- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Where does WH get "moral authority" to condemn torture?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:22 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:22 am
quote:
Fox’s Ed Henry put White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on the spot today about why the Obama administration believes it has the “moral authority” to condemn torture when they’re overseeing drone strikes. Henry said that drone strikes have ended up killing innocents, so he asked, “How do you have moral authority when innocent civilians are killed by drones?” Earnest argued there’s a difference because “there is significant care taken” to reduce civilian casualties. The Fox reporter pointed out that such “care” doesn’t stop it from happening anyway. Earnest then went on a bit of a tangent about the United States being more morally righteous than the terrorists, and pointed out that some of these individuals have to be taken out because they’ve “targeted local populations.”
LINK
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 10:25 am
7
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:28 am to pistolpete23
Earnest pretty much (unknowingly, perhaps) described the rationale used for the interrogation methods.
Take this paraphrased quote:
"There's a stark difference between the tactics used by terrorists, and those used by the U.S."
Is he talking about interrogation methods? Or is he talking about drone strikes?
Yeah, kinda hard to tell if you don't watch the video.
Take this paraphrased quote:
"There's a stark difference between the tactics used by terrorists, and those used by the U.S."
Is he talking about interrogation methods? Or is he talking about drone strikes?
Yeah, kinda hard to tell if you don't watch the video.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:42 am to pistolpete23
According to Bob Beckel, it's far worse to be waterboarded than murdered by a drone. I'm sure that is the current stance of most of our liberal friends in their moronic and intellectually bankrupt attempt to feign this faux-self righteous indignation about enhanced interrogation techniques while giving their Messiah a complete pass for murdering innocent civilians with drones.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:01 pm to pistolpete23
Where does WH get "moral authority" to condemn torture?
Same place they get every other thing they come up with...Out of their collective asses.
Same place they get every other thing they come up with...Out of their collective asses.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:10 pm to MMauler
quote:
According to Bob Beckel, it's far worse to be waterboarded than murdered by a drone. I'm sure that is the current stance of most of our liberal friends in their moronic and intellectually bankrupt attempt to feign this faux-self righteous indignation about enhanced interrogation techniques while giving their Messiah a complete pass for murdering innocent civilians with drones.
Bob Beckel doesn't have an agenda here. At all.
He is right though, drones are worse than torture. Both can be wrong, and its completely acceptable for someone to say something is wrong when they have done things wrong otherwise how could anyone condemn anything?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:18 pm to MMauler
quote:
I'm sure that is the current stance of most of our liberal friends in their moronic and intellectually bankrupt attempt to feign this faux-self righteous indignation about enhanced interrogation techniques while giving their Messiah a complete pass for murdering innocent civilians with drones.
Not in the least. Most progressives are appalled by the drone program. Nice try though
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:22 pm to MJM
Appalled is probably not the word your looking for. I doubt they would vote for someone whose actions are appalling...
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:23 pm to C
Sure they would when you look at the previous alternatives
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:25 pm to C
quote:
Appalled is probably not the word your looking for. I doubt they would vote for someone whose actions are appalling.
Yeah, I would agree.
Appalled? No.
"Conflicted" or "frustrated by" are probably better descriptions here.
I've seen plenty of social media political banter since Obama took office, but I have not seen a single post from an identified liberal or Democrat decrying the drone program.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:26 pm to MJM
Lol. Youre basically saying he's a murderer but oh well.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:33 pm to pistolpete23
quote:
condemn torture when they’re overseeing drone strikes. Henry said that drone strikes have ended up killing innocents
Excellent point, its ridiculous people continue to not care about this drone strikes yet are all going crazy about torture.
Just like the republicans who in majority are Christians but are now okay with torture and drone strikes
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:38 pm to pistolpete23
Where does anyone get the moral authority to criticize anything? Nobody's perfect, right.
What's your point, though? What's so wrong about UAV strikes that's not wrong about any other lethal kinetic action or strike? I mean the vehicle is unmmaned, but it's not like COD Black Ops 2. It's not programmed and sent on a killing mission. It's controlled by an actual pilot (so, it's not a drone, btw). Why the consternation? Lack of risk to the warfighter?
What's your point, though? What's so wrong about UAV strikes that's not wrong about any other lethal kinetic action or strike? I mean the vehicle is unmmaned, but it's not like COD Black Ops 2. It's not programmed and sent on a killing mission. It's controlled by an actual pilot (so, it's not a drone, btw). Why the consternation? Lack of risk to the warfighter?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:58 pm to pistolpete23
quote:I don't get the argument. There is a clear difference between actions to capture / kill terrorists in the field vs how we treat them when they are in our custody.
Where does WH get "moral authority" to condemn torture?
I thought that a ton of people were on board with Clinton bombing the hotel Bin Laden was in if they could absolutely verify that he was in the hotel? So is everyone who is now against drone strikes also in agreement with Clinton's decision not to bomb? Would you be against Clinton bombing the hotel if we were 100% certain that Bin Laden was there?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:06 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
What's your point, though? What's so wrong about UAV strikes that's not wrong about any other lethal kinetic action or strike? I mean the vehicle is unmmaned, but it's not like COD Black Ops 2. It's not programmed and sent on a killing mission. It's controlled by an actual pilot (so, it's not a drone, btw). Why the consternation? Lack of risk to the warfighter?
Are you fricking serious? Drone strikes usually kill unarmed civilians. It just so happens the government deems any male over the age of like 11 to be a possible combatant
But yeah, let's all get our pussies sandy over overaggressive interrogations.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:31 pm to jamboybarry
quote:
Drone strikes usually kill unarmed civilians.
And you know this how? Do they kill more unarmed civilians than old-school airstrikes did? Do we operate under different RoE for UAVs than we did for manned aircraft? Do we not make every effort, with surprising proficiency, to avoid collateral casualties (as we have in the past).
If you can't distinguish between carrying out targeted strikes against high-value targets and torture, I don't know what to tell you.
Why don't we withdraw from the Geneva conventions? Since people already die in war, what the frick does it matter what else we do in the conduct of the war, right?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:32 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Bob Beckel doesn't have an agenda here. At all.
He is right though, drones are worse than torture.
He's saying the opposite. He's saying that being waterboarded is worse than being killed by a drone.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:34 pm to MJM
quote:
Not in the least. Most progressives are appalled by the drone program. Nice try though
Well, their Messiah is KILLING innocent people but it's never reported on the news and you never see them protesting in front of the White House for these MURDERS.
But, they're still feigning this faux-self righteous indignation over Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques YEARS later. Hell, between 2001-2009 they'd organize protests and march on the White House if they thought George Bush was wiping his a$$ with the wrong hand.
But, just like the good little Nazis, not a peep when it comes to their Messiah.
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:42 pm to duqueob
quote:
Just like the republicans who in majority are Christians but are now okay with torture and drone strikes
Christians don't have to be pacifists, FYI.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:43 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
I don't get the argument. There is a clear difference between actions to capture / kill terrorists in the field vs how we treat them when they are in our custody.
Waterboarding a handful of people and other EITs are more morally callous than a ton of "innocent" deaths posed by drone strikes?
For the record, I think both are useful tools.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:49 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Besides totally misrepresenting the truth when it comes to numbers or what was actually done, yes: torturing prisoners is morally reprehensible.
Waterboarding a handful of people and other EITs are more morally callous than a ton of "innocent" deaths posed by drone strikes?
I would like everyone who thinks the drone strikes are a problem to reconcile the Clinton / Bin Laden case that I mentioned.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News