Or should he or she just let the chips fall were they may?
2007-12-12 04:51:47 · 20 answers · asked by Clarance C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The extra mile would be waterboarding or maybe even worse.
2007-12-12 04:55:59 · update #1
Umm yeah.......almost 6 years you would think Chimpy would'lve caught the terrorist , but I guess HE let the chips fall where they may.
2007-12-12 04:56:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
Expanding on what David posted:
Let me get this straight- our choices include waterboarding and otherwise torturing people allegedly involved with terrorism, or basically siding with the terrorists and letting them do what they will? Is that basically what you're driving at here, or might you not agree that there's a vast, VAST amount of nuance in between the two? I reject your characterization and oversimplification of this subject.
Some folks see the world in black and white, right or wrong, my way or the highway. Those people are very narrow minded even to the point of being closed minded. Others see the variety of facts that, when put together, are a complicated group of ideas, events, etc. that make up reality.
While the President shouldn't let the chips fall where they may he/she needs to look at the total picture with emphasis on the homeland more than foreign lands. Once we are absolutely clear that our own country is secure at our ports of entry, borders etc. than we can turn our attention to reducing any outside threat to our country and our people. Above all the President should not do or make decisions that will cause an increase in enemies or enemy combatants for us.
2007-12-12 13:12:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't prove that waterboarding is going to save lives. I can tell you that if the policy is allowed and widespread then we will be torturing many an innocent and undeserving person, all to find the needle in the haystack that says something we might want to hear. And then we'll find out he lied about everything he told us.
Consider if the enemy knows they're going to get waterboarded, they can all be prepared to give some outrageous and false plan in the hopes that we'll believe them. We are kidding ourselves if we think that information gained via torture is going to be valuable, and that this is a policy worth protecting.
The president should do what they can to save Americans. He could start by protecting the border and our ports. That's a surefire way to stop an attack. Torturing someone you've already caught is going to stop nothing.
2007-12-12 13:01:22 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, he should stop anyone, and I mean anyone that looks Muslim, or Mid-Eastern from traveling freely to or from the U.S., He should set up a Profiling network so that these people, Americans or no, would have to check in an out when moving around inside the U.S. They should have no privacy at all, all of their phone calls should be monitored, and all should have to register with the government and have an id chip put under their skin, like dogs. But Timothy McVay and the Una-bomber, would have still been able to commit their crimes, and who was the guy on the plane with the bomb in his shoe, yeah right, some joe shmoe, from New York. They hide in plain sight, and if they want to do it bad enough, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, anyone can blow something up. Find out why they want to blow it up, and that's when change comes. But that won't start wars, and boost the economy, raise oil prices, and make the world turn on it's axis, will it?
2007-12-12 13:06:41 · answer #4 · answered by Akissyha B 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That good old extra mile, has quite a reputation for being deceptive and underhanded as well as elitist.There was a plan to keep such terrorist OUT of the country. What happened to the keeping of that plan? It does not make sense to take weapons away from the citizen, and the Eliet to take it upon themselves to present the only authority to defend or not to defend ones person and property. We are too conditioned to ( hire our protection) in other words to ( outsource) that seems to be a common practice when one wants another to do the dirty work for them, and of course, they can not have a conscious to where there would be a trace of evidence leading back to the hire.
2007-12-12 13:03:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, the President of the USA should go the extra mile to protect us by putting the resources into the right country!
That wouldn't actually be going the extra mile, that would just be doing the obvious thing.
2007-12-12 12:55:17 · answer #6 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Go an extra 10-miles - but within the bounds of the US Constitution!
2007-12-12 12:56:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Let me get this straight- our choices include waterboarding and otherwise torturing people allegedly involved with terrorism, or basically siding with the terrorists and letting them do what they will? Is that basically what you're driving at here, or might you not agree that there's a vast, VAST amount of nuance in between the two? I reject your characterization and oversimplification of this subject.
2007-12-12 12:58:50 · answer #8 · answered by David 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That IS the job of the President. If the President ignores the
most important person in the USA, that being the "CITIZEN"
then the President needs to be impeached!
2007-12-12 12:55:34 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
A President should act within the Geneva Convention and not torture.
2007-12-12 13:00:44 · answer #10 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