A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[bodecea]

Moral of the story - waterboarding, which leaves no permenant damage, is wrong. Putting a bullet in an someone's head is A-OK.

Liberal logic at its best folks.

So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.

Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.

So...the hell with the 8th Amendment...it's too inconvenient.

 

[GoneBezerk]

When stupid liberals opposed to "torture" are asked what they would do if some group took their family members and they could torture someone to find their family....most say they would torture the person.

Typical liars and hypocrites trying to act holier than thou with their BS about torture, but when it's personal to them they are FOR IT.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, so the argument needs to stop. Terrorists are VOLUNTEERS and are like criminals but at a worse level, so they are not afforded the rights of a POW under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Foxfyre]

When stupid liberals opposed to "torture" are asked what they would do if some group took their family members and they could torture someone to find their family....most say they would torture the person.

Typical liars and hypocrites trying to act holier than thou with their BS about torture, but when it's personal to them they are FOR IT.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, so the argument needs to stop. Terrorists are VOLUNTEERS and are like criminals but at a worse level, so they are not afforded the rights of a POW under the Geneva Conventions.

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

 

[geauxtohell]

Bullshit GTH......Why would we inform KSM of safety nets in place?

The whole point is to mind ****, To mentally wear you down......The argument is whether waterboarding is torturous....The methods used in SERE and on KSM are one in the same, with the same controls in place.

Now, you yourself stated that basically any sort of forced mind **** is "half torture".....So, going by your surmise, all those enhanced interrogations that involve mindfuck should never be used, because they are torturous and designed to wear a person down to the point of giving up info..........You can't have it both ways. Either all those tactics are torturous, or they are not.

It's not the same scenario, so I don't have to have it both ways. SERE is a training event. KSM was a real time event. Again, comparing SERE with waterboarding KSM is like comparing Jump School to Normandy. No matter how bad SERE school was, you know it was a training event. You knew there were carefully constructed protocols to prevent serious bodily harm.

Forget RANGER school.....We know what goes on, and the reasoning for it......

Good. We can get off that silly non sequitur. People should be sleep deprived and starved at Ranger School. That's the point. Though, I always liked the notion that if the sleep schedule was totally dependent on the efficiency of the patrol. The RIs weren't deliberately depriving you of sleep after Benning Phase. We deprived ourselves of it by ******* up the missions.

We're talking about real life EC's here.........So, should all those methods that involve mind **** be taken away, seeing as though you feel mind **** is "half torture"?

Or is "half torture" ok?

Half torture is like half pregnant. There is no such thing. I oppose torture. It should be pretty self evident.

Again, the argument isn't over the effectiveness. It's over the immorality of the event.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yeah I've always wondered if the ISI were in contact with, if not ObL directly, at least some of the al-Qaeda higher-ups and were tipping them off on any of our planned operations they were aware of. It's sort of conspiracy theory, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.

The whole thing just stinks........He's in a well to do neighborhood, in a giant house circled with gigantic walls and barbed wire. The area is primarily populated with retired Pakistani military officers and intelligence personnel, just down the road from a military base....And no one had a clue he was there?

LMAO!........They damn sure knew he was there.

Plus, it's to their benefit to keep al-Qaeda as elusive as they can. It means American troops stay over there longer on the hunt, which means we continue to need their access to intel and cooperation, which gives them leverage to continue and extort us for "aid" money. I think it was around $3b last time I checked?

When you realize that Pakistan's major concern is India and our presence in Afghanistan gives them sufficient leverage against India, it's pretty much a no brainer that it wasn't in Pakistan's best effort to hand over OBL.

All the absurd posturing by the Pakis after the event is really just a lame attempt to save face. They know their hand was in the cookie jar.

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly. And why McCain has a jaundiced view of it. SAD...but true. McCain is a PATRIOT as far as his war record...but it ceases there...

LMFAO.



Always funny to watch Tank Engine grant himself fiat power over the matter of "patriotism".

 

[geauxtohell]

As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.

IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.

And what would shoting an unarmed man be?

Something that happens in combat sometimes. This isn't "High Noon" or some dopey Sunday afternoon Western Cinema.

It's all been explained to you. You keep insisting that we behaved criminally. That means the sailors involved in this raid are criminals. How desperate are you to prove a point that isn't a point at all?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly. People are willing to give up their principles out of fear as if it is a given that torturing someone will save lives...

Despite little reb's constant parroting of a Panetta quote as if it's proof torture worked, the CIA had intel on the courier which contradicted with a lie told by one who was water boarded. That contradiction was a flag to that one bit of info. IMO that does not vindicate a torture policy in the least...

