Trump supports torture and other indulgences

You wouldn't support the torturing of Hitler?

 

That is ludicrous.

That is ludicrous. Both of those statements are from your imagination, not anything I said.

Yes, you finally spoke the truth. Trump is incompetent, foolish, vindictive, self-centered ... and dangerous.

As I said in the OP, he supports torture, and he has nominated the darling of torture to be the next CIA director. Other recent appointments are representatives of the far right. I am sure you agree with that, but most people are opposed to a catastrophic war on the Korean Peninsula or the Middle East.

Trump unilaterally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, removing the U.S. as a broker for Middle East peace.

While trying to work out an agreement with North Korea, he wants to remove the U.S.from another agreement, the Iranian nuclear deal, proving the U.S. cannot be trusted in agreements or treaties and freeing up Iran to produce nuclear weapons, something she cannot do now because of the deal Trump wants to rip up.

He impetuously agreed to talk to the North Korean dictator based solely on what a South Korean envoy said, and he failed to consult his state department, defense department, or the directors of our national intelligence. He wants to hand a diplomatic victory to Kim, elevate Kim's status, and Kim isn't giving up a thing and hasn't agreed to anything. Kim hasn't even accepted Trump's invitation.

As the stock market indicates -- worst March in 17 years -- Trump's liberal protectionist tariffs are seriously damaging our economy. His tariffs are wiping out all the gains provided by tax reform.

Now before you go on about how unpatriotic I am, deal with those issues. Clearly, Trump is harming our country. If you disagree, say so, but be specific in terms of the issues. Vague generalities and faux patriotism are meaningless.

I once took an oath to protect my country from enemies, foreign and domestic. Although many years ago, I take that oath very seriously.

 

You spend your whole time posting as one.

So who else has oppressed you?

 

Nope .. just shoot the guy and get it over with. Obviously one can come up with hyperbolic examples where most (incluiding myself) would be in favor of torture - supposes some person knew of a nuclear weapon about to explode and that person had code that could stop this explosion.

This is not a black vs white issue. The question is "where is the line" ? Do you think we should torture who "might" know the identity of someone who has committed a crime ? If so you better hope that you are never falsely accused of knowing the details of some nefarious activity.

You can say - Oh .. but we only did this to "foreign combatants". The fact of the matter is that we rounded up people (many of whom were innocent). In one case "mahir Arar" a Canadian was sent to Syria for torture .. and they guy turned out to be innocent.

At least if one is guilty you can get the torture to stop by telling the inquisitors what they want to know. How does an innocent person do this ?

The other problem is that it is not a far step from torturing foreigners that are thought to have knowledge of a crime to torturing non foreigners - US citizens.

 

For many reasons. In no particular order.

1. It's barbaric/inhumane.

2. It's illegal.

a. It's a violation of international law, a war crime and a crime against humanity.

b. It's unconstitutional. It violates Article II Section 1 Paragraph 8, Article VI Paragraph 2 and the 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments, as well as federal law (18 USC Section 2340A). Amendments 5 and 14 protect the right of due process and equal rights under the law. That means no one is a criminal (see highlighted), much less a terrorist unless and until proven guilty of such by a valid court of law.

3. It serves no legitimate/practical purpose.

 

I think in times of War there should be different rules than for civilians.

 

That only applies to individual morality and not actions of a state actor.

 

OK ... so good that you have backed away from a general acceptance of torture.

In "times of war" - does not include 911. This was not "war" by any legitimate definition. The fact that it was likened to war - shows you the problem discussed in my previous post - that when you justify torture in one case it is a slippery slope towards a more general justification.

Even though the definition of "war" was expanded to include 911. What you are saying is that there should be different rules for civilians. Well after 911 we did round up and torture civilians.

Then of course you have the Geneva convention which prohibits torture even in times of war. I assume you are for pulling out of the Geneva convention.

 

Quit making naked claims. If you are not going to give rational or justification that supports your claim .. then please restrain yourself.

 

Sure

 

You provide no support for your often weird claims. Remember the one where you claimed GPS was used by missiles to target other missiles?

 

I did give you support. That you disagreed or did not understand or (even if that support was wrong) .. at least I supported my claim with some kind of justification.

This is completely different than sitting in the peanut gallery doing nothing but throwing out naked claims.

 

Yeah but I highly doubt I'd protest or lose any sleep over the torturing of civilians if I thought that they were bad hombres.

 

So when they keep waterboarding you until you confess to knowledge of crimes that they think you know, that's still cool?

 

If waterboarding is torture then coffeeflavored ice cream is coffee.

Such a tease!

 

Hey, maybe next time the government is looking for a Rightwing terrorist, they can waterboard you about your fascist leanings until you are willing to sign a confession that you are terrorist. That wouldn't be torture, right?

 

What laws states that **** posting on the internet qualifies one as a terrorist?

 

But Steve, liberals are the people who are in favor of respect for everybody, regardless of race, gender, mental competency, etc....
Except for politics. That's different.
Oh- and I forgot, that is except for while males, who are all nazis or supremicists.
I guess almost everybody.
Unless you disagree with them, then you are an idiot and respect doesn't apply.
Or unless you are the president, then the list of insults and mockery is endless, but he deserves if because he doesn't think as they do.
See, with just a few exceptions- these are the people with real character.
And always wanting to improve America, so long as it's done their way and they can find someone else to pay for it.

 

They have to stop at some point. I'm against waterboarding anyone if it inflicts permanent physical injury.

 

What laws states being a Muslim in Pakistan and having tribal enemies qualifies one as a terrorist? Posting on the internet doesn't qualify one as a terrorist. But conspiracy to commit terrorism and murder with plans to bomb liberal buildings and kill liberal politicians would qualify one as a terrorist. And I'm sure after a few weeks of daily, multi-hour waterboarding sessions, they could have you confessing to exactly that.

 

They'd stop when you'd start confessing to crimes you didn't even know you committed until you wanted them to stop waterboarding you.

 

Lol no

 

Really? Ever been waterboarded? How long do you think you'd hold out before you'd be willing to sign any confession they wanted just to make them stop?

 

I feel like if you paid me substantially I'd be down for a once-a-week water boarding session to supplement my income.

 

I didn't know buildings had political leanings