446
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + + +
no edit summary
CP believes in avoiding polite euphemisms, like "militants" for "terrorists." Why avoid the use of the word "torture?" There was a great article awhile back in, I think, the Atlantic (hold on for just a minute...) that was the argument in FAVOR of these kinds of techniques, but even the quotes from those in favor from inside the intelligence community called it "torture." [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:10, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
CP believes in avoiding polite euphemisms, like "militants" for "terrorists." Why avoid the use of the word "torture?" There was a great article awhile back in, I think, the Atlantic (hold on for just a minute...) that was the argument in FAVOR of these kinds of techniques, but even the quotes from those in favor from inside the intelligence community called it "torture." [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:10, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
==Use of "Opponents of the US" phrase==
Seriously, how does being opposed to waterboarding make one anti-American? Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, necessary or unneccesary, I find calling people opposed to waterboarding "opponents of the US" a moronic leap of illogic. Being opposed to waterboarding make one an opponent of waterboarding. Patriotism has nothing to do with it, and to try to frame all opponents of waterboarding as anti-Americans is inflammatory, untruthful, and simpleminded. --[[User:John|John]] 15:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)