Troubling is the fact that torture is illegal, consequently its effectiveness is irrelevant. As already noted: that some are willing to break the law or violate the Constitution in an effort to combat terrorism makes such individuals no better than the terrorists.

 

[GoneBezerk]

So is killing terrorists is better than torturing them to save lives???

Come on Einstein....

Exactly. People are willing to give up their principles out of fear as if it is a given that torturing someone will save lives...

Despite little reb's constant parroting of a Panetta quote as if it's proof torture worked, the CIA had intel on the courier which contradicted with a lie told by one who was water boarded. That contradiction was a flag to that one bit of info. IMO that does not vindicate a torture policy in the least...

Troubling is the fact that torture is illegal, consequently its effectiveness is irrelevant. As already noted: that some are willing to break the law or violate the Constitution in an effort to combat terrorism makes such individuals no better than the terrorists.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Bullshit GTH......Why would we inform KSM of safety nets in place?

The whole point is to mind ****, To mentally wear you down......The argument is whether waterboarding is torturous....The methods used in SERE and on KSM are one in the same, with the same controls in place.

Now, you yourself stated that basically any sort of forced mind **** is "half torture".....So, going by your surmise, all those enhanced interrogations that involve mindfuck should never be used, because they are torturous and designed to wear a person down to the point of giving up info..........You can't have it both ways. Either all those tactics are torturous, or they are not.

It's not the same scenario, so I don't have to have it both ways. SERE is a training event. KSM was a real time event. Again, comparing SERE with waterboarding KSM is like comparing Jump School to Normandy. No matter how bad SERE school was, you know it was a training event. You knew there were carefully constructed protocols to prevent serious bodily harm.

Forget RANGER school.....We know what goes on, and the reasoning for it......

Good. We can get off that silly non sequitur. People should be sleep deprived and starved at Ranger School. That's the point. Though, I always liked the notion that if the sleep schedule was totally dependent on the efficiency of the patrol. The RIs weren't deliberately depriving you of sleep after Benning Phase. We deprived ourselves of it by ******* up the missions.

We're talking about real life EC's here.........So, should all those methods that involve mind **** be taken away, seeing as though you feel mind **** is "half torture"?

Or is "half torture" ok?

Half torture is like half pregnant. There is no such thing. I oppose torture. It should be pretty self evident.

Again, the argument isn't over the effectiveness. It's over the immorality of the event.

So, you are saying that along with waterboarding........ forced sleep deprevation, forced hunger, forced cold, forced exposure to loud music etc.,...should never be used?

Seriously, do any of those fall under torture?

When we were blasting Noriega's compound with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, or doing the same in WACO, we must have been torturing them, correct?

And again, why in the **** should KSM have been made aware?........It's a ******* joke.

I suppose we should just have just given him strawberry ice cream, Indian porn, Vaseline, and a nice cozy homestaed to live and jack off in........Yeah, that will get him to talk!

 

[geauxtohell]

Bullshit GTH......Why would we inform KSM of safety nets in place?

The whole point is to mind ****, To mentally wear you down......The argument is whether waterboarding is torturous....The methods used in SERE and on KSM are one in the same, with the same controls in place.

Now, you yourself stated that basically any sort of forced mind **** is "half torture".....So, going by your surmise, all those enhanced interrogations that involve mindfuck should never be used, because they are torturous and designed to wear a person down to the point of giving up info..........You can't have it both ways. Either all those tactics are torturous, or they are not.

It's not the same scenario, so I don't have to have it both ways. SERE is a training event. KSM was a real time event. Again, comparing SERE with waterboarding KSM is like comparing Jump School to Normandy. No matter how bad SERE school was, you know it was a training event. You knew there were carefully constructed protocols to prevent serious bodily harm.



Good. We can get off that silly non sequitur. People should be sleep deprived and starved at Ranger School. That's the point. Though, I always liked the notion that if the sleep schedule was totally dependent on the efficiency of the patrol. The RIs weren't deliberately depriving you of sleep after Benning Phase. We deprived ourselves of it by ******* up the missions.

We're talking about real life EC's here.........So, should all those methods that involve mind **** be taken away, seeing as though you feel mind **** is "half torture"?

Or is "half torture" ok?

Half torture is like half pregnant. There is no such thing. I oppose torture. It should be pretty self evident.

Again, the argument isn't over the effectiveness. It's over the immorality of the event.

So, you are saying that along with waterboarding........ forced sleep deprevation, forced hunger, forced cold, forced exposure to loud music etc.,...should never be used?

Seriously, do any of those fall under torture?

When we were blasting Noriega's compound with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, or doing the same in WACO, we must have been torturing them, correct?

The definition of torture is to that it is used to extract information from people who we have in our custody. You guys keep wanting to gloss over that.

That's different from Psyops against an active enemy force.

 

[Wicked Jester]

It's not the same scenario, so I don't have to have it both ways. SERE is a training event. KSM was a real time event. Again, comparing SERE with waterboarding KSM is like comparing Jump School to Normandy. No matter how bad SERE school was, you know it was a training event. You knew there were carefully constructed protocols to prevent serious bodily harm.



Good. We can get off that silly non sequitur. People should be sleep deprived and starved at Ranger School. That's the point. Though, I always liked the notion that if the sleep schedule was totally dependent on the efficiency of the patrol. The RIs weren't deliberately depriving you of sleep after Benning Phase. We deprived ourselves of it by ******* up the missions.



Half torture is like half pregnant. There is no such thing. I oppose torture. It should be pretty self evident.

Again, the argument isn't over the effectiveness. It's over the immorality of the event.

So, you are saying that along with waterboarding........ forced sleep deprevation, forced hunger, forced cold, forced exposure to loud music etc.,...should never be used?

Seriously, do any of those fall under torture?

When we were blasting Noriega's compound with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, or doing the same in WACO, we must have been torturing them, correct?

The definition of torture is to that it is used to extract information from people who we have in our custody. You guys keep wanting to gloss over that.

That's different from Psyops against an active enemy force.

LMAO, buddy!

That's all I can do.

God forbid we make these dirtbags feel uncomfortable in an attempt to extract information.

God forbid we make them cold, tired, hungry..........It's just sooooooooo fuckin' evil.

Those poor souls!

 

[GoneBezerk]

Did you go through SERE school???

I don't recall playing cards with the guards there.

It's not the same scenario, so I don't have to have it both ways. SERE is a training event. KSM was a real time event. Again, comparing SERE with waterboarding KSM is like comparing Jump School to Normandy. No matter how bad SERE school was, you know it was a training event. You knew there were carefully constructed protocols to prevent serious bodily harm.



Good. We can get off that silly non sequitur. People should be sleep deprived and starved at Ranger School. That's the point. Though, I always liked the notion that if the sleep schedule was totally dependent on the efficiency of the patrol. The RIs weren't deliberately depriving you of sleep after Benning Phase. We deprived ourselves of it by ******* up the missions.



Half torture is like half pregnant. There is no such thing. I oppose torture. It should be pretty self evident.

Again, the argument isn't over the effectiveness. It's over the immorality of the event.

So, you are saying that along with waterboarding........ forced sleep deprevation, forced hunger, forced cold, forced exposure to loud music etc.,...should never be used?

Seriously, do any of those fall under torture?

When we were blasting Noriega's compound with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, or doing the same in WACO, we must have been torturing them, correct?

The definition of torture is to that it is used to extract information from people who we have in our custody. You guys keep wanting to gloss over that.

That's different from Psyops against an active enemy force.

 

[geauxtohell]

Did you go through SERE school???

Answered earlier.

I don't recall playing cards with the guards there.

I never insinuated that SERE school was easy. I said it's a training environment and not the same as the real thing.

 

[Charles_Main]

So, you are saying that along with waterboarding........ forced sleep deprevation, forced hunger, forced cold, forced exposure to loud music etc.,...should never be used?

Seriously, do any of those fall under torture?

When we were blasting Noriega's compound with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, or doing the same in WACO, we must have been torturing them, correct?

The definition of torture is to that it is used to extract information from people who we have in our custody. You guys keep wanting to gloss over that.

That's different from Psyops against an active enemy force.

LMAO, buddy!

That's all I can do.

God forbid we make these dirtbags feel uncomfortable in an attempt to extract information.

God forbid we make them cold, tired, hungry..........It's just sooooooooo fuckin' evil.

Those poor souls!

**** no. Better not make them unhappy, or uncomfortable at all.

Read them their rights, and have ma and Pa Tax payer hire Johnny Cochrane to defend them.

woooo hoooo

 

[Ravi]

When stupid liberals opposed to "torture" are asked what they would do if some group took their family members and they could torture someone to find their family....most say they would torture the person.

Typical liars and hypocrites trying to act holier than thou with their BS about torture, but when it's personal to them they are FOR IT.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, so the argument needs to stop. Terrorists are VOLUNTEERS and are like criminals but at a worse level, so they are not afforded the rights of a POW under the Geneva Conventions.

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

 

[frazzledgear]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the problem I have with the self righteous claiming that waterboarding is torture. The people who carry out waterboarding are first trained -and part of that training is to be REPEATEDLY waterboarded themselves. Everyone who does the waterboarding knows exactly what its like because they had to endure it themselves and many times.

So let me try to wrap my head around the "critical thinking skills" of a liberal because they are a mind boggling bunch of muck. It is only "torture" when done to a mass murdering terrorist intent on killing others -but its just "training" when its being done to those trying to gain the information to save the lives the terrorist is trying to kill. Here is your problem though: WHO it is being done to doesn't define the act, sorry. REAL torture is torture no matter who it is done to. It is the ACT that defines whether it is "torture". WHY an act is being done NEVER defines torture -sorry. Neither is it defined by WHO is doing the act. It is the act itself that defines whether it is torture or not. Putting bamboo shoots under someone's nails or sticking them with a hot poker is considered to be torture - no matter who is doing it or who he is doing it to. But waterboarding is NEVER considered "torture" if done to a US soldier! AMAZING! If it isn't "torture" when done to a US soldier, then -IT ISN'T AN ACT OF TORTURE! Period. Who is on the receiving end does NOT define an act of torture. Just like who is on the receiving end doesn't define any illegal act in this country. An act of murder has a legal definition regardless of who is murdered -as does assault and rape. Who you did it to doesn't define whether it was a murder, assault or rape -the act itself defines it. Murder has a specific definition, rape has a specific definition, assault has a specific definition that is not changed by who is on the receiving end! Same is true of TORTURE! If it isn't torture to waterboard a US soldier -then it cannot by definition -be torture!

The British military trained US personnel to waterboard. The Brits have been using the selective use of waterboarding in the defense of their nation for decades now. And those US soldiers who were waterboarded by British military turned around waterboarded other US soldiers as part of their training learning how to do it. But no one is screaming about how a foreign military was involved in torturing our soldiers. That's because we all know good and well they were NOT tortured in the first place! What you are using to define torture is not the ACT itself -but the INTENT behind the act. Think that would work for committing a rape though? That as part of their training it is acceptable to attack and rape a future rape counselor on the grounds it makes them better counselors? That wouldn't work out so well for homicide detectives though, would it? What you REALLY want everyone to use to define torture is the INTENT behind the act -not the act itself! But when it comes to defining crimes, only someone's ACTIONS can be illegal, not their reasons for doing it. That only comes into play during sentencing -NEVER when determining whether it was a crime in the first place. Torture is always torture no matter who it is done to or why or who is doing it. The reason for committing the act does not define whether the act itself is torture -because if its torture, it is ALWAYS torture no matter who is doing it! Whether you committed a rape is not determined by your choice of victim -but by the act itself. Same is true with torture. If it isn't torture when a US soldier is the one being waterboarded -then it sure as hell isn't torture when done to a mass murdering terrorist! So if you REALLY believe waterboarding is "torture" you ought to be really upset about the FACT that 7 times as many US soldiers were waterboarded as terrorists and be railing about policies involving torturing our soldiers! But they save all their concern NOT for those intent on protecting us -but for a fraction of that number intent on murdering us! Like I said, mind boggling muck.

The same people who think its ok that our soldiers killed an unarmed bin Laden would be first in line screaming about how it would NOT be ok to make him uncomfortable for a matter of MINUTES in order to try and save the lives of hundreds or even thousands of other people are MORALLY BANKRUPT and seriously twisted, fucked up people! I wonder which one bin Laden thought was more important -his temporary discomfort or his life! Of the two I actually have a harder time with the idea of killing an unarmed bin Laden but that is because I actually have a REAL conscience and not a contrived one! I still find his killing to be justifiable given the fact it is a war HE declared and therefore made a viable military target out of himself. Which means the only way for him to avoid being one would be to surrender -which he didn't do. Waterboarding isn't a punishment and it isn't used to try and get a "confession" of some act either. It is a TOOL used for the specific purpose of trying to save the lives of other people. It is a tool that is used by other nations, including the UK which has used it for decades and where there is no phony moralizing pretending its "training" if done to one of their own soldiers but "torture" if done to a terrorist!

Only three high level terrorists have been waterboarded and only because they were so high level they knew the guy had critical information that could save the lives of others. It is done in short bursts each lasting just seconds. Each seconds-long burst is counted as one incidence of being waterboarded. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 11 times but only had one session of waterboarding. Not waterboarded on 11 different days for hours and hours. Then he agreed to give them information -information which was verified and confirmed and for a fact prevented the deaths of hundreds and possibly thousands. Of the three high level terrorists to be waterboarded, KSM held out the longest before agreeing to give information and his ENTIRE waterboarding experience lasted just under 3 minutes. We aren't talking making him extremely uncomfortable for even hours much less days and weeks as would happen with sleep deprivation or noise pollution. But something that was over in under 180 seconds. He, like the other two who agreed to talk in even less time -were never waterboarded again.

Our military uses plenty of stringent and tough measures as part of their training program -but they NEVER use torture as part of that training process! Never. The discomfort of waterboarding is considered to be on a par with the discomfort of sleep deprivation and noise pollution. At first you think that can't be possible and would prefer the sleep deprivation and noise pollution until you had to endure them and realized with sleep deprivation and noise pollution, the discomfort isn't initially felt as intensely as waterboarding but builds up over the course of days and days of enduring it -only then does it reach the intensity of discomfort experienced in waterboarding. Personally I'd rather endure the waterboarding for a few minutes than endure sleep deprivation over the course of many days. But that's me -and this is from someone who actually experienced a near drowning myself.

Those engaged in the self-righteous handwringing are people who believe the COMFORT of three mass murdering terrorists for what in reality amounted to a matter of MERE SECONDS -is far more important than the very lives of hundreds and thousands of people who were saved. If it was possible to make sure the lives that would be lost would be their own and those of their loved ones -maybe I could buy into their self righteous BULLSHIT. But it never is -its always other people's lives they so easily dismiss out of hand. AGAIN. I have a problem with people who cannot differentiate between what is TEMPORARY DISCOMFORT with what is PERMANENTLY DEAD and getting there by a horrific act. One situation everyone is much more likely to walk away with their lives -so naturally those faux self-righteous gladly choose the option that increases the odds of the fewest people possible walking away with their lives. MORAL BANKRUPTCY benefits no one -least of all human life.

Anyone who places more value on the TEMPORARY DISCOMFORT of a would-be mass murderer and puts the lives of hundreds and even thousands of others secondary to that-is nothing but a warped, amoral asshole.

Only the morally bankrupt would insist the comfort level of a would-be mass murdering terrorist is more important than the hundreds and thousands of lives of those he is intent on killing. Waterboarding isn't torture and does not fall under the international definition of "torture" either which is why other western nations do it too, why it is the British taught us how to do it -and why those who commit REAL torture leaving tens of thousands of dead and maimed in their wake -just love the idea of trying to make waterboarding the moral equivalent of what they do. The left has been promoting a list of self destructive notions for years now they insist are actually "American" values when they are no such thing. These people really are morally bankrupt and so much so they believe our Constitution is actually a suicide pact.

 

[Ravi]

Frass:

I would like to see evidence that those that are waterboarding people have been waterboarded themselves.

I know that some in the military have, but they are not the ones that torture people. They go through it to see if they are strong enough to lie when tortured.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Foxfyre]

When stupid liberals opposed to "torture" are asked what they would do if some group took their family members and they could torture someone to find their family....most say they would torture the person.

Typical liars and hypocrites trying to act holier than thou with their BS about torture, but when it's personal to them they are FOR IT.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, so the argument needs to stop. Terrorists are VOLUNTEERS and are like criminals but at a worse level, so they are not afforded the rights of a POW under the Geneva Conventions.

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

Then you have not been reading. I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.

Nor have I suggested it be 'legalized'. All I am saying is that we cannot tie the hands of those who are constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense and protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. There will likely always be times both in local law enforcement and militarily that value judgements will have to be made that don't fit the 'rule book' or standard set of laws. And, in my opinion, it is extremely naive to refuse to even look at that or consider it as a proper component of the national debate.

And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

 

[Wicked Jester]

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

Then you have not been reading. I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.

Nor have I suggested it be 'legalized'. All I am saying is that we cannot tie the hands of those who are constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense and protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. There will likely always be times both in local law enforcement and militarily that value judgements will have to be made that don't fit the 'rule book' or standard set of laws. And, in my opinion, it is extremely naive to refuse to even look at that or consider it as a proper component of the national debate.

And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

He should have blown off the entire foot if necessary.

And every one of these liberal bleeding hearts would have done the same thing......They will never admit it, for obvious reasons, but they would have done it.

And, you've been getting negged rep for your measured opinions?.....Figures. Spineless are spineless.