ScipioCowboy
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, yeah. I mean, you're generally not going to waterboard someone or spy on them without proof of some kind.
- Thread starter JBond
- Start date
It's sort of cute when retarded kids try to insult me.
re-read your original quote
"Would you support water boarding suspected terrorist if there was an imminent and substantial threat to national security, such as a nuclear bomb planted in downtown New York?
I suppose Charles Krauthammer had the best answer in response to the question above: "Yes, provided you can prove the existence of an imminent and substantial threat to national security.""
It's a tautology. If I already know there's an imminent threat to national security why am I waterboarding someone to find out that there's an imminent threat to national security?
It sounds good but it's meaningless, probably why Krauthammer said it.
you tried to change the subject and make an impartial hypothetical specifically about the current administration.
prolly cuz you're a partisan nitwit.
Then you went full ****** and were just flat out wrong. Then you went full Hostile and refused to admit it when it was pointed out. Instead of a "my bad must have misread", you doubled down on insults. Now you look super dumb.
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
man, next thing you know he'll ignore you then lob kitty quotes at you.
ScipioCowboy
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
re-read your original quote
"Would you support water boarding suspected terrorist if there was an imminent and substantial threat to national security, such as a nuclear bomb planted in downtown New York?
I suppose Charles Krauthammer had the best answer in response to the question above: "Yes, provided you can prove the existence of an imminent and substantial threat to national security.""
It's a tautology. If I already know there's an imminent threat to national security why am I waterboarding someone to find out that there's an imminent threat to national security?
It sounds good but it's meaningless, probably why Krauthammer said it.
Alright. I'll walk you through you it.
Here's a hypothetical: Due to some evidence (emails, letters, financial documents) the government has received, it has reason to believe a nuke has been planted downtown New York and will be detonated at such-and-such date and time. It doesn't know where the nuke is located precisely; consequently, it can't be absolutely certain the nuke is actually there However, it has strong reason to believe the existence of an imminent and substantial threat to national security.
Law enforcement apprehends a suspect it believes planted the bomb. He won't talk. Consequently, they resort to "enhanced interrogation techniques" to make him talk.
This is pretty much how they located Osama Bin Laden.
VTA
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,675
- Reaction score
- 610
No the hypothetical subject was justifying spying to pre-empt an attack, and I showed evidence that knowing ahead of time about an attack doesn't fit. After you cried over Benghazi I offered the Russian tidbit as further proof. And I managed it all sans Ben Franklin quote.
I did admit that I lazily viewed your response with prejudice. Soooorry dopey. Maybe you should stick to butter on cat butts and anal beads...
well scipio you added an extra caveat that wasn't in my original. the clarifier that we already know something is going to happen. Makes it more complicated than it has to be to make the answer obvious - yes if we know there's a bomb we'll do whatever it takes to stop it. But I'm talking doing these things when we aren't 99.9% sure there's a threat, we just know we need to investigate.
It's a tough call. You don't want to be the guy who ignores a threat and has it blow up in your face if there was anything at all you could do. I'm sure at high levels of intelligence they are bending the rules constantly, especially as they continue to expand their reach via legislation. So who knows how much of this is going on/has gone on.
It's a tough call. You don't want to be the guy who ignores a threat and has it blow up in your face if there was anything at all you could do. I'm sure at high levels of intelligence they are bending the rules constantly, especially as they continue to expand their reach via legislation. So who knows how much of this is going on/has gone on.
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
19 of your last 25 posts are either directed to me, or are about me. This despite my completely ignoring you and your worthless posts for months, and then my refusal to do anything but post cat facts in response to your worthless posts that are constantly directed at me (despite my never responding to them).
That's the textbook definition of "In Your Head". Get help.
Cats can judge within 3 inches the precise location of a sound being made 1 yard away.
jeebus
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 0
Fuck that, that is not a tough call, threat of a bomb no torture, proof of bomb lots of torture.
jeebus
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 0
That is not very impressive.
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
yea, that must be it.
ooooo - the cleverness of the lib got me!!! you even took the time to count - if i wasn't buggin you, i just can't see you doing that.you're just pissed off i call you on all your stupid bullshit and hypocritical crap.
I don't even think it's possible to figure that out.
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 0
jeebus
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 0
Give me one of them scientific grants and I'll fucking prove it.
- Messages
- 58,837
- Reaction score
- 9,214
WTF? Seriously?
I bet the parents and other family members of those killed give a shit. Anybody who is a flesh in blood American should absolutely care.
Obama should absolutely be impeached. The lies and corruption of this administration are out of control.