Torture memos

Originally Posted by classicman

Not debating the waterboarding=torture issue, moreso the effectiveness which is also in question...

IMO, that is a cop out.

BY the standards of international treaties that we have signed, water board is torture -> torture is illegal.

Moreover, there is no credible independent evidence anywhere that you can cite that torture is more effective than other means of interrogation. The only thing you have in the above are second hand reports citing agents who may or may not have a personal vested interest in justifying their actions, paticularly if they believe those actions may be questionable as to the law.

And in any case, the ends dont justify the means......never...ever....except in the TV land of saving America from terrorists.

Either we are a country that lives by the rule of law or not.

Either we do as Bush said:

“It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered.”

Or we do as Bush did (unilaterally circumvent US treaty obligations and block investigations).

[classicman]

ok - fine call it a cop out but I offered some credible information from your post as to the effectiveness of waterboarding. I offered that disclaimer on my post specifically to challenge that point. There are two arguments going on here.
1) Waterboardings effectiveness aand
2) The legality of it.
Regarding, as you put it, "what Bush did" you better include a bunch of Democratic leaders like Pelosi in there also. At least be honest enough for that.
I have repeatedly posted my opinion on torture and its legal status.
You, however, have repeatedly dismissed citations by professionals and insiders that counter what you WANT to believe. That's fine too. Just so we are all clear.

Torture is illegal and immoral.

That is the bottom line for me.

I dont waffle over the issue or sugarcoat if with "what if" scenarios or second hand reports of its allegedl effectiveness as you have.

[classicman]

Its just a discussion - but another nice attempt at avoidance and criticism.

But along those lines - would you sacrifice thousands or even tens of thousands of lives by not "torturing" one man? Just curious.

Originally Posted by classicman

But along those lines - would you sacrifice thousands or even tens of thousands of lives by not "torturing" one man? Just curious.

If I wanted to play that game, I would audition to be Jack Bauer's replacement.

Its a bullshit scenario to justify an illegal action.

added:

IMO, It is appalling to see Scalia, a sitting US Supreme Court Justice, play that game:

The Supreme Court Justice cites Jack Bauer and the Hollywood torture show "24" as relevant background for constitutional jurisprudence:

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co..._and_tort.html

Relevant background for constitutional jurisprudence......WTF?

LOl.....more waffles?

Either torture is acceptable or not....I have no fucking idea where you stand on the issue.

I have made my position as clear as can be.

[classicman]

WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.

Originally Posted by classicman

WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.

WOW....how obtuse can you be not to understand what I posted?

[classicman]

Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.

Originally Posted by classicman

Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.

YES....it is a bullshit question.

NO...i'm not gonna play your game.

How's that?

Or just change my answers...you're good at changing others words for them.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

YES....it is a bullshit question.
NO...i'm not gonna play your game.

no game - just a discussion of a real life situation that HAD to be dealt with. You chose not to decide that is your choice. Be very very thankful you had that option.

Originally Posted by classicman

no game - just a discussion of a real life situation that HAD to be dealt with. You chose not to decide that is your choice. Be very very thankful you had that option.

What real life situation have we faced, or even remotely possible that we may face, where the only response is that black or white.....NONE, dude.

But I am very very thankful that our current president is not making policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios.....now if we could only get Scalia to retire....I will feel safer for the country's future.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

What real life situation have we faced, or even remotely possible that we may face, where the only response is that black or white.....NONE, dude.

So you would let the thousands die - got it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

But I am very very thankful that our current president is not making policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios.

And if you are wrong? Will you run and hide like the rest of the Demoncratic roaches? How do you know that any president made "policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios". You don't. You are talking partisan bullshit as usual. You have no frigging clue because you are not read in.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Try answering it with a yes or no.

Only extremists see the world in terms of 'yes' and 'no'. The rest of the world has no answers if the answer does not come with the many reasons why.

Worse, the world is not binary. Everything is ternary. But to keep it simple - so that Rush can tell extremists how to think - everything is expressed only in binary terms: Yes and No.