Do You Want Obama to pursue Prosecution For Torture

This is the side of you i really don't like. I am sure the feeling is mutual, but I really find this offensive on your part.

 

I believe they were called extraordinary renditions.

EDIT: Which you mentioned in your following reply. Multitasking isn't my thing...

I don't think torturing is in our national interests. Unofficial torturing through any means could be. Maybe that's too machiavellian for some, but because we've been doing it over time, there's likely a benefit leaders see in doing it in certain circumstances.

It's just that wrt Bush, he seemed to disregard the slippery slope implications that his predecessors held and did it a lot. This will definitely hamstring Obama in terms of his "options", which could be a good thing for some, but it's another reminder of how highly ironic of Cheney to say Obama will weaken "War on Turror" when it's his dumb ass policies that have weakened American credibility to deny the idea that we'd do such things.

 

I respect Obama for the idealism he has regarding the issue - and it may certainly serve to restore America's luster. I am not saying I think torture should be routinely applied.

But I am not convinced that it can not be useful. Bush / Cheney went overboard - there's no doubt. But should we go overboard in the opposite direction? Maybe, but I would just think that we should proceed cautiously - not commit to anything unless we really know we have no use.

I don't think it will inspire kindness from Al Qaeda, i think it will only give them a device to use against us.

 

Dude, nobody is looking for Al Qaeda to become Al Kinda. The point is, if we live up to our ideals, they have a hell of a time much harder time recruiting freakazoid suiciders. Period. There you go. We are the beacon liberty, or we are just a slightly different more polished radical government. A lot of us want the beacon of liberty.

 

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners

 

That's great that you are willing to share this stuff. Especially since basso himself stated that he wanted an honest open debate on whether or not these techniques really were torture.

So far he has not responded to any of the evidence presented showing that waterboarding is indeed torture. He asked for the debate, and then promptly ran away from it.

So while it is great that you are willing to discuss it, don't expect basso to respond or even broach the subject again.

 

Al Qaeda and other extremist groups didn't seem to have a problem recruiting folks when the U.S. wasn't torturing people prior to 2001.

Do you really think these radical folks will say, "gee the U.S. doesn't torture people any longer so I no longer hate them enough to join an extremist group".

 

Yes, from a former USAF Special Operations interrogator:

 

How were they recruiting prior to the torturing that was occurring post 2001?

 

Not as well as they were afterward - that is documented in the passage I gave to you. I mean, it's about as on point as you can get, essentially it

Where is your evidence that it had no effect? If you are going to make a claim, especially one in the face of countervailing evidence - you should be prepared to support it.

 

What I'm proposing is the exact opposite to the NRA's argument about keeping assault weapons on the street.

 

Support of Israel, support of other dictators or brutal regimes in the middle east.

Because there are other causes they use to recruit doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of stopping root causes that can be stopped. That is especially true when we know they've caused the deaths of our troops serving over seas.

 

they use the slippery slope argument as well. If you ban assault weapons, the next thing is hand guns and hunting rifles. An assault weapon ban = taking our guns away.

your argument is even if you allow torture in certain situations, that's a slippery slope to use it in other situations.

Both are absolutist positions. That's where I draw a similarity. It's just an observation.

I think torture is pretty distasteful, don't get me wrong. And people like Cheney are really distasteful. But I don't think we should completely close the door here. There should always be a way to have an exception to the rule just in case you have to play that card.

 

not killing babies of terrorists is a pretty absolutist opinion. there should always be a way to have an exception to the rule just in case you have to play that card.

 

do you really equate hitting someone to get information they are hiding to killing babies?

If that's the case, you should be against all military action. ALL.

 

im not equating if you're not equating. im simply saying you're taking an absolutist opinion. there should always be a way to have an exception to the rule just in case you have to play that card.

 

Both are absolutist positions. That's where I draw a similarity. It's just an observation.[/quote]

I'm arguing that torture shouldn't be legal. If someone tortures they should face trial. They are absolutist but not in the same regard so I don't see how the situations are similar.

The NRA is arguing about allowing something. I'm arguing for not allowing something. They are opposite positions.

 

I'm arguing that torture shouldn't be legal. If someone tortures they should face trial. They are absolutist but not in the same regard so I don't see how the situations are similar.

The NRA is arguing about allowing something. I'm arguing for not allowing something. They are opposite positions.[/QUOTE]

So it's ok to be absolute about not allowing something, but not in regards to be allowing something?

I don't know, i think this has broken down into something too abstract for me to understand. I'm not at that level of intellectual philosophical debate.

All I can say is this...if you capture some operative of Al Qaeda who knows all about their plots and plans, including their next attacks - everything is in play....including torture. I mean, it's just a no brainer to me. And I think it's naive and dangerous to try to force an idealistic view upon something as dirty as the war on terror.