So Dick Cheney is lobbying against 10-1 odds to get a bill passed that would sanction torture. How do you feel about this, as a staunch supporter of the administration, right or wrong?
Actually, he's lobbying against a bill that would ban the use of torture. But the point is still the same. How do you feel about this, aspiring scholar?
Since the rights delineated in the constitution apply only to citizens of the United States, then I am fine with a provision prohibiting torture.
It's been mis-stated once here and I'm sure the rest of you see it as "Cheney sanctions torture" anuyway.
First, I would say that it is naive to assert that torture is an ineffective way to get information. So don't use that one. I'd like to see a world without pain and suffering. So why does fire burn and why do angry men take up arms against peaceful peoples?
And if torture does indeed save lives? Innocent lives at the expense of temporary pain for our captured enemies? If you had an accomplice of your child's captor, wouldn't you consider putting the screws to him to find your son or daughter?
I don't think torture should be institutionalized, but making it a crime against the constitution is probably a step too far also.
Also, you should know that I consider taking up arms against your country a voluntary renouncing of your citizenship, stripping you of all the rights and privileges thereof. Including - especially - constitutional guarantees.
If forced to vote now, I would probably want to ban torture altogether. However, I know this is naive and it would be irresponsible of me to make an assertion to this end. Why don't we end the systematic murder of tiny beating hearts before we worry about breaking a terrorist's fingers.
As I thought, you would take the simple-minded approach to answering. You fail to grasp not only the morals of Christianity, which you so lovingly claim to abide by at all times, but also you fail to see that this country is better than torturing an enemy. We are an example for the rest of the world, and torturing someone for information is inappropriate at any level.
John McCain was in a Vietnamese prison camp for years. He is the one pushing this bill. Do you know how much information Senator McCain gave out? None. Because torture does not work, and has ALWAYS been show to be ineffective. It is not only naive but downright ignorant to ignore the facts that torture does not work at extracting information. The Israelis don't use torture, they use psychological methods, and they are the ones with the most experience in this field. Also, do you really think that someone who knows they're going to be dead in 24 hours anyway because he planted a nuclear bomb somewhere is really going to give you that location just because you chop off his fingers? It is naive to think that torture could possibly work on someone dedicated enough to commit genocide on a people and to kill him/herself in the process.
Calling others naive may sound good in your one-sided closed-minded head, but when shown against facts, they turn out to be exactly what I expect from a blog by a self-righteous "Republican" college student: utter bullshit.
If you really intend to be a scholar, then I suggest you actually do some studying. And that studying should take place outside of Republican political channels.
(For my readers, if I have any, please note that I make no pretenses to actually be a scholar, only an aspiring one. I freely admit that I am a college student, a conservative, predisposed to conservative ideas and won over by Christianity.)
Calling crude my rhetorical devices is a rather crude method of counter-argument. We can call each other crude all day.
My Republicanism is based on my belief in small government, and whatever derogates from this. My conservatism is a much larger matter. I suggest you take issue with the latter.
Torture does not work on men of intrgrity, like Senator McCain. It does not follow from this that it never works, ever. Studies have shown that 50% of studies turn out to be false. Error or agenda?
The Israelis have the most experience in securing information? A nation that most liberals would claim has only existed for 50 years has more experience than England, which has had intelligence-torture laws on the books since the middle ages?
Say what you will. I am not willing to discount it as an interrogation method altogether without a thorough discussion of it.
And again: I am in support of the amendment. I am just unsure that it is necessary, as I think the constitution already protects American citizens from torture, and that is the uultimate scope of our constitution.
Actually, the Israelis have the most experience with people like the terrorists that we face today. More than any other country. I trust their intelligence gathering methods.
Also, it's not men of integrity that will not give up information, it's people who are dedicated to their ideals and their cause. To underestimate the wills of our enemies would be quite a mistake, my friend.
And our duties are not only to protect Americans, but to protect all human beings. To treat another human being in a way that would be considered torture is wrong no matter what the constitution says. No true Christian would allow torture at any level. I know you're a good guy, but you've gotta come to your own conclusions sometimes and really look at all the facts. That means don't just listen to "conservatives" (I quote that because that term is used quite loosely these days), but realize that even if people are called "liberals" it doesn't mean that everything they say has no merit.
