Conservative Libertarian Mancow tries to prove Waterboarding isn't torture...

Potentially bringing judgment against those responsible for it? Don't think it should happen, nor will it happen, but you gotta believe some on the left would love to see a suit brought against the past admin.

 

His name is Mancow?

Must've gotten a lot of crap in school

 

It's really a non-issue. I mean who cares if our govt. tortures other people like Saddam did. What difference does that make, if Executive branch goes out of the way to make it legal?

Why is everyone still talking about it? Geeeeeeeez! We're still the good guys no matter what we do. We can do anything brutal dictators do, and still be the good guys right?

 

and by you.

 

LOL at a snake oil salesman calling out a lawyer for his career choice!

 

Manco is the name given for the Clint Eastwood character commonly known as "the man with no name" in A Fist Full of Dollars. I assume he has taken that as his pseudonym and just misspelled it.

 

A snake oil salesman? Hardly.

But if you want to jump to conclusions without finding out for yourself, go ahead.

 

I don't see the fascination with "being a good guy". And having to justify everything we do. You're making the US government out like they're suppose to be saints. When in reality that has NEVER, EVER been the case. Not under Dubya, and not under any of his predecessors. And it won't be under Obama.

And that lies my whole problem with case like this. The US has been a dick and has screwed other nations and people for ages upon ages. Let's not make it out as if every president before Bush followed the constitution religiously, and never tried to do dirty things like this.

The real issue lies with how Bush can abuse more or less special war-time powers with the Patriot Act when we're not really waging a "war" per se. Torture is just a small part of that.

 

Is this supposed to be some kind of "nothing-to-see-here" type of attempt to defend torture? Because, as a legitimate criticism of the anti-torture camp it fails miserably.

You want to talk about real issues? What's more real than torture? '[A]buse [of] more or less special war-time powers with the Patriot Act when [the US is] not really waging "war" per se' is a meaningless abstraction, not a 'real issue'.

It doesn't take 3 paragraphs to say nothing.

 

Yeah, you're right. Why even bother being the good guy? We should just realize that because some bad things went on before, we shouldn't ever try to do what's right. It's better to just be as immoral as some crazy coot wants to, and have no accountability.

But you are wrong about other presidents besides Bush doing the things Bush did. They didn't. There is no doubt mistakes were made. That's the point, they were mistakes rather than the rule itself. Bush and his AG, and justice department did that. They made it the rule and not the exception.

If you don't care about right from wrong that's up to you.

 

everyone seems to forget or ignore a fact that we spent and are still spending billions of dollars and sacrificed and still sacrificing thousands of american lives and hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives because we toppled a "bad guy" for his torturing and human rights violations..

 

And some recognize it and are still cynical enough to call it a non-issue.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally don't like to see things as "right or wrong", "black or white". Because in the end, I feel real life doesn't work that way. But then again, I'm generally more of a realist.

It is indeed a legitimate criticism. I simply don't see it as newsworthy or something we need to spend millions to investigate on. Something that's not newsworthy doesn't mean it's right. It just means it's not a point worth hammering over and over and over.

 

Can you name of the examples?

 

I'm really curious as to what criterion you are using to distinguish between 'issues' and 'non-issues'. To this point you've basically been arguing that torture is not a big deal because you don't see it as a one.

Let's say somebody came into your home and murdered your entire family. The authorities find out who did it, but choose not to prosecute him because they don't think it's really an issue. Being the realist that you are, you wouldn't--ahem--take issue with their inaction?

 

Waterboard victims sure have a speedy recovery time.

 

Your post somehow changed my opinion in regards to how we should handle this whole torture conundrum. I consider myself to be very pragmatic, so in reading the way you articulated your point, I now feel that you're absolutely right.

Great post!

 

Yep, almost the exact same recovery time as someone who was drowning but ended up not drowning.

 

Well, the most prominent one that comes to mind would be the internment camps during WW2. Even the fact that Taliban and Bin Laden grew to its present scale is in no small part due to the US.

My criteria is simple. It's dependent on possible outcomes. Right now, I see two outcomes.

1. We abolish torturing of terrorist suspects/war prisoners/etc. And results in muslims hating our guts.
2. We keep torturing such people. And results in muslims hating our guts.

In the end, these people will hate the US regardless of how we deal with this particular issue. Hence, a "non-issue".

 

You are correct. And that agenda was finding a link between Saddam and AQ; not looking for info about another attack. The truth be damned.