“Believe in "saving more lives" much? The question posed was theoretical, ""Who wouldn't use torture on this punk to save more lives?" Now, it specifically stated 'this punk' so your theoretical 'innocent person' is moot as video now shows the Tsarnaev's are guilty.
I can accept that you wouldn't use torture to save more lives. Can you?”
“"Zero Dark Thirty," the film about the hunt for and killing of Osama bin Laden, got a fresh infusion of buzz over the weekend when outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed again that enhanced interrogation techniques aided the effort to find bin Laden.
The question was posed theoretically, would you use "torture" if it could "save more lives"? The response here is clearly no, most HuffPo readers would not use torture to save more lives.
“I don't know why you label us "those who would not save more lives."
The original quote, lost in a flurry of emotional responses triggered by the word "torture," was "Who wouldn't use torture on this punk to save more lives?" It is a theoretical question, and clearly most HuffPo readers would not use torture to save more lives.
In “Torture’s Loopholes” (New York Times, Jan. 20, 2010) by Matthew Alexander says, about Obama allegedly banning torture — “If I were to return to one of the war zones today…I would still be allowed to abuse prisoners.”Holder’s task force on interrogation “recommended no changes” to the Army Field Manual, thereby retaining the torture loopholes ,,, an appendix to the Manual allows a detainee to be kept in solitary confinement indefinitely... torture, as confirmed by many scientific studies.” And the prestigious Manual allows suspects just four hours sleep in 24 hours.— and then conduct a 20-hour interrogation, after which they can ‘reset’ the clock and begin another 20-hour interrogation followed by four hours of sleep.”
But these things, under this administration, offend HuffPo readers theoretically, and they would not save more lives, they would not prevent the murder and mutilation seen in Boston, because the word "torture" offends their sensibilities.”
mamagordo on Apr 23, 2013 at 02:16:37
“I am aware of and offended by Obama's failure to make good on his promise to end the Gitmo facility, the practices of torture, isolation, and imprisonment for indefinite periods of time without being charged. I am dismayed by it. But Ball's assertion that torture would be an option for the prosecution of this case, or any case, is anathema to me and countless others. Not sure why Obama's record is an issue here, but I say all of this, and yet I voted for him because I felt he was the best candidate available. I would do it again.”
“"to save more lives?"
You wouldn't save more lives if it required "torture" (like sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, yes, even waterboarding).
How many Newtowns would you tolerate? Two? Six?
TO SAVE MORE LIVES (you left that out of your "quote").”
““Torture’s Loopholes” (New York Times, Jan. 20, 2010) is by Matthew Alexander: This is what Alexander, who describes himself as “an investigator turned interrogator,” has to say about Obama allegedly banning torture — “If I were to return to one of the war zones today…I would still be allowed to abuse prisoners.” How come? In August, Holder’s task force on interrogation, commissioned by the president, “recommended no changes” to the Army Field Manual, thereby retaining the torture loopholes ,,, an appendix to the Manual allows a detainee (a.k.a. prisoner) to be kept in solitary confinement indefinitely. As Alexander point out, “extended solitary confinement is torture, as confirmed by many scientific studies.” And the prestigious Manual allows suspects just four hours sleep in 24 hours. “As if this wasn’t enough,” Alexander continues, a loophole permits interrogators, Mr. President, ‘to give a detainee four hours of sleep — and then conduct a 20-hour interrogation, after which they can ‘reset’ the clock and begin another 20-hour interrogation followed by four hours of sleep.” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/torture-under-obama”
“My biggest disappointment with the Obama administration is the torture of Bradley Manning, American, left to rot for months in solitary without a trial. Don't forget about al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver, killed in a drone strike in Yemen, no trial, no torture, just execution from the Obama administration. Tell me again how un-American one person is for speaking his mind, tell me about how innocent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is, but meanwhile please ignore the realities of this decade's government, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
CDonald on Apr 22, 2013 at 16:35:45
“**IF** the person being tortured is innocent. Believe in "innocent until proven guilty" much?
And now that you mention it, the drone strikes piss me off too. Nobody should be above the law EVER, regardless of position, power or funds.”
“It's a theoretical 'think piece.' "Torture" could be the Sesame Street theme song played continuously for 48 hours, while "more lives" could mean several dozen classrooms of Newtown students blown away. So many have stood up against theme song torture in favor of killing school children. Fail, America. Theoretical fail, of course, but fail, nonetheless.”
“When talking to these people who would not use torture to save more lives, do not remind them about Bradley Manning, American, left to rot for months in solitary without a trial (we do not torture) in Obama's America. Those who would not save more lives should forget about al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen, no trial, no torture, just execution from the Obama Administration. Let them tell you how un-American one person is for speaking his mind, and ignore the realities of this decade's government.”
mamagordo on Apr 22, 2013 at 14:56:40
“Fit: I don't think any of us posting here believe that Obama's administration is above reproach. We deplore torture no matter which administration is committing it. We are still hopeful that Obama will make good on his promise to close Gitmo. And I don't know why you label us "those who would not save more lives." Nonsense. We're all for saving lives, but we don't believe torture accomplishes that goal. It only lessens us as human beings.”
jeremyg1963 on Apr 22, 2013 at 14:44:01
“Are you suggesting that we all think that those things are just fine, or that they should all have been tortured?? I dont know anyone who is a big fan of either....”
“There are lots of people who wouldn't use torture to save more lives, and they are very vocal. Here are many people who align with the single terrorist over the multitude of "more lives" - they speak loud and clear.”
Skye134 on Apr 22, 2013 at 19:28:41
“The thing is, torture does NOT save lives, it doesn't work. So I'm suspicious about the motives on the right. Is it some sick pleasure that you would get from torturing someone? Why then, would you torture when it's illegal and doesn't produce results?”
Saint Brian the Godless on Apr 22, 2013 at 14:00:56
“We align with the spirit of this country against both the terrorists and those who would lessen us down to their level out of blind fear.”
“These same people who praise the spending in January are decrying the cuts in February. The Sky Is Falling they lament about Sequestration, yet a month earlier they were all for the doling out of wads of cash.
Borrow against your childrens' futures, for you won't be here when it comes tumbling down.”
“Kevin Maloney: Fact: Emails were censored. Fact: security was requested/denied. Fact: Assistance was requested/denied. Fact: announced 5 days later it was in response to video and not terrorism/lie. Fact: it was a cover-up during election.
Americans died in Libya due to incompetence, then the Administration covered up their incompetence to win an election.”
“Fact: Emails were censored. Fact: security was requested/denied. Fact: Assistance was requested/denied. Fact: announced 5 days later it was in response to video and not terrorism/lie. Fact: it was a cover-up during election. (Post by Kevin Maloney)”
“"In Benghazi people died before the supposed "crime" the GOP keeps looking for. Watergate was about a burglary." People died because of incompetence (nobody paying attention to that 3am phone call). The cover up was lies to hide the incompetence and win reelection. And yes, people died because this Administration was afraid to admit terrorists still exist.”
thirstforknowledge on May 11, 2013 at 21:20:16
“Yes, and the Bush administration wasn't paying attention to reports of threats that lead to 9/11/2001. Geez people, this kind of stuff happens all the time in all administrations.
Why don't we stop trying to blame and start trying to figure out how we can do better next time?”
“Check some facts, Ann, instead of "listening to your heart." Bush won all recounts (Dem. T Lapore lost the election for Gore with that Butterfly Ballot). But really, does the election in 2000 justify Barack and Hillary lying or failing to protect our people? Wake up and admit the FAIL!”
Ann Romanello on May 11, 2013 at 21:32:05
“We won't agree on this. But that's okay. That's why there's a two party system and we get to vote for those with whom we align our philosophical, social and political views. And by the way, Its getting old when people who have a different opinion get attacked with 'check the facts', as if the person behind the attack is the keeper of the facts. Not a very nice thing...and it lessens the power of the debate.”