Heh heh
Good one.
jrfranchi:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110601281.html
Don’t know exactly what Cheney is asking for, still.
TYM:
Good cites, thank you.
I haven’t really studied the issue. Basically my feeling is that we should have laws against hard core torture. We can debate what constitutes torture (sleep deprivation, withholding cigarettes, saying mean things,) and what doesn’t. I am not qualified to define these things
For example, say we catch a guy who planted a bomb in a building full of people. The bomb is ticking. He won’t tell.
There should be laws against torturing the man.
At the same time, I would hope that he would get tortured, if that’s what it took.
Does that sound schizophrenic?
It’s a hell of a dilemma. Let’s say a person of integrity is doing the interrogation. Does that person put personal integrity aside and torture a man to save 100s of lives knowing he’ll be punished. OR, does he maintain his personal integrity, not get punished and allow 100s to die?
Which is the better moral choice?
This fits in with the torture in Abu Gharib and Gitmo and the “prisons who should not be known about” just how?
We must have laws against torture. Under most conditions, even war they must be respected.
You have painted the extreme circumstance. Should we be allowed to use torture because we suspect that the detainee might have knowledge about people who might be plotting to blow up a building?
I’ll play your game, in the situation you describe I am reasonably sure the (Let us say NYPD) will use extreme methods and suffer the consequences after the fact, knowing they used illegal methods. They will have to do this knowing that their act could land them in prison and decide it is worth their own personal sacrifice to save these theoretical people.
Please read more articles on Cheney, he really is a stomach turner. I am not being snarky when I say I believe he might be the man running the administration rather than Bush.
Jim
I don’t know. We’re people being tortured there?
Dunno. Are you?
I agree.
I agree, too. I think.
I’ve read a couple of the articles linked, but I don’t really see specifically what kind of interrogation techniques Cheney is asking for.
Your side lost the right to call anyone a traitor when the Vice President’s chief of staff and Karl Rove outed a CIA agent because he told the truth about the phony evidence they were using to start a war.
I used to respect you, Scylla.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Might as well be though.
I think this is where we have a problem in point of views.
The fact he is actually requesting the right to retain torture should be enough. Not the details of what type.
For details you will need to see what McCain has proposed and realize that Cheney is requesting this not be enacted.
I would love to make a huge compromise with the Admin. You have made horrible mistakes. Have Cheney resign, make McCain VP and then have Bush Resign. Lets get the war done and done right. You will all be pardoned and forgiven. Just like Nixon.
Jim
“My side” isn’t calling anybody a traitor. It’s me. Personally.
I’m sure you’ve studied it more rigorously than I, but from what you showed me that does not seem accurate.
It looks to me that Cheney is against McCain’s restrictions applying as a blanket.
A common fallacy that the right makes against the left is that they are “pro-abortion” simply because they do not seek to stop people from getting abortions.
Calling Cheney “pro-torture” because he argues that all of McCain’s ideas do not apply to all circumstances seems similarly unfair.
But, you’re right. I haven’t studied it enough. I might be wrong.
…which is a different thing from asking for permission to torture, which is what I thought I was told Cheney was doing, isn’t it?
You are deliberatly obtuse aren’t you.
There is a name for that.
I’d say this is where a problem of quite a different nature is revealed.
To elaborate, that issue in specific is binary.
Either torture is allowed, or it is not. To campaign for it to not be prohibited is for it to campaign for it to be allowed. Only by semantic evasion can one ignore that fact. And, then, one must question what agenda drives such a blatantly obvious instance of militant and wilful ignorance. The virulent and toxic nature of this ignorance becomes clear, especially when the person infected by it hasn’t done the research, but they will hold to their ignorance in any case. It is elucidative when someone must believe something so badly.
And we should observe well the nature of this evasion. One is an America hating traitor if X people were tortured to death, or died from the conditions we were keeping them in, but not if X + Y people died. A desire for the president to rule without opposition is championed at the same time as others are called traitors. Absurdly high standards of proof are set for events which the military is engaged in covering up or not investigating thoroughly, but the rights of those who we arrest without trial or charges are handwaved away. Etc, etc, etc…
Can’t have that. Torture.
Obviously, poor SteveG1 was battling monsters too much. Became them, he did. No, not his fault. Somebody else’s. Always.
I’m not excusing myself, either. Two years ago I posted my wish to see Saddam and his henchmen suffer like they made other people suffer. Been two years, but poor Stevie still howling like a deranged hyena. Causes and consequences for ya.
Not torture. There’s some other phrase for it now. Ask Cheney, he might remember what the new words are. Not that I feel any pity for Saddam or his two psycho sons either.
Let’s keep going with the whole ‘fact-based-community’ stuff, eh?
[
](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html)
Lifted directly from whitehouse.gov
Q Do you have concerns they’re not getting justice, the people detained there?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people…
Who cares that any trial or tribunal decided he was innocent, Adel is “bad people”. End of discussion. :rolleyes:
There is something real wrong about it.
OK then. Fuck you. You have completed your fall from respected member of an online community to shrill shill. One can only hope that, like an alchololic, you must hit rock bottom before you can begin to recover.