On torture: I Trust President Obama

[Michigander_Life]

The world isn't black and white. There are nightmare scenarios that could occur at any time. We elect leaders like President Obama to make the most difficult decisions and then live with the consequences. I do not think he would have anyone tortured without an immediate, imminent, credible threat. But that's why we elect our leaders -- to make those decisions.

Using a completely hypothetical scenario, if our security agencies uncovered a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, had discovered that the bomb had already been smuggled onto our soil, and had apprehended one of the terrorists with direct knowledge of the pending attack, why shouldn't torture be on the table if all other means of extracting information necessary to thwart the attack have failed?

How many lives do we need to sacrifice on the altar of the moral highground?

Should such a scenario arise, it would behoove us not to exclude all available options, but rather to make completely transparent whatever course of action we choose.

[Coventina]

1. I predict greatness for this thread....

PS: Torture is always wrong. Always. But, I predict this thread will be triple digits.......

[Michigander_Life]

5. Thanks

It has to survive the activist juries which is unlikely.

[Coventina]

12. I think you might be misunderstanding the jury system.

The jury exists to render a verdict, that is taking action, or being "activist". That is rather the point.

You may disagree with the jury system the admins have put in place, but yes, the juries exist to "act" and relieve the admins from reviewing every complaint.

Good luck with your thread!!!

[Michigander_Life]

18. Activist juries censor unpopular opinions; good juries enforce the community standards

[Coventina]

24. If you honestly feel that you have been unfairly censored, I recommend you take it up in ATA.

I have found the admins to be very fair and give all reasonable arguments an impartial listen.

[daleanime]

29. So have you consider why....

your opinions are unpopular?

[Zorra]

56. Not only that, but those "activist" juries almost always censor RW trolls, socks, and zombies

when they express unpopular opinions.

I've been on many juries where the alerter says, "Obvious troll, please hide", and then I don't get to see the results, because MIRT or admins have changed the poster's name to michigandem58 Name Removed.

[Orsino]

117. Welcome to Democrat Underground! n/t

[betsuni]

124. Heh, good one! n/t

[Michigander_Life]

125. Thanks, you too!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

17. "Activist juries"?

[ReRe]

78. I thought the same thing...

You do remember who the first squealers were about our "activist" Supreme Court?
Now they are on here squealing about DU "activist" juries. What a trip.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

81. He's mad he was PPRed as MichiganDem58...

Spandan, or Milt Shook, or whoever this dude is.

I love this thread, and I love DU!

[cui bono]

88. "activist juries" Hm... that sounds familiar... where have I heard that before?

Oh! I know! When the Teabaggers and GOP said "activist judges". I get it now...

[PassingFair]

131. But, but, even Shepard Smith says NO

NO TORTURE EVER!

[leftstreet]

2. With 17+ Intel agencies, there should be no 'credible threats'

If these bloated law enforcement agencie$ can't prevent 'threats' without torture, they're assclowns

[Michigander_Life]

6. I'm sure knowing that the law enforcement are assclowns

Would be comforting to the millions of deceased in the aforementioned scenario.

[Pholus]

48. "millions of deceased in the aforementioned scenario..."

If it makes you feel better I said a lot of imaginary prayers in the imaginary memorial I built for them. But I did hurry cause I had to build a new hypothetical memorial for all the victims of "Sharknado" too.

Anyway, wow, what a change for DU! I used to come here to vent about all those conservatives who watched too much "Jack Bauer" and decided that of course you torture the bad guy cause that's how you get things done.

I'm old and feeble after years of those arguments, so I will recycle the primary arguments against the premise of the show "24" by citing the Wikipedia article that those debates created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

I think the best summary of your "scenario" is in the article appearing alongside the words "artificially simple moral answers"

[kas125]

129. OMG, I finally watched Sharknado last night on Netflix.

The guy on the news was right - it was so bad that it was good. I haven't laughed so much at a movie in I can't remember how long.

[Pholus]

133. Excellent!

I loved the number of cameos in Sharknado 2!

[kas125]

134. I really want to see that one, too.

It's hard to imagine how they can top the end of the first one, though. That was so ridiculous that it was hysterical!

[sabrina 1]

3. There is no scenario under which War Crimes, and torture is a war crime, is ever

okay. I thought we all knew that already. I am totally shocked to see the same excuses for Torture right here, on DU, that we so totally rejected during the Bush Administration when we saw them on the Right.

Did you always 'trust' your leaders, because 'we' elected Bush/Cheney also as a country, so did you apply that same standard to them?

Unbelievable, if this is the future of this country, then all the work we did to try to restore the rule of law was for nothing. We were WRONG to second Bush/Cheney who were probably only trying to make difficult decisions to protect us. Is that your view?

[el_bryanto]

4. Torture teaches a very important lesson - people will say things to stop being tortured.

Sometimes those things are accurate, and sometimes they are inaccurate (either through deception or through mental breakdowns). How are you going to know the difference?

In your hypothetical scenario what stops the terrorist from saying he hid it at Angels Stadium when it's really at the Coliseum?

And if torture isn't that effective, why do it? Just as a means of pretending strength?

Bryant

[Michigander_Life]

8. No doubt

But something is better than nothing -- and what if he tells the truth?

[el_bryanto]

13. A lie is not better than nothing - it's worse than nothing.

It's not worth the risk.

And that's not to mention the stain on our national honor, which others have mentioned.

If I believed torture was effective, I could be persuaded that the lives of a city in this very narrow scenario you propose would justify torture. But since torture isn't effective than there is no reason to consider it.

Bryant

[Michigander_Life]

23. I don't know about that

Are there any scientific studies proving it doesn't work? If I knew something and I was being tortured until I revealed that information, I would reveal it pretty quickly. Maybe I'm just a wimp.

[Coventina]

25. I recommend you read "The Black Banners" by Ali Soufan

I feel every American should read it.

But, those who find themselves "wrestling" about the pros & cons of torture should DEFINITELY read it.

It is written by a former FBI anti-terrorist agent who was on the front lines when 9/11 happened, and saw as the fight against terrorism descended into madness.

Please read it, you'll be glad you did.

[el_bryanto]

64. Well I'd like to believe you aren't of a mindset where you would

set off a bomb in a major metropolitan area anyway. so possibly your mind isn't the one we have to worry about.

Bryant

[DeadLetterOffice]

87. Please see post #70 n/t

[QC]

7. Just as long as no nipples are exposed during the torture.

Otherwise, someone might mistake it for breast feeding.

[Michigander_Life]

11. NSFW

Like nipples, images of torture should be flagged with NSFW warning tags.

[MrTriumph]

9. "But that's why we elect our leaders -- to make those decisions"... To break the law!?

Election does not grant immunity from the law.

[shraby]

14. Torture violates the Geneva Conventions, and is a war crime. Anyone who

tortures in time of war should immediately be sent to the Hague. No ifs, ands, or buts. War crimes have no statute of limitations.
My question is why haven't the perps since 9-11 been prosecuted yet?

Also, propaganda was prosecuted as a war crime after WWII and the leading newspaper in Germany had it's owner hung for it.
Time for the owner of Fox News to answer for his crimes also.

[pinboy3niner]

15. Instant DU classic!

Thankyou Jack Bauer.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. That's not an apt comparison. One is a fictional character created by right wingers. The

other............ hmmmmmm never mind.

[msanthrope]

34. Right up there with the Oscar thread...and just as unbelieveable....

[Hekate]

118. The Oscar thread was a lot more enjoyable, and a lot less like turning over a rock. nt

[pinboy3niner]

126. +1

[NuclearDem]

16. With torture, it is black and white.

It doesn't work, and it's despicable.

[spanone]

132. yes, one either tortures or they don't. and it DOES NOT work.

[LanternWaste]

19. Sounds much like a rather melodramatic way of simply saying, "doing the right thing"

"altar of the moral highground?"

Sounds much like a rather melodramatic way of simply saying, "doing the right thing," ...which if taken as such, certainly places your question into a far realm of the absurd.

[TheKentuckian]

21. No, we elect leaders to honor the constitution and make decisions in the framework of our laws and

principles.

I really could care less about your trusting Obama, people trusted Bush, there will be people who trust our next President, there are folks who still stand by Nixon. What difference does this trust make? Torture is never permissible and if it some rare and pressing 24 style circumstances then that is what the pardon power is for, we don't legitimize what at most will be situations few and far between not something we should be changing the law to enumerate.

[unblock]

22. that might be a tough moral quandary if that fantasy existed outside hollywood.

there are people willing to literally blow themselves to smithereens for their cause. suicide bombers.

not that that's a novel concept; there have always been people willing to lay down their lives for what, in their minds, is a just cause.

if all the other techniques don't work, it's because that particular person simply is willing to die before revealing any secrets they might have. torture has never been shown to extract any information that couldn't have been acquired though far more civilized methods. moreover, the information that does get extracted is usually itself highly suspect, just something said to stop the torture, if only temporarily. it then sends us on wild goose chases.


finally, that's simply and obviously *not* the reason torture is done. it's the excuse used to sell it to the masses. the reason it's done is to satisfy a sick need for gloating and power and to humiliate the captured prisoner.

you can tell this is the case because if it were done purely for the purpose of extracting information that couldn't be gotten otherwise, then there would be great regret in every statement about it. "we're terrible sorry to have to go to the last resort method of torture on this matter, but we've tried everything else and came up short, and due to the imminent threat involved, we're going to have to make a great exception to our principles of respect for prisoners and our international obligations under the geneva convention in this isolated case."

yeah, right. when was the last time you heard anything remotely like that? no, it's always yeah, we need to extract information, and by the way, these people are the lowest forms of scum alive and deserve a fate worse than death and 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!

[LordGlenconner]

26. Torture is never justfiable

But then again, blaming a sitting president for a past president's torture isn't either, especially when the current president is the only president in the history of this country to acknowledge it has happened.

[LondonReign2]

50. Can you show me these posts

where anyone is blaming Obama for the torture that occurred during the Bush era?

Yeah, I didn't think so

[LordGlenconner]

52. They're all over the place

But hey, you see what you want to see I guess.

[m-lekktor]

76. you are mischaracterizing what is going on,

YOU see what YOU want to see through your "obama can do no wrong" filter.

nobody is blaming obama for torture.

[LondonReign2]

80. No, they aren't

I would say there are exactly zero posts blaming Obama for Bush era torturing. If they are 'all over the place" perhaps you could point to two or three?

You can't because your claim is utter bullshit, which you are fully aware of

[laundry_queen]

82. So you have nothing.

unsurprising.

[cui bono]

112. I haven't seen one yet. Please provide something to back up your claim.

Or are you talking about the OP of this thread and the OP's reply further down where s/he said they trust Obama to torture responsibly?
That's the only place I've seen anyone come close to saying that Obama tortures.

[stranger81]

51. President Obama does deserve credit for using the "T" word

instead of the bullshit euphemism-of-the-day. But if we were really a country of laws and respectable moral standards, prosecutions would be happening.

[m-lekktor]

74. nobody is blaming him. just annoyed that he said get over it

you sanctimonious people. oh and that the torturers were just patriots under pressure, just folks torturing folks.

[moriah]

27. I agree on transparency, which the Bush administration lacked.

But I personally could not justify torture under any circumstances. Besides being wrong, torture doesn't work.

[NightWatcher]

28. Wasn't this an episode of 24? Or was it a Bond movie? No wait, it was a Ben Affleck flick..

[msanthrope]

31. Jason Bourne. nt

[PoliticAverse]

33. Torture always seems to work in movies and on TV. n/t

[bhikkhu]

58. That was like every episode of 24

I kind of liked the series, but the constant "torture gets answers right away" thing wore me down. In reality, torture is a lousy way of getting information. Plenty of research on the whole thing in the last few decades, but people forget, then we get a brain-dead TV series...

[BainsBane]

30. If you trust the President, why would you argue torture is acceptable?

in certain situations when he signed executive orders banning it? Among his remarks that were overlooked on Friday is that a people are judged by what they do in the worst of times, not the best. The discussion on DU over the past few days has been about what to do with those who committed torture under Bush, not about whether Obama's administration is carrying it out.

[msanthrope]

32. The President has banned torture. So, apparently, you don't trust him. nt

[Michigander_Life]

35. Torture has always been banned / illegal.

That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And I trust Obama to make the right call -- even if what he does behind closed doors isn't what he advocates on television.

[msanthrope]

37. Welcome to DU!!! Who were you before? nt

[LondonReign2]

40. LOL

So true

[morningfog]

47. Pretty sure he was that michigandem58 or whatever.

The one who trolled "emotarians."

[cui bono]

113. That's what I thought when I first saw this poster...

but this thread and their replies in this thread make me think ClarkUSA.

[Iggo]

36. Rationalizing and justifying torture.

Beautiful.

[LondonReign2]

38. Ho...ly...fucking...christ

And then OP reced own thread

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. Hey, it's a tough job that this guy has, working hard under enormous pressure and he's a real ...

<fill in your own noun> . I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were when the OP fell down the GD page and the Greatest Page had been hit and the popularity of the thread had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our party line enforcement and our presidential security teams to try to deal with this.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. .

.

[pinboy3niner]

43. Has the activist jury weighed in yet?

Inquisitioning minds want to know.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

53. I don't know. But I'd trust activist jury members on cyber torture. I mean

, what if they no something we don't? What if they find a suspected troll and decided to slam a digital mallet on his privates? Who are we to question?

[deurbano]

102. Good one!

[geomon666]

41. Welcome to DU, Britney

[Brigid]

65. You get this . . .

for reminding me that Britney Spears exists.

[whatchamacallit]

71. +1! First thing I though of too n/t

[NightWatcher]

42. How many lives have we sacrificed because we didn't torture someone?

"Altar of the moral highground"? Seriously, which dvd box did you read that off the back of?

[AgingAmerican]

44. "Tortured some folks"

'Everyone' was scared. What's not to understand, right?

[morningfog]

45. Flame bait torture apologia. Torture is never okay.

Not even when Obama minimizes it.

[winter is coming]

46. No, we do NOT elect leaders to do our thinking for us.

As for your hypothetical scenario, that's exactly the sort of argument Bushco used to "justify" torture and IT IS STUPID. People who are being tortured will say anything to make it stop. Torture is a LOUSY way to get useful intel.

[WilliamPitt]

54. My brain just died.

[winter is coming]

59. Then you've got something in common with the OP.

Sorry if you find that comparison offensive.

[bigtree]

55. gotta highlight these threads justifying/advocating torture

. . . someone will claim they've never seen them . . .so they must not exist.

It would 'behoove us' to make ourselves aware of the facts . . .


from the 2013 Issue Brief for the Human Rights Council (HRC)
Responding to Accusations of Torture by the United States at Guantanamo Bay:

There are no documented examples of a terrorist attack revealed or thwarted by information recovered through torture. Successful interrogations were reportedly achieved at Guantanamo, but these relied on conventional interrogation practices stressing interrogator empathy and relationship.

While the US administration argued prisoners were not entitled to the rights stated in the Geneva Convention, article two of the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) to which the United States is a signatory clearly states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

http://al.odu.edu/mun/conference/2013_issue_briefs/Issue%20brief%202013%20-%20HRC-%20Responding%20to%20Accusations%20of%20Torture%20by%20the%20United%20States%20at%20Guantanamo%20Bay.pdf

[TDale313]

57. I can't believe on a supposedly Democratic board...

That I actually have to say/debate this. Torture is wrong. Also, illegal. And a war crime. FFS!!! And no, it doesn't matter if it happens under "our guy/gal" or "their guy/gal". And if our guy doesn't seem to want to deal with the war crimes the last administration allowed to happen, because it could get messy, tough shit- still wrong.

[MerryBlooms]

60. No. Never should torture be acceptable. Never. Period.

[Starry Messenger]

61. The self-rec, always a sign you are destined for greatness.

[TDale313]

68. Yes, and so far it's the only rec.

Which, along with the responses, frankly makes me feel better about the thread.

[cui bono]

91. Well, now there's a second rec, but they're puzzled.

[BainsBane]

114. Lol

This thread is actually pretty entertaining.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. How much torture do we have to rationalize with hypotheticals to sacrifice morality.

I love hypotheticals like the one you proposed.

How about: If terrorist captured you and your wife, would you torture her if they said they would kill both of you if you didn't?

[Coventina]

66. I couldn't find it in a quick google search, but I remember reading about

an underground resistance fighter in WWII that shot his wife in order to keep her from getting arrested by the Nazis.

Horrific, but understandable. I'd much rather be killed quickly by someone I love than tortured.
Some things are worse than death.
Torture is one of them.

Sad that this has to be explained, HERE of all places.....

[Distant Quasar]

63. What if, what if? Please let's stick to the real world

where such extreme ticking-bomb scenarios virtually never occur and where the U.S. government systematically tortured countless people over a period of years, despite the plethora of other options at their disposal.

[Ms. Toad]

67. I do not elect leaders to give them the authority

to carry out assassinations or torture. Neither are EVER acceptable. Period.

[GeorgeGist]

69. When did President Obama indicate that he would approve torture?

[DeadLetterOffice]

70. Yes, Michigan, there HAVE been studies.

Google Scholar can be your friend if you're actually interested.

Meanwhile, some handy information from "Erroneous Assumptions: Popular Belief in the Effectiveness of Torture Interrogation," by Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, in Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(4), November 2007, p 429–435.

...experienced military interrogators believe that torture and abuse should unquestionably be avoided. In the words of one senior Army interrogator, “Beyond the moral imperative, the competent interrogator avoids torture because it is counter-productive and unreliable …. In my two decades of experience as an interrogator, I know of no competent interrogator that would resort to torture. Not one” (Bennett, 2006). In their recent Statement on In terrogation Practices (Bauer, 2006), 20 Army interrogators and interrogation technicians, representing over 200 years of interrogation service and experience (from Vietnam to Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq), unequivocally contradicted the proposition that torture is necessary to win the “War on Terror.” Recently released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports make it clear that the FBI, too (in contrast to the Central Intelligence Agency), objected to the use of torture and regarded it as an unreliable and ineffective interrogation method (Dratel, 2006; also see Suskind, 2006).

The Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collection (Field Manual 2-22.3; 2006) provides a long list and discussion of approach techniques, all of which are based on the establishment of rapport between the interrogator and the source. These are powerful techniques, and social psychology attests to their success (see Cialdini, 2001; also see McCauley, this issue). Successful interrogation is based on understanding the motives, needs, and self-perceptions of the other in the service of developing an effective strategy for eliciting intelligence information. Effective interrogation relies on persuasion strategies used in everyday life, but produced with greater forethought, applied with greater deliberation, and maintained in the context of objectivity and social control. (For recent accounts of successful interrogations in the “War on Terror” using these social influence techniques, see Bowden, 2007 and Suskind, 2006.)

[Marrah_G]

72. WTF???????????????????????

[Capt. Obvious]

73. Oh I suppose you'd be happy with President McCain being in charge of torturing some folks?

[TDale313]

77. To be fair, having been tortured,

Despite all his faults McCain seems fairly clear on the "Torture bad" concept. And yeah, I know you were kidding, but still... Seemed a fair point to make.

[m-lekktor]

83. I only trust Democrats to torture!

I am the loyalist of Democrats!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. I don't trust anyone who would torture or authorize torture....or excuse it.

[Savannahmann]

79. But here be the rub

Torture doesn't work. You get information, but it's inaccurate. In other words, the guy tends to lie to make the pain stop.

Let's take a look at Alan West shall we? It was decided that the suspect, an innocent Iraqi Cop, had information about the insurgents plan to attack the Americans. No matter how much the Iraqi denied any knowledge or involvement the interrogators were absolutely certain he was lying. Colonel Alan West pulled his pistol, placed it next to the suspects ear, and pulled the trigger. The resulting bang was loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. The suspect began babbling, swearing that there were attacks coming from every direction he could think of, to make the pain end, to save his life, and limb.

The "nightmare" scenario on shows like 24 always work out in favor of torture. Yet in real life, they don't work out that way. Oh, you'll have the odd success, but most of the information you end up with is pure fantasy. Crap made up to get the pain to stop.

Let's say someone decided that you had such information. They begin to smack you around, or smack a loved one around. It will stop only when you confess. You confess to save yourself, your loved ones. Well, they know you're guilty, they have a confession. Sure, all the information is nonsense, but that doesn't matter, you confessed and an innocent person wouldn't have no matter what they did to you.

That's the truth about torture. IT doesn't work. It just doesn't work. For every truthful statement you get out of the actual baddies, you get dozens of lies to make the pain stop. One success out of dozens of efforts is not a reliable method of interrogation.

Here is a better idea. Brain scans to detect lies. Ask the guy if the attack is coming on Tuesday. He says no, the computer says he's lying. We have the tech now. But we want to return to the baser instincts and smack the guy around and make him talk.

I trust President Obama, like you. Unlike you that trust is not limitless. If President Obama were to propose or condone such actions, I would oppose him using every argument that I could muster. Especially since the torture you mention, probably wouldn't allow the authorities to stop the nuclear bomb nightmare scenario in Los Angeles that you mention. So a more accurate situation would be we tortured the guy until he talked, and then we found out he was lying. But we can't prosecute the ones who tortured because they're dead too.

We interviewed Nazi soldiers, and got lots of information. We interviewed Japanese Prisoners, when we could get them, and got lots of information without torture. Nazi's and Japanese used torture, and rarely got any useful information. You tell me what the advantage of the moral high ground. Because you can always toss out a justification for doing the wrong thing. The best of intentions is always a good excuse. If that is the case, why did we oppose Colonel West? Because he was a torturer and a Lunatic RW Douche in my case. In yours, I'm presuming it is only because he was a RW Douce, he did torture with the best of intentions right?

[mr blur]

84. "We elect leaders like President Obama to make the most difficult decisions..."?!

" But that's why we elect our leaders -- to make those decisions.", you say?

Like when you elected Bush? How many lives were you willing to sacrifice then on the basis of what he insisted was the "moral highground"?

Still, that's why you elected him, eh? To make those decisions that ended up killing hundreds of thousands?

My President right or wrong?

[derby378]

85. Yeah, that sounded like the Republican line on elections

Their idea is that once the elections are over, we no longer have a say in how our leaders govern America, so we should just STFU and watch the Kardashians on TV.

[Hekate]

86. Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch. Who the hell are you again?

Obama would not torture anyone, nor would he order it done by someone else. You are confusing this POTUS with someone else.

What a bullshit post.

[BainsBane]

110. Several people have pointed out that Obama has banned torture

but the OP doesn't seem concerned. He's managed to rile up the people who insist there is no difference between failing to prosecute torture and actually engaging it, as demonstrated by the comment "the scary Republicans might get in again"--the very Republicans who have criticized Obama relentlessly for NOT engaging in torture.

[cui bono]

89. Interesting that we had the same hypotheticals come up before Obama was POTUS,

when BushCo was doing the torturing, and the conclusion drawn (for the most part, I can't speak for every single post) was that torture was never okay.

Now that Obama is POTUS and the apologists must defend his every word the tables have turned. Congratulations for not having any principles what so ever.

[Michigander_Life]

90. I trust Obama to use torture responsibly

I don't trust Bush and never did.

[cui bono]

93. What is responsible torture?

I trust Obama to use torture responsibly

And you proved my point completely with that post btw. Just because Obama is doing it you are fine with it, even when it's torture. Pathetic.

[Rex]

104. It really strikes at the heart of the problem, blind trust is dangerous.

I trust Obama is NOT torturing people, knowingly. I DON'T trust the CIA however, I wouldn't be surprised if they are torturing people right now in Syria. Unbeknown to the POTUS.

The kicker is that Obama must know the CIA is out of control...now what is he going to do about it? Give them platitudes? Not going to work imo. Just makes it worse.

