Activism Change

Is it OK to torture terrorists?

Question:

a previous post: what do you think? Is it OK to torture terrorists?

my reply: I belive yes, it is OK. He has information that we need to save lives.

Spartakus: So, in your world, an embryo or a fetus is the same as a born human being, and therefore should be protected, but on the other hand, a human being forfeits this protection because he may have useful information rattling around in his cranium.

To begin with, I’m not talking about killing them but I am talking about doing what it takes to get information to break up terrorist attacks even if it means physical violence and truth serum (spelling?). They forfeited their freedom by  trying to commit mass murder. I’m more in favor of protecting the people they are trying to murder than to protect the terrorists rights to live comfortably without telling us what we need to know to protect people that they are trying to murder. In abortion, a baby is killed and they haven’t committed the crimes that the terrorists have. When you care more about the terrorists rights than the babies’ right not to be killed then your priorities are wrong in my opinion. About abortion, see the baby in the womb and you can see that is a living human being. The 8th week is still in the first trimester and you can see their human features. It’s NOT just a clump of cells. It’s an atrocity to kill those babies. I work to peacefully to save those babies and I believe that doing it peacefully is important. -Sam

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – what do you think? Is it OK to torture terrorists? I belive yes, it is OK. He has information that we need to save lives. So, in your world, an embryo or a fetus is the same as a born human being, and therefore should be protected, but on the other hand, a human being forfeits this protection because he may have useful information rattling around in his cranium. To begin with, I’m not talking about killing them but I am talking about doing what it takes to get information to break up terrorist attacks even if it means physical violence and truth serum (spelling?). They forfeited their freedom by  trying to commit mass murder.

How convenient. Well, shall we simply declare YOU to be a "terrorist" and trying to commit "mass murder" and use that to torture you and put you in prison for life? And before you start bleating about how you haven’t been proven to be a terrorist remember that neither have they. It is appalling how those who crow loudest about their morals so readily demonstrate that they really have none at all. — Ray Fischer        

Response:

what do you think? Is it OK to torture terrorists? I belive yes, it is OK. He has information that we need to save lives. So, in your world, an embryo or a fetus is the same as a born human being, and therefore should be protected, but on the other hand, a human being forfeits this protection because he may have useful information rattling around in his cranium. To begin with, I’m not talking about killing them but I am talking about doing what it takes to get information to break up terrorist attacks even if it means physical violence and truth serum (spelling?). They forfeited their freedom by  trying to commit mass murder.

Which brings us full circle: there is a very good reason for not torturing people *accused*, but not convicted, of terrorism.  And that is, you may not have the right man.  According to a Taliban "source", Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "is still with us and in our protection and we challenge the United States to prove their claim." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layou… Have you noticed how this story has dropped off the event horizon?  Is it possible that they do indeed have the wrong man? Then, as Malapert pointed out, torture is *ineffective*; it is completely unreliable as a means of extracting useful information from an interrogatee. [--Sam's ranting about how the ends justify the means AND what a peaceful, non-violent guy he is--] You embrace a means of interrogation that is not only inhuman and immoral, but ineffective as well.  Thanks for letting us know what a monster you really are.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – what do you think? Is it OK to torture terrorists? I belive yes, it is OK. He has information that we need to save lives. So, in your world, an embryo or a fetus is the same as a born human being, and therefore should be protected, but on the other hand, a human being forfeits this protection because he may have useful information rattling around in his cranium. To begin with, I’m not talking about killing them but I am talking about doing what it takes to get information to break up terrorist attacks even if it means physical violence and truth serum (spelling?). They forfeited their freedom by  trying to commit mass murder. Which brings us full circle: there is a very good reason for not torturing people *accused*, but not convicted, of terrorism.  And that is, you may not have the right man.  According to a Taliban "source", Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "is still with us and in our protection and we challenge the United States to prove their claim." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layou… Have you noticed how this story has dropped off the event horizon?  Is it possible that they do indeed have the wrong man?

So, are we to believe the Taliban? Is that what you are saying or am I misunderstanding you? Then, as Malapert pointed out, torture is *ineffective*; it is completely unreliable as a means of extracting useful information from an interrogatee. [--Sam's ranting about how the ends justify the means AND what a peaceful, non-violent guy he is--] You embrace a means of interrogation that is not only inhuman and immoral, but ineffective as well.

How do you know it’s ineffective? Anyways, I’m more for using drugs like truth serum (spelling?). That would probably be the most effective. Thanks for letting us know what a monster you really are.

Here comes Sparakus with his immaturity again. Grow up. You don’t know how to have a civilized conversation.

Response:

If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong. NOTHING.-Jitney

Response:

If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong. NOTHING.-Jitney

More words of wisdom from the Right.

Response:

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.bush, talk.abortion, alt.abortion, alt.activism If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong. NOTHING

Why? I’m aware of lots of thing that are wrong – abortion and birth aren’t in that set.

Response:

Filed under: Activism Politics

Related Posts

• WEN as Disinfo Artist, disected
• THE HOLOCAUST FRAUD
• A Well-Regulated Militia
• On Forbidden Lusts
• BUSH: The "Energy President" (I)
• Glorify Welfare! A Brief Intro. to Mothers' Pay
• NEED FOR NEW NEWSGROUP - alt.activism.methods
• NORML's Incompetent Keith Stroup 1.03
• hCG for Kaposi's Sarcoma? Not!
• New forum on socialism and communism