Posted on 01/12/2009 6:05:12 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
I recommend Sargent York as required movie watching for every media person and politician.
“Sargent, if you were so against killing, why did you shoot those German men?”
“Well, the way I saw it, they were killing a whole lot more people, so by killing one, I saved many”.
yes but if they get their way WE ALL suffer.
Rephrase the question:
“Would you subject a person to an uncomfortable, non fatal technique that inflicts no permanent harm if it meant saving your spouse, children, parents and every friend or co-worker you’ve ever known?”
Chrystia Freeland and her ilk are just too good to be true....so naive, or is that just plain stupid?
Of course, you’re right. I am just very angry reading this. I just don’t get the mentality and utter stupidity of these people. Siding with a terrorist over saving 9 plane loads full of innocent people. Totally irresponsible journalism and an insult to everyone who lost a loved one on 9/11.
I thought the Liberals mantra was “if we can save just one child”. What happened?
I liked the defiant Jack in the face of Senator Blowhard. A great resolution to the Senator’s problem would be for the terrorists to take control of the family of Senator blowhard and have the Senator come, personally to Jack to help. And Jack should walk away unless the Senator publicly appealed in a press conference for Bauer to do anything and everything to resolve the situation.
Guess who flies via private jets?
Commercial airliners are for the little people.
High-minded people have the lowest morals.
Post of the week, and it’s only Monday.
Well, then the intelligence communities simply won’t be telling the Zero administration what they are doing.
Not surprising of her, since Al Qaeda has the same opinion.
Yes. Best scene EVER!
They aren’t that stupid. She is simply siding with the mass murdering crowd. Both oppose interrogation.
Speaking of which, I’m wondering how Jeanine Barfalo fits into the story line. Surely she must be a traitor or a mole.
“Guess who flies via private jets?”
Yep. Imagine if terrorists only targeted private jets. The liberal crowd would be screaming for someone to do anything.
The libs value the lives far too lightly. As for me, I’d order a plane-load of terrorists be shot down if it somehow only saved just one American the ephemeral pain of an ice cream headache
ONLY in REAL LIFE ?
Thankfully, she had a very small role. I might have had to turn it off otherwise. I’m surprised they even gave her a role. I guess they haven’t figured out who their core audience is yet.
She has to be the “mole”...I couldn’t believe she agreed to a part in 24.
> Would you waterboard an al Qaeda member for three minutes to get information to save the lives of nine passenger-loads of innocent civilians? Chrystia Freeland wouldn’t.
One of the things that I hate about hypothetical questions is that the answers they receive are meaningless. At best the answer will be what the person actually believes they would do in a perfect world, and at worst it will be what the person believes you want to hear.
If some fool were to leave Chrystia Freeland in charge in real life in that scenario, and there were nine planes in the air, and a terrorist in the interrogation room who knows information that will save the planes, what do we thing Chrystina would actually do?
Close your eyes for a moment and picture the scene. There she is, she opens the door to the interrogation room. Abdul is sitting in a chair, his hands tied behind his back. He hasn’t washed for two weeks, nor has he shaven. He smells of urine and faeces, and he is belligerent.
He knows the disabling code for the bombs — he says so. And that he will never tell, not in a million years.
Then he gets personal...
“What do we do with him, boss?” the interrogator asks. “Do you want we should waterboard this guy. Three minutes tops he tells us everyting...”
What will Chrystina do? Is she going to give a prim little speech “No, we don’t waterboard people. Ever.”
Or does she say “Lemme think about this a few minutes, I’ll get back to you.”
Or does she start to rationalize: he needs a wash — heck, he stinks! And we need the information. Let’s waterboard him for a while, and if anyone asks, we were just attending to his personal hygiene...
Who knows? But because it is a hypothetical question, the world will never know the truth.
Sadly, tho’ — government policy on waterboarding is about to be made, based on the hypothetical assumptions and answers to these hypothetical questions.
‘Strewth!
Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups, as we know...
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.