[winter is coming]

94. It's not possible to use torture responsibly. n/t

[cui bono]

109. Seriously, what is responsible torture?

Please answer.

[historylovr]

128. If it's being done patriotically and under pressure, apparently.

I swear, I keep looking to see if I missed the sarcasm tag on this op, but alas, he's serious.

[Marrah_G]

130. WTF? " I trust Obama to use torture responsibly"

You are SICK!

[Cali_Democrat]

92. Obama has stated time and time again that he does not believe in torture

He signed an executive order banning the practice right after he was sworn in as President.

Your post makes little sense.

[Uncle Joe]

95. Do you trust the next President?

Thanks for the thread, Michigander_Life.

[frazzled]

96. Obama banned torture. Full stop.

We cannot and will not do it under his administration, as per the executive order banning the use of torture as an interrogation technique that was one of his first acts in office. Full stop.

There's nothing to discuss here except whether he is being too kind to the previous (torturing) administration. But nothing he says in that regard will change the past anyway. In terms of his own policy, torture is completely out of the question. Still, he will not put previous administration members on trial to satisfy people's anger (and I was damned angry, too). The country is divided enough: he sees his job to heal the nation from those times and make sure that its wrongs do not occur under his watch. Whether something "stronger" would deter future administrations from torturing again is pure speculation. We might as well wonder whether some day a president will pack a court or put people in internment camps because we did not prosecute FDR for doing so.

Full stop.

[Demit]

98. "he will not put previous administration members on trial to satisfy people's anger"

That's not why you put people on trial. You put people on trial because they have broken a law. I'm pretty sure our Constitutional Law Professor President would back me up on that.

And that healing the nation thing? A wound doesn't heal if you leave the dirt in it.

[sibelian]

100. Deaf ears, Demit.

Deaf ears. The scary Republicans might get in next time.

[Rex]

97. That you would trust anyone with torture speaks volumes about you.

The POTUS is totally against torture, so please take this pretend world that he uses it somewhere else. Thanks.

[sibelian]

99. Not only that, but if you think Obama SHOULDN'T be trusted to use torture responsibly

you might be racist. Or a Libertarian.

[upaloopa]

101. That sounds like what wing nuts said about W

They said W was President and as such he knew things we didn't so it was a good idea to trust his judgment on what ever we weren't in the know about.
What bull shit it was then and is now. It is our duty to keep our leaders in our sights and to make sure they are doing the right thing not just "trust Obama". That is shirking your responsibility in my opinion .

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

103. Anyone who is willing to torture another human being

should be willing to spend years in jail.

Even averting a far greater crime should not be an excuse for committing acts of torture.

I would not one person tortured if I knew that the act it would prevent is my own death. And I hope those I love and respect would feel the same way.

I do enjoy being alive, but not if the price of my life is barbarities committed in my name.

That way lies totalitarianism and dictatorship and fascism.

[NCTraveler]

105. With what is currently going on at GITMO....

I strongly disagree with you. I am only talking about your subject line with my comments. The rest of your post is just strange.

[Iggo]

108. Strange is one way to describe it.

Yes.

[MohRokTah]

106. Your scenario sounds like a plot for 24.

Oh, excuse me, it was.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. You're a real non-sanctimonious patriot

and I mean that as a criticism.

[Orsino]

111. Ticking time bomb...

...posting about ticking time bombs?

[dionysus]

115. how about we just... don't torture, period.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. UN Convention Against Torture - ratified by USA 1994:

Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced
as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the
Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the
Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct
anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No
exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law
contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for
example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public
authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to
suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its
obligations under the Convention throughout its territory.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100296.pdf

[Logical]

120. LOL, can't tell if you are serious. nt

[Autumn]

121. Step away from the television. 24 is not a reality show. I repeat 24 is not a reality show

and Jack is not a real person, Just a TV show with stupid dumb fuck writers and shitty plots.

[PowerToThePeople]

122. I read about this thread. In before the pizza. n/t

[betsuni]

123. Oh, I saw this movie

"Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?"

[pinboy3niner]

127. The OP author would torture the busdriver

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

135. K & Unrec!