CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


FULL TITLE

CIA Director Nominee: Waterboarding Is “Reprehensible,” “Should Have Been Banned” … Defends Assassinating American Citizens

Video







Back to top
Share:
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64505 posts
 Online 

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

CIA Director Nominee: Waterboarding Is “Reprehensible,” “Should Have Been Banned” … Defends Assassinating American Citizens


So non-citizens have more rights in his eyes than citizens






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4957 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


I disagree with the administration's legal rational (I posted something on this very board myself a long time ago about this), but there is no moral equivalence here.

Torture is a violation of international law, a violation of our principles, and it dishonors America.






Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64505 posts
 Online 

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

Torture is a violation of international law, a violation of our principles, and it dishonors America.



And killing an American citizen without be convicted of a crime doesn't






Back to top
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

And killing an American citizen without be convicted of a crime doesn't


This.

I also, don't get the logic of how torture is a crime and not murder.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. The jury is still out.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4957 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


No, killing an enemy on the battlefield is not a violation of anything. Nor is it dishonorable.

The problem with the administration's position is that they redefine due process in a way that should alarm and be resisted by everyone, because it violates the separation of powers. It's like a police dept giving itself a warrant to search your house.

On the other hand, if the administration had some sort of court warrant to kill an American overseas, they could do it without any legal hiccup. But no warrant could whitewash torture.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4957 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


Painting this as torture vs killing just demonstrates a failure to understand the legal points at issue.





Back to top
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


There is no painting anything. Enhanced interrogation techniques are legally not defined as torture at this facet. Only politically by using the term, torture.

Can you affirm that the new political dem talking point is that 'torture' is BAD but 'murder' is okay?




This post was edited on 2/8 at 9:09 am


Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4957 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


Your logic is pitiful. You really don't even understand why these drone strikes are a problem (hint: it's not because people are killed).





Back to top
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans



Why don't you define exactly why drone strikes are a problem and how it is not a problem people are killed. Then we can discuss logic being pitiful.







Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52330 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


Denying US citizens their right to due process is cool with Bayou Sam, as long as it is a Democrat that gets to make the call.

True story.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64505 posts
 Online 

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

No, killing an enemy on the battlefield is not a violation of anything


This isn't about killing them on a battlefield, its about killing them because they may be "Associated" with a terrorist organization...


If they are on the battlefield, directly firing against American troops, then they are fair game.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4957 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


Look, I realize you are dumb. That's fine.

I'll spell it out for you. Torture is never legitimate. Murder is oftentimes legitimate...war, self-defense, capital punishment, etc. The question here is the legitimacy of the murder.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4957 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


This is far too simple. Was Osama Bin Laden "on the battlefield"? The distinction is "at war" and "at peace," which is a pretty straightforward legal distinction. You don't have to be actually shooting to be at war.

An analogy might be some american citizen wearing a nazi uniform. Is that enough evidence to deprive them of due process? I say no because I think we should err on the side of law and not the deciding power of the executive, but the situation is not cut and dry.






Back to top
ReauxlTide222
Alabama Fan
St. Petersburg
Member since Nov 2010
9861 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


Wait...so can we waterboard our own citizens? If we can kill them without due process surely we can waterboard them too right? Or is that just way too evil?





Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64505 posts
 Online 

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

This is far too simple. Was Osama Bin Laden "on the battlefield"? The distinction is "at war" and "at peace," which is a pretty straightforward legal distinction. You don't have to be actually shooting to be at war.


Really? I didn't realize that Bin Laden was a US Citizen

frick me where I sit






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Brodeur
Alabama Fan
Member since Feb 2012
2671 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

I disagree with the administration's legal rational (I posted something on this very board myself a long time ago about this), but there is no moral equivalence here. Torture is a violation of international law, a violation of our principles, and it dishonors America.


So it's better to follow "international law" than to follow our own laws. Got it.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
CITWTT
LSU Fan
baton rouge
Member since Sep 2005
31765 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


So based upon a jury of ONE you would not object to your death. The new rules only need one sentence to be changed by a Presidential finding to make your arse toast INSIDE the US.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Tiguar
South Alabama Fan
Mobile
Member since Mar 2012
6519 posts

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


I don't think anyone is saying this.





Back to top
Navytiger74
LSU Fan
Washington
Member since Oct 2009
15053 posts
 Online 

re: CIA Director Nom: Waterboarding “Reprehensible” Defends Assassinating Americans


quote:

This isn't about killing them on a battlefield, its about killing them because they may be "Associated" with a terrorist organization...


Is the president not authorized, under the 2001 AUMF, to use military force against Al-Qaida--without respect for whether or not they're on a conventinal "battlefield"?






Back to top


Back to top