If it meant saving their lives?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_re_af/algeria_explosion
Yes, I know it is a controversial question...but it is designed to make you think about what you really believe.
Look...I can understand that people don't like waterboarding...but at the same time I have hard time appreciating their point of view when they refuse to accept and avoid certain consequences...especially when they don't want to put themselves as the person responsible for securing lives. They avoid it...because it forces them to look really deep inside themselves and are afraid what they might find out.
IF YOU HATE WATERBOARDING...then please write in quotations in your response...
"You will not authorize waterboarding even if it means the loss of innocent lives"
I would like for once...someone who doesn't agree with waterboarding to accept that and stop pretending to be all goody-goody. If you are willing to accept that...then I will have respect for your views.
2007-12-11 16:28:28 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mr. Crank..
Please respond with the quotation I requested...
2007-12-11 16:42:26 · update #1
Again, if you are against waterboarding then please state verbatim the quotation above...
It's not hard...DO NOT DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM YOURSELF.
2007-12-11 16:44:03 · update #2
Leslie,
Thanks...that was either great advice or a wonderful 'red herring' ...
hmmm...I wonder.
2007-12-11 16:46:12 · update #3
Mich...at least you are the only to accept that...
That is all I ask.... people to realize the consequences of their beliefs...
Some don't want to face it. Because they are afraid to.
2007-12-11 16:49:32 · update #4
Think 1st..
Actually that was very thorough...
and respect your point of view.
I don't agree with it...but I understand your point of view.
2007-12-11 18:35:16 · update #5
Mr. Step on Your Crank,
Say what you wish....but again...you know you are avoiding it...
Be in denial all you want. We both know its true.
2007-12-11 18:37:18 · update #6
Mich...
Okay........if that makes you feel better.
(Rolling my eyes)
2007-12-12 01:28:07 · update #7
No, I do not think that many of those poor people would mind either being water boarded, or the water boarding of others if it would have saved them
We as Americans are not "them." We live in a nation of laws, based on rules set forth in The Bill of Rights, and expounded upon in The Constitution. Our Military and Civilian Government has outlawed torture, it is illegal. If The USA ignores it's own laws and rules of conduct, we fail to be The USA that has endured and inspired others for over 200 years.
At times in history The USA has ignored or suspended our basic tenants, FDR did so in WWII, Lincoln during The Civil War. In both instances there is no proof that violating our own laws made us safer.
And just to make you happy:
"You will not authorize waterboarding even if it means the loss of innocent lives"
I also, as an US Citizen would not authorize water boarding or any other torture to save any lives at all, including my own.
"Do to other as thou wouldst they should do to thee, and do to none other but as thou wouldst be done to."
Socrates
2007-12-11 17:05:08 · answer #1 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
maximum individuals have not have been given any clue what a partial abortion is. The argument approximately saving a mothers existence does not fly with me. i'm a nurse and that's how they do a partial beginning abortion. . So-mentioned as "Partial-beginning" abortion is finished interior the 2d and nil.33 trimesters and involves (a million) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) handing over the legs, palms and torso in user-friendly terms, (3) puncturing the decrease back of the cranium with scissors or a trochar, (4) putting a suction curette into the cranium, (4a) suctioning the contents of the cranium with a view to interrupt down it, (5) ending up the delivery. A partial breech delivery isn't considered a "beginning" at elementary regulation, the place that's the passage of the top that's significant. in the event that they are able to furnish the legs , palms and torso with out killing a mom , then they are able to furnish the top too .
2016-10-11 02:53:59 · answer #2 · answered by trip 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF YOU HATE WATERBOARDING...then please write in quotations in your response...
"You will not authorize waterboarding even if it means the loss of innocent lives"
satisfied? as a nation we are better then this and we set the standard for the world, we do not lower our standards to the world. in Algeria waterboarding may be allowed but that has nothing to do with what we allow as Americans. what is it you think we are doing fighting terrorist? you think we are looking for ways to show the world we are hypocrites when it comes to human rights and civil liberties?
EDIT:
your respect is not expected or needed
my believes provide me all the respect i need
i accept the fact that consequences come only if we do allow torture to be used, the consequences would be what would be allowed or dis-allowed next.
2007-12-11 16:43:18 · answer #3 · answered by michr 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
that is a pretty big "if" there. "if" waterboarding could save their lives. "if" torture produces something other than false confessions. "if" the information can be trusted. "if" the people you are torturing are even terrorists or know anything. "if" the people doing the torturing aren't inept morons.
that is too many "ifs" for me. you can't even trust the results you get from torture. it's not the torture so much that bothers me but who would be doing it.
you know the guy who practically invented radical militant islamic terrorism Sayyid Qutb was tortured. it didn't stop people from dying.
2007-12-11 16:45:56 · answer #4 · answered by gherd 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think Daniel Pearls wife approves of it. I believe those that have had loved ones tortured and killed by terrorist would approve of any method that would save lives. We are not dealing with a recognized standing legitimate army of a nation that abides by any conventions. We are dealing with people that video tape the beheading of people solely because they are from Western countries. In my two tours in Vietnam I saw the results of torture. Water boarding is physiological. The subject thinks they are going to drown. Those that were decapitated, I would think would have preferred water boarding.
2007-12-11 17:22:49 · answer #5 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you want to torture someone in order to save lives, then you should be prepared to willingly sacrifice yourself by admitting your crimes and and spending the rest of your life in prison like you deserve. If it's really that important you should be proud to make that sacrifice.
It would be intolerable to live in a society where people freely do evil hoping for a good outcome. The terrorists probably used similar logic when they plotted to kill innocents.
--I'll choose my own words thank you. Control freak much?
2007-12-11 16:31:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Whether you have respect for my views or not is really irrelevant. I don't believe in water boarding or torture in any circumstance.
At the end of the day...it's your soul...you make the choices that you can live with both in this life and in the next.
2007-12-11 16:34:11 · answer #7 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Actually, Algeria has worse forms of torture than water boarding. Did them a lot of good didn't it?
2007-12-11 16:56:13 · answer #8 · answered by God 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism must not be tolerated to continue in this world.
2007-12-11 16:35:23 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Another reason why torture is illegal, is because it often proves to have inaccurate results.
Why don't you just hold them without trial for a little longer while your at it?
2007-12-11 16:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by Kevy 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