Aside from Huntsman and Paul (which is something I find myself stating quite often lately), every Republican candidate calls for waterboarding, denying it is torture. If it was torture by the people who created it, during the Spanish Inquisition, all the way to the people who wrote at the Geneva Convention, and yes, all the way to the Bush officials, who after they were out of office admitted it was torture...then how are 5 people in 2011, none of which have absolutely any firsthand or secondhand knowledge of the practice...can decide it is NOT torture.
Either you believe in the principles of the nation and it is those principles that make up this nation, that make it great. OR, you believe that our principles are merely talking points and a tool for social motivation in an effort to acquire power, and that power makes us great. You cannot call America exceptional if you act like everyone else throughout history.
Quite simply, anybody who thinks water boarding is just a bit of harmless fun should be perfectly happy to demonstrate that fact by being water boarded themselves.
No one last night said it was a bit of harmless fun. This is how facts get skewed. Some believed it is not to be used at any cost, some believed it is a necessary means to an end, and some believed it is an 'enhanced interrogation technique'. I'm not condoning it or denying it, just setting straight what was actually said.
The question was whether it was torture or not. Anybody prepared to claim that it is not torture should be willing to demonstrate that fact.
C'mon, I've seen plenty of high level policemen who've allowed themselves to be Tazered to demonstrate the lack of lasting effects, why not for water boarding if it isn't torture?
Actually many in the armed forces are as part of their training. It is a very use full technique. Is it fun, of course not, but that is the point to enhanced interrogation. It is not meant to be fun.
I would be interested in exactly what Romney said. I'll see if I can find it.
Here's a link to a partial video of the debate.
Here's HuffPO on the debate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 … 90667.html
Still unable to find Romney endorsing a return to waterboarding.
Tex - probably not more torturous than using a glowing hot branding iron to put your mark on your innocent cattle.
And since not all the candidates called for waterboarding, once again, you've exaggerated the facts to meet your agenda. This is a very typical liberal marketing tool.
So, your justification is that it isn't as bad as what we do to cattle? Dude, we eat cattle. Are you saying it is cool to eat Islamists? Are you equating anyone who believes in Islam with cattle? Now, I agree that anyone who believes in a religion acts like cattle, but I don't equate humans with cattle.
How have I exaggerated the facts to meet my agenda? My agenda is calling attention to the lunacy is corruption of the candidates. They do a fine job of displaying that on their own. It isn't like you can't go watch the video. This is the internet. Put some effort into it dude. Don't you give a s#$t? Of course you don't. You just want to cheer your team, the world be damned right?
Not sure why you're the meanest SOB in the thread. Maybe it's just your way of speaking. I didn't say I agreed with it or disagreed with it. Just made a comparison. I guess I could have used slicing the heads off journalists as a better comparison. I never was very good at sarcasm. I reread you OP and you actually did not exaggerate any facts, just stated your opinion.
Nah, I get annoyed some days and am kind of a jerk. I get on here to vent, so my motivation is to get my frustration out. I know we'll never come to a conclusion. I'd love to, but I gave up on it a long time ago. I truly believe that the conservative movement of today is essentially a John Birch sliver of the 50s, and nothing can get done anymore, nothing decided whatsoever. This is NOT the party of Reagan. Reagan would be to the left of Obama if he ran today. SO, I get ticked, come on here, and fight. You seem like a nice guy. Sorry for being a d#$k. Still though man, this stuff is kind of important. I just cannot get why we have to fight over very basic verifiable stuff. Why on earth is it so difficult for some people to just look things up. Are they not curious? Is it just easier to find someone who believes what they already think? Does it not matter, is it only about team? You have to admit, we as a country, are in a very rough place...the future of the world is happening right now around the globe, and who knows how it is going to turn out. I would think that we would be a bit more concerned about who's team is winning and more concerned about getting the basics right so we can make logical decisions. Unfortunately, we are going backwards in the regard.
Thanks for the "man up" on the exaggeration of facts statement. I appreciate that.
You're welcome. I try to be a stand up kinda guy (even though I'm a woman) I think the problem is twofold. Unless one actually witnesses for themselves what is said or done, they need to find the information and every source who is not replaying the actual event throws their skew onto it. The other is most people find it really hard to be truly objective. But can agree with you on at least one thing. This is serious business and we, as a nation, are still in a position to lead this world to a good place and maintain our integrity. My answer to it all is get rid of at least half of the numbers of Congressmen. There are just too many of them.
This part of the debate had me with my mouth open (hey, don't forget Ron Paul is against it, too). I think the worst part was when Cain spoke about it the second time (near the end of the debate). If you listen to the debate again, he practically says that this technique should be used as punishment for being a terrorist--not even mentioning the (incorrect) claim of obtaining information. This is what I got out of it, at least.
I did watch the entire debate. If I'm not mistaken, Cain said he personally considered waterboarding an enhanced interrogation technique but that he would be bound by the laws of this country as to their use.
I suppose that the real issue here is that some people are under the mistaken belief that "enhanced interrogation" is not torture. This (water boarding) technique was used during the Spanish Inquisition. This technique of torture simulates drowning, and sometimes a rag is shoved into the victim's mouth that has been doused with chemicals. If this isn't torture, I don't know what is...and the laws of our country, as well as the Geneva Convention Treaty, indicate that under no circumstances will torture be used. Anyone who claims water boarding is okay is mental.
Then maybe we should start waterboarding Republicans until they give Americans more jobs.
RON PAUL CALLED WATER BOARDING ILLEGAL
tons of testimonials by those in the know say it worked, they say it protected Americans, they say pertinent information was gained that helped capture top Alqaeda operatives, ...........if someone beat the shit out of a thug to protect your family and find out how to save their lives would you object to it?........your a #$%$head and a dumbass!
Oh what a wonderful and convincing reply!
"They" say? Who, exactly? Certainly not those interrogation experts who don't have a need to defend torture because it would mean they were criminals.
Regarding your reference to "dumbass" in the context of your example, there is a world of difference between an individual acting outside the law for the immediate defense of his family and a government-sanctioned torture program. Of course, it would take a bit of intelligence to recognize it and honesty to admit it.
I guess I'm a #$%$head and a dumbass, as I would never sacrifice freedom for security and sanctioning beating the shit out of a thug is sacrificing freedom. Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither (which founding father of the good old USA said that?). Just hope that one day someone doesn't decide to try to paint you as a thug, you might just get your shit kicked from your body, but hey, the person painting you in such a bad light is safe right?
You know what? So am I. I am a die hard liberal, worked on Obama's last campaign, albeit in a very minor way. However, let's get real. Even when he had both houses, Republicans used obstruction to stop damn near everything, forcing the Dems to get really creative. At no other point in history do we require a 60 vote to pass anything in the Senate. THEN, the Tea Party came in causing so much havoc, acting with such disregard for the country and showing they understand basic facts about as good as a turtle...forcing even the Republicans to call for a Super Congress, and outside/internal body to get something done. Nothing can get done with these people. The party has moved to a 100% litmus test of party ideals or you are a socialist. Reagan, on paper, was to the left of Obama. If he ran today, he would get railed out of the first debate as a socialist. Even if Obama gets elected again, what could he do? Senator Kyl straight out said that nothing will get passed unless his office approves it first. Seriously, one Senator decided the government goes through him, personally. AND, he locked things up for 3 weeks. Maybe if a Republican gets in office, the only one who isn't out of their damned minds, maybe then a few things can get done. I doubt it, but seriously...the evolution of the conservative party over the last 20 years, the marginalization, has put this country in a spot where nothing can get done whatsoever, aside from stripping away women's reproductive rights.
He's the best of the bunch, but he's not getting much traction. He might end up as a VP running mate to Romney although Romney probably will need somebody a bit farther to the right than Huntsman.
The people of Salt Lake City voted down a Municipal Bond to build a Soccer Stadium.
Huntsman wanted the Stadium.
Guess who won?
Guess who is paying for the Stadium now?
"After Governor Huntsman made a move that would allow the team to remain in Salt Lake County: the Utah House approved House bill 1SHB38, by a 48–24 margin, effectively approving $35 million towards the development of Real Salt Lake's new home. The governor was expected to sign the bill, and ultimately did so."
Isn't it nice to know there are Good Politicians like Huntsman who know what is best for the people and will spend their money for them?
This is a small example, but Huntsman is a Douche who is riding on the Coat Tails of Daddy's money.
Howdy Mike. How are things by you?
I become very curious when someone attacks another person or an issue using questions instead of facts. This usually occurs when the attacker does not have any facts and he hopes the questions will make it appear as thought he does.
Take, for example, your post above. You begin by saying the people of Salt Lake City were opposed to a municipal bond to pay for a stadium and you end with the question “Guess who is paying for the stadium now?” Do you notice how the question implies the people of Salt Lake are paying when the real facts, which you omitted, show that they are not. Was that intentional on your part or just a failure to research the correct answer on your own? Actually, out-of-state visitors are paying most of the tab from a local hotel tax imposed on tourists.
As reported by the Deseret Morning News, “county leaders huddled together and came up with a $55 million funding package for the stadium: $40 million would come from hotel-room taxes collected from the county, and Sandy [County] leaders pledged $15 million in redevelopment-agency dollars.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6502 … still.html
Therefore, it appears the citizen’s of Salt Lake, with Governor Huntsman’s help, got a new stadium mostly paid for by non-residents.
Any time I see someone trying to use a question to make a point, I check it out. As in this case, I typically find the answer to the question does not support the point at all.
Thanks, Mike, for your post. Perhaps you can use other examples to undermine Gov. Huntsman’s candidacy.
I could not have aid it better. I believe Huntsman is the most qualified candidate up there
Great to hear form you my friend
There clearly is a dispute about whether waterboarding is torture or not.
A right wing British journalist who said waterboarding was not torture agreed to be waterboarded. After he had been waterboarded he agreed it was torture.
How about this as an American compromise? All those Republican candidates who say waterboarding is not torture but is only "an enhanced interrogation technique" should volunteer to be waterboarded on live American TV. The one who survives the longest saying waterboarding is not torture can stay in the race and the others drop out leaving only the strongest waterboardee and those who agree waterboarding is torture.
Maybe on PayTV with funds going to the strongest (or most insensitive) Republican? Now that raises funds for the Republicans and shows people putting their mouth where their mouth is!
One of the right wing talk show hosts, die hard in favor of the practice, did that very thing a couple of years ago. Within 2 minutes of waterboarding and 5 minutes of recovery time, he claimed on live tv that he was wrong, and it was entirely torture. I mean, the Spanish Inquisition cited it as torture...and though they tortured, are we really more die hard than Spanish Inquisitors?
Related comment courtesy of Truthout:
Former Guantanamo Chief Prosecutor: "A Pair of Testicles Fell Off the President After Election Day"
Jason Leopold, Truthout: "'There's a pair of testicles somewhere between the Capital Building and the White House that fell off the president after Election Day ,' said [Morris] Davis, an Air Force colonel who spent two years as the chief prosecutor of Guantanamo military commissions.... Davis is 'hugely disappointed' that Obama reneged on a campaign promise to reject military commissions for 'war on terror' detainees, which have been condemned by human rights advocates as unconstitutional."
I think the fact that we even debate whether water boarding is torture demonstrates how completely desensitized we've become to acts of violence. Of course it's torture.
Are they insane? Are we regressing to the less enlightened medieval times? You bet. Next, they will bring back the Inquisition to single out those whose lifestyle and religious beliefs differ vastly from theirs.
Much better to murder the suspect without providing any evidence of wrongdoing then to waterboard a person that might have information.
I guess death is not a form of torture cuz this current administration does enjoy its assasinations.
Myself, I would rather be waterboarded then murdered. But to each his/her own.
But the question is, how reliable is information gathered by torture?
Will you get the truth or what the victim thinks you want to hear?
I do not support waterboarding. I just think that ending the life of a human being is a much more heinous act then torture.
I think both are equally heinous. Many victims who've been subjected to torture are left both severely psychologically and physically damaged. Their lives may not have been taken during torture, but they have been forever, irreparably destroyed.
Sometimes death isn't the worst thing that can happen.
What the Republican candidates and several commentators have dodged is that waterboarding is torture. They are in denial.
It is honest to say that torture can get results and therefore one will do it. Even if you believe this is it appropriate to use torture to the extent that it has been used? Where is the line?
The human rights advocates say "never" because that is a clear line. Where is your line and how do you justify that line? Abu Ghraib?
Personally, I think that ALL politicians should be water boarded BEFORE they step one foot into congress or the senate. That way we will know everything about them and their indiscretions. If they are unwilling to undergo this treatment for one year they know that it IS TORTURE!!
Just a reminder -- the only peace candidate up for the presidential election (including Obama) is against waterboarding and has openly called it torture AND illegal.
Ron Paul 2012 - Bring the troops home "as soon as the ships can get there".
by Texasbeta6 years ago
Who do you really want to run as the Republican candidate? I am a liberal, and I support Obama, so I think I would prefer Bachmann or Palin, or both. What about you?
by T_Augustus7 years ago
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?Very curious what an HONEST answer would be from both Republicans and Democrats alike...the operative word is "honest".
by pisean2823117 years ago
sarah palin recently said in India Today conclave held in India ,that she would wait to see who would want ticket before deciding for 2012 ...so whom do you think would be candidate for 2012 from republicans?
by taylord086 years ago
I follow the news and they are estimating that President Obama will win the 2012 election. Do you agree? I voted for Obama, but now I don’t know if I would again. I don’t blame him for where our economy is but do...
by Miss Knowledge7718 months ago
What is one thing that you do not like about the presidential candidate you are voting for?And to elaborate, what is one thing you do like about their opponent? We spend a lot time finger pointing and maybe it's...
by Leta S8 years ago
C.I.A. interrogators under the Bush Admin. used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, FAR...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.