punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 The rules in the forum are you don't just post a link with no response. I thought the link spoke for itself but I changed it just for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I thought the link spoke for itself but I changed it just for you. And the link says he doesn't support torture. I have seen all these before, you realize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 And the link says he doesn't support torture. I have seen all these before, you realize. Quote it please. Quote it with out him redefining torture. I can Say Torture is only the act of killing a prisoner and I don't support it. Does that mean I don't support torture? No it means I redefined the word so I can support it and say I don't. This is what Iggy has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 And the link says he doesn't support torture. I have seen all these before, you realize. It would seem that a "swift boat" approach has been taken by the right side of the equation. If this continues you can expect to see a smear Harper campaign in the works for an election. Harper would be wise to nip this in the bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Quote it please. Quote it with out him redefining torture. I can Say Torture is only the act of killing a prisoner and I don't support it. Does that mean I don't support torture? No it means I redefined the word so I can support it and say I don't. This is what Iggy has done. Think Ignatieff has been pretty clear what he means. It is you who is redefining and smearing. You say Layton supports the U.N. resolution. I guess that means he doesn't support our own police for interrogations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Think Ignatieff has been pretty clear what he means. It is you who is redefining and smearing.You say Layton supports the U.N. resolution. I guess that means he doesn't support our own police for interrogations. Are you claiming the U.N. does not support interrogations? I mean honestly how misleading can you be? Keep going soon Americas interrogation techniques wont be enough for Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Are you claiming the U.N. does not support interrogations? I mean honestly how misleading can you be? Keep going soon Americas interrogation techniques wont be enough for Liberals. No big deal.....they are "America's" techniques....not Canada's. Canada has it's own techniques.....including Taser! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 No big deal.....they are "America's" techniques....not Canada's. Canada has it's own techniques.....including Taser! Sometimes you make so much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Are you claiming the U.N. does not support interrogations? I mean honestly how misleading can you be? Keep going soon Americas interrogation techniques wont be enough for Liberals. I am saying some in the NDP have spoken up about police interrogations and questioning and I have shown you that link once before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I am saying some in the NDP have spoken up about police interrogations and questioning and I have shown you that link once before. Again this is how you move the arguement away from Iggy's support of torture but I think the links speak to that quite well. So liberals support the targeting interrogation of Academics becuase they write papers against the government? Wait of course they do it was a Liberal government at the time who targeted that man and it was the NDP who said you don't get to interrogate someone becuase they don't support your position. Good to see you guys don't change a bit over the years. Some progress others regress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Again this is how you move the arguement away from Iggy's support of torture but I think the links speak to that quite well. It is your NDP that pushes this line about police interrogations and coercion, not me. So liberals support the targeting interrogation of Academics becuase they write papers against the government? Wait of course they do it was a Liberal government at the time who targeted that man and it was the NDP who said you don't get to interrogate someone becuase they don't support your position. Good to see you guys don't change a bit over the years. Some progress others regress. The police should have the right to question people and take statements. If they take someone into custody, they are informed of their right to counsel. However, police should be able to question people and not have people compare it to torture since it causes mental anguish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 The police should have the right to question people and take statements. If they take someone into custody, they are informed of their right to counsel. However, police should be able to question people and not have people compare it to torture since it causes mental anguish. Really becuase the position of CAUT was Tony Halls Academic freedom and civil rights were violated. Were they investigating a crime Dobbin? Why was Tony Hall singled out? Ohhhh yeah becuase he spoke out against the Liberal government I forgot for a moment another reason I wont vote Liberal. If I remember right the Liberals caught a lot of heat for this back in 2001 but you are using it as ammo against the NDP? Becuase they don't think you should single out Academics who have done nothing but spoke out against the government? If the conservatives did the samething you would crying murder. How times have changed. As for the NDP's position I will post the quote. "Canadians do not think that interrogation and intimidation is the job of the police," McDonough responded. I don't think interrogation to intimidate those who speak out against the government is the job of the police either although maybe you will feel differently Dobbin when the RCMP come to your work to ask you about your feelings on Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) Really becuase the position of CAUT was Tony Halls Academic freedom and civil rights were violated. For questioning someone? I think you are way overstepping things as were they. If they felt they had a case, they should have taken it to the law review authority. They didn't because they were bloviating. Were they investigating a crime Dobbin? Why was Tony Hall singled out? Ohhhh yeah becuase he spoke out against the Liberal government I forgot for a moment another reason I wont vote Liberal. If I remember right the Liberals caught a lot of heat for this back in 2001 but you are using it as ammo against the NDP? Becuase they don't think you should single out Academics who have done nothing but spoke out against the government? If the conservatives did the samething you would crying murder. How times have changed. The police gather information all the time even in the absence of crime. As for the NDP's position I will post the quote. "Canadians do not think that interrogation and intimidation is the job of the police," McDonough responded. You see, this is what the NDP believe. They don't believe the police should question people. They believe the very existence of police is intimidation. I don't think interrogation to intimidate those who speak out against the government is the job of the police either although maybe you will feel differently Dobbin when the RCMP come to your work to ask you about your feelings on Harper. The NDP at the federal believe any police questions are intimidation. Edited August 25, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 For questioning someone? I think you are way overstepping things as were they. If they felt they had a case, they should have taken it to the law review authority. They didn't because they were bloviating.The police gather information all the time even in the absence of crime. You see, this is what the NDP believe. They don't believe the police should question people. They believe the very existence of police is intimidation. The NDP at the federal believe any police questions are intimidation. Nope I don't believe the Police should come to someones work and interrogate them becuase they spoke out against a Liberal government. I don't think they should be allowed to intimidate someone becuase the order came down from Liberal political appointee the Solicitor General, and that political appointee does not like the things someone says about the government. There was no threats, this person had no history of anything be social discourse. You may believe the government can send the police come to your door, knock on it ask all kinds of questions with out reason on your beliefs on the government. I however think I have a right to speak about the government freely and openly with out fear the RCMP will come to intimidate me from doing so. Seriously Dobbin this is not a question about the RCMP questioning people in regards to a crime or a potential crime, it is the politicizing of the RCMP which should never happen. Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Green members should never fear the way they represent themselves in public if it is civil and law abiding. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You think Liberals should be able with the RCMP target those who speak out against their government. I think people should not be targeted for having an opinion. You think Liberals should be able to Torture people (maybe even Canadians) as long as Iggy does not define as torture. I think torture in all forms is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nope I don't believe the Police should come to someones work and interrogate them becuase they spoke out against a Liberal government. People on the far radical left don't want the police to question anyone. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You think Liberals should be able with the RCMP target those who speak out against their government. I think people should not be targeted for having an opinion. You think Liberals should be able to Torture people (maybe even Canadians) as long as Iggy does not define as torture. I think torture in all forms is wrong. The lies that come out of your mouth amaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 People on the far radical left don't want the police to question anyone. The lies that come out of your mouth amaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 The lies that come out of your mouth amaze. The NDP at the federal level are not exactly supportive of the police doing their job when they don't even want them to question people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 The NDP at the federal level are not exactly supportive of the police doing their job when they don't even want them to question people. When they don't want them to intimidate critics of government on orders from Liberal political appointees no. Questioning people who are connected, suspected, are involved in a crime or a potential crime or criminal or potential criminal is just fine. I have gone in many times to identify people, or answers questions and was fine with it when they told me why I was being questioned. Questioning people at their place of work with out reason is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) You think Liberals should be able to Torture people (maybe even Canadians) as long as Iggy does not define as torture. I think torture in all forms is wrong. When they actually think about it, a lot of people have trouble with the warm and fuzzy statement you made - "I think torture in all forms is wrong". Get out of your arm chair and truly try and imagine someone has kidnapped your family - and you know without a doubt that they will be killed in two hours - probably in an inhumane fashion. Now imagine that you have someone right in front of you and he knows where your family is but he won't tell - and he is the only one who can save your family. Ask yourself honestly what you would allow the