Torture

[redcliffsw]

Anmar, I wondering if you are Muslim; but you don't have to answer.

[frawin]

Red, you are in great form today.

[Anmar]

S, you didn't, but my questions were initially directed at Teresa, who did not make a distinction.  Your argument represents a slippery slope.  When you allow torture of a certain group of people, you eventually allow the government to torture anyone whom they decide deserves it, including Americans.  Where should the line be drawn?  Do we start torturing suspected criminals?  How about people who are suspected of making threats against the government?  Maybe we should bring back the spanish inquisition.

You claim to be Libertarian, yet every libertarian i know says that torture is flawed to the very core.  Granting the government the power to torture is definetly not a libertarian principle.

[Teresa]

i DID make a distinction;........ read my post...

[Anmar]

i DID make a distinction;........ read my post...

Yes, i saw that you went back and edited your post, at the time i was writing my post, you had not yet made the distinction.

[Mom70x7]

Very brave, Anmar, for starting this topic.

Hey, guys - vote!

I think it ties in very well with the "What's a good American." We need to be allowed to disagree - and it seems on this topic there are very definite differences of opinion. 

[srkruzich]

You claim to be Libertarian, yet every libertarian i know says that torture is flawed to the very core.  Granting the government the power to torture is definetly not a libertarian principle.

Does it matter?  I also supported the iraq war....

[pamsback]

 I think.........like it or not torture has ALWAYS gone on behind closed doors, it will ALWAYS go on behind said closed doors, it's part of war which is NOT a civilized Marquis of Queensbury type rules kind of activity. It didn't just start with THIS particular opponent.

It AIN'T right but it's GONNA happen.

[flintauqua]

Once again, I'm somewhere in the middle.  My answer to this poll question does not fit one of the five choices.  It's certainly not #'s 1, 4, or 5.  But it's not exactly #2 or 3 either.  IMO . . There are a very, very, very small number of instances where I believe a level of cohersion that would fall into the definition of torture, as it is presented, is warranted.  I guess the example I would give would be to prevent a significant loss of life, particularly civilian loss of life.

I agree with Pam on the fact that it's been going on basically forever, and still is, it's just more well hidden.

Charles

[sixdogsmom]

So we aren't a nation of laws? We should just chuck it all and whoever is the toughest, the biggest, meanest, should be on top? To heck with the kindergartener on the way to school, the big guy has had a couple of slugs and is in a hurry. If we chuck our own laws in favor of knee jerk reactions to a bunch of terrorists, then they have truly beaten us; right into the ground. We are no better and in fact we are worse; we are hippocrits of the first water. If you don't like our laws, work to change them. We have an avenue for it, and more than one law has been changed because of grassroots movements. But (wink) (wink) violation of those laws doesn't get it. Either we have them and abide by them or we get rid of the law.