If they had a member of your family. Would you ask really tough questions, or take them apart?that is absurd.
If they had a member of your family. Would you ask really tough questions, or take them apart?that is absurd.
Thats NOT the situationIf they had a member of your family. Would you ask really tough questions, or take them apart?
It pretty much is, gathering info to prevent lives from being lost in the future.Thats NOT the situation
what i would or wouldn't do for a member of my family has no bearing on what a nation should doIf they had a member of your family. Would you ask really tough questions, or take them apart?
Nope, one was personally directed, the other in general.It pretty much is, gathering info to prevent lives from being lost in the future.
Nope, one was personally directed, the other in general.
I hate when the whole board teams up against me.what i would or wouldn't do for a member of my family has no bearing on what a nation should do
If the nation is destroyed, do you not think that your family would be also?what i would or wouldn't do for a member of my family has no bearing on what a nation should do
that's not even remotely on point. look, if you in good conscience want to justify torture, have at it.If the nation is destroyed, do you not think that your family would be also?
If that is what it takes to save hundreds and maybe thousands of lives then yes, I could have a good conscience even though I hated that it had to happen. My conscience would feel much more guilt if I sat around and did nothing then hundreds of people were killed due to my unwillingness of taking the steps that could have prevented it.that's not even remotely on point. look, if you in good conscience want to justify torture, have at it.
If it is because the government is not a police state, a most emphatic yes.If that is what it takes to save hundreds and maybe thousands of lives then yes, I could have a good conscience even though I hated that it had to happen. My conscience would feel much more guilt if I sat around and did nothing then hundreds of people were killed due to my unwillingness of taking the steps that could have prevented it.
And it is very much on point. If our government could have gathered information that would have prevented an attack on a building that you and your family were in but instead they did nothing, would you be ok with that?
We aren't talking about U.S. citizens here but instead talking about international terrorist.If it is because the government is not a police state, a most emphatic yes.
We are not talking about U.S. citizens but known international terrorist. Much different.This is not in reference to anyone in specific.
Does anyone but me find it ironic that likely the very same people who decry big government taking steps to protect health and safety via programs and agencies such as Obamacare, the EPA, and the FCC are the very same people who would have no problem handing over the "do whatever it takes mandate" to protect them from future unguaranteed attacks?
I should eat more veggies? HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE MY FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS! DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!
This guy is vaguely brown, knows a few guys named Muhammed, and likes disco music. KEEP ME SAFE, WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO. I AM NOT SAYING WATERBOARD HIM, BUT IF HE ACCIDENTALLY GETS WATERBOARDED, I UNDERSTAND.
Water boarded individuals must have a physician at side and be told before it is done they will not die. Just one example of a safeguard, others exist for other tactics. This isn't disclosed in the public accounts because that would not play to the narrative. The current government and media are not on our side unless it benefits them and their agenda.FWIW, it all came from CIA memos.
And here is where I have a major disconnect with you. A terrorists, by very definition, is someone who incites terror. There have been people labeled as terrorists in the US. It is a label. Government agencies have already turned their ears and eyes inward with regards to communications, what makes you think that this behavior will always be applied to only international terrorists? Think of the idiotic children from the US and Britain that have run off deluded by ISIS slick marketing to join the new caliphate. Should they be tortured if they know something? Obama and Holder have already decided that US Citizenship mean nothing when they ordered a drone strike to kill a US citizen upon nothing more than CIA intelligence. Due process, as we have come to expect in the courts, was tossed right out the window. So now there is precedence that if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, albeit on foreign soil, their rights are no longer inviolate.We are not talking about U.S. citizens but known international terrorist. Much different.
This is not in reference to anyone in specific.
Does anyone but me find it ironic that likely the very same people who decry big government taking steps to protect health and safety via programs and agencies such as Obamacare, the EPA, and the FCC are the very same people who would have no problem handing over the "do whatever it takes mandate" to protect them from future unguaranteed attacks?
I should eat more veggies? HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE MY FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS! DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!
This guy is vaguely brown, knows a few guys named Muhammed, and likes disco music. KEEP ME SAFE, WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO. I AM NOT SAYING WATERBOARD HIM, BUT IF HE ACCIDENTALLY GETS WATERBOARDED, I UNDERSTAND.
Do you believe in our constitution or not?:conf2:First of all, these future attacks ARE guaranteed. These terrorist groups make a video every other day holding someone's decapitated head telling you that they're going to. Every week there's a terror attack thwarted ahead of time. Some are reported, some are not. They're not going to stop just because we start trying to be politically correct in how we deal with 'em.
Secondly, you don't get detained because you have brown skin and know a few people named Muhammad. We let them build mosques here and practice the very religion that's trying to destroy us for pete's sake.
"Wrongfully held" is the liberal democrat word for "there was enough evidence to believe they were tied to a terrorist group, but they haven't actually blown themselves up and killed a bunch of people yet".
And here is where I have a major disconnect with you. A terrorists, by very definition, is someone who incites terror. There have been people labeled as terrorists in the US. It is a label. Government agencies have already turned their ears and eyes inward with regards to communications, what makes you think that this behavior will always be applied to only international terrorists? Think of the idiotic children from the US and Britain that have run off deluded by ISIS slick marketing to join the new caliphate. Should they be tortured if they know something? Obama and Holder have already decided that US Citizenship mean nothing when they ordered a drone strike to kill a US citizen upon nothing more than CIA intelligence. Due process, as we have come to expect in the courts, was tossed right out the window. So now there is precedence that if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, albeit on foreign soil, their rights are no longer inviolate.
Giving up the expectation of due process and in the case of torture, basic human decency, out of a sense of fear is a great way nudge a nation state over into the dystopian police/dictatorship that many already believe the US has become.
Remember, as many on the right are oft repeating, governments never willingly give power back to the people. What is a terrorist to the current regime is nothing more than a label reapplication tomorrow, often depending upon the ideology of those in power.
Links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/