authorities (or yourself) to do in order to save your family. This is the conundrum that faces governments today - how far can we allow ourselves to go when there is imminent catastrophe facing us? How do we define what we would allow and under what circumstances? Our governments are tasked with keeping us safe but it seems the only time we take things seriously is when we see airplanes crashing into towers killing thousands. That's what Mr. Ignatieff was trying to reason out in his book "Lesser Evils". I am not an Ignatieff supporter and lord knows, he would never be my choice to lead Canada....but I can't fault him for trying to inspire a constructive dialogue on an issue that politicians are loathe to discuss and the Left dismisses with wooly-headed statements like yours. By the way - what would you do? Would you stand by and do nothing and let your family be slaughtered? Edited August 25, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 When they don't want them to intimidate critics of government on orders from Liberal political appointees no. If they truly believed that, they would have pursued it to the law enforcement review. Questioning people who are connected, suspected, are involved in a crime or a potential crime or criminal or potential criminal is just fine. I have gone in many times to identify people, or answers questions and was fine with it when they told me why I was being questioned. Questioning people at their place of work with out reason is not. You say it is intimidation but police question people in all lines of information gathering. You are simply putting a chill on their ability to their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 If they truly believed that, they would have pursued it to the law enforcement review. You say it is intimidation but police question people in all lines of information gathering. You are simply putting a chill on their ability to their jobs. Nope I say it isn't the RCMP's job to intimidate people who have no connect to any crime, becuase the government tells them too. There is a difference you taking issue with the intimidation I am taking issue with selection of people they intimidated and why they do so. Law abiding citizens should have need fear of the RCMP no matter their political strip Dobbin. Agree? They did pursue it BTW it was killed by the Liberal government at the time which is why politics needs to stay out of the RCMP Dobbin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 When they actually think about it, a lot of people have trouble with the warm and fuzzy statement you made - "I think torture in all forms is wrong". Get out of your arm chair and truly try and imagine someone has kidnapped your family - and you know without a doubt that they will be killed in two hours - probably in an inhumane fashion. Now imagine that you have someone right in front of you and he knows where your family is but he won't tell - and he is the only one who can save your family. Ask yourself honestly what you would allow the authorities (or yourself) to do in order to save your family. This is the conundrum that faces governments today - how far can we allow ourselves to go when there is imminent catastrophe facing us? How do we define what we would allow and under what circumstances? Our governments are tasked with keeping us safe but it seems the only time we take things seriously is when we see airplanes crashing into towers killing thousands. That's what Mr. Ignatieff was trying to reason out in his book "Lesser Evils". I am not an Ignatieff supporter and lord knows, he would never be my choice to lead Canada....but I can't fault him for trying to inspire a constructive dialogue on an issue that politicians are loathe to discuss and the Left dismisses with wooly-headed statements like yours.By the way - what would you do? Would you stand by and do nothing and let your family be slaughtered? That is a false premise, almost all the time torture does not save your family, and the person you torture is a waste of you time and resources. So know what I would do? I focus my time and energy on getting my family back in those two hours not punishing someone linked to their kidnapping becuase if I spent those two hours wasting my time looking for some sort of retribution instead of saving my family I would hate myself for the rest of my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Funny how two polls could be so far apart. The difference of a single week does little to account for the discrepancy. There is always one poll that falls within its own probability of error. This one could be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 That is a false premise, almost all the time torture does not save your family, and the person you torture is a waste of you time and resources. Don't be fooled into the delusion that one can resist torture, done right. If you have enough time and you're careful enough, you can keep someone alive as long as you want and under as much pain as you need. Eventually, you pretty much will ALWAYS get your answer. That sounds pretty morbid but how long do you think most people would endure the worst agony possible to preserve a secret? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Don't be fooled into the delusion that one can resist torture, done right. If you have enough time and you're careful enough, you can keep someone alive as long as you want and under as much pain as you need. Eventually, you pretty much will ALWAYS get your answer. That sounds pretty morbid but how long do you think most people would endure the worst agony possible to preserve a secret? Accept that isn't true and the Torture memos released yesterday prove that. Yep they give some right answers sprinkled in with all kinds of made up stuff Moonbox. Now you figure out what is true what is false. Torture gives you nothing but people trying to punish another and many false answers. I am sorry it does not work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.