that for one minute gives the sense of drowning?
COLORADO SPRINGS, Dec. 10 -- A heavily armed man who killed four young people at a missionary training center and a church Sunday apparently intended to gun down many more victims before he was shot by a former police officer who was serving as a volunteer security guard.
I believe the terrorist and the gun man lost their human rights when they started to kill others.
2007-12-11 04:33:10 · 5 answers · asked by Stars and Stripes 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You don't see the difference between shooting somebody who is actively killing other people and torturing a terrorist SUSPECT for information that he MAY have?
I don't think anybody would have a problem with torturing somebody who was KNOWN to know the location of a bomb or such. It is more using torture as a fishing expedition that bothers people.
2007-12-11 04:47:45 · answer #1 · answered by Brian A 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Water boarding is used in people "suspected" of being terrorists. A shooting is done to someone currently holding a gun where no other option exists.
rickinnocal - The question was about water boarding in general and not about a specific case you have decided to justify. Apparently the ends justify the means to you and as such we should all simply accept that and allow torture of ANY suspect that intends to hurt US citizens. Let us all hope we are never the victim of mistaken identity...
rickinnocal - You also say "terrorists rights are more important than Americans lives". Well, it's a sound bite and probably makes you feel better. I feel that the need to respect the laws WE passed at US and international levels need to be respected. When we violate our own laws we are no better than the terrorists we seek to defeat.
2007-12-11 04:39:33 · answer #2 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When you waterboard someone, they're not dead.
When SKM was waterboarded to make him reveal the location of an upcoming attack, and the location of Pearls body, he was - when it was over - still alive and healthy.(Unlike Daniel Pearl after he beheaded him for the cameras)
What you have to remember about the waterboarding fuss is that - to a Liberal - Americans are inherantly worth less than other people.
So if you're mean to a terrorist in order to save the lives of Americans, that's not a fair deal, because they believe that the terrorists rights are more important than Americans lives.
To David: SKM - and the other two people the CIA waterboarded" - were not "suspected" of being terrorists. They *were* terrorists, and were boasting and bragging about their feats. The waterboarding of SKM occurred when he openly boasted to the interrogators that an operation was currently running and that they'd never find out where in time to stop it. When they waterboarded him and he told them where it was, they stopped it.
Waterboarding and other torture techniques (and I do agree that it is torture) wasn't used to gain normal type information about things that had happened, or to get evidence that could be used against people. It was used ONLY when the interrogators had strong reason to believe that there was an ONGOING operation that the terrorist they were questioning could give them information about to let them stop it BEFORE people got killed.
Richard
2007-12-11 04:38:45 · answer #3 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Some may know the difference, many do not. However, I think there is another aspect, and that is how we define what it means to "save a life (of the woman)". Many pro-life advocates hold narrowly that only imminent death permits an abortion. There are others, including myself, who hold that health and threat to a woman's life may permit abortion. I do not disagree with what you wrote as far as responsibility and accountability, and am not thrilled that abortion is used as birth control. In my country there exists, and I support, an abortion alternative organization for this reason. Still, given a possibility when two lives may otherwise be lost, then abortion may be the more life affirming option. I do not see it as wise to disallow it for such situations because others have misused their legal right to choose.
2016-05-23 01:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. they didn't lose their human rights...that's what's supposed to be great about human rights...
...they're guaranteed for all... it's an unwritten code about how valuable human life is to all of us.
When someone doesn't value human life... that's when we show our humanity... to treat that person like a human...despite their lack of human decency....
we are good people... we have respect for all human life. That's what makes America great and better than others... we respect all human life...
2007-12-11 04:42:18 · answer #5 · answered by sam f 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