Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Question for Conservatives:


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
58 replies to this topic

#31 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,504 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 06:35 AM

You dodged the question. That doesn't mean you win, it means you have a flaw in your thinking.... you may not be entirely wrong, but your position is not without its vices. if it was, you'd have been able to answer sans Jack Bauer shields.


Your question is idiotic.

#32 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 10:52 AM

If you knew you personally would be the victim of his next shooting, would you waterboard him to save your own life?


this question makes no sense. But I see what you're getting at. I would do anything to anyone (more or less.) to preserve myself and (more importantly) my family. However. This does not imply that the actions I might take would be legal, nor should they be. The government, as an establishment should have significantly fewer assumed rights and much stricter rules than the private citizenry.

#33 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 11:29 AM

The government, as an establishment should have significantly fewer assumed rights and much stricter rules than the private citizenry.


I agree. So where is the disconnect?

Why do you guys worry that we went outside the country and waterboarded a few high placed Al Qaeda to make sure we were getting what we could out of them? That's the thing...you say that the intel is iffy...maybe it is, but get what you can out of them and follow the leads. You might get the next 9/11. You might not. But fuging make sure.

#34 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,504 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 11:31 AM

I agree. So where is the disconnect?

Why do you guys worry that we went outside the country and waterboarded a few high placed Al Qaeda to make sure we were getting what we could out of them? That's the thing...you say that the intel is iffy...maybe it is, but get what you can out of them and follow the leads. You might get the next 9/11. You might not. But fuging make sure.


Except you want to open that possibility to all American citizens.

Shame on you.

#35 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 11:34 AM

Except you want to open that possibility to all American citizens.

Shame on you.


Not all. Just liberals.

#36 PanthaSan

PanthaSan

    Sith Bewbie Padawan....

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,842 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 11:38 AM

Waterboarding is so 2008. We should come up with something new. I know the Gubment has other options.

And yes, I would allow it. He admitted to having the knowledge and it's law enforcements job to get it out of him.

Some people think it is torturing American Citizens but once he committed the crime, he pretty much gave up some rights. It's along the lines of felons not being able to vote or purchase (legally) guns.

#37 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 11:58 AM

I agree. So where is the disconnect?

Why do you guys worry that we went outside the country and waterboarded a few high placed Al Qaeda to make sure we were getting what we could out of them? That's the thing...you say that the intel is iffy...maybe it is, but get what you can out of them and follow the leads. You might get the next 9/11. You might not. But fuging make sure.


Look, I'm fully aware that it's going to happen one way or another. The way the world works to some extent necessitates these things. But....

A. It should not be institutionalized. There is no need for an infrastructure for these kind of things. These things should not be practiced by regular army, prison guards, marines or even elite combat units (unless in the field) like Rangers, Recon etc. nor ever by run of the mill interrogators.

B. It should be illegal, it should be discouraged, it should be frowned upon and as such be relegated to usage only by top level operatives of the CIA and like organizations. Anything else opens the way for over-dependence on these type of tactics. If people are caught doing these things in isolated events they should be dealt with internally.

This is essentially the way the CIA has always worked. My problem is not with the tactics themselves (because I'm sure the reality is much worse than I can actually imagine) as I am with governmental and public acceptance of such tactics. They should never be accepted, we should strive to be better. So it needs to be what it always has been, "left hand, right hand" thing.

Bush/cheney/rummy tried to legalize it and institutionalize it. Imo this mentality is extremely dangerous to the existence of a republic, as such, it can never be accepted.

#38 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 12:13 PM

Bush/cheney/rummy tried to legalize it and institutionalize it. Imo this mentality is extremely dangerous to the existence of a republic, as such, it can never be accepted.


They probably had to watch the video where the other side sawed off that journalist's head.

#39 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 12:41 PM

They probably had to watch the video where the other side sawed off that journalist's head.


and?

#40 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 12:46 PM

and?


and maybe, possibly, they said to themselves "we can't fight these animals within the rules of the Geneva Convention, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight".

#41 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 02:20 PM

I wonder if the terrorists say "we can't fight these infidels with the rules of ordinary warfare as they are one billion times more powerful than us, but we can saw an old guys head off" and use that to justify what they do?

#42 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 02:31 PM

I wonder if the terrorists say "we can't fight these infidels with the rules of ordinary warfare as they are one billion times more powerful than us, but we can saw an old guys head off" and use that to justify what they do?


I wonder what the heck this post means. Anyone? Bueller?

#43 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,504 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 02:33 PM

I wonder what the heck this post means. Anyone? Bueller?


It's postmodern.

#44 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 02:39 PM

It's postmodern.


:P

#45 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 03:06 PM

and maybe, possibly, they said to themselves "we can't fight these animals within the rules of the Geneva Convention, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight".


i'm not sure how what rummy, bush and cheney "may" have said to each other has any baring on how torture should be handled by this country. if you're going to speculate, at least stay on topic.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com