Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Welllll... That's a little disingenuous. You HAVE acknowledged the failings of the administration, all the while excusing them and dismissing their significance. You're clearly still a good Bushie.
You're welcome to that opinion, of course. Even though you're nuts.  |
So, if I talk about FDR's failings in terms of the internment camps, but I still think that on a net basis he was a good President - that makes me nuts???
I don't dismiss the signifigance of Bush's failings, I just keep them in perspective. I also understand making a choice on principle or conviction to do certain things outside of the norm or even possibly illegal. I.e. - Wiretaps, something I would have done as President.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
His statement, where he used the word 'certain' was incorrect, true or false?
|
We are starting to split hairs. Sadaam had WMD, he did not have nuclear weapons, but he was seeking to get or develop nuclear weapons.
Quote:
|
You believe that in wartime the president should be able to break the law to do what he or she thinks is best? You don't think that creates an unprecedented opportunity for abuse?
|
I am no saint, I doubt Bush is. All I know is that there are laws that I would violate under certain circumstances, I think Bush would too. I would accept the consequences of my actions.
Quote:
|
It doesn't matter what you think of the UN. It doesn't even matter what people think of the Geneva Conventions or any other legal treaty the US has signed in good faith. They have been signed, and as they do not contradict the Constitution or Bill of Rights, they are US Law. You can hate every member of the UN and think they should all burn in hell for eternity. We signed a treaty with them in the form of a convention.
|
See the above, same answer. If I think a governing body is wrong on an issue, I would violate their law on that issue
under certain circumstances. On the issue of torture, if I thought torture could save the lives of people I care about, I would think about it first and then most likely do it.
Quote:
Let me be clear and reiterate: conventions like the the UN Convention Against Torture are US law because they were signed and do not conflict with the Constitution.
There are standards of humanity that we aren't sticking to, and to make matter all the worse, torture is completely unreliable as a source of information. I wrote several papers on this while getting my degree in psychology, with verifiable and reliable citations. Besides being morally reprehensible, torture is illegal because it's ineffective for extracting information. It's a joke. It's real purpose is to create fear. Anyone who says otherwise is, quite frankly, a complete idiot with no understanding of how the human mind works... and is just making a bullshit excuse to be cruel.
I've never been tortured, personally, but I can imagine that it is absolutely horrible. I've seen depictions of water-boarding, electrocution, sleep depravation, etc. and they seem to be something only a monster could inflict. If you, ace, are saying that you would torture people, may I just say that I find that attitude inhuman and despicable. I hope I misunderstood your statement.
|
I am not saying these things are easy and that I am not conflicted. War is ugly. I don't think we chose this war with our enemy, I think they chose us. Nor do I think you can fight a moral war, war means people die, get hurt, freedoms are take and property is destroyed. Some can pretend that we can fight a moral war or that this war is a choice, I won't and I realized that sometimes ugly things have to be done.
The discussions on torture are always interesting to me because it seems like those most against torture see torture as something worse than taking a human life, is that true in your view?