2HRS

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by topherman420

Originally posted by ludshed
I thought 24 ended? Another season?


No it's the movie Unthinkable with Samuel L Jackson. Not a bad movie either.

Im curious as to what this experiment by the OP is going to accomplish. Whats the goal OP? Sounds like an intriguing start of a thread.
edit on 13-10-2011 by topherman420 because: grammar gremlin made me do it

Trying to figure out what’s more important, the Constitution or Human lives.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 





Unless I read the OP wrong, I'm assuming the event hasn't happened yet. No-one dies, you lose


No, we know about it 2 hrs before SHTF. Do we:

A. Abide by the constitution(doing so would ensure everyones death since the perp is unwilling to tell and we cant force the info out of him)

B. Torture this sick puppy until he sings like a birdy(saving millions of lives)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
The needs of the many, versus the rights of the few... That's a conundrum, indeed.

I can honestly say, I'd probably advocate the "by any means necessary" method. Might live to regret it later, should it turn out to be a false alert, but "better safe than sorry" is a truism for a reason.

...and yes, that might involve some form of torture. Not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but perhaps the lesser of two evils in a case like this...



Therefore, do you except the decision of barack obamas drone killing of an American citizen a couple of weeks ago, or is that a different scenario, and if so how?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 


The constitution is important, and this is definitely not an easy question to answer,
but what about all the children who will die?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 



Nah, you're baiting. We've seen it before. You're trying to justify why Barrack Obama decided to assassinate a U.S. citizen on foreign soil while having no weapons (especially uranium) in his possession at the time of the assassination. The guy should have had a trial under the rule of law, and that's that.

Your story is in NO way comparable anyway.
edit on 13-10-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentalGiant
Cool Story, Bro.

What is your point? What are you really after? What would you do? The scenario you mention is a wild fantasy....

You have 2 hours

I would torture the hell out of whom ever needed to be tortured to save lives,including his mother, his children and his whole family if needed.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 


Ok interesting premise...but does this have a relevant real life comparison that prompted you to propose a question like this?

Without getting into the semantics of the movie plot and what it provokes, I would say regardless of my political ideology, I hold true to the notion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. Whether that be torture, blackmail or leverage (like we saw with his children and wife) if it meant saving 40 million people then im sure many would be finding it difficult not to do anything to prevent it, and I for one cannot say I would oppose it in that particular situation.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
This is basically the scenario from the movie "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson.
At least try and think of something original.


EDIT: Someone already mentioned the movie.
edit on 10/13/2011 by WhatTheory because: (no reason given)

It's funny,but i wasnt going to add his family,but when i did,that movie came to my head as well,lol.

So if you want to say i got it from that movie,then so be it,so what would you do?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Wookiep
 





Unless I read the OP wrong, I'm assuming the event hasn't happened yet. No-one dies, you lose


No, we know about it 2 hrs before SHTF. Do we:

A. Abide by the constitution(doing so would ensure everyones death since the perp is unwilling to tell and we cant force the info out of him)

B. Torture this sick puppy until he sings like a birdy(saving millions of lives)



Of course we'd do what we gotta do in that situation, it's pretty much a no brainier in that case, BUT..the OP is just using this to try and find a way to justify Barrack Obamas recent assassination, and the story in the OP isn't even close to it. That's it.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 



Nah, you're baiting. We've seen it before. You're trying to justify why Barrack Obama decided to assassinate a U.S. citizen on foreign soil while having no weapons (especially uranium) in his possession at the time of the assassination. The guy should have had a trial under the rule of law, and that's that.

Your story is in NO way comparable anyway.
edit on 13-10-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


Ah, that's what I was looking for, but I was finding it difficult to read between the lines. Good eye



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I would use the intelligence on the fingertips of the largest network of spies and infiltrators in the world in order to get every bit of information I could muster.

My advice to Obama, as acting president, would be to prepare for disaster relief if necessary.
My advice to Ron Paul would be to prepare to win the presidency, as Obama would be the first president to allow a nuclear attack on US soil.

There would be no torture. The threat of torture is more effective than torture itself. When sufficiently threatened with the worst case scenario, if the man did not divulge his information, he isn't going to give it. Period.

We continue looking for the bombs until showtime and if we find them, great, if not, that is too bad.



Of course, as a conspiracy theorist I would be asking a plethora of questions from the onset.

First of all, for this man to have gotten as far as he did, he would have needed either help from the inside or a free pass through national security. There would have been something that should have sent up red flags from the very beginning.

Second of all, there should have never been a chance for that much fortified uranium to be stolen from any government facility. Security needs to answer for the mishap immediately, and if anyone is to blame, it is the people at the facility or the people who allowed the contents to be stolen.

Third, is this a government run operation. It has happened many times before and it will happen again. Is this a false flag to promote martial law or a way for the current president or administration to come out looking like a hero, or perhaps disbanded Constitutional authority?

To many questions too little time.

As for the man he would be held and put into protective custody. There are too many questions to risk having an accident with him and he might have information that leads to where his help comes from.

Ultimately, people might die. Big deal to be honest. We all die and some things our outside of our control. I see no reason to have blood on even more hands than there was to begin with if it isn't going to mean much. The truth will come out in the end and those who were involved, if they acted in a moral and just way will be rewarded for such.


EDIT TO ADD:

I edit to add, the fact that he is American should in no way put a hindrance on his basic human rights, and as far as I am concerned, the Bill of Rights extends to every human being, not just those lucky enough to be born on US soil.
edit on 13-10-2011 by gwydionblack because: Addition



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grumpydaysleeper
You have to consider the fact that millions of lives are at stake.An unprecedented amount will be innocent children. I would have to say find out where the bombs are by any means necessary! As he is an American born terrorist in cahoots with the enemy---he's lost his rights.
He is also a traitor to his country!
edit on 13-10-2011 by grumpydaysleeper because: (no reason given)


What about the Fifth Amendment, would you care or would you have a second thought in your decision.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Just use the most effective truth drug to get confessional information from the captured enemy.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 





try and find a way to justify Barrack Obamas recent assassination


Oops, looks like i found a way to justify it.

al-Awaki was a terrorist leader, a foreign combatant, a spiritual adviser to the 9-11 hijackers and so much more. Least of which was an American citizen.

He did not want our rights. He did not recognize our courts. He even said he wasn't an American citizen.

Justified.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Okay, I'll Play.

As an Obama supporter, I'd be thinking can we find the bombs in time? 'Yes We Can!!'

As a Ron Paul Fan, I think I would blame the Fed for this situation and demand an immediate Audit.

As a citizen, I'd bring his kid in and waterboard him in front of him. I'd probably then shoot his Mother and maim his wife until he confessed where the Bomb was.

But, let's be honest it aint gonna happen.


As a neutral supporter of both parties I presume, do you think the killing last week by Obama was justified?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Too late, everyones dead.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27

Would you make a decision to torture him…not only him, but if it comes down to it to save 40million Americans, his children, his wife and his mother?

12PM SEPTEMBER 11,2012

You have 2 hours to make a decision, what will your decision be?


Torture is notoriously unreliable to begin with. And evil will always beget evil. So there would be no torture going on if I could make the decision.

Torture is simply not an acceptable option in any case.

Its really not a difficult decision to make. Basically it comes down the individuals principles that they live by, and specifically those whose principles are to not torture, and challenging them, tempting them, to give in and betray those principles for a reward; in this case, a small chance that some pertinent information would be released to supposedly save 40M lives.

Basically, its the "would you sell your soul if the price was high enough?" question.

My answer to that question, and to the quandary of would I betray my principles if the pay out was high enough, is always going to be NO. My principles are not up for sale or trade.
edit on 10/13/2011 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

So because of principles you would let 40 million people die ?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Nobody has ever said he was a good guy or anything. We can hate the guy all we want, it doesn't make the process legal. In America EVERYONE get's a fair trial. It's what we've been trying to promote while policing the world for so many decades is it not?? Assassinating U.S. citizens we don't like is NOT (should not be) how our country handles things EVER. Him not wanting his rights is moot because he HAD them whether he liked it or not.
edit on 13-10-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 

The american people dont have time for a ron paul trial,they only have 2 hours ,what will you do?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 


I already answered, and it's a no brainier, and you're baiting. Obviously your conscience is bugging you. Only you can help yourself.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join