Dwight D. Eisenhower

Jan 24 2009, 03:07 PM

I never said I was 100% against torture. He did. Unless I have a flawed view of what it means to be a hypocrite, that means he is and I'm not. (Not like I actually called him one anyways)

Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

I just think that when you justify torturing to save tens of thousands, then you justify for saving a hundred people, then dozens. Where's the cut-off? If for example you think torturing someone to save five lives is okay, I'd argue that you'd be allowed to torture the vast majority of Gitmo, since most terrorist attacks kill more than that number, and most probably could tell you the name of one other member. Then your 99% turns into 10% of cases.

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

I mean personally, I'm all about WWJD, and I can't see JC cracking someone's skull open.

Richard Nixon

Jan 25 2009, 11:31 AM

"Tough customers deserve tougher treatment." ~ Dick Cheney

Obama is literally helping fill Al Qaeda's ranks with this move if it's not done properly.

Something has to be done with the terrorists/suspected terrorists.

Bill Clinton

Jan 23 2009, 11:13 PM

I don't understand how anyone could be pro-GTMO

You use logic like "we should be allowed to torture people so long as they're terrorists" but the fact is, we're not even sure all of them are terrorists. And even if they are, why are we scared to try them in here in the United States?

If the things that happen in GTMO are nothing to be ashamed of, then why oh why does are government have to do it overseas where they're out of their own jurisdiction? It's blatantly unconstitutional so they go places where the constitution doesn't apply.

Look, it's not like he's just gonna go "Okay, Guantanamo Bay is closed, all the prisoners are released, have fun kids!" No, he's gonna do something with him. Hard to say what right now, but that's why he's waiting a year to close it, so they can figure out what to do with the detainees.

Guantanamo Bay doesn't help protect us, our freedoms or anything we stand for. All it does is allow the government to do whatever it pleases outside the bounds of its own constitution, and if you've got to be a fool to believe that everything the government does is in your best interest.

Quote:

 

You're against torture and you're slamming Obama for being against torture 99% of the time, allowing for small concessions, yet you too would agree that torture is necessary in some cases. You can't slam Obama for doing the same things you believe, making the small concession when necessary.

Quote:

 

Grave, lasting, and certain. Understandably thousands and tens of thousands warrant torture, but getting names and whatnot wouldn't make any sense because they aren't going to really help us. After all, we know who Osama Bin Laden is but we couldn't find him even if we tortured every prisoner at Guantanamo. Obviously it takes proper restraint to ensure that torture doesn't go too far, but in some cases it IS justified.

Quote:

 

This is where I present to you the case of "love your neighbor". Jesus told us to love our neighbor just as we love ourselves. If that means using cruel and unusual punishment to save 10,000 of our neighbors, we must love our neighbors by causing pain to another neighbor.

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

I'm not slamming his viewpoint, since it's pretty much the same, I'm slamming him for taking the holier than thou moralist approach during the election but singing a different tune the minute he has it in the bag.

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

Most terrorists in the United States and Western Countries are employed, educated people who wear Western clothes and speak the native language. Many of the London bombers were born and raised in England. If we have just their name, we'll be saving lives. Even in Middle Eastern countries, it's the higher ups who are in hiding. Many committed operatives just live normal lives, until one day someone knocks on their door with a explosive laden vest and a location circled on a map.

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

But when you get down to it, there's simply too much uncertainty about torture. How are you supposed to know, a)that this person is in fact a member of a terror group, b) that they actually know something, c) that you already don't know what they know(since we usually take down entire cells at a time) d)whether what they know will save lives and e) How many lives that'll save. And most important, f) that they'll even talk to begin with?

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

And even if it does, he's liable to give you the wrong information.

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

Jesus wasn't a utilitarian. If he was, Judas would be a saint. Jesus taught black and white morality. The Jews and Romans killed one of their neighbors, and ultimately saved them all. But still we must realize that the saving grace came through the worst crime in history. Would Jesus be pleased that you saved thousands of people? I imagine. But he'd find the method abhorrent.

YaoMing

Jan 25 2009, 12:23 AM

Everyone does have a breaking point. That's the point, I believe. Somebody who would typically never say anything even if motivated with money, power, freedom or whatever might say something if tortured. I'm not saying its right. But that is the point of torture. It can be effective.

Quote:

 

My Republicanism is not absolute however. One of the issues I strongly disagree with the Republican Party is the issue of torture. This too can be traced back to my family. My maternal grandfather was a revolutionary in the Dominican Republic against the totalitarian President Rafael Trujillo. Government agents took him and his brother to a secret prison. My grandfather was tortured consistently by guards for almost a year. When he was released, he quickly gathered his family and fled the country. His brother, my granduncle, was never heard from again and presumed murdered. At the ripe old age of twenty-seven he needed a hearing aid because his eardrum had been shattered by the interrogators. His eardrum wasn’t all that had been shattered; he became an bitter alcoholic and an atheist. In wasn’t until late in life that he made his peace with God and peace with himself. But when I look at old pictures, and see the weak smile on his face and the aid in his ear, I know what happened to him, and that it should never be allowed to happen again.

Quote:

 

But there's more to it than utilitarianism. Christians have the obligation to love their neighbor. We praise the Good Samaritan for helping a hated rival when he was down, but what if the Good Samaritan arived while the traveler was being attacked? Would we still praise him had he waited back until after the attack? Would we ask why he didn't stand up for his fellow man? It's the exact same situation as the Holocaust: without the activity - the bloodshed - necessary to stop the Nazis we allowed the Jews, our neighbors, to suffer at the hands of Hitler in concentration camps. Jesus wasn't utilitarian, that I grant you, but he would certainly support active response to injustice.

Dwight D Eisenhower

 

I certainly belief Jesus taught we are obligated to help those around us. But I honestly think Jesus would have taught that the Good Samaritan should interfere to save the man, but peacefully. I don't even Jesus would want us defending ourselves from harm, let alone our neighbor. Jesus pretty much taught ultimate pacifism. In particular, I remember Him rebuking Peter for trying to save Him from the Romans by slicing off the centurion's ear.

Grady

Jan 28 2009, 09:00 PM

I'm sure the U.S. has no where else to torture people...

180degrees

Jan 29 2009, 01:17 AM

Grady

Jan 28 2009, 09:00 PM

I'm sure the U.S. has no where else to torture people...

LOL? That's gotta be the lamest excuse I've heard to date. AKA, they can create one.