Double Speak from the Bush Administration

Originally posted by wib
First, please read the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html

So Bush says "We Do Not Torture".

Then he makes statements about being AGAINST Congress for trying to pass legislation to outlaw and end torture.

Then we find out Dick Cheney is heading up legislation to end torture, but hang on now, with an exemption ...[text shortened]... m US laws covering torture.

Everybody got that?

Even Clinton would be proud of that one.

Bush Is saying that they do not torture, and they dont, but he wants an exeption for the CIA because maybe one day there may be a guy who knows when a nuke is set to go of, and that torture will be the only thing that gets him to tell us.
A veitnom vet was telling me that when he was over there, they would capture 2 people, take them up in a helicopter, then if they didnt reval the secret information, they would throw one guy out, and he said the 2nd guy would then always tell anything to the US. I know its cruel, but dont you think its more cruel to let thousands die because you didnt torture a guy?

Bush isnt double talking, hes just telling you that they dont torture, but wants to keep the CIA exempt because someday it could save lives

Originally posted by flyUnity
Bush Is saying that they do not torture, and they dont, but he wants an exeption for the CIA because maybe one day there may be a guy who knows when a nuke is set to go of, and that torture will be the only thing that gets him to tell us.
A veitnom vet was telling me that when he was over there, they would capture 2 people, take them up in a helicopter, t ...[text shortened]... you that they dont torture, but wants to keep the CIA exempt because someday it could save lives

So if our enemies did the same thing to American soldiers you'd say they shouldn't be punished because they shouldn't let "thousands of their people die because they didn't torture a guy [a US soldier]"?

Originally posted by flyUnity
Bush Is saying that they do not torture, and they dont, but he wants an exeption for the CIA because maybe one day there may be a guy who knows when a nuke is set to go of, and that torture will be the only thing that gets him to tell us.
A veitnom vet was telling me that when he was over there, they would capture 2 people, take them up in a helicopter, t ...[text shortened]... you that they dont torture, but wants to keep the CIA exempt because someday it could save lives

So we don't torture, but let's leave a loophole in the law in case we do.
But we don't. So there's no need to pass legislation banning torture because we don't do it.
But if we ever HAVE to do it, well then there's no need to make it illegal now. No need to ban what we might do but haven't actually done.

(insert slow clap...)

Well played Mr. President. Well played...

Originally posted by no1marauder
So if our enemies did the same thing to American soldiers you'd say they shouldn't be punished because they shouldn't let "thousands of their people die because they didn't torture a guy [a US soldier]"?

no I didnt say that. they should be punished. Both sides will probaly use torture if its gonna help their side, War is War

Originally posted by Rajk999
No its not right if they have no reason to suspect me. But we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which top authorities (not police) in an emergency situation have reason to believe that I am aligned to and/or support in some way a group of terrorists. And if I do, I should expect to be treated with suspicion and suffer the consequences.

In resp ...[text shortened]... ountries I would like be at the mercy of. Their history is tainted with too many horror stories.

And Germany's history means the way they treat you now will be different? Wouldn't looking at the current treatment of prisoners give the greatest insight into how you would be treated?
All the countries I named (and many others) would follow the laws of due process. The US in all likelyhood wouldn't, neither would Australia.

Originally posted by flyUnity
no I didnt say that. they should be punished. Both sides will probaly use torture if its gonna help their side, War is War

You cannot morally condemn the other side if you do the same thing. War may be war, but those who violated the rules of war on both sides during WWII were punished. Torture is a violation of human rights and the US cannot torture for any reason under the laws of war and under treaties we have voluntarily signed. You are supporting war crimes to say otherwise.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You cannot morally condemn the other side if you do the same thing. War may be war, but those who violated the rules of war on both sides during WWII were punished. Torture is a violation of human rights and the US cannot torture for any reason under the laws of war and under treaties we have voluntarily signed. You are supporting war crimes to say otherwise.

I never morally condemed the other side. Actually Im againts torture as I think there are probaly other methods, I dont know, Im not an expert on any of this,

A question for you though, IF you knew that torturing somone would save a nuke exploding in your city, would you do it? of course you would, anyone would. and Im sure the other side would do it too. But otherwise Im againts torture as long as there is no major threat to us

Originally posted by flyUnity
I never morally condemed the other side. Actually Im againts torture as I think there are probaly other methods, I dont know, Im not an expert on any of this,

A question for you though, IF you knew that torturing somone would save a nuke exploding in your city, would you do it? of course you would, anyone would. and Im sure the other side would do it too. But otherwise Im againts torture as long as there is no major threat to us

A question for you: if by eating a live baby you could prevent the Earth from crashing into the Sun would you do it??

That's about as likely as your scenario.

Originally posted by flyUnity
I never morally condemed the other side. Actually Im againts torture as I think there are probaly other methods, I dont know, Im not an expert on any of this,

A question for you though, IF you knew that torturing somone would save a nuke exploding in your city, would you do it? of course you would, anyone would. and Im sure the other side would do it too. But otherwise Im againts torture as long as there is no major threat to us

I would not.

That's the whole point of morals. If I wish to take the moral high ground on whatever issue, then I must be willing to die standing up for those morals.
If not, then they're not really morals, but guidelines or something.

And besides...I want a nuclear war.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A question for you: if by eating a live baby you could prevent the Earth from crashing into the Sun would you do it??

That's about as likely as your scenario.

Ignore my question huh?

If one didnt eat the babie, you would have the blood of billions on yourself cause you couldve saved them.

Originally posted by flyUnity
Ignore my question huh?

If one didnt eat the babie, you would have the blood of billions on yourself cause you couldve saved them.

In case you can't figure it out (and you apparently can't), I didn't answer your question because it's stupid. You eating the baby would have no effect on the Earth crashing into the Sun and the likelihood of having someone in custody who you could torture into preventing an A-Bomb going off is just as much i.e. zero. Therefore, thinking up such ridiculous possibilities is irrelevant to the fact that torture is morally wrong whatever the real world circumstances are (not fantasy world circumstances).

Originally posted by wib
First, please read the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html

So Bush says "We Do Not Torture".

Then he makes statements about being AGAINST Congress for trying to pass legislation to outlaw and end torture.

Then we find out Dick Cheney is heading up legislation to end torture, but hang on now, with an exemption ...[text shortened]... m US laws covering torture.

Everybody got that?

Even Clinton would be proud of that one.

i think that bush is trying to defend the right of u.s. citizens to NOT be tortured.

while also defending the rights of the u.s. to torture people who are not u.s. citizens.

Originally posted by no1marauder
if by eating a live baby you could prevent the Earth from crashing into the Sun would you do it??

Hmmmm... Not sure...

Are we allowed to add mayo?

Originally posted by flyUnity
...IF you knew that torturing somone would save a nuke exploding in your city, would you do it? of course you would, anyone would. ...

to continue the wild hypotheticals ...

if: allowing torture to be legal, would cause genocide-murder of millions of humans, then would you support legality of torture?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
It's not even Ferris in my avatar. It's "Guy standing next to Ferris".

i know, you are standing next to him making you ferris, to me anyway.