Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

ok, then you agree that those who did not return slaves, per the constitution and i am sure dozens of state laws making it criminal hence why in the constitution....were guilty of either violating the constituion (government actor) and/or state law? is that right?

that if people did not want to return slaves they had better change the law first....right...

You really need to try a different approach here.

Ronald Reagan's statement on signing the Torture act into law:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
 
what is worse

1. mildly tortured prisoner who you reaonably believe possesses information that could save one life, the torture is not permanent. no permanent disfigurement....and information given that saved the life

or

2. the dead innocent life that could have been saved

That is an illogical comparison because it does not include all the consequences of legitimizing torture. Let's make it a little more realistic.

What is worse,

1. A Govt that is allowed to torture anyone it claims it thinks might have information that could lead to an innocent life being saved, relying up the Govt (whom we all trust so inherently) to properly restrain the torture to legitimate activities and inquiries, knowing that many innocent people will be tortured, and recognizing that this will lead to many innocent people being wrongly convicted for confessions they gave under torture, and many other being wrongly accused or accosted becuase of invalid information being given by the person being tortured, and resulting in a number of dead suspects who are accidentally drowned or have a heart attack while being tortured,

or

2. the dead innocent life that might have been saved.

I choose 2
 
Last edited:
where do the principles you claim are against torture come from then? where is the authority that torture illegal come from?

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, that was passed by our congress, and signed into law in 1984 by Ronald Reagan.

If you want to torture people, it would be a good idea to change the law, FIRST.

ok, then you agree that those who did not return slaves, per the constitution and i am sure dozens of state laws making it criminal hence why in the constitution....were guilty of either violating the constituion (government actor) and/or state law? is that right?

that if people did not want to return slaves they had better change the law first....right...

I've been reading your last several posts, utterly baffled at why you keep talking about returning slaves in a thread about whether waterboarding should be approved procedure.
 
Jesus, conservatives used to support the concept of innocent until guilty, didn't they? Now they want to legalize something that may easily do damage to innocent victims.

How far they have fallen.
 
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, that was passed by our congress, and signed into law in 1984 by Ronald Reagan.

If you want to torture people, it would be a good idea to change the law, FIRST.

ok, then you agree that those who did not return slaves, per the constitution and i am sure dozens of state laws making it criminal hence why in the constitution....were guilty of either violating the constituion (government actor) and/or state law? is that right?

that if people did not want to return slaves they had better change the law first....right...

I've been reading your last several posts, utterly baffled at why you keep talking about returning slaves in a thread about whether waterboarding should be approved procedure.

apparently you keep missing that people bring up the un treaty/charter that makes torture illegal...that treaty/charter is the supreme law of the land due to the constitution. i am talking legalities and principles of violating the constitution...and trying to get people to understand that they agree that at times it was patriotic to not follow the constitution to a "t"....

morally...i've stated already that IMO, mild torture is moral when it can save a life.
 
ok, then you agree that those who did not return slaves, per the constitution and i am sure dozens of state laws making it criminal hence why in the constitution....were guilty of either violating the constituion (government actor) and/or state law? is that right?

that if people did not want to return slaves they had better change the law first....right...

I've been reading your last several posts, utterly baffled at why you keep talking about returning slaves in a thread about whether waterboarding should be approved procedure.

apparently you keep missing that people bring up the un treaty/charter that makes torture illegal...that treaty/charter is the supreme law of the land due to the constitution. i am talking legalities and principles of violating the constitution...and trying to get people to understand that they agree that at times it was patriotic to not follow the constitution to a "t"....

morally...i've stated already that IMO, mild torture is moral when it can save a life.

waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....
 
ok, then you agree that those who did not return slaves, per the constitution and i am sure dozens of state laws making it criminal hence why in the constitution....were guilty of either violating the constituion (government actor) and/or state law? is that right?

that if people did not want to return slaves they had better change the law first....right...

You really need to try a different approach here.

