Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The problem is exactly this. Taking a very narrow scenario and then scaling it...
I think some thought there may be follow on attacks and we thought we had some people who may know something. In that scenario I could see someone who believed torture worked may authorize in defiance of the law.
But that's not where things stopped.
|
"in defiance of the law"
Wrong. The Justice Department gave them the green light (we know that for a fact), which means in wasn't in defiance of any law. There i sno law agaiinst waterboarding. The CIA goit the green ligt from the Justice Dept and also from the congressional oversight committee, which included that witch Pelosi. How many times has she changed her story on what she knew, and when? But, I digress.
"that's not where things stopped"
#1, what is your proof of that? Because I agree, it shoud only be allowed in a very narrow scope. #2, does this mean you'd support torture in very, very extreme cases? Yes or no?
Spence, another simple, direct question. Liberals say "torture doesn't work". Here's my question. Spence, do yo ubelieve that some people might refuse to answer a politely presented question, but would be more willing to answer if threatened with torture? Can you EVER see that happening? If so, then the only honest answer is that like it or not, legal or not, torture can work. Th estatement "torture doesn't work" can only be true if it's not feasible, under any circumstances, EVER, to get info from someone that you wouldn't get through other means.
The statement "tirture doesn't work" is an absurd statement in that absolute sense. Of course it works. It might be ugly, we might make it illegal, there might be better ways...but iyt's very dishnest to say that it simply doesn't work. That's absurd.