Reply With Quote
Agreed. If it's about transparency, let's give the whole story. Without it, how can we be sure that this isn't anything other than an attempt by one group to make their political rivals look bad.
I'm not either, but what does that have to do with whether or not our government should clue us in on the value, if any, of the information those interrogations obtained?
Agreed. If it's about transparency, let's give the whole story. Without it, how can we be sure that this isn't anything other than an attempt by one group to make their political rivals look bad.
It doesn't.
We don't even know if the "value" of interrogations has even been formally assessed by our government yet, and we might risk of giving away methods, iden ies or other helpful information to our enemies if we declassify too much.
It'd be nice to have the cer ude that torture saved lives, if you think the ends justify the means. I don't.
no--that's work product of the agency. if any crimes are charged as a result, then maybe.
Why can't it be both at the same time?
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 11:55 AM.
Wasn't this already released in excruciating detail?
We've just barely scratched the surface, IMO.
Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy ed up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.
I don't know whether the ends justify the means or not because I have no clue what the "ends" are. I respect your opinion, I just don't see why you think it's a bad thing for me to have the whole story from the government before I form mine. Maybe this isn't you specifically, but I just sense that a lot of the opposition to releasing all the information is rooted in a fear of potentially discovering that these interrogations just might be saving lives, thus making it harder to condemn the actions of an unpopular administration.
Because one involves letting people paint their own picture and one involves the government painting it for them.
What city are you willing to sacrifice?
As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more? Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?
"24" is a TV fantasy, not a do entary.
Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.
Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?
IMO it's both at the same time. If it is the former, the people can and will paint it to suit their political preconceptions; if the latter, grano salis, of course, but the political purpose does not necessarily dispel the revealed facts.
It is a point of guile for propaganda to base itself on the truth wherever possible. The public, being used to the deception by long abuse, reads between the lines and tries to divine the truth, although at a very great disadvantage, which you emphasize...
Out of solicitude for torturers and torture apologists, evidence should be declassified so they can cherry pick it for support. Bull . Go ahead and release it anyway, but not to pacify crybaby torturers or their political toadies.
Absolutely not. But when I see posters jumping to conclusions without any evidence, I'll point it out. Don't give me any of that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence crap. Back up your take. The evidence may not back Cheney up.
The inference that Obama has hidden evidence that will back Cheney up is mischievous, indecorous and totally threadbare.
Consider also that other countries may detect war crimes in the requested information, and may also consider official disclosure of *enhanced interrogation* to be tantamount to a profession of legal responsibility for torture and war crimes.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 01:26 PM.
Would you allow one of your kids to be taken away, imprisoned and tortured for several years if it resulted in world peace? A hypothetical.
"hypothetical" torture is an intellectual indulgence that allows you to avoid grabbling with the real life problem that real life torture will induce real life people to say...anything.Hypotheticals are situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real.
But most torture supporters prefer to indulge in this pretense:
Last edited by PixelPusher; 04-21-2009 at 01:08 PM.
Since I live in the real world and not some "it's a small world after all, let's all hold hands Utopia", my answer is no.
First of all, what's "grabbling"?
No one I know of is a torture "supporter".
spell fail. I meant "grappling"
I'm not a big MMA fan.
The only thing being sacrificed here is the integrity of our nation. How could you possibly claim any moral authority on anybody when you reduce yourself to the worst s on this planet? The very same s we claim we're fighting hard to eradicate.
We all like to think we're better than that, but it's obvious some aren't.
Last edited by ElNono; 04-21-2009 at 01:20 PM.
The circularity and question begging is remarkable for such a short post. The poster is alleged to put entire cities at hazard by rejecting torture as immoral. Inferentially, torture reliably works and protects us from mass murder. (Wow. Just like TV.)
You are suggesting there is some magic threshold of human lives that makes torture acceptable.
In Bentham and Mills' hedonistic calculus maybe there is, but not in judeo-christian morality.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 04:29 PM.
I'm personally not against more disclosure. However, I'd like to see a little more outrage about this situation. Putting Cheney on the air and asking him nice questions about this topic is akin to conducting an interview with a murderer and asking him if you get a nice feeling when you end somebody's life. They should be letting him know what a ing he is, not trying to rationalize if it was all worth it.
Of course it wouldn't be. Specially because waterboarding is not the ONLY way to obtain that information. And I'm certainly hoping you're explaining your kids that there is a price to pay to live free. But that living free is a whole lot better than living in fear.
El Nono: The US isn't ready to face it. DarrinS thinks 24 is a work of non-fiction. So do many others.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 01:29 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions