Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[GaryTaylor]

Can’t see how the democratic socialism/socialized med program is fairing well and that would be for everyone including the prisoners. Because your absolutely right we don’t want to forget them and how Hillary was hell bent in locking up the super predators.

Nothing verbal or psychological about that abuse. In fact a friend of mine and accountant looked into the abortion industry after a conversation a couple weeks ago. Last night as with most of us two points stood out to him, convenience -75%, [basically selfishness clearly disordered] but further the profit vs black-spanish statistics. This could be a few things, but it could also be intentional. Which I think is the real issue. Lets face it when Margret Sanger is your role model and PP is your playtime pastime, and you come in the name of human rights. I’m sorry I really have a hard time seeing Human Rights-womens advocate, peoples advocate, Americas advocate. In fact anyones advocate.

This should be completely rejected by ALL Catholics and make a real difference in correcting your own house to effectively permeate the USA which btw obviously was never done and we see the holdup?

 

[estesbob]

Let us again compare Pope St. Nicholas in A.D. 866 to Donald Trump in A.D. 2015/16. The topic: whether it is permissible to kill the families of criminals and whether the criminals themselves should be killed.

Pope St. Nicholas:

Donald Trump:

So who stands with Pope St. Nicholas and who stands with Donald Trump on this one?

Should one “take them out”, though perfectly innocent of any crime, or not?

I wasn’t aware that Pope St Nicholas was running for president this year? How about we compare kTrump to the people he is actually running against?

 

[Vouthon]

I wasn’t aware that Pope St Nicholas was running for president this year? How about we compare kTrump to the people he is actually running against?

How about as Catholics on a Catholic forum we compare each and every candidate with Catholic moral authorities to see if Catholics should, when probing their conscience, make a conscientious decision to vote for them?

As a Catholic you should be willing to pay respectful attention to the words of a man who was both Supreme Pontiff in his life and in death is a canonized saint. They don’t call him Pope St. Nicholas “the Great” for nothing. i.e

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Nicholas_I

**Pope Saint Nicholas I (Latin: Nicholaus I; c. 800 – 13 November 867), also called Saint Nicholas the Great, was Pope from 24 April 858 to his death in 867. He is remembered as a consolidator of papal authority and power, exerting decisive influence upon the historical development of the papacy and its position among the Christian nations of Western Europe. Nicholas I asserted that the pope should have suzerain authority over all Christians, even royalty, in matters of faith and morals.[1]

He is venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church, with a feast day on 13 November.**2]…

**To a spiritually exhausted and politically uncertain Western Europe beset by Muslim and Norse incursions, Pope Nicholas appeared as a conscientious representative of Roman primacy in the Church. He was filled with a high conception of his mission for the vindication of Christian morality and the defence of God’s law.[3]

His co-operation with Emperor Louis II and Byzantine forces temporarily stemmed the Muslim advance in southern Italy.[4**] He also strengthened the Ostian fortifications against any future Muslim raids.[5]
**

It should be noted that Pope St. Nicholas had to respond to Islamic invasions of Europe…But he did not advocate torturing them, killing their families etc.

You (rightly) do the same with regards to Hillary Clinton’s support for killing the unborn person in the womb by demonstrating how this is against our moral doctrine and amounts to wilful murder.

Trump is not exempt from such scrutiny.

The faith comes before earthly politics - on all accounts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

refers to capital punishment

Those rare birds like Isis? And how pray tell are they put down? Gently? Ah, I know the conversation brings a means to view prudence and again justice vs morality. We simply at times and admittedly rarely have to protect ourselves and the greater evil which is allowing the evil to live as in just war Isis, theres your rare bird and th DP?

Drone them at a disconnected distance too, it doesnt “feel” so traumatic and cuts down on those VA lines and daily suicides and eh, just spin the media and tell them “we don’t have all the details” but 'we think" it was a remote area, like a civilian hospital or something. Its as said above its a moral horror.

So indeed handling of these “terrorists” is an issue. You know why because “terrorist” isn’t what they are but what they do. It should be no secret you can’t handle them you labeled them in a way to enable careless handling and including national and international.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It should be noted that Pope St. Nicholas had to respond to Islamic invasions of Europe…But he did not advocate torturing them, killing their families etc.

You (rightly) do the same with regards to Hillary Clinton’s support for killing the unborn person in the womb by demonstrating how this is against our moral doctrine and amounts to wilful murder.

Trump is not exempt from such scrutiny.

The faith comes before earthly politics - on all accounts.

Of course Pope Nicholas didn’t mention the families of Islamic invaders of Europe. They didn’t bring their families with them; only warriors.

Trump is not exempt from scrutiny, but the scrutiny ought to be reasonable, not hysterical. When Trump talked about the families of the terrorists in the quote you made above, here’s what he said: “…when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families”.

Now, what does that mean? “When you get…” In other words, you don’t refrain from taking out terrorists if there is a possibility of collateral damage; something this administration is doing (except when it isn’t). The whole context is about rules of engagement, not about separately targeting terrorists’ families, the identity of most of whom we don’t even know.

Remember that Osama Bin Ladin’s family members were killed when he was. One of his wives, in particular, was being used by him as a shield. So was the navy seal to let himself be shot in order to avoid killing the woman? That’s what Trump is talking about.

At worst, however, it’s unclear, as Trump often is. Maybe he’s just not as articulate as we would prefer. Maybe he’s deliberately being ambiguous. But there’s no certitude (and it’s doubtful) he would specifically target terrorists’ family members when the terrorist is not even there.

