CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 17
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 14
Total: 14

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

The Little Man who Occupies the White House Says we Don't Torture People.

This shouldn't even be an issue.  Those interrogating prisoners are professionals at what they do.  If they tell me certain methods work best for them, so be it.  People like to say, well, if we torture our prisoners, then they'll torture our soldiers.  That's total BS.  They'll probably do it anyway and what stops our former prisoners from going home and lying that they were tortured.  

This is a ridiculous issue, but it works to get people elected, nothing else.

OK IS, you have a suspect terrorist, he has info on the bombs hidden in your child's elementary school being held by fellow terrorists. If you don't get the key to a safe, your child dies. What do you do? Protest the US Gov't Policies? Or water board the guy until he gives up the key to save your child? Everyone is a liberal until they have to bare the costs of their idiotic decisions and positions. OJ walks free because of liberals interpretations of the laws. Q: What is a Conservative? A: A liberal that has been mugged.

OK IS, you have a suspect terrorist, he has info on the bombs hidden in your child's elementary school being held by fellow terrorists. If you don't get the key to a safe, your child dies. What do you do?

Evacuate the school.




 

[being held by fellow terrorists]

AdamSmith asked the below question.

OK IS, you have a suspect terrorist, he has info on the bombs hidden in your child's elementary school being held by fellow terrorists. If you don't get the key to a safe, your child dies. What do you do?

IS answered

Evacuate the school.

My question will now be how do you evacuate a school being held by terrorists?
Your kid died along w/many others because your reading comphrension is non-existant. I sure as hell wouldn't want you to be my parent since your so willing to let me die because of sheer ignorance.

The above answer is absolutely typical of the academic dependent section of our population. What a freaking dumbass, you beat that little Allah is great punk to the point he believes that he's going to cash his chips for 72 dates.

Evacuate the school.

IS:

Are you seriously suggesting that in the face of a verified terrorist threat that could result in the death or injury of thousands of americans, you still feel that we should not authorize whatever form of interrogation is likely to yield the best results?

I doubt that even the move-on crowd believes this. They may see political power in the position, just as they see political power in the fiction that we would abandon Iraq on inauguration day, but the day that multiple american elementary schools  blow up in a coordinated attack and the resulting task forces and commissions show that the detainee who knew the plan was not interrogated because President Hillary knew best is the day that the left loses power in this country forever.


 

Are you dyslexic IS?

being held by fellow terrorists

That means that your child can't leave, and the school is being locked down by the terrorists. To keep it simple, your child dies unless you get some valuable info from a terrorist. What do you do? Evacuating the school isn't an option, just like it wasn't an option in Chechnya.

That means that your child can't leave, and the school is being locked down by the terrorists. To keep it simple, your child dies unless you get some valuable info from a terrorist.

Are you seriously suggesting that in the face of a verified terrorist threat that could result in the death or injury of thousands of americans, you still feel that we should not authorize whatever form of interrogation is likely to yield the best results?

These are excellent questions. First, everyone can think of unlikely situations that can challenge our abilities to find solutions that everyone will agree with.

The sort of torture that the administration sanctions involves things such as sleep deprivation, sleeping on concrete floors when you are allowed to sleep, bright lights in the cell 24/7, loud music, left naked in cold cell, not allowed to sit or lie down.

These are not the sort of techniques that would work in the thought experiment you are posing. These techniques take too much time.

Are you recommending techniques that don’t require much time?  Are you suggesting methods such as pulling out fingernails, crushing the hands and toes and cutting off fingers, hands, and toes?

Would I authorize whatever form of interrogation is likely to yield the best results?

This seems too open ended.  I would authorize proven interrogations methods short of torture.

Let me ask you a question. Are you a full-bore utilitarian who has no regard for (the technical term is) deontic moral principles?  Whatever results in a good outcome is justified.  If taking all your money and property and giving it to the poor produces a a good outcome is it morally justified?

Or imagine unjustifiably accusing you of a crime and cutting off your hands to show others the consequences of that sort of crime.  If it results in a good outcome--reduction in crime then it’s morally permissible?



How far are you willing to take the principle that the ends justify the means?







 

[Saving American Lives or Terrorists' Feelings?]

Saving American Lives or Terrorists' Feelings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted GMT 10-15-2007 16:13:3                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every candidate for president of the United States should be pressed to answer one fundamental question: How far is he or she willing to go in the interrogation of suspected terrorist captives to protect the American people from another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse?

No generalities or platitudes, please, nor any nonsense about refusing to respond to hypothetical situations. The president is faced with these threats every day and we have a right to know how a candidate will react in dealing with them. And certainly we should reject out of hand any statements about having to check first with the lawyers. The buck stops with the president when it comes to protecting the lives of the American people.

If a candidate believes that stress positions, sleep deprivation, subjection to continuous loud noise, isolation, extreme temperature variations or waterboarding are off the table as coercive interrogation techniques no matter what, he or she should go on the record and say so. And we should reject that candidate as unfit for office as well as any candidate who will not give us a frank answer.

To be more specific, lets take the case of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. After being captured, he was locked away in a secret CIA detention facility and reportedly subjected to waterboarding, which is an interrogation technique that simulates the feeling of drowning without any possibility of a drowning actually taking place. The CIA believes that this is an especially effective psychological technique for breaking resistance to interrogation. It reportedly broke Khalid Mohammed's resistance after two minutes, leading to his revealing of actionable intelligence that may have contributed to saving thousands of American lives. All the candidates should have to face the American people and say what they would have done differently to obtain this information or whether they would have simply let Mohammed alone when he did not spill the beans voluntarily and risked the devastating consequences of inaction.

For the sake of argument, we will concede that waterboarding is a form of extreme psychological pressure that a reasonable person could regard as rising to the level of torture. We will also concede that there is uncertainty in the accuracy of the information elicited from this interrogation technique. Mohammed might have said anything to end his pain and suffering.

The issue is how we balance this terrorist mastermind's short-term pain and suffering against the potential for saving American lives with information that would not be possible to elicit from him via the type of questioning that the police normally use with common criminals. Remember that Mohammed already had the blood of 3000 innocent people on his hands. Most Americans would likely worry less over how this excuse for a human being and his cohorts are treated during their interrogation sessions than about finding out in time what additional devilish plots they may have put in motion or know about.

We often hear the argument that America should not debase its own values by employing the atrocious methods of its enemies. This moral equivalence argument is completely bogus. The Islamic fanatics, who included Khalid Mohammed, massacre innocent people on a massive scale to please Allah. Aggressive intelligence is part of our strategic war against the terrorist leaders whose followers launched an unprovoked attack on our civilian population. If and when we use techniques as intense as waterboarding, we do so as a last resort to obtain critical information needed to prevent the recurrence of such massacres.

Two minutes of waterboarding, where the interrogated captive is never in danger of death himself and will suffer only momentary fear of the fate that he so gleefully assigns to others, is hardly the same as the horrifically painful experience of being beheaded or being forced to watch a loved one murdered in such fashion, much less the suffering endured by the 9/11 victims and their families.

In short, the end game of the terrorists' jihad is to kill themselves and others in order to recreate their Islamic caliphate on earth and buy a ticket to paradise. Our end game is to save lives. One needs to look at the context and reasons for a given action before making superficial comparisons. Put another way, where the harm to innocent people likely to occur without the information needed to stop an attack in time is greater than the harm inflicted during the course of the interrogation that elicits such information, the balance should be struck in favor of protecting the would-be victims of the attack.

<>

http://www.aina.org/news/20071015111303.htm

That means that your child can't leave, and the school is being locked down by the terrorists. To keep it simple, your child dies unless you get some valuable info from a terrorist.

Are you seriously suggesting that in the face of a verified terrorist threat that could result in the death or injury of thousands of americans, you still feel that we should not authorize whatever form of interrogation is likely to yield the best results?

These are excellent questions. First, everyone can think of unlikely situations that can challenge our abilities to find solutions that everyone will agree with.

The sort of torture that the administration sanctions involves things such as sleep deprivation, sleeping on concrete floors when you are allowed to sleep, bright lights in the cell 24/7, loud music, left naked in cold cell, not allowed to sit or lie down.

These are not the sort of techniques that would work in the thought experiment you are posing. These techniques take too much time.

Are you recommending techniques that don’t require much time?  Are you suggesting methods such as pulling out fingernails, crushing the hands and toes and cutting off fingers, hands, and toes?

Would I authorize whatever form of interrogation is likely to yield the best results?

This seems too open ended.  I would authorize proven interrogations methods short of torture.

Let me ask you a question. Are you a full-bore utilitarian who has no regard for (the technical term is) deontic moral principles?  Whatever results in a good outcome is justified.  If taking all your money and property and giving it to the poor produces a a good outcome is it morally justified?

Or imagine unjustifiably accusing you of a crime and cutting off your hands to show others the consequences of that sort of crime.  If it results in a good outcome--reduction in crime then it’s morally permissible?



How far are you willing to take the principle that the ends justify the means?

IS:

I view the probability of terrorist attacks on soft targets as very high, as does the department of homeland security. The drills they ran last month in Columbus included Worthington's middle schools, for example, and while there are detailed plans for how to deal with such threats, it really is just a matter of time. I wish you were right. I wish the world was as benign and our enemies as incompetent as you seem to think, but that kind of utopia is a thing of the past.

As to what would work to achieve the best results in the time available, I'd leave that to the experts, although I've found that having to listen to Hillary Clinton for any amount of time might achieve the desired result faster than any of the more invasive measures you mention.

You seem to want to argue in absolutes where, obviously, each situation must be evaluated independently. As a general principle, redistribution of wealth is bad for society, however, we pragmatically  realize that there will always be *some* redistribution of wealth. So it is with interrogation, crime etc..


 

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)

Every candidate for president of the United States should be pressed to answer one fundamental question: How far is he or she willing to go in the interrogation of suspected terrorist captives to protect the American people from another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse?

I agree with you. As long as its part of a mature, calm, rational discussion. This is impossible in American politics.

What do you do if a candidate lies-- Remember the current little man occupying of the White House:







 

The terrorist must just love the:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)

what a joke - what would you rather do, give them a big hug.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)

what a joke

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)

If you don't like that, how about this:

"No one shall be protected from the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
Westcoast Declaration of Human Rights, 2007

Or,

"Liberals shall not be protected from the use ...."

Or,

Anyone I suspect of a crime shall not be protected ...."


Or, There simply should be no human rights.

I guess as a utilitarian you wouldn't recognize the existence of human rights.
Are you simply a "might makes right" Machiavellian?



 

I have said this before...
Bush is out of office soon: Will you be safer under President Hillary Clinton?
Will President Hillary Clinton know how to deal with the Islamic Radical Terrorists?
Will President Hillary Clinton command respect from those who plan to use suicide bomb vests or take your elementary school hostage?

I think our government has failed miserably securing our borders.
I don't think they have taken the threat seriously.
I think the spending on Homeland Security is a joke while our southern border is wide open.

But, I predict that when Hillary Clinton is President all this debate about torture will end.  It was the same with Bill Clinton as President, all complaints about the homeless were suspended.
The Left has so worn out the U.S. citizen with their bitching and moaning a lot of people are looking forward to some relief from it when Hillary is President. Of course, people forget that Bin Laden planned his 9-11 attack before Bush stole the election.



 

IS- I would use torture, and or what ever it took to save people from being massacred, by sickos who don't care a flying fornication about US, and or international law.