- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 10,621
- Reaction score
- 2,104
- Location
- In your dreams...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It does exist, but it shouldn't exist.
Yeah but since it does we don't have to torture so many people, see...
It does exist, but it shouldn't exist.
Life is not fair. Ya'll expect that, because we're the United States of America, we can make no mistakes. We make 'em. But we try as hard as any other nation on earth not to.
Headache this morning? ;-)
Yeah but since it does we don't have to torture so many people, see...
We don't need to torture so many people anyway. I'm not going to accept one infringement of rights to avoid another.
They're terrorists because we've decided to call them that. But people are calling for a general torture policy which is not a good or decent or high ground thing. Especially considering our lack of care when hucking people into jail. We say they're terrorists so that we don't have to think of a human component. But man of those we call terrorists probably never were before.
We make mistakes. But we try as hard as any other nation on earth not to.
The fallback position is that they're innocent? Why do we always believe the worst of our government? That is Conspiracy Theorism at its finest.
It's at this point a philosophical issue, if some computer scours through my data searching for hot patterns or whatever I dont really care. :shrug: No human sees it. I hope. :lol:
So.... who knows what.... since we've only waterboarded a few... what type of torture are we using on the rest. Apparently CPwill has seen torture 'work' but hell, for all we know this thread threatens his livelihood if he were to divulge more :roll:
Because the government has always been the party who had to prove its case. The individual is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is this a new concept? If the government wants to throw someone in jail, they need to show that the individual did something worthy of being thrown in jail over. Otherwise, you're just randomly throwing people in jail.
This is of great importance especially since folk like yourself are arguing in favor of torture. Essentially what you're saying is that people who are in GITMO must be there because they're a terrorist and thus can be tortured. But that statement is not based on any fact, there is no proof, no case has been presented. It's dangerous to allow government so much freedom. And we know there are plenty of innocent people in GITMO. The real question should be, how many actual terrorists are there?
Hrrm. I was under the impression it was basically a massive cluster of computers and hardrives that just looked for proper patterns in internet postage and communication to identify possible threats. The job doesnt seem humanly possible.
If a man comes at me with a gun, and I have a gun, I may choose not to draw it out of principle but I am stupidly putting myself at a disadvantage. If however I am protecting my family and choose to act in such a manner not only am I being foolish but I am being irresponsible as I'm willfully putting myself at a disadvantage which needlessly further endangers those I am supposed to be protecting.
The Difference Between Liberals, Conservatives and Texans
Situational Issue:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
----------------------------
Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
--------------------------
Conservative Answer:
BANG!
---------------------------
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of reloading).
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.
Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
I'm not going to accept one infringement of rights to avoid another.
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice our values and integrity to win a war.
That's irrational. The basis of our law and judicial system is the infrinment of some rights to protect others. A simple example: restricting protest to certain zones and only when authorized by the city - this restricts the right to free speech and demonstration in order to preserve public safety.
Again, the above quote is irrational.
When you adopt the tactics of your enemies to beat your enemies....yes, you might win the battle, but at what cost? I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice our values and integrity to win a war.
If we abandon our principles to uphold the rights and liberties of the individual, we become no better than any other despot in history.
"Abandoning" and "no better", that's two illegitimate black/white arguments in one sentence. Impressive.
"Abandoning" and "no better", that's two illegitimate black/white arguments in one sentence. Impressive.
We don't abandon, we allow for grey-area in a real world.
Just because the US waterboards three people since 9/11 and gets info that saves thousands of lives does not make it equivalent to Nazis. Spare me your thinly veiled Godwin.
Do you also take the time to point out your hyperbole and distortions; or is this just a one way street?