Ronald Reagan's statement on signing the Torture act into law:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

so basically you now agree that it is not always appropriate to follow the constitution to a tee as the constitution's principles are not always correct....

thank you for finally admitting that

i still do not agree that what has been done can be classified as torture. further, what a politician says is simply that, what politicians say. who knows what reagan really believed and what he would consider torture...and the convention does not mention waterboarding.

and again, you agree that slaves should have been returned, yet our constitution and principles required it....my point was you would not have waited to not follow that law, you would have simply not followed the constitution or state law in order to "save" the life of that slave.
 
Go ahead sheep, fight my battles for me so i can kill you all!
Khalid%20Mohammed.jpg
 
ok, then you agree that those who did not return slaves, per the constitution and i am sure dozens of state laws making it criminal hence why in the constitution....were guilty of either violating the constituion (government actor) and/or state law? is that right?

that if people did not want to return slaves they had better change the law first....right...

I've been reading your last several posts, utterly baffled at why you keep talking about returning slaves in a thread about whether waterboarding should be approved procedure.

apparently you keep missing that people bring up the un treaty/charter that makes torture illegal...that treaty/charter is the supreme law of the land due to the constitution. i am talking legalities and principles of violating the constitution...and trying to get people to understand that they agree that at times it was patriotic to not follow the constitution to a "t"....

morally...i've stated already that IMO, mild torture is moral when it can save a life.

I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.
 
Go ahead sheep, fight my battles for me so i can kill you all!
Khalid%20Mohammed.jpg

Support him by supporting torture. How could you find a better way to help them get new recruits than America torturing Muslims? Making up reason to invade one of their countries maybe.
 
I've been reading your last several posts, utterly baffled at why you keep talking about returning slaves in a thread about whether waterboarding should be approved procedure.

apparently you keep missing that people bring up the un treaty/charter that makes torture illegal...that treaty/charter is the supreme law of the land due to the constitution. i am talking legalities and principles of violating the constitution...and trying to get people to understand that they agree that at times it was patriotic to not follow the constitution to a "t"....

morally...i've stated already that IMO, mild torture is moral when it can save a life.

I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

for a real time debate on this, check out police tactics/coercion....
 
apparently you keep missing that people bring up the un treaty/charter that makes torture illegal...that treaty/charter is the supreme law of the land due to the constitution. i am talking legalities and principles of violating the constitution...and trying to get people to understand that they agree that at times it was patriotic to not follow the constitution to a "t"....

morally...i've stated already that IMO, mild torture is moral when it can save a life.

I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.
 
I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

the shining city on the hill will be blown to bits one way or the other......take your pick....
 
waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.
 
but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.
 
fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

the shining city on the hill will be blown to bits one way or the other......take your pick....

I choose the shining city on the hill. I like it when I am proud of America. I am not proud of a country that tortures people.
 
but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.

My guess if you waterboarded any of these frat boy he-men just once they change there tune in about 8 seconds.
 
but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.

why do you keep ignoring returning slaves? would you have waited until the law changed or would you have not returned the slaves?

so there is no difference between waterboarding and cutting someone's fingers off one at a time, then their arms, legs....

there is no oxy in your moron....
 
I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

so its the slippery slope argument...tell me, why then does the law allow you to kill someone in self defense when killing someone is otherwise illegal? using your argument, everyone will always then find an excuse to defend themselves and murder people...

the slippery slope argument in this case is meritless, there are checks and balances to it just like the self defense argument. perhaps you think we should away with all defenses to criminal law....
 
fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

so its the slippery slope argument...tell me, why then does the law allow you to kill someone in self defense when killing someone is otherwise illegal? using your argument, everyone will always then find an excuse to defend themselves and murder people...

the slippery slope argument in this case is meritless, there are checks and balances to it just like the self defense argument. perhaps you think we should away with all defenses to criminal law....

The proposal has more merit that a rule that simply permits torture. I thought about it. But it the end, I just don't want to be associated with a government that thinks torturing people can be legitimate. Nor do I think it is helpful in the war of ideas we are in.
 

Forum List

Back
Top