This is why I think Mitt Romney is who we need running this country...

[DJRoss]

eom

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What do you know about taking another man's life or living in totalitarian countries or for that matter free ones?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

eom

Tell me. I'm all ears.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

Hi I am Mitt Romney and I am against Torture, and here is my top twenty list of things that we won't do when I become President. Oh, and if any terrorist leaders are listening to this debate ( I mean I do not know why any of them would since they obviously don't think what we say or our positions really matter to them), please take note of my strong stance against torturing prisoners and the exact detailed list of things that I consider torture. That way when your followers who wish death on our citizens, destruction of our freedoms so they can set up their very own theocratic dictatorship, rape our women and call them infidel chattel. They know that we really cannot do anything coercive in nature to bring them to exposing any and all information that might save thousands of lives.

I Mitt Romney cannot in good conscience hide for security reasons what our "torture" policies are. I must confess them openly for all to hear especially those who design to destroy our freedoms. I mean there really is no good reason to keep this covert in nature. Honestly how could I claim to be a good man while keeping this information top secret. If I did so I must admit to being evil just like Mike Waters says. I am evil for wanting to keep this information protected.

Maybe we should have a policy that we send soldiers upon our enemies and kill said enemies as an act of war. Maybe we should spend the extra time combing through the battlefields to end the lives of any enemies that are writhing in pain suffering from the torture of being almost dead, or maybe that would be a sin so we leave them there to suffer excruciating pain. It is hilarious how people in forums like these with no first hand understanding of war and its ugly realities like to parse aspects of it in ways to make themselves comfortable that they somehow are on righteous ground.

31 But behold he met with a disappointment by being repulsed by Teancum and his men, for they were great warriors; for every man of Teancum did exceed the Lamanites in their strength and in their skill of war, insomuch that they did gain advantage over the Lamanites. 32 And it came to pass that they did harass them, insomuch that they did slay them even until it was dark. And it came to pass that Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the seashore, and after this manner were they driven.

33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

34 And it came to pass that Teancum stole privily into the tent of the king, and aput a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the bdeath of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants.

35 And he returned again privily to his own camp, and behold, his men were asleep, and he awoke them and told them all the things that he had done.

36 And he caused that his armies should stand in areadiness, lest the Lamanites had awakened and should come upon them.

37 And thus endeth the twenty and fifth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; and thus endeth the days of Amalickiah.
1 And now, it came to pass in the *twenty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, behold, when the Lamanites awoke on the first morning of the first month, behold, they found Amalickiah was dead in his own tent; and they also saw that Teancum was aready to give them battle on that day.

How would some of you criticizing Romney for this feel about this if it happened today? Here we have a Priesthood holder Teancum who knowing that he has superior forces and has exerted his might over the Lamanites; knowing that he has the advantage so no reason to initiate any more fighting; knowing that he can remain in a defensive posture and as long as the Lamanites are frustrated he can be on the side of righteousness. However in spite of his position of strength, decides to sneak into the enemy camp and stick a javelin into the heart of their leader. This was an assassination by all means. Was his desire to end the life of one to spare the life of many relevant? Did the Lord inspire him or was he acting on evil impulses similar to Romney who refuses to give his enemies a leg up on his definition of torture?

Did Teancum consult with the Lord before he did this heinous act? Why couldn't he just capture him and smack him around a little (sparing his life) to extracting information on the captured cities that could have save more lives. Given the results, maybe the US should adopt a sneak in tent and assassinate policy and forget about capturing prisoners to interrogate for information that could save lives. I mean isn't that more humane and righteous? Oh that's right, maybe bringing the war so close to home would make the locals a bit uncomfortable having to view the realities so closely.


Honestly war is ugly, war is terrible, war is not something the Lord wants his children to participate in (at least normally since he has commanded it in the past). The US is making the PC behavioral mistakes in these recent modern wars. War if done properly means complete annihilation if needs be. It means a continued destruction of that people and their culture that brought about the decision to war in the first place. There is no clean war, there is no half way war. There is only war. There was no hesitation when destroying Dresden, there was no hesitation when bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was total and complete. The surrender was complete. The US had broken the spirits of the Germans and the Japanese. Their willingness to continue to fight against us. Have the US forces broken the spirits of middle eastern opposition? No. They should have even if that mean that many of Gods innocent children were swept away in the process. Does it break my heart to see this done, to know that my brothers and sisters are taking each others lives? Yes it does most severely. I wish that no one would have to go through the pain and terror that war brings.

Politicians blowing words at us about being civilized and superior because we do not waterboard is a pathetic attempt to assuage the guilt laden feelings of those that would like to keep war and its realities at a distance. They do not want to see the Teancum like acts spelled out in detail. They do not want to know how many children were killed by a claymore that a young PFC out of Heber City set up to blow the limbs off of any would be jihadists. I am sure not knowing makes it so much better.

This is what many of you do not understand, or are not willing to process. It is horrendous and necessary. We can tap dance around the reality of leaving a continued threat like this on the face of the earth. I am on Teancum's side, and would be willing to do what he did. Waters and those that support his views on this issue are those that are commanded to run for the hills because they refuse to take up arms to fight. That means those of us who are willing will protect Waters and company.

Sorry but this issue strikes a nerve with me due to my personal proximity to war. For those who have not served, you have no idea.

What does any of this have to do with torture? Try to stick to the topic at hand. Did Teancum torture somebody in those scriptures? Better yet- can you find me a single instance of torture by the righteous in any LDS scripture? Just one single instance. One.

Yes, war is horrendous and, on occasion (though not always) necessary. I fail to see how that means anything goes in war, or that God would condone any and all activities.

Are you going to take the position that we can do whatever we want to do in a war? What if we could prove that raping women in front of their husbands would make the husbands more likely to divulge information. Would that be ok? Would God condone that?

I think even you will admit that there are lines that are drawn and that your post above is nothing but hyperbole.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

going on. I guess it would be too much to ask the children of presidential campaigns to keep their fingers up their rear ends so they do not to draw too much attention to the fact that their dad is running for office.

I mean we could now create two or three threads speculating on whether Mitt is behind this coming to light. Hey son, if you put this on you blog it will really make me look like a stand up guy.

His sons are part of his campaign. They are actively working for him (and nobody is saying they shouldn't be). They took the picture, or at the very least leaked the picture to the press. This doesn't mean Mitt isn't a good guy. It doesn't mean he didn't really want to help the family. It does mean that if he didn't want people to know he was performing that service, we wouldn't know about it. The only reason that point is mentioned is because you indicated in your first post that he was doing the service for altruistic purposes, which I don't buy. Nevertheless, I am glad he helped out and have no reason to believe he hasn't performed many acts of anonymous service.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

By coming out officially stating that water boarding is classified as torture. It helps enemies understand that any no tolerance of torture policies established by any of these men if they become President, combined with their current understanding that the US does its best to follow the Geneva Convention (which really is misunderstood in this exchange between McCain and Romney) will embolden them knowing that the US is truly soft (in a Jihadists mind this is considered weak or soft).

It also opens up the forum for more questioning on what is considered torture and what isn't, which can easily lead to the media clawing and demanding that the US make public a detailed definition of interrogation techniques so that the public can be sure its government is not supporting or participating in anything that would violate the Geneva Convention. A slippery slope since the enemies will be looking for signs of legitimacy and this can and will embolden them to taking even greater risks in towards destroying this nation.

Regarding the debate between Romney and McCain here is a clearer understanding of Romney's mistake in not taking McCain to task for what he said:

"McCain profoundly misunderstands the Geneva Conventions, which were designed to impose basic rules of warfare. Protecting those who ignore the rules is directly contrary to the purpose of the conventions. The conventions did not in fact protect illegal combatants, and to the extent that they now do, it is the result only of activist judges--namely, the five justices who ruled last year, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that enemy combatants are entitled to some protections under the conventions' Common Article 3--which was written to apply to civil wars, not conflicts with international terrorist organizations. (For a full exposition, see our June 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed.)
It is true that it would be a violation of international law to torture even an al Qaeda terrorist. The relevant treaty, however, is not the Geneva Conventions but the Convention Against Torture, which imposes an absolute ban. If McCain doesn't know this, why is even Romney eager to credit him as some sort of authority? "Sen. McCain," Romney said, "I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response."
McCain, of course, is supposed to have "moral authority" because, as a naval airman decades ago, he was tortured at the hands of his North Vietnamese communist captors. (By the way, were any of them ever tried for war crimes?) Moral authority, however, is not a substitute for accurate information.
Furthermore, it is a matter of controversy whether waterboarding constitutes torture. McCain's position is certainly a defensible one, but we find his instinct unsettling. There are going to be gray areas in the war on terror, and we'd rather have the man at the top be someone who, when faced with difficult questions, errs on the side of protecting American women and children from being murdered rather than protecting terrorists from being treated unpleasantly."

That quote is basically saying "waterboarding may likely be torture, but even if it is, so what? the issue is protecting American lives."

Personally, I am not naive enough to think that we DONT torture people when needed, that we don't assassinate people, we don't spy on our own citizens, etc...of course we do.

My issue with Mitt isn't necessarily that he is tolerant of waterboarding. My issue is that he seems to have flimsy conviction that wavers depending on who is asking him the questions. Tepid leadership will embolden fanatics much more than the US recognizing certain interrogation tactics as torture.

Of all the issues facing the new President in 2008, waterboarding isnt really a big priority in my mind. But it would be nice to have a decisive leader in the White House, as opposed to an opportunist with a Grecian formula weave.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What does any of this have to do with torture? Try to stick to the topic at hand. Did Teancum torture somebody in those scriptures? Better yet- can you find me a single instance of torture by the righteous in any LDS scripture? Just one single instance. One.

Yes, war is horrendous and, on occasion (though not always) necessary. I fail to see how that means anything goes in war, or that God would condone any and all activities.

Are you going to take the position that we can do whatever we want to do in a war? What if we could prove that raping women in front of their husbands would make the husbands more likely to divulge information. Would that be ok? Would God condone that?

I think even you will admit that there are lines that are drawn and that your post above is nothing but hyperbole.

I can't believe this dork is quoting the Teancum story to justify torture. Is he serious? I assumed not. (That passage hurts my eyes the faux old English prose is so jarring.) I'd like to see Romney start telling McCain about Teancum. I don't think it works with people who don't believe Teancum was a real person (i.e., just about everyone).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

By coming out officially stating that water boarding is classified as torture. It helps enemies understand that any no tolerance of torture policies established by any of these men if they become President, combined with their current understanding that the US does its best to follow the Geneva Convention (which really is misunderstood in this exchange between McCain and Romney) will embolden them knowing that the US is truly soft (in a Jihadists mind this is considered weak or soft).

It also opens up the forum for more questioning on what is considered torture and what isn't, which can easily lead to the media clawing and demanding that the US make public a detailed definition of interrogation techniques so that the public can be sure its government is not supporting or participating in anything that would violate the Geneva Convention. A slippery slope since the enemies will be looking for signs of legitimacy and this can and will embolden them to taking even greater risks in towards destroying this nation.

Regarding the debate between Romney and McCain here is a clearer understanding of Romney's mistake in not taking McCain to task for what he said:

"McCain profoundly misunderstands the Geneva Conventions, which were designed to impose basic rules of warfare. Protecting those who ignore the rules is directly contrary to the purpose of the conventions. The conventions did not in fact protect illegal combatants, and to the extent that they now do, it is the result only of activist judges--namely, the five justices who ruled last year, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that enemy combatants are entitled to some protections under the conventions' Common Article 3--which was written to apply to civil wars, not conflicts with international terrorist organizations. (For a full exposition, see our June 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed.)
It is true that it would be a violation of international law to torture even an al Qaeda terrorist. The relevant treaty, however, is not the Geneva Conventions but the Convention Against Torture, which imposes an absolute ban. If McCain doesn't know this, why is even Romney eager to credit him as some sort of authority? "Sen. McCain," Romney said, "I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response."
McCain, of course, is supposed to have "moral authority" because, as a naval airman decades ago, he was tortured at the hands of his North Vietnamese communist captors. (By the way, were any of them ever tried for war crimes?) Moral authority, however, is not a substitute for accurate information.
Furthermore, it is a matter of controversy whether waterboarding constitutes torture. McCain's position is certainly a defensible one, but we find his instinct unsettling. There are going to be gray areas in the war on terror, and we'd rather have the man at the top be someone who, when faced with difficult questions, errs on the side of protecting American women and children from being murdered rather than protecting terrorists from being treated unpleasantly."

Oh please. You think if we announce we will waterboard that suddenly we won't be viewed as being "soft" in the Middle East? Maybe you haven't noticed, but they are used to people chopping your head off or feeding you to wild pigs while alive. We lose nothing by announcing we won't waterboard. We gain moral authority (or at least prevent its further erosion) and, more importantly, we do what is right.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Oh please. You think if we announce we will waterboard that suddenly we won't be viewed as being "soft" in the Middle East? Maybe you haven't noticed, but they are used to people chopping your head off or feeding you to wild pigs while alive. We lose nothing by announcing we won't waterboard. We gain moral authority (or at least prevent its further erosion) and, more importantly, we do what is right.

The Taliban didnt want to reveal its position on naming stuffed animals after muslim prophets for fear of emboldening foreigners into naming their own stuffed animals. Didnt work so well, did it Taliban?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The Taliban didnt want to reveal its position on naming stuffed animals after muslim prophets for fear of emboldening foreigners into naming their own stuffed animals. Didnt work so well, did it Taliban?

lol!

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What does any of this have to do with torture? Try to stick to the topic at hand. Did Teancum torture somebody in those scriptures? Better yet- can you find me a single instance of torture by the righteous in any LDS scripture? Just one single instance. One.

Yes, war is horrendous and, on occasion (though not always) necessary. I fail to see how that means anything goes in war, or that God would condone any and all activities.

Are you going to take the position that we can do whatever we want to do in a war? What if we could prove that raping women in front of their husbands would make the husbands more likely to divulge information. Would that be ok? Would God condone that?

I think even you will admit that there are lines that are drawn and that your post above is nothing but hyperbole.

Yes the Teancum story is now going to be parsed to prove that what he did was righteous while Romney's refusal to define torture in front of the media due to his as explained sense of national security is evil Right? I was illustrating the ridiculous stances people are taking by calling someone evil for saying what Romney did. You can surely understand that? Do I know if he thinks water boarding is torture and should not be done? I do not know, however I am fine with his answer to leave potential enemies guessing.

You can call me an Ass because you think I am acting like one, which can be understandable at times, and I admit readily that there are occasion's when I fit that bill. But calling someone like Romney evil?

Also torture is not acceptable. In fact I think it is deplorable.