165
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + +
Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values? (view source)
Revision as of 04:01, March 18, 2008
, 04:01, March 18, 2008→Transference
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. And to return to the original topic, Jesus said to turn the other cheek - or perhaps it's just that part of the Bible which isn't meant literally?[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. And to return to the original topic, Jesus said to turn the other cheek - or perhaps it's just that part of the Bible which isn't meant literally?[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: Is going against the very ideals of america to protect americans okay. What if you were put in jail for some perceived crime and had habeus corpus suspended so you had no trial, and no hope of getting out? Is that okay with you I mean there is a chance you could be a threat and there is no way to know unless you perform some crime. The reason the Salem witch trials are perceived as being bad is not only that they were listening to hysterical children, but the accused were presumed guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps if Americans treated the world as we love to be treated our international standing may be much better. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 00:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
==Rebuttal to RobS==
==Rebuttal to RobS==
Disinformation? The CIA admit do doing it. In a similar manner they violated Italy's soverignity by kidnapping an Imam instead of extradition being requested.[[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Disinformation? The CIA admit do doing it. In a similar manner they violated Italy's soverignity by kidnapping an Imam instead of extradition being requested.[[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)