Will we torture again?

[Neil N. Blowme]

Oh, look at all the far right cry babies who lost their political power.

Thank heavens it's the Boehners et al and not the Cruzes who have the power.

It's only natural that a weak Sissy like you would support the mealy mouth Boehner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, look at all the far right cry babies who lost their political power.

Thank heavens it's the Boehners et al and not the Cruzes who have the power.

It's only natural that a weak Sissy like you would support the mealy mouth Boehner.

For the first couple of years most republican myself included support Bohner but not anymore his true colors are showing.

 

[Kondor3]

Jake...

Your answer, please...

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

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?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You know... I've been thinking (alert the presses folks!)

Why is it we want to treat the terrorists with more dignity and mercy than with their victims? Can you answer that?

They don't give a damn whether you treat them well or not, they will keep killing. They will keep capturing and beheading Americans. Get over it. Those terrorists don't deserve to be pampered, they deserve to be wrung for every bit of intelligence they can offer, by whatever means possible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Jake...

Your answer, please...

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

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?

His answer will be:

"I don't care how many nukes he planted, we will treat this terrorist humanely!"

 

[Kondor3]

Jake...

Your answer, please...

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

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?

His answer will be:

"I don't care how many nukes he planted, we will treat this terrorist humanely!"

I wonder.

Even the most law-abiding and humanitarian sort of folk oftentimes find the courage to choose the lesser of two evils under extremis.

I'm genuinely interested in learning how the OP would rule, under such circumstances.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Ever hear of the Warsaw Uprising? Or perhaps this?

Commando Order - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

But you're still okay when the Democrat does it. Carry on, hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When did we start torture?

EIT's are NOT torture.

Simply calling it torture does not make it so.

I bet if one of those detainees stubbed his toe on the way to the interrogation room, liberals would call that torture.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How many innocents are you willing to accept for every dead "bad guy?"

Aren't you ignoring the 2400 people Obama has droned during his presidency? Or that Bush took more care to preserve them?

 

[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.

But you're still okay when the Democrat does it. Carry on, hypocrite.

I stated earlier that I'm against it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

But you're still okay when the Democrat does it. Carry on, hypocrite.

I stated earlier that I'm against it.

That's a lie. As in it's a lie that you're against it.

 

[georgephillip]

his is guaranteed to citizens of the US. I am in full agreement with that.

Foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution and protected by those rights the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens.

 

[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.

But you're still okay when the Democrat does it. Carry on, hypocrite.

I stated earlier that I'm against it.

That's a lie. As in it's a lie that you're against it.

^^
Obviously a nutcase.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Nobel Peace Prize winner blows up children. Quick, somebody bring up waterboarding. We need a distraction.

 

[Vigilante]