Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[Alpo]

I dont miss 1980s mtv.

Hey! I like that song! I was playing it yesterday, along with Roundabout by Yes! and some Devo stuff.

 

[ATM]

This whole thread should be considered torture, which is against the law. Y'all a buncha law breakers.

[video=youtube;L397TWLwrUU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU[/video]

 

[jamil]

Greg Kihn, Esq. advised that I can't be tried again for the same crime, called it double something.
Dude. You already lost. It's your appeal. I'm just saing that even with the wit and prowess of the venerable K Freeman, you admitted it was murder. Yer gonna lose the appeal.

This whole thread should be considered torture, which is against the law. Y'all a buncha law breakers.

[video=youtube;L397TWLwrUU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU[/video]

Oh jeez. I had a roomate in college who was into that ****. Played it all the time.

 

[ATM]

Dude. You already lost.

Unpossible, I win.

Oh jeez. I had a roomate in college who was into that ****. Played it all the time.

No lasting damage, though, right?

 

[jamil]

Unpossible, I win.

You may celebrate your victory in your cell while awaiting appeal. It's minimum security. So...

No lasting damage, though, right?

No. No lasting damage. I'm just glad the 80s came and went as quickly as they did.

 

[Trigger Time]

This is why some things need to stay classified. Also military/state actions against a terrorist isn't up for legal debate.
This is still going on I'm sure. They pushed it deeper. Maybe put a bullet in the guys head after he's told what he has. Dead men tell no tales.

 

[ATM]

You may celebrate your victory in your cell while awaiting appeal. It's minimum security. So...

Label you an extremist and alter the definition of murder to include Enhanced Threat Response Technique ...easy enough.

 

[ATM]

This is why some things need to stay classified. Also military/state actions against a terrorist isn't up for legal debate.
This is still going on I'm sure. They pushed it deeper. Maybe put a bullet in the guys head after he's told what he has. Dead men tell no tales.

Everything is classified and anyone can be labeled a terrorist, so no oversight ...easy enough.

 

[indiucky]

Hey! I like that song! I was playing it yesterday, along with Roundabout by Yes! and some Devo stuff.

It's okay Alpo..."If your friends don't dance and if they can't dance then their no friends of mine..."

 

[ATM]

Wurds... they used to mean something.

[video=youtube;IasCZL072fQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasCZL072fQ[/video]

 

[Woobie]

Wurds... they used to mean something.

[video=youtube;IasCZL072fQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasCZL072fQ[/video]

This post is a macro-aggression.

 

[Alpo]

It's okay Alpo..."If your friends don't dance and if they can't dance then their no friends of mine..."

Probably Baptists.

 

[ATM]

Probably Baptists.

The original waterboarders.

 

[Alpo]

The original waterboarders.

Now THAT is funny.

 

[Woobie]

The original waterboarders.

Thats probably the funniest thing I've heard in a while, even without the context of this thread.

 

[jamil]

I think I regret bringing 80s music into this thread.

This is why some things need to stay classified. Also military/state actions against a terrorist isn't up for legal debate.
This is still going on I'm sure. They pushed it deeper. Maybe put a bullet in the guys head after he's told what he has. Dead men tell no tales.

I may lean towards the side of extracting information from terrorists, but there should be a debate. That's what free societies do.

And I guess I would disagree that it's not up for debate, if the US were indeed a constitutional, representative republic. It's an oligarchy so you're right. There's no debate.

Now THAT is funny.

Thats probably the funniest thing I've heard in a while, even without the context of this thread.

I LOL'd.

 

[Alpo]

Iris DeMint. Have them listen to Iris for a day. They'll spill everything.

(ps. I happen to like Iris, but her singing is definitely and acquired taste)

 

[foszoe]

I could see how you could get that out of the Hebrews passage, though I disagree. But here's another:

1 Peter 2:13-14 KJV
[13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; [14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

So when God order the Israelites to kill, he was ordering them to sin?

I think we both know the context under which Christ says "fear not him who can kill the body." But I take it from your statements here you do not carry a protective sidearm?

You'll be relieved to know I have made no plans to torture anyone.

For fuller context, I quoted the surrounding verses. I am not sure why you are talking about the leaders of countries when trying to determine if torture or killing is justified. Are you saying that if you follow orders, God holds the person giving the orders accountable and not you absolving you of any responsibility? I may be way off in understanding what you are saying.

11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.




13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.


18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.


21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

God is not the author of sin. The wars in the OT were between gods. God also commands "Thou shalt not kill"

It seems to me though that unless you are saying God is ordering us today to kill and torture other human beings, that this question is not under the scope of this thread. Are you making that claim?

Should we live according to the OT Law?

However, would anyone have died had there been no sin? Death is the mercy laid upon us due to the fact that sin exists.

Was God's revelation of his plan complete in the OT or still unfolding? If there is an apparent contradiction, and people hold to this all the time, I can love the God of the NT, but not the God of the OT, how are we to interpret this? i would suggest we interpret the OT in the light of the NT.

All those that died in the OT received the message of Jesus Christ and had opportunity to accept him.

Now, does that mean I understand all the actions of God? No. The key difference here, is we both agree that these accounts are in Scripture. So we must accept them and try to understand them in the best way we know how.

Today many people kill and claim it is because God told them to do so, yet we look upon them as crazy. It's perhaps easy to do if they are a radicalized Muslim, but what about when they are Christian? What if they claim they are killing homosexuals or doctors performing abortions because the OT sanctions this killing and the voice of God commanded them to do so. Would you or I accept that morally? If our leaders said we are going to attack, I don't know, a Muslim country because they are killing human beings and God said kill the infidels? Would we accept that? I don't think we would. Why? I would maintain part of the reason is that we recognize that there is a New covenant.

I do carry a sidearm. It I am ever forced to deploy it, I know that I will answer for whatever happens. I do know that I won't try to justify taking someone else's life. It would still be a sin and i will still need to confess it and beg God to have mercy upon me for whatever actions I take. It would be much easier for me to use it defensively to save a family member, friend, or victim than to use it to save myself. That does not however, make it more or less right.

Killing is not natural. That is why when soldiers and police kill, many struggle with the aftermath. I believe that telling someone it was okay or it was justified is morally wrong, even if its legally declared so. You did the right thing is also not true. That is why many want to be forgiven not justified.

If I ever kill another human being, I won't want to hear that I am justified or that I did the right thing. I will go and confess this sin to God and I will rely on his mercy to forgive me and then I must accept his forgiveness, but I will NEVER for a moment believe i was justified or I did the right thing.

 

[Woobie]

Foszoe,

I don't think we're on the same page here, and that's my fault. It's going to be a hectic afternoon, but I'll try to clarify later. I'm thinking some of the broader discussion would be better in the other thread, though.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think I regret bringing 80s music into this thread.



I may lean towards the side of extracting information from terrorists, but there should be a debate. That's what free societies do.

And I guess I would disagree that it's not up for debate, if the US were indeed a constitutional, representative republic. It's an oligarchy so you're right. There's no debate.





I LOL'd.

But the military isn't that. Even for soldiers it isn't that.
As long as this isn't used on American citizens then I think we are fine.