CIA and torture

What I would do really depends how difficult it is to get the information. You asking how far I would go? Would I possibly break the law to save the earth sure? To get really hypothetical, would you torture you own mother with power drills and blow torches if it was absolutely the only way to save mankind? Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

How nice -----------I didn't think you would have the answer. Your type never does.

I thoroughly answered your question. You mean what what would I do specifically? Bamboo shoots, waterboarding, crucifixion, electric shocks, beatings? I don't know. Your kind is familiar with all that stuff. I would hire you as an adviser. Probably wouldn't need to pay you. You'd mortgage the house just for such a thrill.

Whats the matter? Couldn't come up with something politicaly correct.

The bomb is still ticking and the terrorist still want talk.

I already acknowledged I would resort torture. Everyone knows it but you. Are you retarded?

You sure get away with a lot aound here. Please reread what you type before you post.

Jealous?

?A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.?
Robert A. Heinlein

You sure get away with a lot aound here. Please reread what you type before you post.

Rereading wouldn't change a thing. Retyping on the other hand would. I'll consider that in the future. I would have used more politically correct terminology, but he doesn't seem to like that.

Some hypothetical situations the conservatives bought hook line and sinker:

Where there's smoke there's fire and we don't want the smoke to be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
If we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them over here.

Who says you can't argue with hypothetical situations? It seems to be the conservatives favorite pass time.

Is there a committee to stamp approvals?

We might live in ignorant bliss but the rest of the world wouldn't.
Behavior like this will come to light because fortunately there is always that one person with a conscience and the desire to do the right thing who will reveal it to the world.

Originally Posted by drivingtheview
I call it reflection. Apparently, (based on other posts) the Attorney General is never beholden to the President who appoints him (especially when such a person's career was pulled from the political salvage yard). I'll stipulate to that. I presume the AG is obligated to pursue justice no matter who's toe's he may tread upon? Is it not relevant and prudent to review a man's past who has unilateral authority to choose who/what/when/where/how Federal Prosecutions proceed (or do not proceed)??

Imagine if W had appointed a man who Bill Clinton claimed aided his pardoning decision process of a man who was Federally Indicted in the U.S. for tax evasion as well as making oil deals w/ Iran during the Iran Hostage Crisis?? Would that man then be heralded as a non-biased champion of justice? Speaking of Eric Holder's passion for blind justice regardless of collateral damage, here is additional nice reflection........

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com
President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episodewhich Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three yearsaction that's already illegal under existing law.

A little constructive criticism. Your writing and presentation skills suck to the point of near criminality. I would venture that even those who might happen to agree with your disjointed ramblings dread the thought of reading the crap you spew out on this board. Go back to school, attend a seminar or something.

The favorite toture-porn star of the worldwide wingnut association. I hear he's got a really big prod.

A little constructive criticism. Your writing and presentation skills suck to the point of near criminality. I would venture that even those who might happen to agree with your disjointed ramblings dread the thought of reading the crap you spew out on this board. Go back to school, attend a seminar or something.

Of course we should use their tactics against them. For instance, if we're ever attacked, we should put our own civilians in harms way as a shield, starting with certain red states.

Per usual you missed the point which is that our country should never resort to underhanded tactics employed by other countries in wartime. But if we ever do, let's start with the red states.

Never. That's what I'm saying. Putting civilians in harms way is an asymetrical tactic employed by other countries against us just like torture and suicide bombing. It falls in the same category. You are justifying the use of tactics by us simply because other countries employ them against us. And I'm saying OK, then by that reasoning why not resort to using our civilians as human shields? Other countries do it against us. The correct answer is that there will always be tactics we should never use, even though other countries effectively use them against us. That comes with being the greatest strongest country on earth. I'l refrain from red state trash talk this time.

It sure is. Like the ticking time bomb scenario. To me that's the king of hypotheticals. It's very hard for me to justify so-called enhanced interrogation based on that unlikely scenario.

Anything that you're planning and preparing for is hypothetical, and each situation is different. If something has already happened, it means your planning and preparation has failed. Even though 9/11 did occur, yes, future time bomb scenarios are hypothetical. I believe that our current state of vigilance would have prevented 9/11 much more than any enhanced interrogation techniques. As for the future, I think employment prospects for Jack Bauer types are limited. That's just my opinion.

In all seriousness the idea of us using our people as human shields like other countries do is of course way over the top, but I also have similar, but not exactly the same negative thoughts about us using torture. I was just pointing out that our country is so strong we should avoid using certain tactics just because other countries use them. I used human shields as an example. A superpower would never think of doing that. The question remains, when if ever is the use of torture by a superpower justifiable. Ticking time bomb scenario? Punishment? Revenge? Extract confessions? Gives your voter base a warm fuzzy feeling? Deter future terrorist attacks? Then after that question is answered, how effective is torture in those situations? Red states are states that vote Republican

What I would do really depends how difficult it is to get the information. You asking how far I would go? Would I possibly break the law to save the earth sure? To get really hypothetical, would you torture you own mother with power drills and blow torches if it was absolutely the only way to save mankind? Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

I thoroughly answered your question. You mean what what would I do specifically? Bamboo shoots, waterboarding, crucifixion, electric shocks, beatings? I don't know. Your kind is familiar with all that stuff. I would hire you as an adviser. Probably wouldn't need to pay you. You'd mortgage the house just for such a thrill.

already acknowledged I would resort torture. Everyone knows it but you. Are you retarded?

Rereading wouldn't change a thing. Retyping on the other hand would. I'll consider that in the future. I would have used more politically correct terminology, but he doesn't seem to like that.

As long as it's one of their carefully selected board approved hypotheticals. Try introducing one of your own into the game, and its like "hey I only deal in the real world, none of that theoretical stuff". Death panels and killing Grandma are board approved hypothetical discussion topics.

Whatever scares you the most and has the weakest factual basis gets the approval.

something..... to at least 1 person ???

Do you really believe that saving the the lives of American citizens and military personnel is less important than doing the "right thing", particularly when no one was permanently harmed or physically damaged? I have as much conscience as the next person and it tells me I will do anything in my power to make sure no American is harmed or killed. Is that succinct enough for your "conscience"?

I'm really proud of you driving. Your most lucid post ever. It's alright that 90% of the content is mine.

You don't know if this is true.

If you are referring to torture, we agree to disagree.

I know it is wrong but I'm just being honest-

Part of me wishes the hardcore stuff was going on but that the media never reported it and we never knew about it. I'm not talking about cops rounding up folks who break the law and beating them to get aggression out. I'm talking about special ops/super secret CIA types capturing people who bomb and kill innocents (and those who plan it/recruit youths in the name of religion) and getting medieval on them. And let the rest of us live with our ideals in ignorant bliss...

Well put.

Most people would probably outright condone torture if it meant bringing to justice someone that had brutually murdered one of THEIR loved ones. Just like most folks that had a loved one murdered will generally be in favor of the death penalty for the killer. The closer it gets to home the easier it is to agree with the eye for an eye adage. It's easy to stand back and rail against torture and the death penalty if the heinous act didn't hit very close to your home.