Oddly silent

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Well, "we" as a country don't consider unborn life to be human, so I don't see anything wrong with exempting these barbarians from the human race.

Not so sure that's a relevant comparison. Would that not also make "we"/"us" barbarians, as well?

Yes, imo it does. "We" have killed so many unborn humans that "we" have become indifferent to it. Just because "we've" been doing this killing for so long, that doesn't mean the killing is more moral than pouring water on the face of a murdering terrorist in order to scare the holy crap out of him.

So, you condone torture?

RenegadeCJ wrote: It is the same to me. You either condone it, or you don't. Is torture ok or not.

It isn't the same to me. Government sanctioned torture has been banned by the Geneva Conventions. The courts decide if an individual engaging in torture to protect a loved one was justified or not. Two totally separate issues.

So, do you condone government sanctioned torture which goes against U.S. law and international law?

I actually didn't condone anything. I asked you to make a judgement, which you did. Torture is ok in certain circumstances.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Well, "we" as a country don't consider unborn life to be human, so I don't see anything wrong with exempting these barbarians from the human race.

Not so sure that's a relevant comparison. Would that not also make "we"/"us" barbarians, as well?

Yes, imo it does. "We" have killed so many unborn humans that "we" have become indifferent to it. Just because "we've" been doing this killing for so long, that doesn't mean the killing is more moral than pouring water on the face of a murdering terrorist in order to scare the holy crap out of him.

So, you condone torture?

The word torture is subjective... I believe options that don't result in any physical harm should not be eliminated as a last resort... especially since we've used them on our own soldiers in their training. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on what is or isn't torture, because that really would be torture and I have better things to waste my time on.

ZHawke wrote:
So, do you condone government sanctioned torture which goes against U.S. law and international law?

Do I want it to happen on a regular basis, no. But I also am a realist. I know in certain circumstances that it is a necessity to prevent greater loss of life.

RenegadeCJ wrote: I actually didn't condone anything. I asked you to make a judgement, which you did. Torture is ok in certain circumstances.

I never said you did actually condone anything. I asked YOU a question that you dodged.

How did I dodge anything. I told you I'm a realist, and know there will be times torture is necessary to save lives. That would be a yes. I condone torture in certain circumstances.

Rick wrote: The word torture is subjective... I believe options that don't result in any physical harm should not be eliminated as a last resort... especially since we've used them on our own soldiers in their training. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on what is or isn't torture, because that really would be torture and I have better things to waste my time on.

Options that don't result in any physical harm are already "allowed". That's not the issue here. Torture is the issue - government sanctioned torture, to be specific. There's a body of evidence (already shared in a previous post and acknowledged by the CIA, itself) that talks about torture methods being used on our own military personnel in SERE training not being the same thing as "real" torture as alleged has been going on for quite some time now.

I believe the reason you don't want to go back and forth on what is or isn't torture is because you have no viable argument to support your position. Facts are facts. Denial of those facts won't make them go away.

RenegadeCJ wrote: How did I dodge anything. I told you I'm a realist, and know there will be times torture is necessary to save lives. That would be a yes. I condone torture in certain circumstances.

Being a realist and condoning government sanctioned torture aren't necessarily the same thing. Nor do they necessarily directly relate to each other.

I'm also a realist. That doesn't mean I support or condone government sanctioned torture, especially in ANY circumstance. It's outlawed in our own country. International law forbids it. People have been tried, convicted, and executed for engaging in government sanctioned torture in the past - by the U.S., no less. Now, all of a sudden, we condone it? Seems a bit on the hypocritical side of things here. At least it does to me.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
So, do you condone government sanctioned torture which goes against U.S. law and international law?

Do I want it to happen on a regular basis, no. But I also am a realist. I know in certain circumstances that it is a necessity to prevent greater loss of life.

Also, are you prepared to accept and address the backlash the world community will visit upon the U.S. for engaging in and "condoning" acts of torture, regardless of our own perceptions it was to "prevent greater loss of life"?