Yup, he's the only pro-torture candidate left now.
You obviously don't have a clue when it comes to who McCain is or what he stands for. McCain has been against waterboarding and other types of torture. In fact read this exchange between McCain and Romney during a debate last year:
McCain: "Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is." Romney: "I know what waterboarding is, Senator." McCain: "Then I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention."
Ignorance such as yours when it comes to the candidates makes me worry as November gets closer and closer.
Yup, he's the only pro-torture candidate left now.
You obviously don't have a clue when it comes to who McCain is or what he stands for. McCain has been against waterboarding and other types of torture.
Ignorance such as yours when it comes to the candidates makes me worry as November gets closer and closer.
I thought he used to be pretty clear cut on that particular issue too. His recent voting record is in direct conflict with his stated positions though, voting against restrictions on waterboarding. I realise he's just trying to get elected, politics making strange bedfellows and all. But I was surprised to see McCain caving and voting to allow things like waterboarding.
My ignorance shouldn't worry you. I don't get a say in who runs this country.
Waterboarding is only used on the prisoners that we know have information, and when we use it we get information quick out of these people and save tons of American lives. We aren't just using it on the average POW, we only use it on big name people that have info we need.
Here is a hypothetical situation:
If one of your kids was kidnapped and you caught the guy that knew where they were. You knew that if you were to make him feel like he was dying then he would spill the information and tell you where your kid was so that you could save your kid and prevent him/her from getting killed. Are you saying that you wouldn't do it?
Waterboarding is only used on the prisoners that we know have information, and when we use it we get information quick out of these people and save tons of American lives. We aren't just using it on the average POW, we only use it on big name people that have info we need.
Here is a hypothetical situation:
If one of your kids was kidnapped and you caught the guy that knew where they were. You knew that if you were to make him feel like he was dying then he would spill the information and tell you where your kid was so that you could save your kid and prevent him/her from getting killed. Are you saying that you wouldn't do it?
there is an ongoing discussion about waterboarding already..do you really need to further derail this thread about the election?
Waterboarding is only used on the prisoners that we know have information, and when we use it we get information quick out of these people and save tons of American lives. We aren't just using it on the average POW, we only use it on big name people that have info we need.
Here is a hypothetical situation:
If one of your kids was kidnapped and you caught the guy that knew where they were. You knew that if you were to make him feel like he was dying then he would spill the information and tell you where your kid was so that you could save your kid and prevent him/her from getting killed. Are you saying that you wouldn't do it?
The fallacy in the 'immediate threat' argument is that you don't get information that's useful. You'll get information, any information, just not useful or true information. There are techniques, other than torture, that have been shown to be more effective in these situations. Life isn't 24.
there is an ongoing discussion about waterboarding already..do you really need to further derail this thread about the election?
I think starting another political thread is asking for "anything goes."
Originally posted by ryand:
Waterboarding is only used on the prisoners that we know have information, and when we use it we get information quick out of these people and save tons of American lives. We aren't just using it on the average POW, we only use it on big name people that have info we need.
naïve: (1) marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous (2a) deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; especially : credulous
The fallacy in the 'immediate threat' argument is that you don't get information that's useful. You'll get information, any information, just not useful or true information. There are techniques, other than torture, that have been shown to be more effective in these situations. Life isn't 24.
Shoot, if someones hanging me underwater, I'm sure as heck gonna spill my guts. It's been proven to work. These people are trying to kill us, I'm not sure we should exactly give them the same rights that our citizens have anyways.
naïve: (1) marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous (2a) deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; especially : credulous
That is a really weak argument, considering that it is a personal attack, rather than staying on subject. Thank you though for assuming I'm naive because I'm 16.
