This pretty much sums up the insanity of trying to justify waterboarding as, not an instrument of torture, but as simply a type of "enhanced interrogation".
"If waterboarding is OK, then why don't we let our police do it?"
- Jesse Ventura on "The View"
Ventura later asks, why do we only seem to waterboard Muslims?
I still think Ventura is kind of nutty, but occasionally he cuts through the static and makes a crystal clear point that gets right to the heart of the matter. Good work, governor.
12 comments:
"Getting To The Heart Of The Matter"
you wrote: "I still think Ventura is kind of nutty, but occasionally he cuts through the static and makes a crystal clear point that gets right to the heart of the matter. Good work, governor"
I'm wondering what you think the "nutty" part is? Could it be his stance on 9/11? I think he gets to the heart of the matter there, too.
Yes. 9/11 was an inside job. A giant, massive, far-reaching conspiracy.
Happy?
Your child or other loved one is kidnapped, a timer controlled bomb will go off to kill them. There are no ransom demands the person just wants to kill your family. Foolishly he comes to your house and says he knows where the bomb and loved one(s)are. You get the drop on him and can now do ANYTHING to force him to reveal where. Am I to believe that those who opposed coercion would not do whatever it took to force the information out including what would be considered torture. Or are the loved ones to die because of a moral objection or a theoretical belief that torture doesn't work. Now elevate the scenario to where a person brags he knows about other attacks on many US citizens and when they will happen using weapons that can kill thousands. You are a government official this person claims he knows of mass murder being plotted, he has claimed to be an attempted mass murderer. The people you have taken an oath to defend are defenseless, do you do EVERYTHING in your power to get the info? Or after many are dead do you comfort yourself for the rest of your life knowing that even though beating the living sh*t out of the basta*d may have gotten the info out and saved many lives, you as a fine moral man did not use every means possible to stop the attack? It is very easy to be anti torture or whatever when you don't have to face this situation. The facts have to be made known of those sessions, if they were done for sadistic cheap thrills (Abu Garib) then lets go full bore and imprison those responsible. But... if attacks were thwarted and lives saved as a direct result of them then to me thats a brand new ballgame. I am of course talking about those who BRAGGED about what was to come. Only full disclosure will tell the american people what happened.
Wow, that's got to be the longest-winded torture justification argument I've read in quite some time.
1.) Torture is a crime.
2.) There is video and photographic evidence that the crime has been committed.
3.)The top officials that ordered it have confessed during news interviews on world-wide media.
Crime. Evidence. Confession.
And folks, please search what Gov. Ventura has to say about his experiences since he entered the world of US politics and government, including 9/11 truth
Are you a big "Jack Bauer" fan? Because only someone who watches a LOT of "24" could think up a scenario such as yours. On most episodes of 24, everyone Jack Bauer tortures is A) guilty, and B) gives up the necessary info right away.
Here's another way to look at it: suppose a treacherous government wants to find a reason to invade a sovereign nation under false pretenses. They could either A) attempt to manufacture and hide evidence supporting their claims to justify an invasion, or B) invade the nation, capture a bunch of the enemy, and torture them until several of them say something that fits their scenario.
Hmmm...which is more likely to help achieve the goals of those despicable people in charge?
Don't watch 24. The question is would you use torture to save loved ones and if yes then when thousands may be at risk why would you not want the government to do anything possible on someone who claims (and that is the big point here)that he knows of further attacks. The issue here is lives being saved. So am I now to believe that you would rather let people die(loved ones?) than try all options? As long as there are no other attacks you can use the "Bauer card" to ridulcue what I am asking, but that only evades answering my question. What would you do if you had in your hands someone who claims to have knowledge that could save your family members or in the case of the government many lives? What would you feel if soft friendly persuasion failed, people died and you learned that in fact the person did have the knowledge. I guess what I get from your responses and what I hear on talking head shows is that it is better for people to die than to make life uncomfortable for those who on their own claim to have knowledge of attacks. But then again it is easy to have that position when you don't have to make the decision or have responsibility in that arena. Ever wonder why Obama sounds more like Bush each day on these matters? He now knows the truth about their destructive capabilities. So again lets get the evidence out did attacks get stopped or not? Release all data so we learn the truth. Was "torture" widespread or only targeted to those who claimed knowledge of attacks? If abuses were committed on random suspects then I agree, prosecute those who authorized it. But if suspect A claims that many will soon die and I know when and where, then tough sh*t he made his own bed.
Here's some questions for you: How would you feel if you tortured an innocent suspect if he knew absolutely nothing? How far would you go to satisfy that quest? Would you torture him to death? How about 1,000 just like him?
The question is, would YOU use torture under a suspicious pretext without oversight or control? Would YOU want someone from your family to be tortured without legal recourse?
Or is torture only reserved for people of a different culture and religion?
Either we ARE a nation that tortures, or we AREN'T. Do we respond to the threat of attack by becoming uncivilized animals, or do we use reasoned and civilized responses to the threat? Have we, as a culture, regressed that far that we are now trying to JUSTIFY the use of torture?
Besides, there's overwhelming evidence that torture produces very little useful intelligence (despite what FoxNews claims) and even when we HAD the intelligence (Rice's summer 2001 report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within U.S.") we're too fucking stupid to respond to it in a timely manner.
Terrorists win when we become as evil as they are. Torture is EXACTLY what Al Quada wants us to do, don't you get it?
Hey nonpartisan (yeah right),
If some kind of extreme situation like that happens and you have to tortune someone, go ahead and do it. Just know you're going to get in trouble. It's one thing to make an ethically questionable decision in the heat of the moment, but it's another to argue that the law should have no penalties for such a decision because there is the possibility of an extreme scenario where it could possibly be justified.
My scenarios outlined above specifically say that the suspect has already claimed knowledge of attempted mass murder. So am I to believe that people should die so America can claim "we don't torture"? Is that the moral high ground? Our citizens die when someone who claims and in the case of KSM bragged about having knowledge of possible attacks is not forced through all available means to reveal the info? What your responses fail to address is that in both posts I specifically said that those involved claimed to have knowledge. I oppose torture for any reason except in those case where the suspect himself makes the claim of attacks coming. Norphern's response tells me that he thinks I advocate random torture, I don't. Please reread the posts, what I am trying to find out is rather simple. In an extreme example is it acceptable to use every tool available, favoring life for citizens over discomfort for a killer?
I'm not going to address ridiculously far-fetched scenarios.
(...especially when you don't put in line spaces, which is just brutal on my eyes...it's almost torture just reading these comments! LOL!)
Look, it's a moral position that I refuse to change. Torture is wrong and a nation of laws like ours doesn't participate in it. Plain and simple. If it wasn't so wrong, then why did the CIA destroy the video tapes of their actions? Because they, and everyone knows they were clearly demonstrable cases of war crimes!
"Painted in Blood, an Abstract Expression of Horror"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502349.html
______________________
Thanks, Bob. Torture IS wrong. How we've fallen as a nation to even be willing to discuss it any other way...
Maybe I'm just another birkenstock wearin', ACLU-lovin' weak-willed surrender monkey, but if I was tortured, you could get me to admit I was a Log Cabin Republican.
The ends don't justify the means...especially when the ends might not be what is needed.
Post a Comment