Jay Bybee speaks: "I WAS RIGHT ABOUT TORTURE"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Link!

They both killed people. They both wound up at the same end, which you said makes them the same.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tooblue- we have been through these kinds of exercises before. I don't know if you are just trolling here or if you are being serious, but your argument totally falls apart where you argue that "because our goals are the same, we are the same." I really am shocked you would suggest that: (1) our goals are the same (the goal isn't killing a person Tooblue, for at least "our side," the goal is winning a war which, ideally, is a war based on righteous desires); or (2) even assuming our goals are the same, that the means to the end is totally irrelevant for you- the goal (i.e. end result) is all that matters, and as long as the end result matches, the people desiring that end result are the same.

I can't even begin to fathom the absurdity of those claims.

Imagine this: 2 people, both with the goal to make money. In your world, they are now the same person, even if one of them is Bernie Madoff and the other is a guy who works hard every day of his life for an honest wage. I would hope you could differentiate between the two.

Furthermore, where do you get your assumption that everyone tortured dies, or that the purpose of torturing them is to kill them? Didn't you just vote for a guy who was tortured (and who lived)?

The means are frequently as, if not more, relevant to a determination of righteousness as the ends. And I totally reject as false your premise that war is never righteous. If that were the case, the unrighteous could oppress at will, and the righteous could never fight back because that action would be de facto immoral.

I also reject your premise that killing is always wrong and that there are never any exceptions. Self-defense? War? Are you suggesting that everyone who has ever killed anyone else has broken the commandment of "thou shalt not kill?" The scriptures chalk that up as a pretty serious crime. You may want to inform some of our prophets who have served in war, or the veterans in your ward, or the person who falls asleep at the wheel of a car and inadvertently swerves into another car, killing the driver.

Get real, Tooblue. You are living in an imaginary world.

God has not revoked the commandment: thou shalt not kill. He has not qualified it with: thou shalt not kill, unless ...

The reality is anyone that kills another human will stand before the judgment bar and answer for what they have done. God will then weigh righteousness or circumstances accordingly, not man. So, all your hyperbole about telling that and this to so and so is erroneous. It will be up to God to decide. All we can do is endeavor to keep the commandment. And if we decided that is not possible and kill in self defense or fight in a war we must be prepared to answer for what we have done and accept God's judgment.

Furthermore, any attempt to justify one violent action over another renders you the same as Jay Bybee etc. It is that simple. You are the one living in an imaginary world where you believe you can assign ethics to killing, and moralize one violent act over another.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us...ybee.html?_r=1

Can we hurry up and excommunicate him already? That would be a good start.

It boggles my mind how we can officially disfellowship Labute, but we can't disfellowship this man?

Oh yeah, that's right, most Mormons likely support torture.

I'm interested in, if he is prosecuted and convicted, whether or not his importance and conservative politics will protect him from a Church disciplinary action. If I were him, I'd move my records to the most redneck ward I could find and hope that discretion prevented any calls from the COB or CAB.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm interested in, if he is prosecuted and convicted, whether or not his importance and conservative politics will protect him from a Church disciplinary action. If I were him, I'd move my records to the most redneck ward I could find and hope that discretion prevented any calls from the COB or CAB.

And here I thought church discipline of a person for merely holding an opinion was something you and Waters opposed.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

And here I thought church discipline of a person for merely holding an opinion was something you and Waters opposed.

My comments were all premised on a big "if." If he's convicted of a felony, is it really right to compare that to "merely holding an opinion?"

You aren't personally ramping up the political protection, are you Tex?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Tex, you should start contacting SPs and find out who will protect Bybee if he moves into their stake!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

My comments were all premised on a big "if." If he's convicted of a felony, is it really right to compare that to "merely holding an opinion?"

Depends on what he's convicted of. I've yet to hear a reasonable argument as to what law Bybee actually broke. If you want to make that argument, maybe I can give you a better answer on how a church leader might react.

As it now stands, Bybee is being assaulted because he authored an opinion (however well or poorly argued). And now you (and Waters) are suggesting it should cost him some measure of his membership.

I was under the impression you opposed that kind of thing.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Depends on what he's convicted of. I've yet to hear a reasonable argument as to what law Bybee actually broke. If you want to make that argument, maybe I can give you a better answer on how a church leader might react.

As it now stands, Bybee is being assaulted because he authored an opinion (however well or poorly argued). And now you (and Waters) are suggesting it should cost him some measure of his membership.

I was under the impression you opposed that kind of thing.

I'm not going to play prosecutor, Tex, although I am enjoying yanking your chain a bit.

Ease off there, partner.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Depends on what he's convicted of. I've yet to hear a reasonable argument as to what law Bybee actually broke. If you want to make that argument, maybe I can give you a better answer on how a church leader might react.

As it now stands, Bybee is being assaulted because he authored an opinion (however well or poorly argued). And now you (and Waters) are suggesting it should cost him some measure of his membership.

I was under the impression you opposed that kind of thing.

It isn't hard to come up with a law he broke. Torture is illegal. He would have committed conspiracy to commit torture.

[MikeWaters]

The CIA demanded legal cover for their interrogations.

This was no doubt passed along by the White House to the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept. then provided the legal cover, to which Bybee's signature is attached.

CIA now gets to say "we did our due dilligence, it was legal", the WH gets to say "We asked the Justice Dept. and they said it was legal." And now Bybee gets to say "Torture is legal, I make no apologies."

It's clear that Bybee's best defense is to claim that the memos speak to his informed legal opinion. And that is why he broke his silence. He is protecting himself by claiming that even if the claim was idiotic and seemingly farcical, it is what he believed and continues to believe. Otherwise, he is setting himself up for conspiracy charges.

He is an evil liar.