Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: CIA's torture got nod from White House

  1. #1

    CIA's torture got nod from White House

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10725444

    So are these in violation of International law or treaties? What about invading Iraq without justification (lieing about the reasons). So if not illegal what about just plan decency?

    So what does this make Bush and some members of his administration?

    Should they be held accountable via international law (crimes against humanity)?

  2. #2
    Hmmm….I guess some good ol’ Bush bashing is what the libs need after a pathetic showing in the election.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by beautydigger
    Hmmm….I guess some good ol’ Bush bashing is what the libs need after a pathetic showing in the election.
    ? Your comment doesnt make any sense. There is no connection. I live in the US and am not involved in Canadian politics.
    Last edited by mass1965; 10-15-2008 at 01:17 PM.

  4. #4
    No surprise here re the White House. And soon, good riddance after they waterboarded America for eight long years.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by mass1965
    ? Your comment doesnt make any sense. There is no connection. I live in the US and am not involved in Canadian politics.
    So why are you envoking international law? Traitor perhaps?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by mass1965
    Should they be held accountable via international law (crimes against humanity)?
    Yes they should. As is always the case with a president stepping down and a new one being inaugurated, won't there be a series of pardons and immunities issued? Wasn't the whole point of the reworking of the definition of torture to avoid prosecution.

    They should, but they won't.
    Amantes sunt amentes.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by mass1965
    re: torture
    I think it's too bad that we've never had a real debate about this whole issue.

    First, people hear "the CIA tortures" and think "oh, they whip people, pull finger nails, burn, electrocute, etc." But in fact they don't. They use "bright lights, sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc.". All techniques that cause no permanent physical harm. Are these torture? Are there different levels of torture? Are all levels of torture equally bad and unacceptable?

    Second, what do you do when faced with a captured terrorist who has information about future plots and no fear of the criminal justice system? What actions are acceptable? Which aren't? Is torture ever allowed in such cases? What if 300 people are at risk of dying? or 3000? or 30,000?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    Are these torture?
    Depends if you are a whimp lib or a strong conservative.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by beautydigger
    Depends if you are a whimp lib or a strong conservative.

    Your every intervention convinces me that you're a closet communist trying to get people to vote against conservatives by acting like a ... . Well, you can figure it out.

    You are no conservative, sir.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    Your every intervention convinces me that you're a closet communist trying to get people to vote against conservatives by acting like a ... . Well, you can figure it out.

    You are no conservative, sir.
    What is it that you don't understand? Should I sugar coat it for you?

  11. #11
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    Your every intervention convinces me that you're a closet communist trying to get people to vote against conservatives by acting like a ... . Well, you can figure it out.

    You are no conservative, sir.
    Hello Kepler,

    "Communist"...I don't get that sense. A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative (fairly well off WASP thinking only of himself)...YUP!

    Cheers,

    Korbel
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    I think it's too bad that we've never had a real debate about this whole issue.

    First, people hear "the CIA tortures" and think "oh, they whip people, pull finger nails, burn, electrocute, etc." But in fact they don't. They use "bright lights, sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc.". All techniques that cause no permanent physical harm. Are these torture? Are there different levels of torture? Are all levels of torture equally bad and unacceptable?

    Second, what do you do when faced with a captured terrorist who has information about future plots and no fear of the criminal justice system? What actions are acceptable? Which aren't? Is torture ever allowed in such cases? What if 300 people are at risk of dying? or 3000? or 30,000?
    It would be interesting to have a good discussion on this as you said.
    The way I look at it is you need to have some standards in how you treat people or you become no better than those you are trying to protect yourself from. In addition I believe that waterboarding is forbidden. As for the other, if you allow yourself the excuse of "the end justifies the means" where do you draw the line? I think this becomes a very slippery slope. So life isnt safe and no matter what you do you can not make it so. So how much of your standards are you willing to give up?
    Last edited by mass1965; 10-15-2008 at 07:57 PM.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Korbel
    Hello Kepler,

    "Communist"...I don't get that sense. A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative (fairly well off WASP thinking only of himself)...YUP!

    Cheers,

    Korbel
    Actualy I think an unhappy person that is acting out his frustration by trying to stir things up

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Korbel
    A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative

    I've always been amazed at how the political spectrum is not a line but a circle. Opposites meet at their extremes. Ultra-conservatives (fascists, etc.) and Ultra-Liberals (communists, etc.) actually have lots in common.

    Luckily in Canada, the (mostly) pragmatists have been in power since 1867.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by mass1965
    The way I look at it is you need to have some standards in how you treat people or you become no better than those you are trying to protect yourself from.
    I know what you're trying to say, but tell me: is a CIA agent who tortures a suspected terrorist really no better than a man who would blow up a bomb on a Madrid train killing dozens?

    I definitely think that some sort of "due process" must be in place. That means, at a minimum: independent review of the evidence against the person. Some sort of legal assistance to challenge this evidence. Independent authorities to decide "if" and "to what level" interrogations can go, while considering the potential harm caused otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by mass1965
    So how much of your standards are you willing to give up?
    Good question. I think putting minimum "due process" systems in place ensures that no egregious violations take place.

    So, how many dead people are you willing to risk to retain your standards?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •