Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
I truly cannot respond to your question Johnny and dont have the stomach for where this debate may lead. In my opinion, NOTHING that has been seen, confessed, admitted, or photographed constitutes torture in my opinion.
If there was a lapse in some of what deem as acceptable by our standards, I believe the circumstances post 9/11 warranted it. This country has never fought a war where our enemy was undefined and the consequnces so high to the people who live in the country. I am not ashamed of anything this country did.
|
I don't think it is a simple topic to discuss. That's why I posted it. There are at least 20 posts about how the economy sucks, how the dems are screwing things up, how Obama is an idiot or all of the above in one post. It's gotten rather boring.
This forum has gotten excessively partisan over that last few weeks and I think this subject may force some people to put their partisanship aside.
Personally, our country has made an international commitment to certain laws of humanity. Is there a point in which that commitment can be ignored to protect this country? If so, where do we draw the line as to when it is necessary?
Some people say torture is ok if the person being tortured may have information that protects the safety of this country. I disagree and so does domestic and international law.
Hybrid Mode
