Way to go John, three years too late. He could start by releasing all of his military records, not bloody likely.[/b]
at least he has military records, unlike our commander in chief.
Bush actually has two sets of military records. His national guard records and the fake set of national guard records dummied up by Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.
oh yeah, he had protect Alabama from the Viet Cong, I forogt about his glorious military past.
Mary Mapes failed to verify her sources. Dan Rather trusted her. Both were shameful and unprofessional acts. The worse part is they shifted the debate way from the real issue. Pretty convenient.
You flip flop so much, it's embarrassing. What about the last name issue you brought regarding Lamont? Bush's ability to stay out of Vietnam was all about his last name. End of story.
Way to go John, three years too late. He could start by releasing all of his military records, not bloody likely.[/b]
at least he has military records, unlike our commander in chief.
Bush actually has two sets of military records. His national guard records and the fake set of national guard records dummied up by Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.
oh yeah, he had protect Alabama from the Viet Cong, I forogt about his glorious military past.
Mary Mapes failed to verify her sources. Dan Rather trusted her. Both were shameful and unprofessional acts.
You flip flop so much, it's embarassing. What about the last name issue you broguht regarding Lamont? Bush's ability to stay out of Vietnam was all about his last name. End of story.
No kidding, but Im not trying to sell some story like "bush was a great warrior" the way you're trying to make it like Lamont is some "selfmade man".
Stop making shit up. I said Lamont is a successful businessman. He is. Period. Self-made or inherited? I didn't say and I don't think it matters. But it's amazing how addicted you are to swiftboating everything. Let's move on.
Obviously the Military/CIA/FBI thinks that their forms of "torture" are the best methods to extract information or they wouldn't be doing it. Unless of course you believe that they are inherently evil and doing this just for the pure enjoyment of it. I don't.(The dog collar routine withstanding)
Whenever we talk about the civil liberties of our citizens it's a natural thing to extrapolate it out to a personal level. If we use the Patriot Act to listen to suspected terrorists phone calls then it's just a short jump to listening to MY phone calls, putting cameras outside MY house and spying on me in MY bedroom. Sometimes in order to truly appreciate the breadth of something you have to bring it to an improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
So let's do that with what we are calling "torture" with the understanding that there are "varying degrees" of this so-called Barbaric behavior.
LW and all the others who are so adamantly against using force to question/extract info an enemy/criminal please put yourself in the following improbable but certainly not impossible scenario and tell us which of the two choices you would make at the end. Also be aware that this actually did happen and there was even a TV show based on the case. Yes, this is a hypothetical but your decision should be based on how YOU would act in this situation.
A convicted murderer escapes from prison and kidnaps your child/wife/parent. He has them held in an undisclosed place but is captured by one policeman out on the street with only you present. Without contacting his superiors he drags the suspect into an apartment and begins to question him about the location of his victim. He's getting no where so he begins to beat the guy with a nightstick...still no answer. So he drags him into the bathroom nad dunks his head in the toilet a few times, with each time getting longer and closer to drowning the guy. After 5 minutes of this the guy gives up the location, your family member is found safe and the suspect is carted off to jail.
About week later an attorney contacts you and tells you that the suspect says he was tortured and that you were the only witness. They are going to press charges against the police officer but without your testimony they don't have a case. You are faced with the following decision.
1) Refuse to testify and in effect support his actions.
2) Testify against the officer who will lose his job and possibly go to prison because of his actions.
Treat this question at it's face value and give your answer to this specific scenario if you dare. I don't want to hear a bunch of "what if's" and "buts" from the whining peanut gallery....just Man up and answer if you dare.
I'm picking #1....which I guess means I support torture and I'm not ashamed of it one bit.
Unless of course you believe that they are inherently evil and doing this just for the pure enjoyment of it.
That's silly.
Try this: they are huge beaurocracies that fail to change their policies in step with research. Most of the research on persuasion and the extraction of information is relatively new (ironically a lot of it was funded by the DOD) and government agencies are reluctant to change when social science proves their techniques are ineffective. That's my explanation and it's consistent across the government--e.g., DoED, HHS, HUD etc.
Unless of course you believe that they are inherently evil and doing this just for the pure enjoyment of it.
That's silly.
Try this: they are huge beaurocracies that fail to change their policies in step with research. Most of the research on persuasion and the extraction of information is relatively new (ironically a lot of it was funded by the DOD) and government agencies are reluctant to change when social science proves their techniques are ineffective. That's my explanation and it's consistent across the government--e.g., DoED, HHS, HUD etc.
