I really can't comment about Finland at all except to say you're not White.
Simpsons is the graveyard of comedy these days tbh.
Trump is winning
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Simpsons is the graveyard of comedy these days tbh.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
@Vergil just out of curiosity, how would you defend Trump claiming he was going to do way worse than waterboarding at guantanamo bay?, Or saying that he would punish the women who have abortions(Not the doctors, the women who actually get the abortion)?, Or how about how he said he would ban all Muslims from entering the United States?
IDK, but to me those things seem pretty unforgivable.
IDK, but to me those things seem pretty unforgivable.
"Oh no those poor terrorists
"1. He didnt say that.
- https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-regarding-abortion - Trump's official stance on Abortion. If it's illegal in the state, then the person who performed the abortion, not the women, should be punished.
- http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...t-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/- Actual Transcript between Matthew and Trump. Matthew Browbeats Trump
2. A: He said maybe hold off on bringing in a group of people many whom want to kill us until the US gets a hold on the situation.
B: He's already specified he would stop immigration from countries were lots of terrorists have come from and not just explicitly those who identify as moslems
Nice manufactered liberal talking points from months ago
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...-emails/ar-AAjx2VQ?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
Well Killary is screwed now. The FBI investigation into her e-mails has been reopened due to "new" evidence.
Well Killary is screwed now. The FBI investigation into her e-mails has been reopened due to "new" evidence.
G R A B B E D
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
"Oh no those poor terrorists
1. He didnt say that.
He was saying that if it was ILLEGAL than yes someone who broke the law should face consequences whilst being baited bg the host. He clarified his official stance on the aborition issue above.
- https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-regarding-abortion - Trump's official stance on Abortion. If it's illegal in the state, then the person who performed the abortion, not the women, should be punished.
- http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...t-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/- Actual Transcript between Matthew and Trump. Matthew Browbeats Trump
2. A: He said maybe hold off on bringing in a group of people many whom want to kill us until the US gets a hold on the situation.
B: He's already specified he would stop immigration from countries were lots of terrorists have come from and not just explicitly those who identify as moslems
Nice manufactered liberal talking points from months ago
Yeah, let's ignore half the guys tossed in Gitmo (and presumably a number of other, much shadier secret prisons all over the world) weren't even terrorists and most of those remaining have not been convicted of any wrongdoing. But yeah, keep denouncing manufactured talking points of all kinds, man. Fight the good fight.
Poor Trump, being baited by a journalist. I'm sure the other guy forced him to say what he did. If Trump can't handle being pressed by a journalist, I'm not sure I want him interacting with foreign officials or getting his ass stonewalled by Congress. President isn't a relaxing job, and he's going to be pressured every day.
Also, from reports I saw, the FBI is actually not re-opening Clinton's case. Comey's statement was vague and misled the media, and the whole thing is apparently about the husband of one of her staff member sending dick picks to a 15 years old or some other bullshit like that. It does make for some nice headlines, but doesn't seem to be the turning point that will save Trump from himself. For now at least.
So instead we should be lenient on everyone in Gitmo on the offchance they're innocent and only there because of a government conspiracy against them? He's talking about doing that to known, real terrorists that we have in there anyway so I'm sure your hypothetical maybe existing special snowflake out of a movie character who they'd have no reason to use waterboarding or other measures on anyway will be fine.
I recommend actually clicking on and reading links before commenting on the subject.
Also good job totally ignoring his official statement on abortion so you can make a snappy comment. You're epic dude, upvoted.
Oh well, once Trump get's in and he gets a special prosecutor to take care of it she'll finally pay for her crimes.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
From reading the news report you have posted it looks like they were searching an individuals phone for other reasons involving a 15 year old girl, and found what may be thousands of emails that pertain to the Clinton case that they did not have before. So yeah still relevant to her campaign.
Here is the line
The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands — potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.
Yeah, fuck those human rights! They could be terrorists!
Literally have no concern for the "human rights" of people who blow innocent civilians up. Like I said but I guess you may have slipped and fell or something while reading, it's only to known and confirmed terrorists that we have a reason to use tactics like that against. He's not just gonna go around doing it randomly for shits and giggles.
Not to mention he's already stated he won't order them to do anything that would break International law a while ago.
Uh? You do understand why Human rights also count for criminals, right? Even if we forget moral reasons for a moment here, but no jurisdiction is perfect, so the moment you get someone who's innocent, you would be 'ok' with someone torturing them.
There is also the issue, that once you start with it, sooner or later the exception can become the rule. Suddenly it's not just about terrorists, but also about pedophiles, rapists, murderes, why not waterbording thieves and thugs?
What about the draconic punishment of the Shariah law? Why is that bad, but torture of terrorists is OK?
There is also the issue, that once you start with it, sooner or later the exception can become the rule. Suddenly it's not just about terrorists, but also about pedophiles, rapists, murderes, why not waterbording thieves and thugs?
What about the draconic punishment of the Shariah law? Why is that bad, but torture of terrorists is OK?
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'd also like to say on top of what's been said, in what circumstances would actually torturing and harshly treating the prisoners in guantanamo bay do any good for anyone?
Like, it's very unlikely that you'll ever come across a situation where torture is the only possible answer.
Like, it's very unlikely that you'll ever come across a situation where torture is the only possible answer.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
It's the notion of paying evil unto evil that those who have done evil should have evil done to them. It is, of course, still evil and there's no real Diet Coke option but the concept of punishment as a horror inflicted to the guilty is hardly a new one to Western civilization. It's a particularly American idea, though, as Europe seems to react to the concept of it like we're some sort of insane frothing weirdos.
On my end, I think torture doesn't really gain us anything even afflicted on the guilty.
On the other hand, I've stated I'd support the death penalty if it could be fairly applied and only to the guilty, which I don't think is the case right now (or probably ever).
On my end, I think torture doesn't really gain us anything even afflicted on the guilty.
On the other hand, I've stated I'd support the death penalty if it could be fairly applied and only to the guilty, which I don't think is the case right now (or probably ever).
Terrorists aren't normal criminals, they're people who we sometimes desperately need to get information out of. Not that some criminals depending on the crime don't deserve harsher punishment anyway...
Because Shariah law wants to stone you do death for getting raped.
Gitmo wants to get information out of terrorists who have killed and are connected to those that are currently killing innocents by any means necessary.
I was gonna ask if you're really gonna defend terrorists now but you've defended moslems in the past enough now already.
Theres a reason they're called "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Yeah, well if you would see them as criminals, with rights or god forbid humans, performing torture on them would of course become a more difficult task. So yeah, make them 'special', and things change.
But harsher punishment =/= torture. There is a huge difference here. But that's a different story altogether. Not to mention that the information you get from torture, well are very questionable, not just from a moral point of view, but also from how much you can trust in those. You know, there is not just ethics that told people to stop using torture but doing investigations and correct interrogiations. Studies show that you can reach more without torture, even the Nazis made more progress that way with captured soldiers, or spies and and the like. The Master Interrogator Hanns Scharff even ended up working for the americans.
Moral asside, but Torture has proven to be almost totally ineffective when it comes to investigations and if you actually want to find the truth.
So does torture even get you to the truth, and is it effective? Some serious research, says not really.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff
One of the interesting features of the torture debate is that many in the military and intelligence communities seem decidedly unconvinced about the effectiveness of torture. Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent with considerable experience interrogating al-Qaeda operatives,
pointed out in Time that:
When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless.
He isn't alone in this assessment – a number of former intelligence people have expressed similar views, and his words are echoed by the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation, which suggests that:
…the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Yeeah, that's not the only law in the Shariah, we could write those out and just leave those in that hit criminals, like cuting of hands from thieves and behading murderes and such stuff. What about those? Are they ok for you? I mean it's harsh, but you seem to be in favour of harsh punishment.
The point is, where do you decide at which point it's alright to use torture for geting informations. Why is a terrorist 'OK', but let us say, not in a case where you could find a hostage from a kidnapper? The police is not allowed to use torture here. Is the life of a hostage less worth then those of potential targets for terrorists? Where do you personaly draw the line?
I am pretty sure that most dictatorships, didn't call their 'techniques' a torture either. They get fancy names like reeducation or preventive custody.
Last edited:
I have an incredible lack of interest in discussing my completely irrelevant personal views on punishment for crimes with you.
Trump said he would do worse than waterboarding but also said he wouldn't order anything that would violate international law. That's all there is to it for that part of the topic at hand. Not going to spend hours and paragraphs debating my personal ethics on unrelated subjects.
Then it's pretty clear, in my opinion:
The United Nations Convention against Torture, which the U.S. is a signatory nation of, defines torture as:
And if it's not obvious enough, well you have to ask your self, if it is worth to create a gray area for something that is highly questionable and pretty much proven to be totally ineffective. Again, I am not just arguing about it just from a moral point of view. But you're also creating precendences for future situations, with something that is usually associated with dictatorships and inhuman practises.
The United Nations Convention against Torture, which the U.S. is a signatory nation of, defines torture as:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
And if it's not obvious enough, well you have to ask your self, if it is worth to create a gray area for something that is highly questionable and pretty much proven to be totally ineffective. Again, I am not just arguing about it just from a moral point of view. But you're also creating precendences for future situations, with something that is usually associated with dictatorships and inhuman practises.
Trump is capable of continuing with enhanced interrogation methods is all I'm sayin. The quality of life of some terrorists isn't enough for me to ignore all of the other actually important issues that are surrounding this upcoming election.
Ah, yeah that ... part. Good thing for the US, and very convenient of course. Are you surprised nations call the US hypocrites?
The legality of waterboarding as work in progress.
Well. God forbid the country of the brave, could ever do something wrong. It doesn't happen in america at least. It just involves americans doing it, but that's something for the laywers to figure out ... It also still doesn't change the fact that it is largely ineffective. So why even insist at the possibility "I could do it, if I wanted to".
By the way, international law, is called international law for a reason. I doubt that we would have the same discussion if this was about Russia or Iran.
The legality of waterboarding as work in progress.
Well. God forbid the country of the brave, could ever do something wrong. It doesn't happen in america at least. It just involves americans doing it, but that's something for the laywers to figure out ... It also still doesn't change the fact that it is largely ineffective. So why even insist at the possibility "I could do it, if I wanted to".
By the way, international law, is called international law for a reason. I doubt that we would have the same discussion if this was about Russia or Iran.
Never said I liked or agreed with Bush's decision. Again, just saying it's an option that America would be able to pursue. Don't know why you're so gung ho about derailing this thread into being all about the ethics or legality of waterboarding and shitting on America some more but I'm not interested.
I answered his questions about Trump, 2/3 have been totally ignored, and I'll wait for his response unless you'd like to get back on topic and then we can continue talking.
Last edited: