NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you support torture to extract information. I do. Do you?

No. But I know we'll do it anyway, since we're a government and that's what governments do.

Depends on who's being interrogated.

Depends on who's being interrogated.

People with information.

^Or people who have no information, but lie and say they do, because lying is better than being tortured.

No.

Do you support torture to extract in formation. I do.

on what possible grounds?

and i like the typo, adds a different meaning to the question.

^Or people who have no information, but lie and say they do, because lying is better than being tortured.

Exactly.

Np, not even if it meant I could stop a terrorist attack, becuase bending just once opens the door for more bending, and I will not comprimise what I believe in, that I am more civilized and frankly better than them, by stooping below the principles I claim to be fighting for.

No, for reasons that have already been explained here. Sword and Shield did a very nice job on that :p

It scares me that people like you actually exist in civilised society...

Never under any circumstances.

It scares me that people like you actually exist in civilised society...
they are called "Republicans"

they are called "Republicans"

At least Liberals are at times Rational....

they are called "Republicans"
*gives chess 'the look'*

that was a cheap shot. few people in the US are in favor of torture. the dozen at the top of our govt who think it is a good idea is swamped by the millions of registered republicans who find the idea repugnant.

that was a cheap shot. few people in the US are in favor of torture. the dozen at the top of our govt who think it is a good idea is swamped by the millions of registered republicans who find the idea repugnant.
....but will happily vote the same top dozen back in come election time.

they are called "Republicans"
And you called "troll." The difference between spam and a quip is that you're not amusing. As for me, there are times when torture is appropriate, and times when it is not.

I'm no republican, and I don't really care if torture is used, doesn't affect me any.

*gives chess 'the look'*

that was a cheap shot. few people in the US are in favor of torture. the dozen at the top of our govt who think it is a good idea is swamped by the millions of registered republicans who find the idea repugnant.

then explain how bush's approval ratings are still up at 48%

I'm no republican, and I don't really care if torture is used, doesn't affect me any.

Supposing they legalise torture because of views like that. Then suppose they have reason to suspect you of a crime, I don't know, because you were nearby at the time and people saw you, but you were innocent. Then suppose that they didn't believe you when you said you were innocent, and decided to 'press the issue' a little harder. Would you care then?

Supposing they legalise torture because of views like that. Then suppose they have reason to suspect you of a crime, I don't know, because you were nearby at the time and people saw you, but you were innocent. Then suppose that they didn't believe you when you said you were innocent, and decided to 'press the issue' a little harder. Would you care then?

When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I was not jewish.
When they came for the homosexuals, I did nothing, for I was not homosexual
When they came for the gypsies, I did nothing, for I was not a gypsie
When they came for me...

I think in war,torture is more justified then in regular society(everyday police interogation). I say this because when your at war with a country, well, your not supposed to be nice. Your mission is to win by all means necessary. Its not civilized, and all those who attempt to make a war civil, is just imo being very irrational.
So to torture 1 to gain more information to further the end is better then to not torture and involutnarily torture every innocent person who has to be involved in the war to begin with.

And yes sometimes war is justified too.

The old cliché 'treat people how you would like to be treated' springs to mind. For example's sake, if the US (and no, I'm not saying that it's true or false, just using it as a remotely modern example) were torturing their POWs, they would have no right to complain if Iraqi forces, and now terrorists, did the same to their soldiers. This is the reason we sign international agreements regarding things like the treatment of POWs. Whether they work or not is a different matter, but there you go.

When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I was not jewish.
When they came for the homosexuals, I did nothing, for I was not homosexual
When they came for the gypsies, I did nothing, for I was not a gypsie
When they came for me...

Ah, the many variations:


First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist - so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat - so I did nothing.
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.
And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew - so I did little.
Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me.

- Martin Niemoeller (1937)


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

- Reverend Martin Niemoeller (1945)


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communists
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

- Pastor Martin Neumueller


First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

- James Baldwin


But interestingly, people use the quotation to imply different meanings – even altering it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.

Seems the quote has quite a bit of history. o.o;

But interestingly, people use the quotation to imply different meanings – even altering it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.

The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social DemocratsWhich is absolutely disgusting. Historical Revisionim worthy of Irving or Zundel.

Can we take it to mean that Gore doesen't mind if people come for the trade unionists? Or the people behind the US Holocaust Museum wouldn't have spoken out if people came for the communists? (And since when has it been the job of a supposed museum to censor history?)