Obviously the Military/CIA/FBI thinks that their forms of "torture" are the best methods to extract information or they wouldn't be doing it. Unless of course you believe that they are inherently evil and doing this just for the pure enjoyment of it. I don't.(The dog collar routine withstanding)
Rockadelic = Pro-torture.
Unless I am taking this out of context you are saying you believe that the torture works and that the military/CIA/FBI adopted a policy of torture based on the fact that it works. If you had read Motown's posts you would have seen that the torture policy came from the civilian leadership in the White House and the Pentagon. Our civilian leadership has made it clear to our military and intelligence communities that those who do not support their tactics will be reassigned. Our military/intelligence did not support torture in the Civil War, WWI or WWII or the cold war. The change in policy did not come from career military/intelligence personnel. OK? I don't believe that GW is inherently evil. I don't think either his mother or father are evil.
OK, you have made it clear. You are in favor of torture. Let's not hear you try to deny it again and say that I am taking your statements out of context.
Whenever we talk about the civil liberties of our citizens it's a natural thing to extrapolate it out to a personal level. If we use the Patriot Act to listen to suspected terrorists phone calls then it's just a short jump to listening to MY phone calls, putting cameras outside MY house and spying on me in MY bedroom. Sometimes in order to truly appreciate the breadth of something you have to bring it to an improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
Not improbable or impossible. There are 2 cases in Oregon where the Patriot Act was missused against American citizens. Local stories that I am sure have been repeated all over America. The FBI has apologized in one case. The other is still in the courts.
So let's do that with what we are calling "torture" with the understanding that there are "varying degrees" of this so-called Barbaric behavior.
LW and all the others who are so adamantly against using force to question/extract info an enemy/criminal please put yourself in the following improbable but certainly not impossible scenario and tell us which of the two choices you would make at the end. Also be aware that this actually did happen and there was even a TV show based on the case. Yes, this is a hypothetical but your decision should be based on how YOU would act in this situation.
A convicted murderer escapes from prison and kidnaps your child/wife/parent. He has them held in an undisclosed place but is captured by one policeman out on the street with only you present. Without contacting his superiors he drags the suspect into an apartment and begins to question him about the location of his victim. He's getting no where so he begins to beat the guy with a nightstick...still no answer. So he drags him into the bathroom nad dunks his head in the toilet a few times, with each time getting longer and closer to drowning the guy. After 5 minutes of this the guy gives up the location, your family member is found safe and the suspect is carted off to jail.
About week later an attorney contacts you and tells you that the suspect says he was tortured and that you were the only witness. They are going to press charges against the police officer but without your testimony they don't have a case. You are faced with the following decision.
1) Refuse to testify and in effect support his actions.
2) Testify against the officer who will lose his job and possibly go to prison because of his actions.
Treat this question at it's face value and give your answer o this specific scenario if you dare. I don't want to hear a bunch of "what if's" and "buts" from the whining peanut gallery....just Man up and answer if you dare.
I'm picking #1....which I guess means I support torture and I'm not ashamed of it one bit.
This hypothetical is a very important conversation for Americans to have. I tried to have this discussion here when the Abu Garaib story broke.
I agree with you that we all must find that line that would allow us to give up a piece of humanity to save a loved one.
#1 I would always be grateful to the officer for cathing the bad guy and saving my loved one.
#2 I would testify against the officer. I have an honesty problem.
A more important question would be; would I have tortured the guy? In my day dreams, for sure and far more brutally. In reality, I doubt it, but I can't be sure.
Was torturing the guy the only way to save my hypothetical loved ones. We will never know. Loved ones have been saved without the use of torture.
I am not against torture because it is ineffective, though it is. I am against it because it is inhumane. That officer, and the members of military and intelligence communities that have had to use torture will have to live with that their whole life. I am proud to say that I have been outraged and opposed to it from the beginning.
I am sorry that I come off as self-righteous, but I have these beliefs and I try to live by them.
Obviously the Military/CIA/FBI thinks that their forms of "torture" are the best methods to extract information or they wouldn't be doing it. Unless of course you believe that they are inherently evil and doing this just for the pure enjoyment of it. I don't.(The dog collar routine withstanding)
Rockadelic = Pro-torture.
Unless I am taking this out of context you are saying you believe that the torture works and that the military/CIA/FBI adopted a policy of torture based on the fact that it works. If you had read Motown's posts you would have seen that the torture policy came from the civilian leadership in the White House and the Pentagon. Our civilian leadership has made it clear to our military and intelligence communities that those who do not support their tactics will be reassigned. Our military/intelligence did not support torture in the Civil War, WWI or WWII or the cold war. The change in policy did not come from career military/intelligence personnel. OK? I don't believe that GW is inherently evil. I don't think either his mother or father are evil.
OK, you have made it clear. You are in favor of torture. Let's not hear you try to deny it again and say that I am taking your statements out of context.
Whenever we talk about the civil liberties of our citizens it's a natural thing to extrapolate it out to a personal level. If we use the Patriot Act to listen to suspected terrorists phone calls then it's just a short jump to listening to MY phone calls, putting cameras outside MY house and spying on me in MY bedroom. Sometimes in order to truly appreciate the breadth of something you have to bring it to an improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
Not improbable or impossible. There are 2 cases in Oregon where the Patriot Act was missused against American citizens. Local stories that I am sure have been repeated all over America. The FBI has apologized in one case. The other is still in the courts.
So let's do that with what we are calling "torture" with the understanding that there are "varying degrees" of this so-called Barbaric behavior.
LW and all the others who are so adamantly against using force to question/extract info an enemy/criminal please put yourself in the following improbable but certainly not impossible scenario and tell us which of the two choices you would make at the end. Also be aware that this actually did happen and there was even a TV show based on the case. Yes, this is a hypothetical but your decision should be based on how YOU would act in this situation.
A convicted murderer escapes from prison and kidnaps your child/wife/parent. He has them held in an undisclosed place but is captured by one policeman out on the street with only you present. Without contacting his superiors he drags the suspect into an apartment and begins to question him about the location of his victim. He's getting no where so he begins to beat the guy with a nightstick...still no answer. So he drags him into the bathroom nad dunks his head in the toilet a few times, with each time getting longer and closer to drowning the guy. After 5 minutes of this the guy gives up the location, your family member is found safe and the suspect is carted off to jail.
About week later an attorney contacts you and tells you that the suspect says he was tortured and that you were the only witness. They are going to press charges against the police officer but without your testimony they don't have a case. You are faced with the following decision.
1) Refuse to testify and in effect support his actions.
2) Testify against the officer who will lose his job and possibly go to prison because of his actions.
Treat this question at it's face value and give your answer o this specific scenario if you dare. I don't want to hear a bunch of "what if's" and "buts" from the whining peanut gallery....just Man up and answer if you dare.
I'm picking #1....which I guess means I support torture and I'm not ashamed of it one bit.
This hypothetical is a very important conversation for Americans to have. I tried to have this discussion here when the Abu Garaib story broke.
I agree with you that we all must find that line that would allow us to give up a piece of humanity to save a loved one.
#1 I would always be grateful to the officer for cathing the bad guy and saving my loved one.
#2 I would testify against the officer. I have an honesty problem.
A more important question would be; would I have tortured the guy? In my day dreams, for sure and far more brutally. In reality, I doubt it, but I can't be sure.
Was torturing the guy the only way to save my hypothetical loved ones. We will never know. Loved ones have been saved without the use of torture.
I am not against torture because it is ineffective, though it is. I am against it because it is inhumane. That officer, and the members of military and intelligence communities that have had to use torture will have to live with that their whole life. I am proud to say that I have been outraged and opposed to it from the beginning.
I am sorry that I come off as self-righteous, but I have these beliefs and I try to live by them.
I can't be clearer....and my answer to the hypothetical scenario confirmed it. I am for torture if it saves or has the potential to save innocent lives. I think limits should be made on the "varying degrees" of torture that are used. But the ones I've read about that include light and sound depravation I have no problem with whatsoever. Cutting off limbs and physically disfiguring people is over the line for me.
The fact that you would testify against the officer does reveal alot about your character.
Your analogy is straight off the GOP playbook. I'll pass. It's actually a shameful way to try to deflect debate from whether or not policies are effective. I know you can do better.
Your analogy is straight off the GOP playbook. I'll pass. It's actually a shameful way to try to deflect debate from whether or not policies are effective. I know you can do better.
Nope...that's about the best I can do.....good enough for you to avoid answering though.
The point is to see if torture is EVER acceptable.
You can't answer truthfully and maintain your stance.
Your analogy is straight off the GOP playbook. I'll pass. It's actually a shameful way to try to deflect debate from whether or not policies are effective. I know you can do better.
I disagree. I don't think whether of not torture is effective is the point. I think whether or not it is morally right for our country to engage in is the point.
We have allowed abortion and Bill Clinton's sex life to become our nations only value issues. Torture, death penalty, helping the poor and the other truly important moral questions of our day are discussed only as effective policy questions. Big mistake.
