Posted on 12/17/2014 4:24:07 PM PST by Kaslin
If beheading works, does that make it morally acceptable?
With terrorists and pirates, yes. And then boil them in pig grease.
Of course it is you lefty twit, although I would prefer the rack or bamboo shoots under their finger nails.
Our entire Western Culture is like a beaten wife. We are told daily to shut up, go to work, and put food on the table. Obama is America’s wife-beating control freak. Shut up bitch! Who asked you! He wants you to order pizza for friends he met in the parking lot of Home Depot. Quite frankly, I’m tiring of it bigtime.
1. There was a legal definition of "torture," which was illegal on 9-11. Waterboarding did not meet it. That was the legal opinion of OCC in the Justice Department.
2. It was clear that the Geneva Convention did not apply to enemy combatants. At least until one of the dumbest opinions ever from the Supreme Court. Now, nothing is clear.
3. The Army manual on treatment of prisoners prohibits waterboarding or any abuse of prisoners. The Army manual has been adopted by the other uniformed services. The uniformed services did not use the enhanced interrogation techniques.
4. There was no torture at Abu Graib. That was a bunch of stupid soldiers taking prisoners out late at night and then for their amusement abusing them and taking pictures that sometimes faked torture. When it was discovered, they were prosecuted and given prison terms. The press did not discover Abu Graib, the Army did and someone leaked information from the invesigation to the press.
How about when Obama’s military performs the same exact procedure on a seal during training? is that moral?
Is it morally acceptable for Obama to send a drone over terrorists to KILL THEM? is that moral?
How about when a liberal politicians enable abortionists to kill innocent babies. Is that moral?
So when these people get on their high horse about it being “immoral” to waterboard someone they may wish to look in the mirror.
Finally - I don’t accept their premise that one fourth of gitmo detainees are innocent. I don’t buy it.
If it's morally acceptable (because it's not torture), why don't we use it regularly in domestic police interrogations?
No. But it does not make it unacceptable either.
Next silly question?
I Agree — those are pretty dang clear.
(BTW, I hate the “third category” the government created [”enemy combatant”] instead of leaving things at the standard lawful/unlawful combatant.)
What you said!
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t gonna resign.
I agree torture (of the real -- medieval variety) should not be used - but 'waterboarding?'
Because in police interrogations, coerced confessions are not admissible in court.
For the same reason we don't use other (still not torture) methods in domestic police interrogations.
There is a shoe scraping that every year calls the families of his victim just to torment them. I would be perfectly comfortable having him water boarded until he tells where he buried his victim.
Not so comfortable having the jerk that cut me off today water boarded.
I would thinkso.
These same people now say abortion is okay if there’s no love there.
Murder is okay if there’s no love there. That certainly makes less-than-lethal things acceptable, then.
The liberals will have no qualms about applying
“harsh” methods against conservative Americans
should they ever gain the whip hand.
So by Zero's logic should we drone them all?
“The Frieds argue that we lose our humanity by denying someone else’s, by treating him as an animal to be beaten into submission or an object to be bent or broken at will.”
This argument is fundamentally flawed. After all, when we involuntarily confine, restrain, and interrogate a suspect, we are already treating him as an animal. So, if this argument invalidates torture, it must also invalidate the entire concept of the modern justice system.
Hm, so nothing against the treatment of someone who has not been proven guilty; interesting.
Given the police attitudes of today, that's what I think will happen if we give the it's ok because it's not torture
approval to waterboarding — remember that the terrorists in this particular case are, under international law, unlawful combatants and therefore receiving much, much more in the way of rights/privileges than they should — I simply do not trust government to refrain from setting up precedent for violating the Constitution because they're terrorists
and then turning that justification upon the civilian population.
I find it quite illuminating to, upon any government action by "the elite", ask how does this increase government power?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.