What is the difference between sending a terror suspect to another country who might torture him and sending a gangster to threaten a KKK member with death to get him to reveal where the victims were buried? I don't much difference, but I guess Libs would have preferred the civil rights activists would have remained buried?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/mob_fbi_agent
2007-10-29 16:38:49 · 12 answers · asked by plezurgui 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the word "see" is missing between don't and difference.
If threatening isn't torture, then what was the big deal about Abu Graybar or whatever?
2007-10-29 16:50:38 · update #1
michr - well, that settles it. If 40 years ago is ancient history and has no meaning, then we surely don't need that ancient document the Constitution!
2007-10-29 16:52:22 · update #2
It isn't conducive to their Bush hating agenda.
2007-10-29 16:44:11 · answer #1 · answered by DOIN' RIGHT AINT GOT NO END 3 · 5⤊ 6⤋
Same ole same ole,
Everyone is for torture as long as they are not on the receiving end. Wait till a good law biding cit zen that is against torture I bet they change their mind. That's like people saying there is no GOD. But let them be in some kind of accident or if they are on their death Bed the first word you hear is "GOD help me".
I am almost sure that most people have heard that cry.
It is not just race; example; Bonnie and Clyde were gun down just like Jessie James was by cowards at that time that is what made them HEROS in real life.
Stay Safe,
Bulldog
2007-10-30 06:52:02 · answer #2 · answered by BULLDOG 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, since this incident took place in 1964, during the administration of a Democrat, I guess you would have to say the Liberals agreed with the action. Anyway, it's ancient history. Why go back half a century? Is that the only "evidence" you could find to support your stand?
Edit: Ah, you just want an argument. You went from the FBI, the KKK, and terrorists to the Constitution. What a leap. Are you having trouble getting a rise out of people?
2007-10-29 23:46:23 · answer #3 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is what I love about people. Always wanting to blame the free-thinkers. Don't like what people say, call them liberals. Back in the times of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, they were called radicals.
NEITHER of those are right! Having the FBI have someone threaten KKK, or taking a -suspect terrorist- outa country.
Oh, and here are the differences: the KKK actually is a group of people who can engage in hate crimes, which can result in murder. Thus, they *are* criminals. The -suspect terrorist- is a suspect, and often, as I've seen, aren't guilty. But I'm sure a conservative already knows that, since they know everything.
But to digress, NEITHER of those are right!
2007-10-29 23:47:24 · answer #4 · answered by oweaponx 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover there were a lot of abuses. These two cases are completely unrelated and have no relevance to each other. Two wrongs never make a right.
2007-10-30 00:05:46 · answer #5 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
did you read the story? this was 1964 and if it actually happened, debatable, it was wrong but in those days the FBI did a lot of wrong! what does a case from 40+ years ago have to do with today? with all the time you have surely you can do better then this. luv ya brother
2007-10-29 23:45:59 · answer #6 · answered by michr 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
threatening someone is not the same as torture. Torture involves the slow, painful (psychological, physical) use of force on someone to extract information from someone. Threatening someone with death is not torture in of itself. Hell, many terrorists want to be killed quickly that way they can rid themselves from torture and not give out info.
2007-10-29 23:42:36 · answer #7 · answered by spartan-117 3 · 7⤊ 2⤋
It is a NO. Makes no difference who.
Contrary to your polarizing whimper.
And thanks to DOIN' RIGHT AINT GOT
NO END above (is it a spanish name?
they often don't fit a postcard and one
always feels pelled to suggest the last
one please shuts the door) who states
that Bush equals the KKK. I doubt, but
will quote you at an unconvenient time.
2007-10-29 23:51:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
so what youre saying is liberals are against torture and thats somehow wrong?
2007-10-29 23:48:21 · answer #9 · answered by razawire 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, but what about the conservatives CONDONING TORTURE!
2007-10-29 23:41:49 · answer #10 · answered by missingfeet 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Threatening isn't torture.
...and what does, "I don't much difference..." mean?
.
2007-10-29 23:44:18 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