• 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!

Obama - U.S. will not torture

Seems our winger contingent has had a change of heart over the last couple of weeks. They went from “ we don’t torture “ to justifying torture. Wonder why that is? :confused:

Lets talk about torture in a war that most of you don’t remember, except from textbooks. In Viet Nam there was plenty of information, freely given, by the populace prior to “My lai”, After My Lai you could screw their nuts into the ground and get the same bogus info you got before you started.

My point is that when the population that you are trying to “bring Democracy too” don’t trust you,( Abu Ghraib/gitmo)anything that is given under duress is suspect.
 
Simon,

Waterboarding worked. It busted an attack in planning. Saving lives. That makes several of your points not only moot, but false.

I'm not saying this should be standard practice, but in a pinch the option shouldn't be yanked off the table. There might be a time it is necessary.

What then?

Sorry (insert city), we just didn't feel we could rough-up Ahmed the Terrorist in an attempt to save the lives of your citizens. Ask Obama.

As for Jack Bauer moments (I don't watch 24 by the way), if somebody suggested terrorists would fly planes into the WTC, Pentagon and had one planned for the Capitol... people like you would have claimed it was too fantastic and I should go back to my TV fantasies.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

But, but, but...if you say that torture works then you must be defending the use of torture. :roll:

Foolish and dangerous.

So, I wonder how these people who believe that non-stress interrogation will successfully gain reliable information think about its application to the most hardened, most faithful terrorists? The US, as far as we know, waterboarded what, three people? These three were those hardened terrorists, not run-of-mill jihadi's that can be persuaded to work with us. So how do these people deal with the KSM's and the like? They have specific on-going planning knowledge. Knowledge of impending attacks, not imminent, but down-the-road timeline. Spend as long as it takes until stress-free techniques might work?

Puhlease.

It must be so easy to pontificate on the easy cases while ignoring the hard questions...kinda like Obama with his declarations of immediate Gitmo closing, ooops, this is gonna be harder than I thought, so not-so-immediate closure but quickly, ooops, I'm just gonna extend Bush's policy...
 
Seems our winger contingent has had a change of heart over the last couple of weeks. They went from “ we don’t torture “ to justifying torture. Wonder why that is? :confused:

Strawmen tend to confuse. That's their intent.

So, of course, you're confused. You've attributed a false shift in our, well, someone's, well, some people's (who knows who) thinking that just hasn't taken place.

Good luck with that!
 
I am reading what you posted. Don't act foolish.

Now you've shifted the goal posts from stopping any attacks to changing the rates of attacks. No one has argued that the new laws and the tools they've provided changed the rate of terror attacks. The argument is that the new laws and tools have enhanced law enforcement's ability to and the ability of intelligence agencies to detect, investigate, and ultimately, stop attacks.

You're obviously not reading. Because I said those new laws can not be said to have an effect. Your argument is not outside standard deviation, you can not confindently make the claim that it had an affect. There is no goal post changing, the argument was the same since the beginning. The data is terrorist attack in X amount of years...guess what that is? A rate! Jesus. You claim we haven't had an attack in Y years and thus the laws are successful (that's a rate BTW, trying to help you out, you seem to have trouble understanding time rate of change is a rate). But the average attack happens every Z years with Z>Y; thus your argument is nonsense because you are still within the noise. Y must be greater than Z, and it must be greater by a few sigma before you can say with confidence that the laws had an affect.

Still dealing in cliches, eh? Our constitutional form of government neither affirms this nor grants this unlimited liberty.

Again, you demonstrate your problems with reading comprehension. I didn't say unlimited; I said they limit at the rights of others.

Not according to the framers.

prove it

Oh? There's a right not to libeled or slandered?

libel and slander came from property and contract, which are rights. Read the history of those two things.

Hence, you recognize then that our liberty is subject to government infringement. Therefore, you know that our liberty rights are not unlimited. So why are you arguing that they are?

I never said they were unlimited, you're lying. The government can not perform unreasonable search or seizure. They must go to a judge and present enough evidence indicating a crime before they can take your stuff. It's protection for our right to property, a restriction on the action of government to help ensure our rights against tyrannical government.

I am pretending neither. Now you are not reading what I have posted....errrr...you're deliberately misrepresenting my earlier comments.

Your arguments allow for untold abuse by and growth of the government. And maybe before you lay accusations of misrepresentation you should first look in the mirror.

I said that "There is no grant of universal and uninfringed liberty. There has always been and always will be a strong tension between public safety and liberty and we see that in our own Constitution and the amendments attached to it."

And I said there is a natural limit to the rights and liberties of the individual

Deal with that, otherwise, shut up!

Accept your lies and hyperbole and distortion or shut up? No, piss off; it's America and I can say as I like. If you don't like it...well that's not my problem.
 
We will not torture, but we will vigorously urge prisoners to give us information. :)
 
:rofl

You walked right into that one. So, we haven't been attacked on US soil for... less than a year. Good job Bush.

Attack Against U.S. Embassy In Yemen Blamed on Al-Qaeda

Long considered a haven for jihadists, Yemen, a desperately poor country in the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, has witnessed a rising number of deadly attacks over the past year. U.S. officials say they suspect that Shihri may have been involved in the double car bombings outside the U.S. Embassy in Sana on Sept. 16 that killed 16 people, including six of the attackers.
Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group - International Herald Tribune

I was waiting for one of you to bust that one out.

Oh look who is believed to have been involved in that. Yeah a guy released from Gitmo.

Let's play connect the dots... This guy was released because of pressure from folks like you, he is involved in an attack just out side the Embassy in Yemen (they didn't BREACH the compound thus technically no attack on US Soil) and now we're going full bore with the mentality that freed this guy.

You see a problem here? Probably not... yeah more I think about it I can see your response hovering on the KB "If we hadn't put him in Gitmo he'd of never turned to terror!!!"

So he was picked up for fun then yeah?
 
Yeah, yeah, :roll: I saw the blunder of citing "US soil". The fact remains that we have not seen another terror attack here in the US.

Even so, has anyone considered/compared that to Clinton's watch? WTC 1; Khobar, two US embassies, USS Cole, etc., etc. versus post-9/11? I mean, if you want to play games with semantics like US soil, don't you kinda have to consider actual events?

To be honest, we didn't start the whole US soil thing. I was perfectly content to keep it specifically to the many States.
 
To be honest, we didn't start the whole US soil thing. I was perfectly content to keep it specifically to the many States.

Wasn't a blunder, they never breached the compound. So it didn't happen ON US soil. Just on the border. An attempt... that failed.
 
So... everyone we pick up we should hold indefinitely in order to prevent attacks? Shouldn't the same apply to US murderers and thieves, wall street execs who defraud customers, pedophiles, rapists, Catholic priests who abuse small children, rich politician's wives who steal from charities, Oxycontin abusers, etc.

Where do you draw the line on prevention? Should we start arresting people before they plan or commit these crimes?
 
Wasn't a blunder, they never breached the compound. So it didn't happen ON US soil. Just on the border. An attempt... that failed.

July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
 
So... everyone we pick up we should hold indefinitely in order to prevent attacks? Shouldn't the same apply to US murderers and thieves, wall street execs who defraud customers, pedophiles, rapists, Catholic priests who abuse small children, rich politician's wives who steal from charities, Oxycontin abusers, etc.

Where do you draw the line on prevention? Should we start arresting people before they plan or commit these crimes?

Yawn, pointless post. No the same shouldn't apply, we have the Constitution they don't. See how that works. Your silliness is amusing here.
 
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.

War zone.

Nice try though. Keep digging.
 
War zone.

Nice try though. Keep digging.

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR = No terrorist attacks count because we are in a global war. Everywhere is considered a war zone. :roll:
 
Wasn't a blunder, they never breached the compound. So it didn't happen ON US soil. Just on the border. An attempt... that failed.

Now who's changing the goal posts?
 
Yawn, pointless post. No the same shouldn't apply, we have the Constitution they don't. See how that works. Your silliness is amusing here.

:rofl

Gawd, I LOVE reading your posts. :mrgreen:

Walter.jpg


Have you ever watched Jeff Dunham? You'd make a GREAT Walter.
 
GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR = No terrorist attacks count because we are in a global war. Everywhere is considered a war zone. :roll:

No, that's not true.

You've tried a failed attack that never breached the Embassy compound, and an attack on a base IN a war zone.
 
Oh yes.
Is this another academic theory that sounds good on paper but wilts under the harsh light of reality?

Me thinks so, because to claim man can withstand torture and not reveal vital info has been blown to shreds with some terrorists we have captured... and I don't consider water boarding torture. Loud music... sleep deprivation... hot-cold syndrome either.

You can feel good about terrorists being protected as innocent civilians are executed.

I suspect the terrorists of the world like your kind and encourage you and Obama's type.

Tell me, is it moral to not do everything humanly possible to spare innocent men, women and children from a terrorists attack?

If the answer is "yes" then we side together. If not, then you seem to think a terrorists short term health is more important. Broken bones and ripped skin heals. Dead is dead.

It may seem cold, but these are the types of decisions Obama must make. Do we protect terrorists or innocent civilians?


How could you not consider water boarding, sleep deprivation, or hot-cold syndrome torture? If someone can barely stay conscious how do you expect them to give you usable information. That just doesn't make sense.
 
You see, my rationale is simple. I believe it is immoral for thousands to die because you have a terrorist in you hands that may hold the key to saving their lives.

Fixed it for you. I think it's barbaric to torture someone. I would like to think we did not live in the middle ages, but individuals such as yourself refuse to allow us to progress.

If professional coercion is required, so be it. His choice.

You prefer to protect the temporary health of the terrorist.
I prefer to protect the lives of thousands or more of innocent citizens.

I think your choice is nothing short of immoral.

Now you are being dishonest. More often than not, torture gets us nothing. I suggest you get off of your noble steed before the facts come along and knock you off.
 
More often then not...

So those that would have died in those times we DO get something... shoudl they feel ashamed they are alive because someone was "tortured" to save them?
 
More often then not...

So those that would have died in those times we DO get something... shoudl they feel ashamed they are alive because someone was "tortured" to save them?

And how many times do we receive information that leads nowhere? How often do we get told exactly what we want to hear?
 
An interrogator I know that contracted to work in Iraq told me that they do not use torture techniques because it usually results in bad intel that could cost American lives.

That's what he told me.

I'm just sayin'....
 
An interrogator I know that contracted to work in Iraq told me that they do not use torture techniques because it usually results in bad intel that could cost American lives.

That's what he told me.

I'm just sayin'....

I have friends that say otherwise...

Damn so where does that leave us?
 
Back
Top Bottom