Your analogy is straight off the GOP playbook. I'll pass. It's actually a shameful way to try to deflect debate from whether or not policies are effective. I know you can do better.
I disagree. I don't think whether of not torture is effective is the point. I think whether or not it is morally right for our country to engage in is the point.
We have allowed abortion and Bill Clinton's sex life to become our nations only value issues. Torture, death penalty, helping the poor and the other truly important moral questions of our day are discussed only as effective policy questions. Big mistake.
Your analogy is straight off the GOP playbook. I'll pass. It's actually a shameful way to try to deflect debate from whether or not policies are effective. I know you can do better.
Nope...that's about the best I can do.....good enough for you to avoid answering though.
The point is to see if torture is EVER acceptable.
You can't answer truthfully and maintain your stance.
I'd say that's pretty good.
Torture is never acceptable. violence begets violence. at some point someone has to be the bigger person, the more humane person, the more "civilized" person and work for peaceful solutions. I take it you are not a big supporter of MLK or Ghandi...
oh, and your analogy is just bad. What ifs are not an argument.
That's not even a relevant "what if" - we're not talking about whether you or I as individuals, our mother or wife in capture, would resort to torture to free them. Not even a parallel. The only question being posed here is whether or not a country - and its military - should have a stated policy banning torture or defining certain types of torture as acceptible. And of course, that should not be a question at all.
Your analogy is straight off the GOP playbook. I'll pass. It's actually a shameful way to try to deflect debate from whether or not policies are effective. I know you can do better.
Nope...that's about the best I can do.....good enough for you to avoid answering though.
The point is to see if torture is EVER acceptable.
You can't answer truthfully and maintain your stance.
I'd say that's pretty good.
OK. But why anyone would want to use my example is beyond me. I would probably participate in the beating. And regret it afterwards--whether or not it helped me reunite with my loved one.
I cite the GOP playbook, because this is what you heard when Cheney tried to have the McCain amendment specifically banning torture removed.
"What if you have a terrorist with information on an attack that will take place in less than 24 hours. You'd do whatever it takes to get that information. And we need to give our security forces that option."
"That has happened before but we can't tell what attack we diverted or how we got the information. Just trust us...we are keeping you safe."
Comments
Mary Mapes failed to verify her sources. Dan Rather trusted her. Both were shameful and unprofessional acts. The worse part is they shifted the debate way from the real issue. Pretty convenient.
You flip flop so much, it's embarrassing. What about the last name issue you brought regarding Lamont? Bush's ability to stay out of Vietnam was all about his last name. End of story.
No kidding, but Im not trying to sell some story like "bush was a great warrior" the way you're trying to make it like Lamont is some "selfmade man".
are you talking conspiracy theory here? hold on - I want to put my foil hat on for this.
Whenever we talk about the civil liberties of our citizens it's a natural thing to extrapolate it out to a personal level. If we use the Patriot Act to listen to suspected terrorists phone calls then it's just a short jump to listening to MY phone calls, putting cameras outside MY house and spying on me in MY bedroom. Sometimes in order to truly appreciate the breadth of something you have to bring it to an improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
So let's do that with what we are calling "torture" with the understanding that there are "varying degrees" of this so-called Barbaric behavior.
LW and all the others who are so adamantly against using force to question/extract info an enemy/criminal please put yourself in the following improbable but certainly not impossible scenario and tell us which of the two choices you would make at the end. Also be aware that this actually did happen and there was even a TV show based on the case. Yes, this is a hypothetical but your decision should be based on how YOU would act in this situation.
A convicted murderer escapes from prison and kidnaps your child/wife/parent. He has them held in an undisclosed place but is captured by one policeman out on the street with only you present. Without contacting his superiors he drags the suspect into an apartment and begins to question him about the location of his victim. He's getting no where so he begins to beat the guy with a nightstick...still no answer. So he drags him into the bathroom nad dunks his head in the toilet a few times, with each time getting longer and closer to drowning the guy. After 5 minutes of this the guy gives up the location, your family member is found safe and the suspect is carted off to jail.
About week later an attorney contacts you and tells you that the suspect says he was tortured and that you were the only witness. They are going to press charges against the police officer but without your testimony they don't have a case. You are faced with the following decision.
1) Refuse to testify and in effect support his actions.
2) Testify against the officer who will lose his job and possibly go to prison
because of his actions.
Treat this question at it's face value and give your answer to this specific scenario if you dare. I don't want to hear a bunch of "what if's" and "buts" from the whining peanut gallery....just Man up and answer if you dare.
I'm picking #1....which I guess means I support torture and I'm not ashamed of it one bit.
i hate to admit it, but yes. and it's entirely based on a Frontline piece. so i'm not holding on tight to this one, but i just have a gut feeling.
bastard
Sacre bleu! On the contrary. It is you who is the bas-taaaaard. *accent over the aaaaa*
That's silly.
Try this: they are huge beaurocracies that fail to change their policies in step with research. Most of the research on persuasion and the extraction of information is relatively new (ironically a lot of it was funded by the DOD) and government agencies are reluctant to change when social science proves their techniques are ineffective. That's my explanation and it's consistent across the government--e.g., DoED, HHS, HUD etc.
HHS?
Hamiliton High School said that?
Why is that silly.....that's what are enemies are doing.
it's silly to suggest the only alternative to your argument is that people in the armed forces and intelligence agencies are "inherently evil".
And your answer is.......
Nobody is inherently evil thats silly.
definitely the best part.
I don't understand.
My answer to why they keep torturing people to get information knowing that it does not get any useful information?
Rockadelic = Pro-torture.
Unless I am taking this out of context you are saying you believe that the torture works and that the military/CIA/FBI adopted a policy of torture based on the fact that it works. If you had read Motown's posts you would have seen that the torture policy came from the civilian leadership in the White House and the Pentagon. Our civilian leadership has made it clear to our military and intelligence communities that those who do not support their tactics will be reassigned. Our military/intelligence did not support torture in the Civil War, WWI or WWII or the cold war. The change in policy did not come from career military/intelligence personnel. OK? I don't believe that GW is inherently evil. I don't think either his mother or father are evil.
OK, you have made it clear. You are in favor of torture. Let's not hear you try to deny it again and say that I am taking your statements out of context.
Not improbable or impossible. There are 2 cases in Oregon where the Patriot Act was missused against American citizens. Local stories that I am sure have been repeated all over America. The FBI has apologized in one case. The other is still in the courts.
This hypothetical is a very important conversation for Americans to have. I tried to have this discussion here when the Abu Garaib story broke.
I agree with you that we all must find that line that would allow us to give up a piece of humanity to save a loved one.
#1 I would always be grateful to the officer for cathing the bad guy and saving my loved one.
#2 I would testify against the officer. I have an honesty problem.
A more important question would be; would I have tortured the guy? In my day dreams, for sure and far more brutally. In reality, I doubt it, but I can't be sure.
Was torturing the guy the only way to save my hypothetical loved ones. We will never know. Loved ones have been saved without the use of torture.
I am not against torture because it is ineffective, though it is. I am against it because it is inhumane. That officer, and the members of military and intelligence communities that have had to use torture will have to live with that their whole life. I am proud to say that I have been outraged and opposed to it from the beginning.
I am sorry that I come off as self-righteous, but I have these beliefs and I try to live by them.
I can't be clearer....and my answer to the hypothetical scenario confirmed it. I am for torture if it saves or has the potential to save innocent lives. I think limits should be made on the "varying degrees" of torture that are used. But the ones I've read about that include light and sound depravation I have no problem with whatsoever. Cutting off limbs and physically disfiguring people is over the line for me.
The fact that you would testify against the officer does reveal alot about your character.
The answer to whether or not you would testify against the police torturer.
is that like a tea bag?
A Lexdystic Freudian one at that!!
Nope...that's about the best I can do.....good enough for you to avoid answering though.
The point is to see if torture is EVER acceptable.
You can't answer truthfully and maintain your stance.
I'd say that's pretty good.
I disagree. I don't think whether of not torture is effective is the point. I think whether or not it is morally right for our country to engage in is the point.
We have allowed abortion and Bill Clinton's sex life to become our nations only value issues. Torture, death penalty, helping the poor and the other truly important moral questions of our day are discussed only as effective policy questions. Big mistake.
Torture is never acceptable. violence begets violence. at some point someone has to be the bigger person, the more humane person, the more "civilized" person and work for peaceful solutions. I take it you are not a big supporter of MLK or Ghandi...
oh, and your analogy is just bad. What ifs are not an argument.
OK. But why anyone would want to use my example is beyond me. I would probably participate in the beating. And regret it afterwards--whether or not it helped me reunite with my loved one.
I cite the GOP playbook, because this is what you heard when Cheney tried to have the McCain amendment specifically banning torture removed.
"What if you have a terrorist with information on an attack that will take place in less than 24 hours. You'd do whatever it takes to get that information. And we need to give our security forces that option."
"That has happened before but we can't tell what attack we diverted or how we got the information. Just trust us...we are keeping you safe."