• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John McCain CIA Torture Report Senate Speech

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but that's how Dershowitz wrote it. Any attempt to avoid the dilemma is a declaration of failure.
Click to expand...

Jack, i don't give a **** about partisan nonsense. float your pretend debate hypotheticals on someone else. unless you'd like to actually answer my own bull**** hypothetical that you dodged.
 
Napoleon said:
Not really. I weighed the question even with the false dilemma and my answer is still that I wouldn't torture anyone.
Click to expand...

Then a million would die. If that's the answer you prefer, so be it. Of course, no government on earth would act that way.
 
Jack Hays said:
The question, weighing the torture of one person against saving a million.
Click to expand...

If I torture the man I lose my humanity and that just isn't going to happen.
 
Helix said:
Jack, i don't give a **** about partisan nonsense. float your pretend debate hypotheticals on someone else. unless you'd like to actually answer my own bull**** hypothetical that you dodged.
Click to expand...

The Dershowitz problem is not at all partisan. It is taught at our leading law schools.
 
Helix said:
Jack, i don't give a **** about partisan nonsense. float your pretend debate hypotheticals on someone else. unless you'd like to actually answer my own bull**** hypothetical that you dodged.
Click to expand...

If the world was about to end, and the only way to save the world was to have wild, passionate sex with jack Hayes, would you do it? Now don't change the question, and any failure to answer either yes or no means you are cowardly running away from the question, so which is it, yes or no.

And now I got Meatloaf stuck in my head...
 
Jack Hays said:
Then a million would die. If that's the answer you prefer, so be it. Of course, no government on earth would act that way.
Click to expand...

Then I guess its a bad day for a million people. As for your assessment of how governments would act., so what? The scenario itself would never happen in the real world either so your point is moot.
 
Napoleon said:
Then I guess its a bad day for a million people. As for your assessment of how governments would act., so what? The scenario itself would never happen in the real world either so your point is moot.
Click to expand...

More evasion.
 
Napoleon said:
Because he's trying to create a gotcha moment and failing miserably so far.
Click to expand...


There's no gotcha involved. This is a relatively famous problem used in leading law schools. An early poster came close to Dershowitz's own answer: torture the man and then turn yourself in for trial.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because that is the boundary of the problem.
Click to expand...

No, the guy has a bomb that has a code that you need to know to disarm the bomb. First of all, that whole situation is stupid as more than likely you could get around that requirement. Second, there is nothing about the situation that says the only thing that can be done is to torture the man.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's no gotcha involved. This is a relatively famous problem used in leading law schools. An early poster came close to Dershowitz's own answer: torture the man and then turn yourself in for trial.
Click to expand...

A million lives might be the going rate for Dershowitz's principles but it isn't for mine.
 
Henrin said:
No, the guy has a bomb that has a code that you need to know to disarm the bomb. First of all, that whole situation is stupid as more than likely you could get around that requirement. Second, there is nothing about the situation that says the only thing that can be done is to torture the man.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the problem is the problem. You can decline to address it but you can't just wish it into another form.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And your point?
Click to expand...

You are aware that Iraq was, at the time, threatening the US and was objecting to the US enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraqi airspace.
Click to expand...

There was no evidence that Iraq orchestrated the attack. There was only intelligence that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US. No one ever suggested an Iraq connection outside of neocon circles, who stated in their manifesto that a Pearl Harbor incident would be a great way to start a campaign of reshaping the Middle East, starting with Iraq.

Your suggestion that Bush and Rumsfeld were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. I'm not a religious man, but I thank whatever god is out there for keeping people with your views far from the White House.
Click to expand...

Yeah, otherwise America might have invaded the wrong country. Wouldn't that have been embarrassing? What I thank is that Stephen Harper -- your hero -- wasn't PM of Canada at the time, or else Canada might have been dragged into that clusterf*ck of a war and bled us of money and Canadian lives.
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, every waterboarding begins with a prayer and ends with a slice of homemade apple pie.
Click to expand...

But I want cake. :( This **** is torture!
 
Jack Hays said:
I would not call saving a million lives a sale.
Click to expand...

I do. I'm also curious about this arbitrary number thats been conjured up. What if it was just 10,000 lives or only 1 life? Would he still do it? Would you? Where is the invisible line you have to cross before you decide you have no scruples? Then there's the location of the bomb. Does the place or the nationality of the people who would be killed factor into the decision to abandon ones principles? Would he bother if the bomb were in Mecca or Tehran? Would you?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the problem is the problem. You can decline to address it but you can't just wish it into another form.
Click to expand...

Everything I said works inside what you stated the situation was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom