• 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!

Does defense justify genocide?

Does defense justify genocide?

  • No.

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • No.

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • No.

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • No.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Total voters
    11
earthworm said:
Aunt Spiker said:
And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?
As far as I'm aware everyone IN CONGRESS crossed the line when they knew what was going on and they permitted it to happen, anyway.

In order for it to be considered unconstitutional - it first must be declared as 'torture' by the Supreme Court. You can't just decide that "this is torture . . . that is not" because *you* feel that way. In order to punish someone there must be a defined law which is broken or a regulation which is determined to be violated.

Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler. He wasn't the only say-so in this decision. Many had the knowledge and power to speak out against him or to try to stop his decisions from going through - and some did try - but many did not and no one actually took necessary steps to stop him.

So instead of pointing fingers and crying for his blood perhaps you should actually hold EVERYONE accountable who is at fault for the wrongdoing. He is but one figure in the entire picture.
And he's not the only president to ever cross the line with the support of Congress.
Click to expand...
Supposedly Bush was the leader, and should set the example.
He failed.
Click to expand...

So it's a game of 'follow the leader' hunh? That defense hasn't worked for anyone as so far.

But that doesn't negate my point: there's a proper procedure to bring such charges against our president. . .if people really want to bring him under the judicial eye they need to follow that procedure.
 
Troubadour said:
There is another poll up right now asking if "defense" justifies torture, and the absurdity of even asking the question has led me to ask an equally ridiculous, alternate-universe poll question: Does "defense" justify genocide? How about burning people at the stake? Surely if Jack Bauer had to, let's say, dismember and cannibalize some children on live TV in order to save America from a terrorist plot, that would be justifiable?

The fact that anyone even considers it acceptable to treat the matter of torture as morally ambiguous is reprehensible - it is not ambiguous. Questioning something does not make it questionable; debating it does not make it debatable; arguing over it does not make it controversial. There is no ambiguity here.

Torture is illegal. It is a crime. It is evil. There are no real-world circumstances under which it is justified. Everyone who condones it is un-American at best. Everyone who in any way facilitates it or tolerates it when they are in a position to stop it deserves long prison sentences. Anyone who directly commits it (as George W. Bush has admitted to doing) deserves to spend the rest of their lives in a maximum-security prison, and if their crimes resulted in any deaths (as it appears occurred in Bush's case), that constitutes first-degree murder with capital special circumstances.

This is not a game. This is not a TV show. This is America in the 21st century, and anyone who looks with nostalgia on the Spanish Inquisition can kindly leave my country.
Click to expand...

Well I was going to answer your poll but then I read your post and found out that it is not even a serious poll but was instead nothing more than a rant from someone who does not wish to debate anything but instead has a closed mind.
 
Can we vote to have this poll removed from the poll section since it is not even a real or valid poll?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Can we vote to have this poll removed from the poll section since it is not even a real or valid poll?
Click to expand...
If the OP would ask a mod to change the poll options...

Perhaps:
  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. It depends (Explain).
  4. Other (Explain).
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL Sounds like Bush "If you're not for us you're against us"
Click to expand...

yup. that's the way this war works. doesn't mean that it's nice; just means that it is.
 
Here is the thing the original OP has to understand; as human beings it is much easier and because it is easier typically more satisfying for us to destroy than create. We are incredibly violent by nature and we all say we would do this or do that or would support this or that but a lot of times when it would come down to actually doing it ourselves we wouldn't be able to do one or the other thing. Does that make sense?

I digress however, essentially what I am saying is we are all assholes it's just a matter of if you want to pucker up or not.
 
One of my moral principles is that if its wrong for someone else it's wrong for us. So no. Not that that's ever stopped US support of murderous incursions by other governments (although not necessarily genocidal).
 
cpwill said:
yup. that's the way this war works. doesn't mean that it's nice; just means that it is.
Click to expand...
The only people against you are the ones actually fighting you - most countries are Neutral when it comes to many issues that go on.
 
cpwill said:
yup. that's the way this war works. doesn't mean that it's nice; just means that it is.
Click to expand...
Aunt Spiker said:
The only people against you are the ones actually fighting you - most countries are Neutral when it comes to many issues that go on.
Click to expand...

I think we need to keep in mind here that the war on terror is an analogy and not a literal war. Like the war on crime and the war on drugs.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
I think we need to keep in mind here that the war on terror is an analogy and not a literal war. Like the war on crime and the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

Yes, perfectly illustrated by the non-involvement of the military. Those are all allegorical Predators Obama is launching missiles from, aimed at al Qaeda camps.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, perfectly illustrated by the non-involvement of the military. Those are all allegorical Predators Obama is launching missiles from, aimed at al Qaeda camps.
Click to expand...

Military involvement alone does not mean it is a war. And we aren't talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're talking about the "war on terror," which encompasses much more than the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters. Al Qaeda is not an entity that we are at war with, that was Bush's entire argument behind denying them due process. If we were literally at war with Al Qaeda then they would be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention. So be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Military involvement alone does not mean it is a war.
Click to expand...

I suppose all the people killed with bombs and guns are "analogies," too. :roll:


And we aren't talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're talking about the "war on terror," which encompasses much more than the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.
Click to expand...

I see. You simply ignore Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, and everywhere else things are exploding simply because it detracts from your idiotic premise.

Gosh, I guess any war where non-military things are happening alongside isn't actually a war. Which means, of course, there are no real wars. :lamo


Al Qaeda is not an entity that we are at war with,
Click to expand...

Because YOU say so? They sure seem to think so, Bush always said so, and so did Congress in 2002 when they authorized the military operations.


that was Bush's entire argument behind denying them due process.
Click to expand...

This only shows you have no idea what "due process" means, or what the legal ramifications of war are. If you think claiming not to be at war means you get to deny "due process," you're entirely clueless (surprise!).


If we were literally at war with Al Qaeda then they would be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention.
Click to expand...

If they comport themselves by the standards of the Geneva Conventions, sure.

This is stupid, anyway, because you're implying that if they were considered prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions, they'd be entitled to some kind of "due process," apparently meaning trials or something along those lines. Which is, of course, the height of ignorance. Prisoners of war don't get to challenge their detention. And they don't get released until hostilities cease.


So be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

And what is it that you think I "wish for"? :lamo :lamo
 
Terrorism, as we all should know by now, is a tactic. How, exactly, does one succeed in waging war on a tactic? Kind of like waging war on bullets: It gets you nothing unless you stop the shooter.
 
That seems to me a very depressing and sad world view. It would explain a lot, however, about the rage in the half-term quitter's camp. It's a pity you would view God's ultimate creation with such disdain. It does nothing to advance political discourse in this country and everything to bring about self-fulfilling prophesies of Armageddon.

I am not an extremely violent person. Neither are the people I know. The only violence I have witnessed recently is coming from the Palin camp, as well as those like her. Can I bring an AK47 to one of her rallies? It's okay?
 
Kev316 said:
It would explain a lot, however, about the rage in the half-term quitter's camp. It's a pity you would view God's ultimate creation with such disdain.
Click to expand...

If we're 'the ultimate creation' then God needs to find a new hobby!

We wage wars - killing MILLIONS at a time, rape the earth and piss in each other's Wheaties (if we're not just taking the wheaties away) - and much of this was done IN the name of religion no less.

He must be so proud. :roll: His little derelict troublemakers of the Universe. So impish and cruel - we're adorable and precious!

Move over Rubicante! Man's a comin.
 
Kev316 said:
Terrorism, as we all should know by now, is a tactic. How, exactly, does one succeed in waging war on a tactic? Kind of like waging war on bullets: It gets you nothing unless you stop the shooter.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
Kev316 said:
Terrorism, as we all should know by now, is a tactic. How, exactly, does one succeed in waging war on a tactic? Kind of like waging war on bullets: It gets you nothing unless you stop the shooter.
Click to expand...

But... but... if a bullet cost 5000 dollars...
 
Kev316 said:
Terrorism, as we all should know by now, is a tactic. How, exactly, does one succeed in waging war on a tactic? Kind of like waging war on bullets: It gets you nothing unless you stop the shooter.
Click to expand...

The war was defined as being against terrorist organizations with a gloabl reach. You can certainly destroy organizations and kill their members. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
The war was defined as being against terrorist organizations with a global reach. You can certainly destroy organizations and kill their members. :shrug:
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible to have a "war on terrorism".

What's quite a bit harder is to try having a "war on terror". Unless you're thinking in terms of "war on drugs", and the like, a "war on terror" would be self-defeating. Since, warfare almost always means someone is going to be terrified....
 
The Mark said:
It's entirely possible to have a "war on terrorism".

What's quite a bit harder is to try having a "war on terror". Unless you're thinking in terms of "war on drugs", and the like, a "war on terror" would be self-defeating. Since, warfare almost always means someone is going to be terrified....
Click to expand...

Sure, but no one has ever seriously understood it to be a war on the feeling of terror.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure, but no one has ever seriously understood it to be a war on the feeling of terror.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Come to think of it, a "War on Terrorism" is pushing it, also...

And really, the correct method in that kind of war is to change/eliminate the thoughts/ideas that allow people too consider commiting an act of terrorism...which is REALLY a hard task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom