Posted on 11/01/2007 12:23:02 AM PDT by Yehuda
TAKE THE POLL AT THE LINK:
Would you torture a captured terrorist who hid bombs in your child's school?
Democrats (and some rinos) are stalling the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey as the new Attorney General because they aren't convinced where he stands on "waterboarding".
If a terrorist was caught hiding bombs in their child's school, you can bet Hillary, Senator Leahy of Vermont, and even Schumer would line up to rip off fingernails to get the intel.
But to satisfy their ultra-left and jihadi-excusing base, they are putting our lives at risk so they can posture as "progressives".
Tell your security-conscious neighbors to hit this poll and we'll let the Senate know where America stands (you do not have to register to vote).
Personally I have no problem torturing terrorists. In fact for each person they behead I would easily take ten of them & behead them. So no I wouldn’t have a problem with ANY KIND of Torture for a terrorist who dared to harm a child even if its not mine.
ping
Poll question at link:
“A jihadi terrorist has been captured after hiding bombs at your child’s school.
You would:
a/ Torture him until he reveals the location.
b/ Get him a lawyer & a hearing in front of Congress so he can blame the U.S. & Israel....”
Waterboarding would just be a warmup.
vote bump...
Just for information, I voted give him a speech at Columbia because I think it is a stupid question and that every person who has children would not only torture the person but also kill the person too. Don’t f with our kids is probably for liberals too.
Red goes on positive, and black goes on negative.
Thank you and bless you for your service.
WADR, if “Don’t f with our kids is probably for liberals too” were so, then we wouldn’t have Senators fighting Judge Mukasey’s appointment over waterboarding...
You bet I would. But it would be alright because I’d kill him afterwards. No lasting trauma.
I would attach electrodes to his genitalia and turn up the power.
Delco bump!
It is a silly question because it is contrived. But taken at face value, I probably would not torture him. I would instead close the school, send the kids home, tie the terrorist hand-and-foot and throw him into the gymnasium, fastening him to say one of the basketball hoops. Go home for a long weekend, and have a construction crew clean up the mess once the bomb goes off. And televise the whole event, to encourage the others.
Of course we would empty the school if we had the time...
But as the U.S. population is approximately 70 times that of NZ, perhaps you wouldn’t feel the question was so contrived if you had lost 200,000 + of your countrymen 6 years ago...
PS - congrats on setting up your GA!
In a heartbeat.
Wouldn’t you be able to get the information quicker and more reliably using drugs to make him talk?
If I wanted to feel better about it I suppose I’d want to torture him.
If I wanted to quickly get the information to save the children I’d want to use drugs on him.
After being in a sealed room with Eric Cartman making apple juice farts, they will beg for Jack Bauer and his gentle methods.
In fact for each person they behead I would easily take ten of them & behead them.
***That’s why even dead terrorists are useful. Like that scene in the Untouchables, where Sean Connery as Malone blows out the brains of a gangster whom he pretends to be interrogating, in order to persuade another gangster to talk. What the second gangster doesn’t know is that first gangster is already dead.
Thank you!!!
You are right about your post big time!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.