If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Hillary proclaims that torture should be safe, legal and rare. Yeah, that will fire up the base   (blogs.nydailynews.com) divider line 26
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

389 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2006 at 1:36 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2006-10-12 08:50:30 PM
They should stop putting forth the illusion of two parties. All politicians are f*cked in the head.
 
2006-10-12 08:55:19 PM
Odd. Clinton said the same exact thing about abortion word for word back in like 99.
 
2006-10-12 09:02:52 PM
Told you she wasn't a Liberal.
 
2006-10-12 09:05:10 PM
img99.imageshack.us

We're running out of time!!
 
2006-10-12 10:35:43 PM
Alan Dershowitz pretty much has the same opinion.
 
2006-10-13 12:30:38 AM
She should volunteer to go first, and then decide if she still thinks it's a good idea.

I would not want to hook anything up to that wrinkled bag of

ugh, I just ate, and so shall stop right there.
 
2006-10-13 01:43:09 AM
Yes, well, Hillary is an idiot too. I have no respect for anyone who advocates torture, at all.
 
2006-10-13 02:01:12 AM
LOL @ Radioactive Ass

I can't wait to see what methods of interrogation Jack Bauer employs this season... now that he doesn't have to worry about violating the Geneva Conventions... not as though he ever seemed to worry about that.
 
2006-10-13 02:04:02 AM
Gee, so you mean a Dem will waffle and flake like a Pub? Say it ain't SO!!!
 
2006-10-13 02:29:09 AM
KickASS, it's like 1933 all over again. I can't wait for the genocide to start.

/both parties are starting to scare the shiat out of me.
 
2006-10-13 04:03:01 AM
Howie_Feltersnatch
All politicians are f*cked in the head.

And so are some of their interns, literally!

/Ba-da Bing ba-da Boom!
 
2006-10-13 04:04:59 AM
I don't see a problem with this. If you've captured someone who you know knows something about an actual, imminent attack, and he won't talk, you SHOULD be allowed to torture him to get the information needed to try to stop the attack.

In any other situation, torture should be outlawed.
 
2006-10-13 04:28:03 AM
Entity79

I don't see a problem with this. If you've captured someone who you know knows something about an actual, imminent attack, and he won't talk, you SHOULD be allowed to torture him to get the information needed to try to stop the attack.

In any other situation, torture should be outlawed.


In certain circumstances, e.g. pending chemical/nuclear attack I won't say I wouldn't turn the thumb screws myself. But that's what pardons are for.

If it was really that necessary and morally defensible than the president can bring the details out in an investigation. shiat even give the dude a medal, to go with his pardon.

But torture should NEVER be LEGAL, and anyone committing or authorising it should be made to answer for their crimes. Whether we as a society can accept compromising our principles in an individual case.... well that depends on the case.

But it should be made clear that we are compromising those principles and crossing a moral bright-line. We should admit that in those cases where it is unavoidably necessary to "torture", "criminals", or "spy on americans" that we are make that choice.

It should not be equivocated to meaningless boundaries, with weasel words like "enemy combatants", "agressive interrogation techniques", and "domestic survellience."

It is only through holding on to our values, and accepting the evil of a "necessary evil" in order to honestly and truthfully decide whether it was indeed necessary.

Or are we so placated by the opiate of luxury and comfort that we will accept an Orwellian Regime if it means cheap oil and corporate profits?
 
2006-10-13 06:03:21 AM
Oh look, another reason not to vote for Hillary. I'll add it to the list.

0lorin
Or are we so placated by the opiate of luxury and comfort that we will accept an Orwellian Regime if it means cheap oil and corporate profits?

Only time will tell, I suppose...things aren't looking too good right now in terms of what our answer might be, though, I'll say that.
 
2006-10-13 08:18:08 AM
Hillary Clinton said in a Daily News editorial board meeting yesterday that the practice is acceptable in some circumstances.

/Please, do not nominate her. Please, do not make me choose between her and a moderate Republican because I will not vote for her. Now if my choice is between her and a rightwing Republican.... is Nader running again???
 
2006-10-13 08:40:17 AM
img99.imageshack.us


We have no time left to argue about time!!
 
2006-10-13 09:17:48 AM
What is Arabic for "the base"?

/had to do it
 
2006-10-13 09:28:11 AM
Howie_Feltersnatch: They should stop putting forth the illusion of two parties.

word.
 
2006-10-13 10:23:07 AM
0lorin

In certain circumstances, e.g. pending chemical/nuclear attack I won't say I wouldn't turn the thumb screws myself. But that's what pardons are for.

Exactly. We don't need any new laws. If a situation really is so dire that it justifies torture, pardon the torturer afterwards.
 
2006-10-13 11:01:14 AM
Can someone in NY fire that biatch?
 
2006-10-13 11:20:56 AM
Entity79: I don't see a problem with this. If you've captured someone who you know knows something about an actual, imminent attack, and he won't talk, you SHOULD be allowed to torture him to get the information needed to try to stop the attack.

I do see the problem with it. Torture is inhumane and cruel, and ineffective to boot. It stays ineffective even if you do it for the season finale or during sweeps week, as is apparently Mrs. Clinton's scenario.

I don't think this is a liberal, conservative, whig, or tory issue as those are people with convictions, principles, and ideals. No-except-maybe-sometimes-if-if-if is not a conviction, principle, or ideal.
 
2006-10-13 11:26:30 AM
My God, I hope she looses so badly now in the primaries. Problem is that she might go against another pro-torture republican nominee if she wins the primary.

That is a choice I don't want to make.


Why can't these people understand, even if it is true that in some rare cases it might be the best course of action, you can never say it is legal, because that will make you a country that tortures!

Torture has allways been illegal, and we have allways had people who have used it in rare cases... there is no reason to change that.
 
2006-10-13 12:06:11 PM
Executive Monkey: Exactly. We don't need any new laws. If a situation really is so dire that it justifies torture, pardon the torturer afterwards.

Actually, there were rules in place for scenarios such as these. It was legal even before GWB was in power. The problem is GWB wanting to torture people for lesser reasons.

Aside from television shows and novels, have we EVER had to torture someone because of an imminent threat? Super-secret bullshiat aside, don't you think we would have heard of it by now from the pro-torture crowd, to show us that torture is helpful at times?
 
2006-10-13 12:24:08 PM
When did we start making public policy based on movie and television plots?

/Oh yeah, a while ago.
//Sadly
 
2006-10-13 04:49:48 PM
has anyone actually decided on what definition of torture we are all arguing about?
 
2006-10-13 05:43:30 PM
jer2911tx
has anyone actually decided on what definition of torture we are all arguing about?

Inflicting pain (of the physical or psychological sort) on those in your custody for any number of reasons, including intelligence gathering, the extraction of confessions, punishment, or just pure sadism?
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report