Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - View Single Post

Jim in CT · 12-12-2014, 11:58 AM

The Senate report says that torture produced no actionable intelligence. Several former CIA heads, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, as well as one guy interviewed on Foxnews who says he took part in the waterboarding, disagree. Can't we find out the truth for once? I want to know who's lying.

As to the use of torture, this is one of those times where I just don't see where the liberals are coming from...

(1) I hear that it's ilegal - not if the Justice Department says it's not. The Bush Justice Department determined that waterboarding was legal, which necessarily means that the guys who did it, broke no laws.

(2) I hear liberals claiming that since most people will say anything to stop the torture, it will lead to false leads. That is absurd, because any form of interrogation can lead to false leads. Police interviews lead to false leads. Tip lines lead to false leads. Are liberals arguing we do away with those? For God's sake, no one is saying that torture produces perfect information 100% of the time, so stop rejecting its use by saying it isn't perfect.

(3) I hear liberals saying it makes us no better than the terrorists. A child sees the absurdity of that argument. Terrorists kill innocent civilians out of pure evil. The goal of terrorism is to cause the death sof innocent civilians. The CIA tortured people to try and prevent the loss of innocent lives. Not only are those 2 things not morally equivalent, they're almost the exact opposite of one another.

It's common sense that some individuals will be less reluctant to divulge information if you ask "pretty please", than they will be if they are tortured. In very limited circumstances (American civilian lives are at imminent risk, we have someone who can help us prevent those deaths), it would be immoral not to do whatever it takes, and I mean whatever it takes (I'd go way past waterboarding).

We need very careful oversight to prevent abuse. The use of torture needs to be very, very limited. But I see no value, none whatsoever, of sacrificing innocent American lives upon the altar of "the moral high ground".

We didn't create this scenario. The barbarians did, by their own free will.

I don't get it. I just don't get it.

12-12-2014, 11:58 AM	#1
Jim in CT Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 20,428	CIA and torture The Senate report says that torture produced no actionable intelligence. Several former CIA heads, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, as well as one guy interviewed on Foxnews who says he took part in the waterboarding, disagree. Can't we find out the truth for once? I want to know who's lying. As to the use of torture, this is one of those times where I just don't see where the liberals are coming from... (1) I hear that it's ilegal - not if the Justice Department says it's not. The Bush Justice Department determined that waterboarding was legal, which necessarily means that the guys who did it, broke no laws. (2) I hear liberals claiming that since most people will say anything to stop the torture, it will lead to false leads. That is absurd, because any form of interrogation can lead to false leads. Police interviews lead to false leads. Tip lines lead to false leads. Are liberals arguing we do away with those? For God's sake, no one is saying that torture produces perfect information 100% of the time, so stop rejecting its use by saying it isn't perfect. (3) I hear liberals saying it makes us no better than the terrorists. A child sees the absurdity of that argument. Terrorists kill innocent civilians out of pure evil. The goal of terrorism is to cause the death sof innocent civilians. The CIA tortured people to try and prevent the loss of innocent lives. Not only are those 2 things not morally equivalent, they're almost the exact opposite of one another. It's common sense that some individuals will be less reluctant to divulge information if you ask "pretty please", than they will be if they are tortured. In very limited circumstances (American civilian lives are at imminent risk, we have someone who can help us prevent those deaths), it would be immoral not to do whatever it takes, and I mean whatever it takes (I'd go way past waterboarding). We need very careful oversight to prevent abuse. The use of torture needs to be very, very limited. But I see no value, none whatsoever, of sacrificing innocent American lives upon the altar of "the moral high ground". We didn't create this scenario. The barbarians did, by their own free will. I don't get it. I just don't get it.