Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (231312)	12/11/2007 7:24:47 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

McCain doesn't stand much of a chance though.

To: DMaA who wrote (231312)	12/11/2007 7:35:20 PM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 793916

McCain who agrees with the democrats My long time republican friend from AZ says that McCain is a fool. I find myself agreeing. Yes, he served the country dutifully; but his lack of political common sense as a US Senator is pretty grim, with immigration reform being his more recent miscalculation. It is time for him to retire from the Senate and get a job on his wife's Budweiser distributorship.

To: DMaA who wrote (231312)	12/12/2007 12:40:27 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793916

I don't believe that McCain was ever subjected to waterboarding? It will probably become a non issue now that the world.......and especially terrorists........ know about it....how it is done. They no doubt are testing its use and learning what it is and will be able to withstand it because now they have subjected themselves to it and know how it works and what it is like and that there is nothing to fear because death means winning even if it is by waterboarding. They will teach themselves how to withstand it and never break.

To: DMaA who wrote (231312)	12/12/2007 1:33:16 AM
From: ig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

We have one candidate, McCain who agrees with the democrats, waterboarding is torture, no ifs ands or buts and must never never ever be used He says use whatever you have to use, but don't write it into law: Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack? In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis . It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices. newsweek.com Sounds good to me.