[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 28 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Awwww, Winston, at least make it interesting.

Quote

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true?  If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

Quote

No.

*******

Quote

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Apr 28 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 28 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

 

Awwww, Winston, at least make it interesting.

Quote

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true?   If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

Quote

No.

*******

Quote

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

stop it, you're confusing me

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 28 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Quote

But I believe that our principles are worth risking American lives to maintain. That's the basic difference between my thinking and that of Cheney and Bush and their apologists.

Quote

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

I will let the readers decide for themselves if these two quotes express the same sentiments.

I do not think "risking American lives" is the same as "letting Americans die". The first is sending a fireman into a burning house. The second is failing to send in another fireman to save him when he gets in trouble.

[Lobowolf]

I'm all for saving lives, but it should be noted that darn near everyone is in favor of policies that are directly linked to the deaths of lots of Americans, and for reasons much less noble than a moral opposition to torture (convenience, for instance).

Shall we take a vote on whether or not to lower the speed limit to 50?

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Apr 28 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

Interesting piece by columnist Ross Douthat today: Cheney for President

Quote

A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.

But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.

Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.

But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.

Looks like more and more folks want to get this out in the open and sorted out.

Excellent discussion regarding standing by principles, principles including those against torture. The issue is not whether our current and past tactics are effective in gathering useful information but rather if these tactics violate the law or American Principles.

Hopefully today our Defense agencies and our Intelligent gathering agencies are standing up for all of the principles that America stands for not just some.


"Looks like more and more folks want to get this out in the open and sorted out."

Well said, lets follow the law and all of the evidence when it comes to those who break the law or violate American Principles. Lets just not have a few showtrials and only follow some of the evidence.

Lets just not focus only on those who admit they waterboarded, lets follow all the evidence of those who break the law and violate American Principles. Otherwise we end up with a few showtrials and a huge coverup.

As for Bush, Cheney, Tenet and other heads of our Intelligent agencies they have admitted they knew and approved waterboarding. They do not deny they did it! Does anyone really believe there are not tens or hundreds more who knew about this and did not object. They even admit they went into Iraq for the wrong reason. There were no weapons of mass destruction!



"Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11."

BTW lets not lose focus here, waterboarding is not the only tactic that we should be discussing when it comes to preserving the Law and American Principles. Lets follow all of the law and American Principles and not get sidetracked.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Apr 28 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

BTW lets not lose focus here, waterboarding is not the only tactic that we should be discussing when it comes to preserving the Law and American Principles. Lets follow all of the law and American Principles and not get sidetracked.

you're right, of course... but, to paraphrase c.s. lewis, it would be something like going to the dentist because your tooth hurts... that'd be ok if all he did was fix or pull the tooth, but dentists like to poke around in there... before you know it he's got a whole list of things he needs to fix in your mouth

[mike777]

luke warm, on Apr 28 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 28 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

BTW lets not lose focus here, waterboarding is not the only tactic that we should be discussing when it comes to preserving the Law and American Principles. Lets follow all of the law and American Principles and not get sidetracked.

you're right, of course... but, to paraphrase c.s. lewis, it would be something like going to the dentist because your tooth hurts... that'd be ok if all he did was fix or pull the tooth, but dentists like to poke around in there... before you know it he's got a whole list of things he needs to fix in your mouth

I just went to the Dentist today, they poked around for two hours and said I was good to go.....hopefully so is the USA

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm all for saving lives, but it should be noted that darn near everyone is in favor of policies that are directly linked to the deaths of lots of Americans, and for reasons much less noble than a moral opposition to torture (convenience, for instance).

We need to make clear that "policies" and "laws" are not the same thing. It may be policy not negotiate with Iran until they agree to stop their nuclear program - not matter how stupid that policy is, it is not illegal and no one should ge to jail for having that policy.

Torture is clearly illegal, not only a violation of international laws but of U.S. Federal law. It is statutory - thus, not policy.

BTW, the speed limits are also statutory laws - they are not policy. The only policy I know that is killing millions of Americans is the policy to allow 40 million Americans to go without health insurance.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 28 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Quote

But I believe that our principles are worth risking American lives to maintain. That's the basic difference between my thinking and that of Cheney and Bush and their apologists.

Quote

As P.O said he would let Americans die if it went going against these values to gain information.

I will let the readers decide for themselves if these two quotes express the same sentiments.

I do not think "risking American lives" is the same as "letting Americans die". The first is sending a fireman into a burning house. The second is failing to send in another fireman to save him when he gets in trouble.

I appreciate the input. I didn't think it would cause such a furor as it is absolutely plain to me that the statements are not really even close in meaning.