Ventura: If waterboarding is fine, why don't the cops do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Have you ever even READ the constitution? You're making a strong argument for being the most uninformed non-troll poster on Spurstalk.

---

You pussy. You are defending murderers. If ur big brain thinks about it for a minute you are defending serial killers. That's the scenario I described. A known killer that knows where other dead people are. You being the fag u are bring up the constitution.

I know the police will never be allowed to waterboard. They can't let a guy go see his dying mother 100 feet away because they think writting a ticket is more important. They can't pull a pastor out of a car without beating his ass after all is safe. I get that. But for you to think that we shouldn't waterboard or torture a known killer to find out more information about what this freak has done is stupid.

If a guy kidnaps a kid and the FBI picks this kidnapper up at the 7-11, again we know for a fact he is the one who kidnapped the kid, chain his ass up and start doing whatever you can do to try to save the kid. There is no "what ifs", he did it, this is my scene. We know he did it and the kid is still out there. What would you do to find out if you can save the kid? I say do anything. You say it's not constitutional. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You pussy. You are defending murderers. If ur big brain thinks about it for a minute you are defending serial killers. That's the scenario I described. A known killer that knows where other dead people are. You being the fag u are bring up the constitution.

I know the police will never be allowed to waterboard. They can't let a guy go see his dying mother 100 feet away because they think writting a ticket is more important. They can't pull a pastor out of a car without beating his ass after all is safe. I get that. But for you to think that we shouldn't waterboard or torture a known killer to find out more information about what this freak has done is stupid.

If a guy kidnaps a kid and the FBI picks this kidnapper up at the 7-11, again we know for a fact he is the one who kidnapped the kid, chain his ass up and start doing whatever you can do to try to save the kid. There is no "what ifs", he did it, this is my scene. We know he did it and the kid is still out there. What would you do to find out if you can save the kid? I say do anything. You say it's not constitutional. :lol

---

Welcome to my sig.

It's funny: I remember hearing that the point of the war on terror was that terrorists hated our way of life and that we must stand up to them to protect our way of life.

Eroding the protection of civil liberties in the name of security and engaging in acts that are justified as being protective against perceived threats through conduct that has some sort of moral equivalence with what the enemy might do to us sure strike me as pillars of the American way of life. I, for one, am glad that we haven't at all strayed from first principles in fighting this war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Welcome to my sig.

---

:lol That's it. You should work for Olberman as his editor. Let the people hear what they want them to hear without any explanation. Nice going fag. You sure showed me. :sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You pussy. You are defending murderers. If ur big brain thinks about it for a minute you are defending serial killers. That's the scenario I described. A known killer that knows where other dead people are. You being the fag u are bring up the constitution.

I know the police will never be allowed to waterboard. They can't let a guy go see his dying mother 100 feet away because they think writting a ticket is more important. They can't pull a pastor out of a car without beating his ass after all is safe. I get that. But for you to think that we shouldn't waterboard or torture a known killer to find out more information about what this freak has done is stupid.

If a guy kidnaps a kid and the FBI picks this kidnapper up at the 7-11, again we know for a fact he is the one who kidnapped the kid, chain his ass up and start doing whatever you can do to try to save the kid. There is no "what ifs", he did it, this is my scene. We know he did it and the kid is still out there. What would you do to find out if you can save the kid? I say do anything. You say it's not constitutional. :lol

---

Even better, let's put a bullet in the back of the skull of anyone who cannot provide for themselves. It's time we remove that drag on our public resources. And hey, it would be good for the environment to get rid of some excess CO2 emitting humans. Most of them are old anyways. Nobody cares about old people except for when Hallmark makes us feel guilty about them around certain holidays.

Our government would be more efficient without such nuisances as dissent protected by free speech and trifling matters such as votes. Constitution? :lol Who the fuck believes in that anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

It's funny: I remember hearing that the point of the war on terror was that terrorists hated our way of life and that we must stand up to them to protect our way of life.

Eroding the protection of civil liberties in the name of security and engaging in acts that are justified as being protective against perceived threats through conduct that has some sort of moral equivalence with what the enemy might do to us sure strike me as pillars of the American way of life. I, for one, am glad that we haven't at all strayed from first principles in fighting this war.

---

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives. It's that simple. We know 100 percent that if we get this person to talk it will save lives plus he is a killer. No questions about if we have the right guy. He is it. What's wrong with beating this prick, pouring acid on his cock, peeling back his finger nails in order to prevent a death.

What happens when the state takes the ol' acid on the genitals routine and applies it to those who haven't killed anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives. It's that simple. We know 100 percent that if we get this person to talk it will save lives plus he is a killer. No questions about if we have the right guy. He is it. What's wrong with beating this prick, pouring acid on his cock, peeling back his finger nails in order to prevent a death.

---

First of all this is counterfactual. It hasn't been proven this is the case, in fact our intel says it's doubtful.

Second of all, if expedience makes torture okay for terrorists, who's next?

