Morals? Please... If you'd like to bring incentives to people who would like to destroy our country, let me know. Again, your arguments make no sense when it comes to saving lives, whether it be our country, or others. You get information as quickly and as efficiently as possible when millions of lives are at stake. I could go furthur in my fervence, but I choose to let hippies TRY to understand how ridiculous they are becoming. I Will say that I see on a daily and nightly basis people choosing that they can have coup de gras, regardless of consequence. I sat outside with some dumbass that got run over tonight. I was there with her for 45 minutes. You'd think I would care. I do... This town has the audacity to comment on drinking and driving, and yet all they do is find more ways to fine people, rather than, at the very least, extend buses past midnight on the weekends. Make no mistake. Politicians on both sides want nothing more than to take your money. I fall under the realistic side, whilst hippies/democrats tend to fall on the "Rainbow Brite" side. According to Dems, here is what the U.S. will look like if Obama is elected: I've already put a profit statement together, but I can tell you, if we, as Texans, back my strategy, I can single-handedly drop DWI accidents by 30-50%. However, my strategy is about saving lives and accidents, and not about putting money, once again, into politicians pockets. Isn't it about time we put someone (not necessarily me) who is not only truly passionate, but is willing to personify what they are willing to do?
Perhaps, I tend to look at things I find wrong. Taxation, wrongful incarceration via 10 years ago, etc. I may have rambled, but what, necessarily, do you disagree with? BTW, Watership down, children. I'll be back in an hour or ten...
If you want to say you are in favor of torture, you can be in favor of torture. But please at least have enough self-awareness to look in the mirror and admit and embrace the fact that that you are Darth Vader. It was torture, it has always been torture, and it always will be torture. Don't try to pretend that it suddenly isn't torture because you think it is justified. That appears to be the thrust of your argument – I think we should do it; therefore I will look for ways to call it something other than what it always has been.
I have no idea what on earth you're talking about, but if you can "single-handedly" do it, why do you need Texans to back you? That's the very definition of NOT single-handledly doing something.
Deckard if a close family member/ friend was kidnapped and you located an accomplice to the crime and could waterboard him to save their life would you do it?
Again these scenarios just aren't realistic. We'd have to assume that nobody else also knew the wherabouts. We'd have to be sure that the information we got from waterboarding would be accurate, we'd have to be sure that there weren't other ways and investigations that could give us the answer. We'd have to be sure that the person we had would actually know all the information we wanted. I realize I'm not Deckard but these made up scenarios like this have so many variables that if anyone were in place it would negate the need for torture. Now that being said if someone in my family were kidnapped, I might be willing to torture a suspect. But that doesn't make it right. That is entirely subjective. Objectively I would be against it, and hope that I would be able to stop myself from doing that, and that reason and higher morality would win out.
If a close family member was kidnapped and you located an accomplice to the crime and could kill him to save their life, would you do it? Many people would. Should we make murder legal?
I have no idea what I would do in that situation - and except for people who have tortured or killed before - I don't think anyone us could, because we have no idea what mindset we'd be in. However, laws aren't determined based on what individuals in a distressed state of mind would or wouldn't do. If they were, everything would be legal - murder, theft, etc. The whole point of laws is to create an objective, rational structure to what is or isn't allowed.
Btw- I edited that because I felt like FB answered the question. As for myself -- I would do it if I knew I could save a life or provide a chance at least to save a life. I don't support torture as national policy though -- I think it is ridiculous that it is such a major discussion right now. I believe it is more of a election year wedge issue like gay marriage than anything else.
I can't believe I'm actually semi on the same side as those guys...but whatever. I'm okay with waterboarding to a certain degree, provided it's well supervised and within the limits of the law. If it's outlawed, so be it...I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm definitely not okay with it being done to American citizens or citizens of any country with whom we are strong allies with, no matter what the circumstances are. On a personal level - I don't think I could ever do it. But there are lots of things I can't do, so oh well...
But law enforcement personnel are legally justified in killing people if they present an imminent threat to others. I have ethical problems with waterboarding; but can see why the government would want to reserve the right to use it in "ticking time bomb" scenarios, however rare & unlikely they might be. Ethically & morally, it's a pretty tough issue.
This is the most hammed up, trite, ignorant of reality load of crap I have ever read. While we are trying to get critical information out of detainees, LIVES ARE AT STAKE. You can talk about the moral high ground all you would like, but once people are killed because we didn't have the information, the moral high ground does little for them or their families. So many people are decrying waterboarding, and speaking of its evils, but NOBODY has responded to my call for an alternative that will produce timely information. I have asked the question twice, and no response...not even an honest "I don't know." If there were effective alternatives, I would be all for it.
So results are all that mater? If the only way to get information was to analy rape all of the terrorist’s female relatives with a baseball bat, go for it? Why don't we set up waterboarding in all city jails? We can increase the conviction rate and save tons of money on attorneys and crime scene investigators. Results, results, results...
I guess the thirty-three detainees that have died in custody were just unlucky. At least they weren't waterboarded. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46659-2004May21.html http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/exec-sum.asp
This is stupid. Nobody suggested that any orifice of any person be violated with an object, organic or otherwise. As for your results tirade...when hundreds or thousands of lives hang in the balance, yes, results matter. If you can ignore that simple fact then you are horribly out of touch with reality and there is no point to debating with you. I have repeatedly asked for better alternatives, yet shockingly none have been forthcoming. As for your "analogy" with the city jails, there is no comparison to make. I cannot recall any city jail inmates having information on terrorist activities which could impact, or end, hundreds of lives. Nice try though. What would be better would be for you, or somebody to address my call for an effective alternative, given the lives that are at stake in obtaining the information. I WANT a better alternative. I do NOT want to continue waterboarding. I WANT a better, more humane alternative to waterboarding. Everybody wants to talk about how evil we are, but nobody wants to venture forth a workable alternative. That is easy to do when you don't have to make the decision in the arena of conflict.
How do you know that it wouldn't be more effective than waterboarding at getting information though? I suggest that it would be. If it is more effective should we pursue it? You are essentially saying that nothing is unthinkable if it is effective. I just want to see whether you actually mean it, or whether there is some point where you, too, will think that there is some limit on behavior which fundimentally seperates us from the terrorists. What is too much for you?
I've got an alternative: don't torture. Lives are always at stake. A pro-torture policy itself devalues life, though. There is also the very real possibility that our support of torture could lead to a net loss of life in the long term.
