Reply With Quote
Oh, the bad people. Got it.
I'm sure there are a lot of things that the CIA, FBI, military, etc. do that your average citizen might find morally questionable. As long as they are doing it to very bad people and for the protection innocent people, I just don't lose sleep over it.
Oh, the bad people. Got it.
Good thing Obama closed Gitmo and all those "black sites".
Eh, Darrin lies as easily as he breathes. There's no need to wonder about what he considers moral.
We already know it was done to dozens of detainees freed on habeas appeals -- cases in which the courts found there was no credible legal basis for detaining them in the first place, let alone torturing them.As long as they are doing it to very bad people and for the protection innocent people, I just don't lose sleep over it.
Care to reconsider?
Gitmo would be closed if Americans weren't such pussies.
And "black sites"? You are claiming factual knowledge of black sites now?
Tell us all how you know this to be a concrete fact.
Innocent people were killed in order to kill bin Laden. happens.
the clown came back. lol
He never said what he was lying about though.
lowlifes can't handle the damage.
The Japanese military thought live vivisection of allied POWs was an effective way of gaining medical information.
They also saved the lives of their military by testing artillery s s and bioweapons on prisoners.
As long as we are debating what is effective, and setting aside the question of morality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
I will spare you the imagery. It is not pleasant.
It seems whole new vistas of potential information open up when you aren't concerned about such petty things like right and wrong.
I'm sure they only get the guilty people, 100% of the time.
Also, no one innocent dies in wars; therefore we don't need to think about unintended casualties when we go to war.
Couldn't disagree with you more. Our global prestige and our reputation as a square-dealer were innocent bystanders too, but got capped just the same.
Vive la difference.
Are there SOME cases where they are 100% SURE they have the right person?
Also, nothing is morally reprehensible as long as the person is guilty and may have info.
They were only 60-80% sure OBL was at that compound.
We also subjected our soldiers to torture, by putting harsh interrogation without clear guidelines or oversight, into their hands to administer. We made them torture people.
(burp)
and yet we're 100% sure that you lied.
IMHO, enhanced interrogation has nothing on choosing to burn or jump 100 stories to your death, but that's just me.
For the sake of argument, sure. So they do what they have to. No need to make a law allowing it; let a jury decide if the person made the right decision.
Codifying it into law allows widespread usage of torture in cases where it isn't necessary, on people that may not be guilty.
So as long as we are better than homicidal terrorists, we are in the right.good logic, about what I'd expect from you.
Fair enough.
So as long as we are better than homicidal terrorists, we are in the right.
America first.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions