[NeedKarma]

EDIT:::
Need, that was in Ex's OP...he quoted him, I didnt post it right, sorry

You are completely correct, I'm sorry about that.

For the record I don't have any respect for O'Reilly. It doesn't take much googling to turn up mentions of his hypocrisy and lying.

[excon]

I say in my own mind, would I try to talk it out with a guy that knew who may have my daughter in capture or would I go straight to torture.....you all know the answer, you can't deny it.

Hello starty:

I don't disagree. I am not a nice guy at all. But, my country is better than me. That's why we've collectively given up our personal responses to the situation you describe, to the "authorities" who are bound by the law that we have agree to abide by. We aren't vigilantes.

If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.

You know who else thinks our country is better than us?? That would Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you adopted Reagan's views on torture, you would be called a rabid score settler from the hard left. You'd be a Bush hater.

To wit: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."

It's certainly true, of course, that Ronald Reagan was very pre 9/11, but the concept of a uniquely scary Islamic terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by them in 1979 and they occupied our embassy; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan in the early 1980s; 280 U.S. Marines were killed by them in Lebanon in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by them in 1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 where we killed the adopted infant daughter of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying to control Muslim countries way back then, too.

Yet even with all those Islamic terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.

excon

[startover22]

Then I say bring it back...
As in make torture legal under certain situations.. and circumstances. I am not afraid to say it. Screw this "let's talk it over" Do you still feel like you like in America? (yes I do have a heart)

That's all for now.

[excon]

Then I say bring it back.... as in make torture legal under certain situations.

Hello again, start:

Barbarism is like pregnant. There's no such thing as a little. If you open the door a crack, it will get opened all the way.

Lest you think I'm against torture because I'm soft on terrorists, be aware that I'm much more concerned with our American military men. They'll, of course, be tortured mercilessly, and we won't be able to say a thing.

Plus, I worry about what that makes us. Certainly, if torture is OK in some circumstances (and I guess how many lives could be saved would be the measure), then we could torture some of our own criminals. Why not? Certainly, if the guide is what torture could produce, instead of who we choose to be as a people, then all hell breaks loose. Civilization would break down.

Do you really want that?

excon

[startover22]

I don't want that. I have to disagree though, we wouldn't be going around just torturing who ever we want whenever. I do agree that a certain measure would have to be in place. Our own criminals? Like a guy that knows a serial killer? Please explain... what type of criminals?

[excon]

Please explain....what type of criminals?

Hello again, Start:

Any criminal who, if tortured, could give up information that could save lives. Drug dealers?? Sex offenders? Mafia? Kidnappers? Take your pick.

excon

[startover22]

I am talking warfare excon... bombings, hi jacking's and so on...

[excon]

Hello again, start:

Your position is understandable. YOU only want torture to be used in war.

But, if saving lives is the criteria we use when deciding to torture, then it doesn't take a great leap of faith to envision some rightwing congressman saying we should torture drug dealers. If he did, what would be the basis for our argument against it?

excon

[startover22]

It is a viable argument or discussion rather. But I say war, and only war. There is a difference between one who wants to bring us down as a nation, and one who doesn't.

[excon]

You are saying a person has to be down right perfect in this statement. 100%...sheesh I can admit to going far less than 99%, how about you?

Hello again, starty:

I have a principle of not screwing little girls. It's not lip service. I'm not going to screw even ONE. If I did, I couldn't truthfully say that I have a principle of not screwing little girls. I could only say that I don't screw many.

I don't steal. That doesn't mean I can steal $.25 because it isn't much. It means that I don't steal.

If we say we don't torture, then we don't torture. But, if you only subscribe to not torturing 99% of the time, you can't say it's a principle you adhere to. Oh, you could say it, if you were hypoticritical like Bill O'Reilly. But a principle is a principle... It's inviolate, in my view. If it's NOT, it's lip service.

excon

[startover22]

I understand what you are saying, and like you, I think you have a valid point. So, I will go out on a limb and say I am hypocritical and want the torture to be held out under certain situations. BUT not in others. I find nothing wrong with it, if it has order and worthiness. Like if I know someone who is going to bomb the sh!t out of us, I could expect to be tortured until I say who, what, when, and where. I want "them" to think that, don't you?

[excon]

Hello again, starty:

I like you too, starty, and I hope you have recovered from your bumps and bruises. Your mind is still in tact, though.

excon

[startover22]

Well, thanks for the well wishes, and I promise not to know something again... or even put my foot in a ring that may... I will never be healed from the mental damage of being scared...
Ok, now that we both got our points across, I need to relax, sheesh!

[tomder55]

Your argument and simplifies down to a simple fundemental question. Was the methods approved torture? The lawyers in the Justice Dept. took great pains to study the law and determined that under strict conditions and guidelines the methods employed were not torture under law or treaty.
Did they take it to the edge ? Probably... However lots of things in the country are conducted on the edge.

It is funny that you would have some qualms about these methods but would applaud an extrajudicial assassination attempt that kills an "innocent " child.If there is a red line between murder and legal assassination in warfare then surely there is one between torture and aggressive interogation under the same circumstances.

[excon]

Hello tom, and Steve:

I would like you to answer question #42.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello tom, and Steve:

I would like you to answer question #42.

excon

Hey ex, I haven't posted since #32, how did I get dragged into this? Besides, what was the question? The only one I saw in #42 you answered.

[excon]

how did I get dragged into this? Besides, what was the question? The only one I saw in #42 you answered.

Hello again, Steve:

It got this far because you guys don't yet realize that torture is against the very notion of what the United States of America stands for. But, I ain't going to give up. I LOVE my country too much to see it devolve into madness.

Re:#42, you're right. But what I said DOES require a comment. Or do you think Reagan was a hard lefty?

Ex

PS> (edited) What?? I got to DRAG you into an argument with me??

[inthebox]

Ex you are obsessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist, but have offered no solutions. This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Anyone can complain and criticize but it does not hold water unless you can give us an answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1673573

See post #37 in the same thread also.






G&P

[excon]

you are obssessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist..... answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.

Hello again, in:

You've followed my career here for a while. You should know that I am obsessed with the LAW - not torture.

What I would have done is OBEYED it. I'm not speaking hypothetically here either. When I served, I KNEW the law. If I were ordered to torture, I would have refused. Before this is over, we'll find others who did the same.

You DO know the law on torture, don't you? If not, I'll tell you. Torture is a crime that we are obligated to prosecute.

Oh, I forgot - you're still on the "denial" team. Even Krauthammer got off that crap. Like me, he knows torture when he sees it. washingtonpost.com

excon

[excon]

Hello again, Steve and tom:

You're right. It wasn't #42. It was #35. #35 is real good.

excon