Check out some similar questions!

RickJ · Sep 27, 2007, 04:22 AM

I heard part of the Democratic (US) debate last night.

One question was along the lines of:

If a Terrorist says there's an atomic bomb that will go off in 3 days, should the President OK torturing him for the location?

I agree with most answers that the President should not condone it.. . but I also agree with what a couple said (paraphrased) "I will do whatever it takes to protect the Nation, but will not publicly condone torture".

The question is ridiculous.

This particular example should have nothing to do with Presidential decisions. This is not a case where "we believe" the terrorist has info. This is a case where he says he has the info.

Forget that victims of torture will say whatever the torturer wants to hear to stop the pain. The truth of the location of the bomb could be quickly confirmed.

What military person in their right mind would not do whatever it took to get the info? And what idiot would ask the President if it's OK to torture him?

I am not speaking of torture in general, I am speaking of this specific example that the questioner asked about...

I'm curious. Do you think I'm in a majority - or minority - of what Americans think on this?

Chery · Sep 27, 2007, 04:37 AM

Hey there good buddy.
Unfortunately, I missed it because I was in the hospital again and didn't have time to program my recorder.

I am a Southerland fan from way back, his series "24" was one of his best.
Need I say more?

I know it is only a TV series but I can see the 'logical reality' in it. Some people just want all to get better while keeping their heads in the ground. I'm not one of them.

RickJ · Sep 27, 2007, 04:45 AM

Good to see you Chery. I pray you'll be out running a marathon in no time :)

JoeCanada76 · Sep 27, 2007, 04:55 AM

I missed it, and Quite honestly I like to keep up with American politics. Just from what you have said in the post and the way I think majority would think the way you do.

Thinking that your in the majority Rick.

Joe

CaptainRich · Sep 27, 2007, 05:07 AM

I would be in agreement. What ever steps necessary to find out the location of such bomb.

Anyone claiming to have this type of knowledge is willing to accept the consequences. Don't invite yourself to the dance and then not want to dance.

Torture in general: no. Obtaining crucial information: yes.

I agree, too, that this is a rhetorical question that shouldn't have been posed at this debate.

NeedKarma · Sep 27, 2007, 05:12 AM

It could be a sign of what's on the voters' minds. Four years ago it was gay marriage, this upcoming election election may be linked to the fear instilled in the populace by the current administration.

CaptainRich · Sep 27, 2007, 05:20 AM

More like fear instilled by rogue nations...

Pigeon-holing candidates is nothing new...

NeedKarma · Sep 27, 2007, 06:06 AM

No, I meant the current administration since they prey on fear more than the terrorists. Keeps the populace docile and willing to give up liberties.

RickJ · Sep 27, 2007, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No, I meant the current adminstration since they prey on fear more than the terrorists. Keeps the populace docile and willing to give up liberties.

I can see it's easy to think this, as it's what our media likes to dwell on... but if we had more terroristic attacks here after 9-11 then all would be the opposite; they'd say the administration was not doing enough.

NeedKarma · Sep 27, 2007, 06:36 AM

Agreed, it's almost a no-win situation. You pretty much have to look back and find out why they hate the U.S. so much to go through all that trouble. I can assure you it's not because they "hate your freedoms" or else about a dozen other countries would have had planes flying into their buildings.

startover22 · Sep 27, 2007, 09:46 AM

As a woman scared to death of torture, or at least in my nightmares... I would have to say they have a choice to tell all before it goes too far. AND as a woman I feel for those that don't really have info and are tortured...

Myth · Sep 27, 2007, 10:06 AM

I think it's all in the semantics;

"I will do whatever it takes to protect the Nation, but will not publicly condone torture".

As I see it. The tourture is probably already going on they just won't "publicly" condone it.

Skell · Sep 27, 2007, 06:04 PM

That's a stupid question and really takes away the credibility of the debate. What educated person would ask that question!

Sounds like something drunks at a pub might discuss when they are bored.

shygrneyzs · Sep 27, 2007, 06:21 PM

Why would be so concerned about being humane to a terrorist who proclaims an atomic bomb is going off in three days? That person is obviously not concerned about anyone's particular welfare. Whoever designed that bomb and bought that bomb has pure intent to kill as many as possible. I see torture as a means to gain vital information. If we are going to hold hands with a terrorist, then we are really misinformed.

I agree with Chery - bring Jack in.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 27, 2007, 07:14 PM

Terrorist with A bomb going off in 3 days, give me a cow prod and some alone time.

magprob · Sep 27, 2007, 07:23 PM

Real quailty time Padre. Actually I think it was a moot point since we are not allowed to know all the things our Government does, and have done, to get their way around the world, torturing one terrorist would be acceptable.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 27, 2007, 07:49 PM

I used to work for them and sadly know of some of those things, when I left government employment ( if you call it that) I was informed they had the rights because of my position to wire tap my phone and intercept my mail for the rest of my life.

startover22 · Sep 27, 2007, 08:13 PM

I am only wondering if the torture stops when they talk... I don't have a problem with getting info... I do have a problem with keeping it going when there is no reason left to do it. The unsaid and unknown is what I mean. What happens when the info is given..

Fr_Chuck · Sep 27, 2007, 08:39 PM

It will like all things depend on the people, since there is always more info wanted, I would guess that it would keep going till they beelive the other person does not know anything else.

Waterboarding is currently from my understanding the better of the methods used.

CaptainRich · Sep 28, 2007, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Myth

I think it's all in the semantics;

"I will do whatever it takes to protect the Nation, but will not publicly condone torture".

As I see it. The tourture is probably already going on they just wont "publicly" condone it.

Semantics in this case should start with the provocative statement :
... Atomic bomb... three days...

I have no doubt there are many things going on in the world today that we would not want to know or need to know. We take for granted the safety and security that let's us live our everyday lives. I'd like to believe that if we have that terrorist in custody, we may already know about his "bomb," and now only want to know where it is.