6 comments:
So Dick Cheney is lobbying against 10-1 odds to get a bill passed that would sanction torture. How do you feel about this, as a staunch supporter of the administration, right or wrong?
Actually, he's lobbying against a bill that would ban the use of torture. But the point is still the same. How do you feel about this, aspiring scholar?
Since the rights delineated in the constitution apply only to citizens of the United States, then I am fine with a provision prohibiting torture.
It's been mis-stated once here and I'm sure the rest of you see it as "Cheney sanctions torture" anuyway.
First, I would say that it is naive to assert that torture is an ineffective way to get information. So don't use that one. I'd like to see a world without pain and suffering. So why does fire burn and why do angry men take up arms against peaceful peoples?
And if torture does indeed save lives? Innocent lives at the expense of temporary pain for our captured enemies? If you had an accomplice of your child's captor, wouldn't you consider putting the screws to him to find your son or daughter?
I don't think torture should be institutionalized, but making it a crime against the constitution is probably a step too far also.
Also, you should know that I consider taking up arms against your country a voluntary renouncing of your citizenship, stripping you of all the rights and privileges thereof. Including - especially - constitutional guarantees.
If forced to vote now, I would probably want to ban torture altogether. However, I know this is naive and it would be irresponsible of me to make an assertion to this end. Why don't we end the systematic murder of tiny beating hearts before we worry about breaking a terrorist's fingers.
As I thought, you would take the simple-minded approach to answering. You fail to grasp not only the morals of Christianity, which you so lovingly claim to abide by at all times, but also you fail to see that this country is better than torturing an enemy. We are an example for the rest of the world, and torturing someone for information is inappropriate at any level.
John McCain was in a Vietnamese prison camp for years. He is the one pushing this bill. Do you know how much information Senator McCain gave out? None. Because torture does not work, and has ALWAYS been show to be ineffective. It is not only naive but downright ignorant to ignore the facts that torture does not work at extracting information. The Israelis don't use torture, they use psychological methods, and they are the ones with the most experience in this field. Also, do you really think that someone who knows they're going to be dead in 24 hours anyway because he planted a nuclear bomb somewhere is really going to give you that location just because you chop off his fingers? It is naive to think that torture could possibly work on someone dedicated enough to commit genocide on a people and to kill him/herself in the process.
Calling others naive may sound good in your one-sided closed-minded head, but when shown against facts, they turn out to be exactly what I expect from a blog by a self-righteous "Republican" college student: utter bullshit.
If you really intend to be a scholar, then I suggest you actually do some studying. And that studying should take place outside of Republican political channels.
I will take your criticisms under advisement.
(For my readers, if I have any, please note that I make no pretenses to actually be a scholar, only an aspiring one. I freely admit that I am a college student, a conservative, predisposed to conservative ideas and won over by Christianity.)
Calling crude my rhetorical devices is a rather crude method of counter-argument. We can call each other crude all day.
My Republicanism is based on my belief in small government, and whatever derogates from this. My conservatism is a much larger matter. I suggest you take issue with the latter.
Torture does not work on men of intrgrity, like Senator McCain. It does not follow from this that it never works, ever. Studies have shown that 50% of studies turn out to be false. Error or agenda?
The Israelis have the most experience in securing information? A nation that most liberals would claim has only existed for 50 years has more experience than England, which has had intelligence-torture laws on the books since the middle ages?
Say what you will. I am not willing to discount it as an interrogation method altogether without a thorough discussion of it.
And again: I am in support of the amendment. I am just unsure that it is necessary, as I think the constitution already protects American citizens from torture, and that is the uultimate scope of our constitution.
Actually, the Israelis have the most experience with people like the terrorists that we face today. More than any other country. I trust their intelligence gathering methods.
Also, it's not men of integrity that will not give up information, it's people who are dedicated to their ideals and their cause. To underestimate the wills of our enemies would be quite a mistake, my friend.
And our duties are not only to protect Americans, but to protect all human beings. To treat another human being in a way that would be considered torture is wrong no matter what the constitution says. No true Christian would allow torture at any level. I know you're a good guy, but you've gotta come to your own conclusions sometimes and really look at all the facts. That means don't just listen to "conservatives" (I quote that because that term is used quite loosely these days), but realize that even if people are called "liberals" it doesn't mean that everything they say has no merit.
Post a Comment