The Repub Debate

[Landlord]

 

 

With the types of individuals we're talking about using enhanced interrogation techniques on, I'm all for taking the risk that "it doesn't work" every time. Earlier, I said if it works 1 in 1000 times, it's worth it, but I'd go further than that. If the interrogator is able to squeeze some information out of these people 1 in a million times, and is able to use that info to save the lives of innocent people, I'm all for it. (and for the record, I believe the rate would be much higher than that)

Someone in your town is suspected of being a terrorist. How many people in your town are you OK with having tortured to find out who the terrorist is?

 

Are you OK with your mom being tortured?

 

Your dad?

 

Sister?

 

Brother?

 

Wife?

 

Son?

 

Daughter?

 

Best friend?

 

Neighbor?

 

Even if they're all innocent, but eventually we get to the bad guy, is it OK that we tortured all your loved ones?

That's not even remotely what we're talking about. Why would my loved ones be tortured if they're not terrorists? You lost me.

 

 

 

 

Because intel says your loved ones have a statistical likelihood of knowing who, and where, the terrorist is. We HAVE to find the terrorist. That terrorist could be plotting to kill hundreds of people for all we know. The guy down the street said he thought he might have seen the terrorist at your parents place once. Your parents aren't terrorists, but they're not cooperative either, so whatever means necessary to extract that info is what needs to be done to save the lives of innocent Americans.

[HuskerShark]

And this, my friends, is why we have the 2nd amendment.

[HuskerShark]

To answer your questions, American citizens ought to be protected by the full rights of American citizenship, and by those basic rights, it would be unlawful for them to be tortured.

[Landlord]

But who cares about the non-Americans? Do whatever we have to to them to serve our needs. They don't like it? Should have chosen to be born somewhere else.

[Army_Allen]

To answer your questions, American citizens ought to be protected by the full rights of American citizenship, and by those basic rights, it would be unlawful for them to be tortured.

Holy f'ing Christ. Just like black people weren't protected by that same law not so long ago, huh? They're f'ing people who didn't do anything, I wouldn't torture your f'ing family like I wouldn't torture an entire village of innocents just to find a terrorist when we are advanced enough to find the guy in some other way.

[Army_Allen]

For those against waterboarding, why are you against it? It is just because it is a law? If so, if the law was changed would you be okay with it?

Why are people against marijuana? Is it just because it's against the law? If so, if the law changed, would you be okay with it?

[teachercd]

 

For those against waterboarding, why are you against it? It is just because it is a law? If so, if the law was changed would you be okay with it?

Why are people against marijuana? Is it just because it's against the law? If so, if the law changed, would you be okay with it?

 

Honestly, yeah. I am totally okay with it and I was totally against it at one point.

[HuskerShark]

But who cares about the non-Americans? Do whatever we have to to them to serve our needs. They don't like it? Should have chosen to be born somewhere else.

That's not the point at all. We're talking about incredibly dangerous, evil people with ISIS. They'd take out our families without thinking twice. Can't win against them without some deadly force.

 

I've always been and still am someone who would rather there not be war at all, but when it comes to defeating evil groups, I'm ok with doing what's necessary.

[knapplc]

Wow is the point being missed here. And you people are voting? WOW.

 

You're giving the government carte blanche to torture "the bad guys" to get information. You're saying it's OK if they torture innocent people, EVEN MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, to get the info they want.

 

And it's all OK because it's ISIS, and they're "the bad guys."



Guess what? "The Bad Guys" aren't defined by you. And you DO NOT control the government. And if you give the government free rein to decide who "the bad guys" are, some silly thing like being "American" DOES NOT MATTER.

 

 

THERE IS SUCH A THING AS DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.

 

 

This is understood, right? Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, the idiot who shot up Fort Hood... these are Americans. These are "the bad guys."

 

You get that, right? That's not a difficult concept, right?

 

 

 

 

You're giving the government a green light to torture "the bad guys." What happens when they decide "the bad guys" are in YOUR TOWN?!?!?

 

 

Oh, that won't happen, knapplc! The government is on our side! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !

 

 

 

Sheesh. Wake up. Kent State. Berkeley. These were AMERICANS. They were people who looked, acted, talked and behaved just like you, and your family.

 

 

Good lord. This is what Americans have become. Mindless sheeple who think "the government" is going to make the right decisions.

 

 

"That's not even remotely what we're talking about."

 

 

You have GOT to be kidding me.

[Moiraine]

Not sure why you're trying so hard knapp. It's hopeless.

[Moiraine]

 

But who cares about the non-Americans? Do whatever we have to to them to serve our needs. They don't like it? Should have chosen to be born somewhere else.

That's not the point at all. We're talking about incredibly dangerous, evil people with ISIS. They'd take out our families without thinking twice. Can't win against them without some deadly force.

 

I've always been and still am someone who would rather there not be war at all, but when it comes to defeating evil groups, I'm ok with doing what's necessary.

 

 

No, that's not who you're talking about. You're talking about torturing a 999,999 innocent people to save some lives. Are you implying there are innocent members of ISIS?

 

Also, we're not talking about deadly force here. We're talking about torture. I'm not against killing members of ISIS but I am against torturing people.

[knapplc]

Not sure why you're trying so hard knapp. It's hopeless.

 

It's not difficult to trip my fingers over a keyboard for a couple minutes. I don't have to try hard to poke holes in these silly concepts. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't diverting. Incredulous entertainment is still entertainment.

[BigRedBuster]

Why are so many conservatives ok with giving the government this type of power then be so fearful of the government doing things here at home?

 

Isn't that hypocritical?

[Danny Bateman]

 

With the types of individuals we're talking about using enhanced interrogation techniques on, I'm all for taking the risk that "it doesn't work" every time. Earlier, I said if it works 1 in 1000 times, it's worth it, but I'd go further than that. If the interrogator is able to squeeze some information out of these people 1 in a million times, and is able to use that info to save the lives of innocent people, I'm all for it. (and for the record, I believe the rate would be much higher than that)

Someone in your town is suspected of being a terrorist. How many people in your town are you OK with having tortured to find out who the terrorist is?

 

Are you OK with your mom being tortured?

 

Your dad?

 

Sister?

 

Brother?

 

Wife?

 

Son?

 

Daughter?

 

Best friend?

 

Neighbor?

 

Even if they're all innocent, but eventually we get to the bad guy, is it OK that we tortured all your loved ones?

 

 

This is the epitome of putting a face on the faceless.

[Danny Bateman]

ITT: