Torture Confusion
VIP Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,064
From: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by MVWRX
...I'll agree with that, they're just usually more internally coherant than saying "we're very much against torture because it is unamerican, but we're gonna give some of our agents permission to torture people..."
I could care less if we torture terrorists, but lets not pretend that we don't advocate torture because we do.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
Exactly.
I could care less if we torture terrorists, but lets not pretend that we don't advocate torture because we do.
I could care less if we torture terrorists, but lets not pretend that we don't advocate torture because we do.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...bush_torture_7
WTF is going on here...he declares out right that we do not torture, while making a speech about how it should be legal for the CIA to use torture? Doesn't that **** you off? I mean...does he think we're (the American people) retarded or something? What he's saying isn't even internally coherent!!
WTF is going on here...he declares out right that we do not torture, while making a speech about how it should be legal for the CIA to use torture? Doesn't that **** you off? I mean...does he think we're (the American people) retarded or something? What he's saying isn't even internally coherent!!
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
It does and it doesn't at the same time...
I think this stance is a good one. It allows us to only use torture as a necessary means of gathering intelligence while frowning on it when not absolutely required. Maybe he really isn't torturing but left that open as a possibility?
I dunno... this issue really doesn't bother me. Maybe if it was being done on a grand scale along with his denial i'd be a little more upset about the situation. But if he's deep fat frying a very small amount of bad men while claiming to not torture then I really could care less.
I think this stance is a good one. It allows us to only use torture as a necessary means of gathering intelligence while frowning on it when not absolutely required. Maybe he really isn't torturing but left that open as a possibility?
I dunno... this issue really doesn't bother me. Maybe if it was being done on a grand scale along with his denial i'd be a little more upset about the situation. But if he's deep fat frying a very small amount of bad men while claiming to not torture then I really could care less.
Last edited by Salty; Nov 7, 2005 at 02:59 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
HUH??!?!?! Did you read what he said in the speech?!?!?! He says TWO OPPOSING THINGS!! 1) We do not torture. Period. He says it, not me. 2) His VP is pushing to allow torture for CIA agents.
But if #1 is true, why does he give a s*** about #2!?!?! C'mon salty, I know you follow me on this...
But if #1 is true, why does he give a s*** about #2!?!?! C'mon salty, I know you follow me on this...
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Yes, I follow... but him saying both those two things says nothing about him actually torturing. Again, he's simply allowing the CIA the right to torture if necessary while taking the stance that he's not practicing torture.
Now if he was currently torturing (which we don’t know) while suggesting he never tortures, then that would be a problem.
Now if he was currently torturing (which we don’t know) while suggesting he never tortures, then that would be a problem.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Ok. George Bush Jr. didn't torture anyone himself. No s***
But when he said 'We do not torture' I interprete him as saying 'The USA does not torture'...he is our president after all. And if the USA does not torture, because it is unAmerican (as the pres said in a different speach), then the CIA doesn't torture because it is unAmerican. BUT, we need an allowance for the CIA to torture anyway???
Regardless, the admin is clearly trying to be sneeky and make it SEEM like noone in the USA will ever be tortured while making it legal for the CIA to torture people. Snake-like behavior.
But when he said 'We do not torture' I interprete him as saying 'The USA does not torture'...he is our president after all. And if the USA does not torture, because it is unAmerican (as the pres said in a different speach), then the CIA doesn't torture because it is unAmerican. BUT, we need an allowance for the CIA to torture anyway???
Regardless, the admin is clearly trying to be sneeky and make it SEEM like noone in the USA will ever be tortured while making it legal for the CIA to torture people. Snake-like behavior.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
But when he said 'We do not torture' I interprete him as saying 'The USA does not torture'...he is our president after all. And if the USA does not torture, because it is unAmerican (as the pres said in a different speach), then the CIA doesn't torture because it is unAmerican. BUT, we need an allowance for the CIA to torture anyway???
I think the problem is that you give these words from Bush serious weight when I know they are absolutely meaningless in a world that absolutely needs CI.
I don't know what else to tell you and sorry you're so upset about this. I guess this is one of the reasons why I didn't want to argue this thread. I know i'm willing to cast aside my feelings for those that pose a threat to this country just as every American leader has. Meanwhile others feel they should be warranted the same right(s) as Americans when they are not Americans.
If it means being "unAmerican" (call it whatever the hell you want) to get priority intelligence, so be it. Every President past should agree with this stance based on the fact it's a crucial tactic for CI and the security of our nation, and because no other President has ever completely eliminated the need for torture by field agents in the intelligence and military community.
Last edited by Salty; Nov 7, 2005 at 04:19 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Yeah, its pretty useless to discuss this without discussing weather or not torture should ever be employed...and that discussion has been had before. I suppose the reason it bothered me so much is the blatant incongruencies in what the president was saying within one speech.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
This is my take:
The gov't, from GW on down, does not support torture when it's "misused."
I know, how can torture be anything but misuse?
Example: Rounding up annoying Democrats and feeding them feet first into tree chippers a la Hussein is wrong.
Using what ever methods are employed to extract information about terrorist activity is right.
The gov't, from GW on down, does not support torture when it's "misused."
I know, how can torture be anything but misuse?
Example: Rounding up annoying Democrats and feeding them feet first into tree chippers a la Hussein is wrong.
Using what ever methods are employed to extract information about terrorist activity is right.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 691
From: Being stalked by Salty
Car Info: Looking for a Liberty CRD
Originally Posted by Oaf
This is my take:
The gov't, from GW on down, does not support torture when it's "misused."
I know, how can torture be anything but misuse?
Example: Rounding up annoying Democrats and feeding them feet first into tree chippers a la Hussein is wrong.
Using what ever methods are employed to extract information about terrorist activity is right.
The gov't, from GW on down, does not support torture when it's "misused."
I know, how can torture be anything but misuse?
Example: Rounding up annoying Democrats and feeding them feet first into tree chippers a la Hussein is wrong.
Using what ever methods are employed to extract information about terrorist activity is right.
"We do not torture" cannot be misinterpreted.
-Red Cross statement
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 9,198
From: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Car Info: 05 STi
I'm all for it assuming they are 100% guilty. I don't want to run the risk of potential "surrenderees" deciding to to fight to the death instead. If they're caught red handed cover them in gasoline and introgate them with a match as far as I'm concerned. I have no sympathy for them.