I wasn’t shocked at all to hear this kind of rationalizing away American guilt when the source was Scalia or Romney or Giuliani, but this coming from Clinton gets me stomping mad. He’s not kidding when he says he’s a Eisenhower-era Republican!
It’s shows like this - by the use of utterly baseless hypothetical scenarios - that are mentally conditioning the American public to accept further and further degradation of our moral standards as an international entity . One might as well use “Battlestar Galactica” as an argumentative basis for outlawing abortion, or “Idiocracy” as a reason to impose a China-style one-child policy!
I saw that interview. I think he qualified it with if it was a 1 in 1,000,000 opportunities. So basically he saying chances are very slim that it will ever happen.
Not to mention he believe that the individual will have bear the consequences of their action. So it is not State sanction torture.
You don’t need to legalize torture in “ticking bomb” cases, because --in the unlikely event that you actually had a situation like that-- the people trying to find the bomb are going to use torture whether it is legal or not. If it turns out that they saved a city then no jury will convict them regardless of what the law says. So there’s absolutely no reason to make torture legal.
Clinton certainly isn’t the first one to make this argument (most opponents of torture that I’ve read/heard make the same point), but he does a good job communicating it. Overall I think it is one of the best arguments against any kind of legalized torture, even in “ticking bomb” scenarios.
EDIT: Incidentally, I think a more appropriate headline for this thread would be “Clinton says ‘Jack Bauer-style’ torture should never be legal”.
A true master-politician would never answer childish questions like that one. They might as well have asked: “You have 3 minutes to extract the nuclear detonator that was embedded in your daughter’s liver. Would you kill your daughter to save the world? WOULD YOU???”
The headlines the next day will be either: “Politician is soft and weak on terrorism!!!” Or “Politician would torture and kill own daughter to pursue government agenda!!!”
The smart politician knows better than to step into THAT trap.
Agree with all above except the last. I posted that commentary late last night without reading the actual interview - which I just read this morning - so I’m fully obliged to chew boot.
They posed a scenario equally as ridiculous during the Faux News candidate debates, and those guys were all champing at the bit to answer it! (I wish I knew how to Google that - if anyone does, please post it - it was ludicrous to the point of hilarity!) Each wanted to have a turn at proving he was more pro-torture, pro-secret rendition, pro-expansion of Executive powers than the guy next to him. Republicans are really out of touch with the the public sentiment…
I saw the New Hampshire Democratic debate on TV. Tim Russert asked Hillary whether she would make torture a one-time exception in that kind of scenario. She said it should never be a part of US policy. Then Russert mentioned her husband endorsed it in that situation. Hillary replied, “Well he’s not here tonight on this stage…I’m going to speak to him later”.
If someone shouldered the responsibility of torturing the #3 Al Qaeda man in custody, who happened to be the only person in custody to know the details of an attack occurring in one hour, and the info actually thrawted the attack, Hillary privately wouldn’t mind.
Won’t get any argument from me there. Only way I’ll vote for her is if it’s between her and a Republican. I liked what this guy had to say about Hillary…
Won’t get any argument from me there. Only way I’ll vote for her is if it’s between her and a Republican. [/quote]
Smartass…I was referring to Bill Clinton* and you know it.
Voting for Hilary! shows you just don’t care about honesty. But you’re free to vote for a continuation of the most corrupt regieme to ever occupy the White House…The Clintons*…
[quote=“Hrodric”]A true master-politician would never answer childish questions like that one. They might as well have asked: “You have 3 minutes to extract the nuclear detonator that was embedded in your daughter’s liver. Would you kill your daughter to save the world? WOULD YOU???”
The headlines the next day will be either: “Politician is soft and weak on terrorism!!!” Or “Politician would torture and kill own daughter to pursue government agenda!!!”
The smart politician knows better than to step into THAT trap.[/quote]
Reminds of a southpark episode:
At gunpoint, would you have sex with your father in order to save your mother?
[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“Hrodric”]A true master-politician would never answer childish questions like that one. They might as well have asked: “You have 3 minutes to extract the nuclear detonator that was embedded in your daughter’s liver. Would you kill your daughter to save the world? WOULD YOU???”
The headlines the next day will be either: “Politician is soft and weak on terrorism!!!” Or “Politician would torture and kill own daughter to pursue government agenda!!!”
The smart politician knows better than to step into THAT trap.[/quote]
Reminds of a southpark episode:
At gunpoint, would you have sex with your father in order to save your mother?[/quote]
The funnier part (or sadder part, depending on your point of view) is that these politicians just stepped right into the trap. Even the common-folk creators of a comedy show like Southpark know the ridiculousness of these type of questions.
It’s like, the forum host just sets a trap, shows the audience and panel members the nasty jaws of the trap, and then the politicians fight over who is going to trip over it first. Seriously, you may call me elitist if you will, but IQ and EQ tests should be a requirement for political work–at the very least in the national level.
[quote=“TC”]Smartass…I was referring to Bill Clinton* and you know it.
Voting for Hilary! shows you just don’t care about honesty. But you’re free to vote for a continuation of the most corrupt regieme to ever occupy the White House…The Clintons*… [/quote]
Um, I wasn’t being a smart-ass. If anything, I was just being dumb, but the post prior to yours was talking about Hillary, so I assumed you were too.
As for the second remark, I don’t want to use the adjective and accompanying adverbs that comes to mind in a rated-PG forum! Jees, I mean first of all, the only reason the Republicans used their a politically-biased dude in the justice department to illegally switch prosecuting attorneys and bring in Starr was because the first guy they sent after Clinton couldn’t come up with anything! And I’ve already made a post on that and referenced it at least once, so don’t ask me for names and citations. You be the one to search it up, since you’ve already ignored it once if not twice!
Besides, with all its secret endorsements of torture & kidnapping and most likely assassination of journalists; closed-hearing private sector contract give-aways; “Executive signing orders” contravening every law it publicly promised to which it promises to adhere; buddy-buddy relationships with corrupt Congressmen like Abramov, Cunningham and so on, the Harding and Grants’ administrations couldn’t touch this administration with a ten-foot pole, let alone Clinton’s!