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.
Stating the obvious is now shitting on America ... good to know - I mean you said it by your self, you havn't been happy about Bush and his policy here. Again, if we would be talking about any other nation but America here, would you hold them to the same standard? If we complain about Russia bombing hospitals in Syriah, it's justified criticism, but doing the same with America when they do it, it's shitting on them. Oh geez! Dun touch ma America! Criticsm is criticism, and waterboarding existed and the people that ordered it never faced even any real issues because of it. So there is that.
Also, the kind of moral and value a presidential candiate has, is kinda important for me, because he might end up making his policy based on it, if someone is willing to use torture or questionable means which are seen by many professionals as ineffective, what other policy might this president support as well even if they are ineffective. We are after all talking about decisions that might or might not effect millions of people.
If you're shitting on Hilary for her E-mails, because the way how she is handling them could be seen as incompetence on handling american security interests, it is likewhise fair to take Trumps stance on waterboarding and 'worse' actions - what ever that means - as a possible stance on political actions in foreign affairs. We are talking here about the mentality of the people.
All I am asking, is that you treat both Trump and Hillary in the same fashion.
And I find your personal opinion on the matter relevant, beacuse you explained terrorists as a special group, that kinda justifies torture.
Quote:
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...
Which completely ignores the general issue with torture, namely that you're working on assumptions here.
It's a compelling argument, until you start to look at the assumptions that you have to make to accept it. This argument assumes that you have the right person in custody, it assumes that this person actually has the information you need, it assumes that there isn't a better way of getting hold of the evidence, and above all it assumes that torture is an effective way of getting that information.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2
For example, I still don't know if you would be for torture even if it's proven that it is ineffective as means of investigation and gathering informations. Or does it simply not matter for you, as long it's done by americans to non-americans on non american soil.