Thirdly, we do know that torture policy has damaged American prestige, perhaps irreversibly, and is basically an Al Qaeda recruitment poster by now. Torture makes enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

What happens when the state takes the ol' acid on the genitals routine and applies it to those who haven't killed anyone?

---

That's not what I am asking. We know we have the right guy. What's wrong with torturing him to save lives?

The ultimate thug is the state. Why the fuck do we want to expand its power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

First of all this is counterfactual. It hasn't been proven this is the case, in fact our intel says it's doubtful.

Second of all, if expedience makes torture okay for terrorists, who's next?

Thirdly, we do know that torture policy has damaged American prestige, perhaps irreversibly, and is basically an Al Qaeda recruitment poster by now. Torture makes enemies.

---

Altogether now. Click your heels and say "they hate us because we're us" three times.

And worship at the altar of state power. That's what *reel conservatives* do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives. It's that simple. We know 100 percent that if we get this person to talk it will save lives plus he is a killer. No questions about if we have the right guy. He is it. What's wrong with beating this prick, pouring acid on his cock, peeling back his finger nails in order to prevent a death.

---

Far be it of me to actually believe you'll listen to rationality at this point, but here goes: You're a murderer on the run from the cops. You've killed six people to this point (the cops only know of 3 of the murders), there's good evidence you'll be found guilty, and you have a compulsion that makes you want to kill again.

You walk into a situation where there are a lot of civilians around, and it's at this point that a few cops spot you, and recognize your face as the one that's similar to the sketch they have of the guy who's making himself known as a serial murderer.

Would you be more likely to surrender peaceably, knowing you still have basic human rights like the right to trial? What's the mindset of a man who knows he's going to be tortured in every possible way when there are 400 people around and just a few cops? Do you really think he's going to surrender willingly knowing he's going to be tortured for information?

^^^The same goes for the battlefield. Torture needlessly endangers our troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives.

---

You mean other than: (1) our treaties prohibiting the use of torture; and (2) our constitutional guarantees against such things?

Yeah, other than that, nothing, I guess.

I know the answer already. You don't have to answer. You think u will lose ur cred. You guys would tear apart another human being if you thought you could save a loved ones life. Cry Havoc would tear another man's asshole apart for any reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Far be it of me to actually believe you'll listen to rationality at this point, but here goes: You're a murderer on the run from the cops. You've killed six people to this point (the cops only know of 3 of the murders), there's good evidence you'll be found guilty, and you have a compulsion that makes you want to kill again.

You walk into a situation where there are a lot of civilians around, and it's at this point that a few cops spot you, and recognize your face as the one that's similar to the sketch they have of the guy who's making himself known as a serial murderer.

Would you be more likely to surrender peaceably, knowing you still have basic human rights like the right to trial? What's the mindset of a man who knows he's going to be tortured in every possible way when there are 400 people around and just a few cops? Do you really think he's going to surrender willingly knowing he's going to be tortured for information?

---

Or suppose that instead of jacksommerset who had undertaken those murders, it was his identical twin brother (who jacksommerset doesn't know to be the killer), but the police apprehended the completely-innocent jacksommerset instead.

I'm sure jacksommerset would be down with being tortured because, after all, we reserve that treatment only for those who have already killed.

^^^Your attachment to the rule of law is a quaint, pre-9/11 vestige of Americanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawrence Wilkerson

...no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Far be it of me to actually believe you'll listen to rationality at this point, but here goes: You're a murderer on the run from the cops. You've killed six people to this point (the cops only know of 3 of the murders), there's good evidence you'll be found guilty, and you have a compulsion that makes you want to kill again.

You walk into a situation where there are a lot of civilians around, and it's at this point that a few cops spot you, and recognize your face as the one that's similar to the sketch they have of the guy who's making himself known as a serial murderer.

Would you be more likely to surrender peaceably, knowing you still have basic human rights like the right to trial? What's the mindset of a man who knows he's going to be tortured in every possible way when there are 400 people around and just a few cops? Do you really think he's going to surrender willingly knowing he's going to be tortured for information?

---

:lol Alright. I am officailly bailing out of this conversation today. Surrender? Shot? Stabbed? Tasered? Whatever.... We have the guy. Like I said earlier. you guys will fuck the bad guy up.

^^^A wise choice. You had no ammo to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

You mean other than: (1) our treaties prohibiting the use of torture; and (2) our constitutional guarantees against such things?

Yeah, other than that, nothing, I guess.

---

We can change the constitution. It's our country. Isn't there slavery laws in the constitution? You kill thousand of our people, you throw out the treaties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

^^^A wise choice. You had no ammo to start with.

---

That's not true. I am dealing with irrational people.

Remarkable . You do it without responding to a single rational objection. There have been many. Your batting average so far is .000.

Tell me Jack, if torture is so necessary to our safety, why did GWB forgo it completely from 2005-2009? By your argument, he endangered us all.