Exactly WHERE did you see me say I support torture???
You did not, as I do not, and never have.
I guess you never heard of Air India.....before 9-11 I believe it was the worst terror attack ever done.....anywhere.
How Conservatives Feel About Torture
- Thread starter Vanni Fucci
- Start date
Exactly WHERE did you see me say I support torture???
You did not, as I do not, and never have.
I guess you never heard of Air India.....before 9-11 I believe it was the worst terror attack ever done.....anywhere.
Once you OK using information or sharing based on torture you are ever closer to condoning it
and engaging in it yourself. This is not good policy in the long run. I am not surprised though,
given the nature of this government. This is a government of do what we please and then just
justify it later. One step at a time.
It used to be Canada had the respect of ordinary people around the world, now we are just
another player along with the civilized nations that wink and nod with little more than hollow
words. Oh I know we have saved lives by having someone else torture people, we have of
course not done such deed we condemn ourselves but we condone it and that means we do in
fact engage in it from a distance.
We don't mind that we get our information from crazy people who torture others for the hell of it.
They were after all going to torture someone so why not use the information and pass it on to
our allies?
What does that really say about the direction of our society? Remember if you lay down with dogs
you wake up with flees. We are setting ourselves up for another round of apologies in fifty or
sixty years. This type of action is not different that taking all the Japanese property and then
resettling them during WWII. The only difference is we do it from a distance but the intent of being
up to no good is the same.
and engaging in it yourself. This is not good policy in the long run. I am not surprised though,
given the nature of this government. This is a government of do what we please and then just
justify it later. One step at a time.
It used to be Canada had the respect of ordinary people around the world, now we are just
another player along with the civilized nations that wink and nod with little more than hollow
words. Oh I know we have saved lives by having someone else torture people, we have of
course not done such deed we condemn ourselves but we condone it and that means we do in
fact engage in it from a distance.
We don't mind that we get our information from crazy people who torture others for the hell of it.
They were after all going to torture someone so why not use the information and pass it on to
our allies?
What does that really say about the direction of our society? Remember if you lay down with dogs
you wake up with flees. We are setting ourselves up for another round of apologies in fifty or
sixty years. This type of action is not different that taking all the Japanese property and then
resettling them during WWII. The only difference is we do it from a distance but the intent of being
up to no good is the same.
I think this whole notion of using information from foreigners which may have been extracted through torture is blind to the enormous probability that just about anyone would tell any lie to get someone to stop torturing them. So the information is unreliable at best.
Not that I'm opposed to torturing some sonsabitches, but for the right reasons.
;?)
Not that I'm opposed to torturing some sonsabitches, but for the right reasons.
;?)
Last edited:
You are quite happy to utilize info obtained by torture performed by others therefore you support toture.
That wasn't directed toward Canada, but it did happen here, I stand corrected.
Nooo...
But let me say this....if you ignore information that could save large numbers of lives simply because it MIGHT have been gained by torture, well, then you support terror.
Same stretch.
Ahhh, torture... A Conservative's moral dilemma. It hurts to think about it...
To misquote Karl...
To misquote Karl...
"On a level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the insipid flatness of our present bourgeois Conservatives is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects"
Thanks for the greenie, Colpy. I now feel compelled to say something nice about our new Conservative Government.
Steven Harper's sweaters are not "three sizes too small." Shame on you, Dr. Seuss!
Steven Harper's sweaters are not "three sizes too small." Shame on you, Dr. Seuss!
Actually, the greenie was a mistake....
But that's ok.....you can apply it to your post here quoted instead
And a number of things could go wrong. You may torture the wrong person for one. Plus information gained from torture is notoriously unreliable. If I were the guy in your hypothetical scenario and guilty I would simply make something up. In that scenario you only have to keep the authorities busy for 12 hours or so chasing something that doesnt exist. They were die hard religious fanatics who commited suicide in these attacks, they're not going to give in under torture. At least not give anything useful.
Accept torture and you abandon some of the core principles our society is based on including what many have died for. Do that and the enemy wins.
I think you're really looking at this much too simplistically.
There are a lot of variables at play, and we would have to ensure that the government passes a number of strict rudimentary checks in order to have the authority to torture for information. They would need to be aware that if they didn't pass through these checks, there would be serious repercussions.
Before 9/11, maybe we could have argued that the likelihood of an event like this was so slim that it wouldn't be warranted to begin with. Before we can justify these sorts of measures we have to legitimately answer the following questions:
What is the likelihood that a serious terrorist event could take place?
What is the scope of danger or threat resulting from such an event?
What probability is there that torture would result in divulging information that would save lives?
What is a sufficient body of evidence in order to proceed with torture in order to derive this information in the first place?
You see, the more likely the possibility of torture, coupled with an increasing degree of harm along with the feasibility of saving lives - these are the things that could justify torture for information. The less likely, smaller scope and frivolous gains or god forbid - worse consequences as a result of torture - these are the things that would not justify torture for information.
That's how we have to look at this issue.
Not simply as a matter of ethical principle based on an on and off switch.
That was Iggy's position before becoming a Liberal. Also all Govts have recieved and used info from countries that practice torture. Laying it at the door on the Cons is utter BS.
I think the point is that we should not be sharing intelligence with nations that are known to use torture as a means of interrogation. That makes the "torture under the right circumstances" argument a moot point. That the CSIS directive clearly states that it is permissible to share intelligence from nations that are known to engage in torture, and even so far as known to have been extracted through the use of torture, it seriously flys in the face of our previous official position on the issue.
That it was done in secret, and had to be retrieved under Access to Information Act indicates that they knew it was wrong at the time and wanted to keep it on the low-low, as it contradicts what we have told the world about our official position on torture...torture is wrong, every time!!
That it was done in secret, and had to be retrieved under Access to Information Act indicates that they knew it was wrong at the time and wanted to keep it on the low-low, as it contradicts what we have told the world about our official position on torture...torture is wrong, every time!!
I think both parties know how to play this one. It seems kind of like the discussion around the abortion issue of whether a fetus is a human or not. They both take a somewhat exaggerated stance just yell at each other, so that they don't need to actually make a compromise.
So we shouldn't be sharing intelligence with the U.S. then?
Are you telling me that in the last election, when I voted for Iggy, I was voting Conservative. Damm.
I'm guessing that you don't have brown skin and are not named Achnad Al-Jafar then...maybe your tune would change if you were...
I'm not white, I'm more of a perma tan, I don't ID as white and I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my support of intensive interrogation.
Maybe you don't understand what intensive interrogation is, as compared to torture.
But hey, don't let that stop you from coming up with all sorts of conclusions.