

Too many of our citizens do not understand that acting like AQ or the Gestapo or ISIS ISIL whatever makes us no different than AQ or the Gestapo or ISIS ISIL.

Can you say with confidence that the folks you want to protect will:

Stop promoting child rape?

Stop beheading civilians?

Stop torturing civilians?

Get those answers first Bozo

So you are endorsing all of these behaviors? Is that what you are saying? Think very carefully before you answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who approve torture are similar in approving racism; they are simply not moral people...

Let's get this straight...

Hypothetical scenario:

You're the King of the United States.

A terrorist has planted a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in the City of Chicago.

The nuke is known to be on a timer with 12 hours left until detonation.

We captured the terrorist two days ago.

All of the 'legal' interrogation techniques that we've tried so far have not forced the terrorist to tell us where in the City of Chicago that the nuke has been planted.

The only shot we have at getting to the bomb in-time is to try torture of one kind or another... starting slow and becoming progressively more brutal.

The chief of the interrogation team kicks the request upstairs through his chain-of-command, requesting permission to use torture.

The buck stops on your desk - the top of the interrogator's chain-of-command comes to you for that permission.

Do you give it?

Or do you let the City of Chicago vaporize, along with several million Americans?

Do you give your permission to use torture at that point, in such a scenario?

Yes or No, please.

If you dare.

Nothing fancy... no protesting that such a thing would never happen... no answering a question with a question.

Yes or No, please.

Would you authorize the use of torture under such circumstances?

I am not the king of the US, so your hypothetical is only that.

If it were one of the far right American wannabee revolutionaries, I would be as tempted as I would if it were an Al Quaida member.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing we did is torture.

You are an uneducated, ignorant individual if you really believe that.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm supposed to care about that why?

Your government tortures innocent civilians and lies about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, since by the logic of the dumb asses of our libertarian and far right wings, Americans who revolt against our Constitution and government and the people are not signers to the Geneva Convention, our national and state LEOs can torture your asses without any problem.

Got it.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Nothing we did is torture.

You are an uneducated, ignorant individual if you really believe that.

Go fuck yourself, loser.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

I'm supposed to care about that why?

Your government tortures innocent civilians and lies about it.

Obama uses drone missiles that murder innocent civilians. Do something.

OK, since by the logic of the dumb asses of our libertarian and far right wings, Americans who revolt against our Constitution and government and the people are not signers to the Geneva Convention, our national and state LEOs can torture your asses without any problem.

Got it.

Obama uses drones to murder innocent children. What are you going to do about that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

 

[Political Junky]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

I think the Right would be OK with a republican president firing those missiles.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

I think the Right would be OK with a republican president firing those missiles.

Are you okay with Obama murdering children with drone strikes?

 

[Political Junky]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

I think the Right would be OK with a republican president firing those missiles.

Are you okay with Obama murdering children with drone strikes?

No, but would you if it were Romney or Bush?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

I think the Right would be OK with a republican president firing those missiles.

Are you okay with Obama murdering children with drone strikes?

No, but would you if it were Romney or Bush?

Deflection. Stay in reality.

 

[Political Junky]

Neal's writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhabit clarity.

In other words, he is a dumb fuck who gets his ass kicked hard in his first 19 posts, and is going to become very, very bitter very very quickly if he continues on this way.

I believe that in light of the OP Neil would love to inflict physical and emotional pain on those he perceives to be his enemies.

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

I think the Right would be OK with a republican president firing those missiles.

Are you okay with Obama murdering children with drone strikes?

No, but would you if it were Romney or Bush?

Deflection. Stay in reality.

I answered, No, but you dodged.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Why are you silent while Obama fires missiles from drones that murder innocent children?

I think the Right would be OK with a republican president firing those missiles.

Are you okay with Obama murdering children with drone strikes?

No, but would you if it were Romney or Bush?

Deflection. Stay in reality.

I answered, No, but you dodged.

Bush and Romney aren't involved. YOU dodged.

 

[Kondor3]

Those who approve torture are similar in approving racism; they are simply not moral people...

Let's get this straight...

Hypothetical scenario:

You're the King of the United States.

A terrorist has planted a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in the City of Chicago.

The nuke is known to be on a timer with 12 hours left until detonation.

We captured the terrorist two days ago.

All of the 'legal' interrogation techniques that we've tried so far have not forced the terrorist to tell us where in the City of Chicago that the nuke has been planted.

The only shot we have at getting to the bomb in-time is to try torture of one kind or another... starting slow and becoming progressively more brutal.

The chief of the interrogation team kicks the request upstairs through his chain-of-command, requesting permission to use torture.

The buck stops on your desk - the top of the interrogator's chain-of-command comes to you for that permission.

Do you give it?

Or do you let the City of Chicago vaporize, along with several million Americans?

Do you give your permission to use torture at that point, in such a scenario?

Yes or No, please.

If you dare.

Nothing fancy... no protesting that such a thing would never happen... no answering a question with a question.

Yes or No, please.

Would you authorize the use of torture under such circumstances?

I am not the king of the US, so your hypothetical is only that.

If it were one of the far right American wannabee revolutionaries, I would be as tempted as I would if it were an Al Quaida member.

Oh, fer Crissakes, I used the 'King of the United States' phrase as a metaphor for the Person-in-Charge of Making Such Decisions.

Now, please stop stalling, and answer the phukking question...

Here, I'll remove the 'offending phrase'... and resubmit the question-narrative, as follows:

==================================

Let's get this straight...

Hypothetical scenario:

You're the President of the United States.

A terrorist has planted a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in the City of Chicago.

The nuke is known to be on a timer with 12 hours left until detonation.

We captured the terrorist two days ago.

All of the 'legal' interrogation techniques that we've tried so far have not forced the terrorist to tell us where in the City of Chicago that the nuke has been planted.

The only shot we have at getting to the bomb in-time is to try torture of one kind or another... starting slow and becoming progressively more brutal.

The chief of the interrogation team kicks the request upstairs through his chain-of-command, requesting permission to use torture.

The buck stops on your desk - the top of the interrogator's chain-of-command comes to you for that permission.

Do you give it?

Or do you let the City of Chicago vaporize, along with several million Americans?

Do you give your permission to use torture at that point, in such a scenario?

Yes or No, please.

If you dare.

Nothing fancy... no protesting that such a thing would never happen... no answering a question with a question.

Yes or No, please.

Would you authorize the use of torture under such circumstances?

==================================

Your answer, please... Yes or No?