- Thread starter
- #21
SCIC? I don't recognize the acronym.
Forgive me, it's SSIC, not SCIC. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
However, the other side of that is the fact that the Republicans have a golden opportunity to highlight that and beat the Democrats with their own political bullshit.
If anything, they shouldn't be making politics out of this matter whatsoever. Injustice should be injustice, not something to be bandied about in the midst of political theater.
You are not seeing that though, are we?
No. For the reasons stated above, I don't believe in exploiting injustices for the sake of political gain. I don't see the sense of it.
Instead, they are desperately trying to justify those actions. That is, to me, inherently disgusting.
The one thing I respond to positively are well reasoned arguments, and I acknowledge the fact I was trying to justify the use of torture. Call it disgusting if you must, but I admit it freely. To be truthful, it conflicts with everything I was taught about mercy and compassion for those who, IMHO, don't deserve it. My anger remains for those who committed murder on our soil though, but I should be equally as angry at the methods we used to take them down.
The only way I learn is to challenge other arguments with my own.
Rather than come out, admit that this entire thing is wrong and ugly and highlight the political BS in the report they want to run and hide. Pathetic.
As is typical behavior for those in Washington. To be expected. I will never again trust anything that comes from the mouth of a politician (or politicians).
Intelligence Committee and I would agree that the blatant political play here is absolutely disgusting. This is even outlined by the fact that Pelosi was more aware of this program than virtually anyone and yet she is the one trying to use it as a hammer against the republicans.
Like I said. This should not be used as a political bludgeon. If they were truly concerned about these acts of torture, they would put forth more zeal in correcting the problem than using the problem as a political weapon.
Even in this instance, do you really think that the torture employed would stand better than the methods we have perfected in modern times?
No. I simply wished to dispense with the notion that torture is 'completely ineffective.' Blanket statements are a pet peeve of mine. No offense.
...I want substance before even making the moral judgement...
Admittedly that is a character flaw of mine. Not using it as a crutch, just something I have neglected to address. I tend to make snap judgements on issues of this magnitude. It is true that we should not repay savagery with more savagery.
It is not a 'moral' stance or countries that we agree with but rather simple common gain.
I don't think it should work that way. I value commonality over common gain. Common gain comes when you hold more in common with another country than not. Sacrificing the things that our government is founded upon for 'common gain' is traitorous and an unacceptable tradeoff. TBH it is why our government is unrecognizable from the one that it was intended to be.
As I told Disco, there is no moral high ground, not anywhere, or for anyone involved, whether it be torturer or terrorist.
Last edited: