I thought Bush did get credit for that?[/qoute] Oh I'm sure he did get credit but not nearly as much as Obama is for saying yeah go ahead and kill him.
[qoute]So now you're justifying the use of torture.
When it comes to people who would like to do nothing more before they die than to kill thousands of innocent people I wouldn't say that's it's cruel in the least bit.
Just want to throw this in here...was talking with a classmate of mine the other day and he presented his argument for why he thought Obama was a bad president. Ought to be a good laugh for you all 1) He wasn't born in this country 2) He said he would lower debt by 2.9 million but rose it 9 million (yes...he said million) 3) He is homosexual I'm not paraphrasing what he said,,,those are what he said word-for-word These are not my views...I cannot express that enough. Just some complete idiot I have a class with
You know it's a major crime in Mexico to own a gun, look how well that turned out. ===== mexico is a case on it's own. plz. dont deny the civil war over drugs. you can't compare mexico's homicide rate whit any other nation.
Giving Bush credit for the death of Osama bin Laden is somethiing that Fox News might try to pull off. Claiming that all Obama wanted in his first term was a second term is a slur on his integrity. I believe that the President had better things to do than just campaign for reelection.
It's justifiable in the sense that it ensures the survival of the state. In that regards, it would be a greater moral crime for a state to not use forceful interrogation and jeopardize it's citezens lives by not having access to certain information.
As for the whole "Who *really* killed Bin Laden" thing, I agree with MageGreyWolf. Obama ought to recieve credit for making the call, the intelligence community and operators for doing what they do, and Bush for prioritizing the removal of such individuals. But honestly, does it really matter? Bin Laden will be just as dead regardless of who ultimately gets credit.
It's justifiable in the sense that it ensures the survival of the state. In that regards, it would be a greater moral crime for a state to not use forceful interrogation and jeopardize it's citezens lives by not having access to certain information.
What about if the person being tortured was falsely accused of knowing vital information? Eventually, he will give some b.s. info just to make it stop...that doesn't seem to help the survival of the state
It would be hypocritical for the USA to criticise the abuse of human rights in other countries and then use the same tortures those countries use, It's crazy if you depose Saddam Hussain and then become Saddam Hussein. Torturing people to ensure the survival of the state is medieval. This is 2012. If you believe in such torture whose America are you protecting?
What about if the person being tortured was falsely accused of knowing vital information? Eventually, he will give some b.s. info just to make it stop...that doesn't seem to help the survival of the state
Because your idea of how forcedul interrogation works is wrong: You have a basis of information that then prompts you who to interrogate. IE, we know this and this, which means that this guy will likely know something. Furthermore, such information gained from interrogation is held up to other information to determine its veracity.
Forceful Interrogation isn't the sole method for information procurement, but is used in conjunction with other methods.
Giving Bush credit for the death of Osama bin Laden is somethiing that Fox News might try to pull off.
This my friends, is the epitome of hypocrisy. When Obama messes up he U.S.A. It's bushes fault, but when a terrorist gets killed it's all because of Obama.
What about if the person being tortured was falsely accused of knowing vital information? Eventually, he will give some b.s. info just to make it stop...that doesn't seem to help the survival of the state
Yes but it's worth the risk, they would torture anybody if it meant information, then they'd kill you when you've told them everything. And should that happen hen he victim should receive major compensation, but it would be worth it because it could potentially save thousands of lives.
Ok partydevil, since you seem insistent on gun control let me tell you about something that I heard a first hand account of back in a "get out the vote rally" in 2010. A woman who's name escapes me had her gun and carried it won her everywhere, we'll one day she went out to eat with her parents at a Lubies (I think) restaurant with a no gun rule, so she decided there was no real need for a gun so she left it in her van. During the dinner a car slammed through into he restaurant and of course everyone was going to see if he was ok, and he started shooting everyone, killed both of her parents and she couldn't do anything about any of it because she didn't have her gun with her. Well when the police arrived they randomly shot one bullet and after that happened the shooter killed himself. Who knows how many lives could have been saved if she only had her gun and shot into the cieling. Before you go and say "see there needs to be gun control" tell me about how criminals obey laws.
Because your idea of how forcedul interrogation works is wrong: You have a basis of information that then prompts you who to interrogate. IE, we know this and this, which means that this guy will likely know something. Furthermore, such information gained from interrogation is held up to other information to determine its veracity.
Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay? You know..that really famous prison? Did you know a majority of the prisoners there are only there because someone claimed they were apart of terrorist organizations? No proof of them being in one...just someone making a claim.
It's like this..someone comes to AG and says that if we know if someone is a terrorist to tell them. I, for some reason, have a strong disliking for you, so I tell them you are one because of my hate. They then take you away and begin torturing you for info on the group you are now apparently a part of
Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay? You know..that really famous prison? Did you know a majority of the prisoners there are only there because someone claimed they were apart of terrorist organizations? No proof of them being in one...just someone making a claim.
And thus they were summarily released. I contest your notion that enhanced interrogation was/is as widespread as you seem to believe. Tack some proof onto that?
And my original point still stands, that enhanced interrogation preserves the safety of a state. The interrogation of terrorist works to keep the US safe, and is perfectly justifiable in that end.
And thus they were summarily released. I contest your notion that enhanced interrogation was/is as widespread as you seem to believe. Tack some proof onto that?
