Re: Florida State Seminoles
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:44 pm
Don't know if you guys caught the debate the other night on CBS - the topic of killing an American came up as well as torture.
I continue to be stunned at how many politicians step on this concept.
Gingrich led the charge speaking authoritatively that the American had been found guilty of being an enemy combatant ( he didn't get into the details of who actually gets to make that declaration but he was reminded it wasn't in a court of law) and then went on , at one point, about the value of torture and waterboarding.
This was Newt Gingrich in 1997 after meeting with the Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
“There is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions… the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend.”
Remember back in 1997 when we had our shit together and our biggest concern was a president getting a hummer between meetings?
From Jack Hunter
"Let me be perfectly clear: If the life of my mother, father, child, friend, or basically anyone I loved could be saved by doing horrible things to some horrible person, I would do it. In fact, most normal people wouldn’t mind hurting some bad guy to save the lives of good guys.
The question of torture is not whether in some Hollywood-style, almost-never-happening life-or-death scenario, we should use it. Those who view the issue of waterboarding in this absurd light—an interrogation method everyone from Ronald Reagan to the United States military during World War II has rightly called torture—are being completely unreasonable in their general premise.
The most basic question concerning torture is whether, as a general rule, it should be endorsed. The question is whether it actually works as an interrogation tactic, which most experts say it doesn’t. The question is whether or not torture should be an acceptable rule of thumb for any civilized society.
The question is whether or not torture should be the official policy of the United States.
For most of our history, that answer has been an emphatic “no!”
Most of this year’s Republican presidential candidates care little to nothing about such questions because they know little to nothing about history, know or care little to nothing about our conventional Judeo-Christian Western morality, they know even less about the history of the conservative movement, and most seem content to try to look “tough” in front of GOP primary audiences by explicitly endorsing the use of torture, or, excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This view on torture extends to these Republican candidates’ extremely anti-conservative views on civil liberties, recklessness concerning the constitutional powers of the Executive branch, and these candidates’ general dismissal of some of the most basic concepts and precepts of American law."
I continue to be stunned at how many politicians step on this concept.
Gingrich led the charge speaking authoritatively that the American had been found guilty of being an enemy combatant ( he didn't get into the details of who actually gets to make that declaration but he was reminded it wasn't in a court of law) and then went on , at one point, about the value of torture and waterboarding.
This was Newt Gingrich in 1997 after meeting with the Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
“There is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions… the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend.”
Remember back in 1997 when we had our shit together and our biggest concern was a president getting a hummer between meetings?
From Jack Hunter
"Let me be perfectly clear: If the life of my mother, father, child, friend, or basically anyone I loved could be saved by doing horrible things to some horrible person, I would do it. In fact, most normal people wouldn’t mind hurting some bad guy to save the lives of good guys.
The question of torture is not whether in some Hollywood-style, almost-never-happening life-or-death scenario, we should use it. Those who view the issue of waterboarding in this absurd light—an interrogation method everyone from Ronald Reagan to the United States military during World War II has rightly called torture—are being completely unreasonable in their general premise.
The most basic question concerning torture is whether, as a general rule, it should be endorsed. The question is whether it actually works as an interrogation tactic, which most experts say it doesn’t. The question is whether or not torture should be an acceptable rule of thumb for any civilized society.
The question is whether or not torture should be the official policy of the United States.
For most of our history, that answer has been an emphatic “no!”
Most of this year’s Republican presidential candidates care little to nothing about such questions because they know little to nothing about history, know or care little to nothing about our conventional Judeo-Christian Western morality, they know even less about the history of the conservative movement, and most seem content to try to look “tough” in front of GOP primary audiences by explicitly endorsing the use of torture, or, excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This view on torture extends to these Republican candidates’ extremely anti-conservative views on civil liberties, recklessness concerning the constitutional powers of the Executive branch, and these candidates’ general dismissal of some of the most basic concepts and precepts of American law."