GOP debate audience cheers at the prospect of using more torture

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture*


-Bush's Top Commander in Iraq, General Patreus, May 2007: "Toruture is illegal, immoral and ineffective at getting accurate information".


(paraphrased from Patreus statement earlier this month)





*video at thinkprogress.org
 
Nah, if you were watching they advocated it under a specific circumstance.

"If there have been nuclear attacks in the US, and you know that there are going to be more and that some of the prisoners in GITMO know where they are, would you advocate 'Enhanced Questioning' in order to get the information?"

(Or something very close to that). That was the question they answered.
 
Reportedly, Tancredo suggests that he believe in suffocation and electrocution torture techniques.

Both former mayor Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested they would support using the technique. Specifically asked about waterboarding, Giuliani said he would allow “every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it.”

Tancredo later added, “I’m looking for Jack Bauer,” referencing the television character who has used torture techniques such as suffocation and electrocution on prisoners.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Reportedly, Tancredo suggests that he believe in suffocation and electrocution torture techniques.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw the debate and I didn't get the impression Damo got. And I thought it was very obvious what impression you were supposed to get by their words.
 
Darla said:
Yeah, I saw the debate and I didn't get the impression Damo got. And I thought it was very obvious what impression you were supposed to get by their words.
Click to expand...
The question above comes...

Tancredo says, "There are nuclear attacks in the US, there will be more, and those in GITMO know about where and how... I'm looking for Jack Bauer! Seriously though, I think you have to use every tactic available..." (Or a very close proximity to that)

You hear, "Yeah, torture them all! Them HEATHENS!"

It takes ignoring the context of the question asked to say that any of them advocated it in all cases.
 
Damocles said:
The question above comes...

Tancredo says, "There are nuclear attacks in the US, there will be more, and those in GITMO know about where and how... I'm looking for Jack Bauer! Seriously though, I think you have to use every tactic available..." (Or a very close proximity to that)

You hear, "Yeah, torture them all! Them HEATHENS!"

It takes ignoring the context of the question asked to say that any of them advocated it in all cases.
Click to expand...

Damo, Romney specfically brought GITMO into it, specifically said he didnt "want them getting lawyers" and then stated he wanted to double the size of gitmo.

The above fantasy-scenerio has long been a red-herring thrown in by those whom advocate torture and the stripping of any human rights. I heard not one of those fuckers dispute what Romney said, and they were quick enough to jump all over Ron Paul's ass, so give it a rest.

A significant amount of Americans do support torture and tell pollsters so. Every one of those applauding last night is part of that group. Dream all you want, but don't try and pull one over on me, ok?
 
Darla said:
Damo, Romney specfically brought GITMO into it, specifically said he didnt "want them getting lawyers" and then stated he wanted to double the size of gitmo.

The above fantasy-scenerio has long been a red-herring thrown in by those whom advocate torture and the stripping of any human rights. I heard not one of those fuckers dispute what Romney said, and they were quick enough to jump all over Ron Paul's ass, so give it a rest.

A significant amount of Americans do support torture and tell pollsters so. Every one of those applauding last night is part of that group. Dream all you want, but don't try and pull one over on me, ok?
Click to expand...
Yet it was the very question that he was answering. Specifically those circumstances existed. Hence his "Jack Bauer" joke. It takes some serious spin to hear that question, ignore it, take the answer totally out of context and then say that he was advocating torture in every case.

What you accuse others of, you are seriously doing here. Taking a left-wing source and then pretending you don't remember the question? Come on, Darla. I expect a bit better from you.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it was the very question that he was answering. Specifically those circumstances existed. Hence his "Jack Bauer" joke. It takes some serious spin to hear that question, ignore it, take the answer totally out of context and then say that he was advocating torture in every case.

What you accuse others of, you are seriously doing here. Taking a left-wing source and then pretending you don't remember the question? Come on, Darla. I expect a bit better from you.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't hear the specific question, but take your word that was it. They went on for a long time, and not one of them specified that in their answer, and further not one of them, including Tancredo, objected to the conditions at GITMO, including Romney's statement that he was glad they didnt' have lawyers, and didn't want them out of GITMo and inside the US where we would have to give them lawyers, and that he wanted to double th size of Gitmo.

Not one of them mentioned civil rights, not one of them. All they did is use the opportunity to talk about how fast they would torture someone, that's it. I cannot believe I have lived to see the day when the freaking republican party places so much trust in the government that they are lining up to strip civil rights, and bragging about it. It's a damned shame, but no one is going to tell me I didn't see what I saw.

And guess what? The scenerio they used to wax on about how much faster they would torture the guy than their competitors? Never going to happen. That's the red herring, and someone who had any respect for human rights would have mentioned that.

I just realized that I give McCain short-shrift. Sorry. He did speak up. He was so alone you might think he came down with a bad case of BO.
 
Damocles said:
The question above comes...

Tancredo says, "There are nuclear attacks in the US, there will be more, and those in GITMO know about where and how... I'm looking for Jack Bauer! Seriously though, I think you have to use every tactic available..." (Or a very close proximity to that)

You hear, "Yeah, torture them all! Them HEATHENS!"

It takes ignoring the context of the question asked to say that any of them advocated it in all cases.
Click to expand...


Darla's right. The whole scenarios of ticking time-bomb nuclear explosion in NYC is a hollywood movie fantasy. It's virtually certain, that the hollywood scenerio wingnutters employ is never going to happen. This hollywood scenrio rhetoric is simply employed, to demonstrate to the base how "tough" and "pro-torture" these guys are. They're smart enough to to know how to employ rhetoric to fire up the base.



Note: I'm not implying a nuclear strike will never happen in the U.S. I'm saying the hollywood movie scenario construction that is used as pro-torture
rhetoric is virtually certain to never happen.
 
Darla said:
I actually didn't hear the specific question, but take your word that was it. They went on for a long time, and not one of them specified that in their answer, and further not one of them, including Tancredo, objected to the conditions at GITMO, including Romney's statement that he was glad they didnt' have lawyers, and didn't want them out of GITMo and inside the US where we would have to give them lawyers, and that he wanted to double th size of Gitmo.

Not one of them mentioned civil rights, not one of them. All they did is use the opportunity to talk about how fast they would torture someone, that's it. I cannot believe I have lived to see the day when the freaking republican party places so much trust in the government that they are lining up to strip civil rights, and bragging about it. It's a damned shame, but no one is going to tell me I didn't see what I saw.

And guess what? The scenerio they used to wax on about how much faster they would torture the guy than their competitors? Never going to happen. That's the red herring, and someone who had any respect for human rights would have mentioned that.

I just realized that I give McCain short-shrift. Sorry. He did speak up. He was so alone you might think he came down with a bad case of BO.
Click to expand...
I actually mentioned this to my wife. It isn't GITMO I object to, it is the fact that they are not getting trials that I object to.

What do you think Tancredo's joke was about? That scenario was a bit far-fetched.
 
Cypress said:
Darla's right. The whole scenarios of ticking time-bomb nuclear explosion in NYC is a hollywood movie fantasy. It's virtually certain, that the hollywood scenerio wingnutters employ is never going to happen. This hollywood scenrio rhetoric is simply employed, to demonstrate to the base how "tough" and "pro-torture" these guys are. They're smart enough to to know how to employ rhetoric to fire up the base.



Note: I'm not implying a nuclear strike will never happen in the U.S. I'm saying the hollywood movie scenario construction that is used as pro-torture
rhetoric is virtually certain to never happen.
Click to expand...
Which was my point. The question was ridiculous, taking it seriously was also just as ridiculous. Then saying that their answers to the scenario suggest that it is what they would do at all times? Just spin.
 
Tancredo is feeding red meat to the base.

Isn't Tancredo the guy who suggested that we nuke, or bomb, muslim holy sites as a way to fight the "war on terror".

Sorry, Damo. I think the guy is a loose cannon.
 
Damocles said:
Which was my point. The question was ridiculous, taking it seriously was also just as ridiculous. Then saying that their answers to the scenario suggest that it is what they would do at all times? Just spin.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I shouldn't have said that they would always suffocate, waterboard, and electrocute detainees. Not even I imagined that they would always do it. So, thanks for letting me set the record straight.

My point is, that these guys are total loose cannons. They're not pragmatists. They'll always address solutions to issues of foreign policy and war, in the most violent means they can think of. It's their default position. They don't think things through, or articulate them from a pragmatic point of view.
 
So according to Tancreedo we have been nuked and will be again ?

What is this guy smoking ?

And he is a presidential candidate ? Incredible....
 
Damocles said:
Which was my point. The question was ridiculous, taking it seriously was also just as ridiculous. Then saying that their answers to the scenario suggest that it is what they would do at all times? Just spin.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. So you think it was just macho posturing?

I don't think Rudy for one has ever met a civil right he didn't take pleasure in stomping on, and I figure he's good for some torture. The rest I don't know well enough. I wish men would just say what they mean, and put away the posturing. I mean it is kind of funny to imagine Mitt movie star Romney torturing someone. I can see that being posturing, and I do find him to be your most calculating candidate. But I kind of take most of them at their word on this, I think. Brownback man, I'd believe he'd insist on being in the room to personally supervise it. Bug-fuck nuts was a term invented for that pyscho.
 
uscitizen said:
So according to Tancreedo we have been nuked and will be again ?

What is this guy smoking ?

And he is a presidential candidate ? Incredible....
Click to expand...
No, the fricking questioner of the debate asked that question with that scenario. For gawd's sake keep up!
 
Cypress said:
Tancredo is feeding red meat to the base.

Isn't Tancredo the guy who suggested that we nuke, or bomb, muslim holy sites as a way to fight the "war on terror".

Sorry, Damo. I think the guy is a loose cannon.
Click to expand...
I agree with "loose cannon", he isn't there because he thinks he has some serious chance at becomng the nominee. But that one again was in answer to a nuclear scenario, and "take out" is not the same thing as nuking.

The question being that if they had attacked several US cities with nukes what kind of response might be taken. He said, "well... we could take out some of the holy sites." (I agree, bad idea for such a scenario, but he was on the spot and realized he had made a mistake.)

Taking it out of context with the question is sad. If it is the only way that you can attack him, then I'm glad it takes so much twisting to get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top