Trump was not my first choice, nor my second, nor my third. But if anything helps me to accept him as a candidate, it’s the rush so many have to make the worst imaginable judgment of him when it’s plain the worst imaginable judgment is just incorrect.

 

[Crossbones]

Of course Pope Nicholas didn’t mention the families of Islamic invaders of Europe. They didn’t bring their families with them; only warriors.

Trump is not exempt from scrutiny, but the scrutiny ought to be reasonable, not hysterical. When Trump talked about the families of the terrorists in the quote you made above, here’s what he said: “…when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families”.

Now, what does that mean? “When you get…” In other words, you don’t refrain from taking out terrorists if there is a possibility of collateral damage; something this administration is doing (except when it isn’t). The whole context is about rules of engagement, not about separately targeting terrorists’ families, the identity of most of whom we don’t even know.

Remember that Osama Bin Ladin’s family members were killed when he was. One of his wives, in particular, was being used by him as a shield. So was the navy seal to let himself be shot in order to avoid killing the woman? That’s what Trump is talking about.

At worst, however, it’s unclear, as Trump often is. Maybe he’s just not as articulate as we would prefer. Maybe he’s deliberately being ambiguous. But there’s no certitude (and it’s doubtful) he would specifically target terrorists’ family members when the terrorist is not even there.

Trump was not my first choice, nor my second, nor my third. But if anything helps me to accept him as a candidate, it’s the rush so many have to make the worst imaginable judgment of him when it’s plain the worst imaginable judgment is just incorrect.

Of course, when discussing targeting noncombatants, Trump made it clear on O’Reilly’s show that he was not talking collateral damage, but rather would target them for ‘retribution’ and ‘make them suffer’. I wonder when we end this fallacy that he was talking about collateral damage.

 

[Vouthon]

Of course Pope Nicholas didn’t mention the families of Islamic invaders of Europe. They didn’t bring their families with them; only warriors.

But he did mention the families of pagan Bulgar aristocrats and apostate Bulgars who revolted against their Khan, St. Boris I. And he explicitly cautioned that torture could not be used to extract confessions of guilt from them, that their families should not have been murdered by the command of Prince Boris, especially the children who he said were wholly innocent and guileless of their parents plots. The Pope even went so far as to say that Boris should have spared the lives of the guilty aristocrats who rejected his authority and tried to depose him in favour of a Khan who would reinstate the old pagan religion of Tengriism.

Owing to these facts, do you think he would have treated the Muslims any differently ?

The pagan Bulgars were warlike, savage people as you can see from the above, with a very cruel and severe culture in which death or cruel torture was mandated for even the slightest miscreancy, let alone a serious one like treason and an attempted coup to bring back heathenry and the old gods. They were not doey-eyed, nature loving, peaceable hippies.

But Pope St. Nicholas preached clemency and mercy on their behalf. He strived to Christianise and civilise them.

Now, what does that mean? “When you get…” In other words, you don’t refrain from taking out terrorists if there is a possibility of collateral damage; something this administration is doing (except when it isn’t). The whole context is about rules of engagement, not about separately targeting terrorists’ families, the identity of most of whom we don’t even know.

Elsewhere Trump has appeared to imply that he was not merely speaking here of collateral damage but of punishment and retribution .

Methinks that Khan Boris (before his lecturing by Pope Nicholas) and Donald Trump would probably have got on swimmingly. The key difference is that Khan Boris eventually abdicated from his Khananate and became a monk, thereby repenting of his many sins. Somehow I doubt Donald Trump will end up doing this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course, when discussing targeting noncombatants, Trump made it clear on O’Reilly’s show that he was not talking collateral damage, but rather would target them for ‘retribution’ and ‘make them suffer’. I wonder when we end this fallacy that he was talking about collateral damage.

Not true.

What he really said was this:

But pressed to explain himself in a later interview with O’Reilly, Trump suggested the U.S. should “wipe out their homes” and “where they came from.”

“You absolutely have to wipe them out,” Trump said.

But asked explicitly whether that meant killing suspected terrorists’ families, Trump demurred.

“I don’t want to be so bold,” Trump said. “I’ll tell you they would suffer.”

Which, of course, they would. As Sherman is reputed to have said “…war is hell”. I realize Clinton supporters like to claim Trump favors directly targeting noncombatants families, but they always have to twist and dance some to make it seem so.

Of course, Clinton has participated in the killing of suspected terrorists, their families and neighbors without even knowing the bad guys were at home. But never mind that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But he did mention the families of pagan Bulgar aristocrats and apostate Bulgars who revolted against their Khan, St. Boris I. And he explicitly cautioned that torture could not be used to extract confessions of guilt from them, that their families should not have been murdered by the command of Prince Boris, especially the children who he said we’re wholly innocent and guileless of their parents plots. He even went so far as to say that Boris should have spared the lives of the guilty aristocrats who rejected hus authority and tried to depose him in favour of a Khan who would reinstate the old pagan religion of Tengriism.

Owing to these facts, do you think he would have treated the Muslims any differently ?

The pagan Bulgars were warlike, savage people as you can see from the above, with a very cruel and severe culture in which death was mandated for thr slightest miscreancy. They were not doey-eyed, nature loving, peaceable hippies.

But Pope St. Nicholas preached clemency and mercy on their behalf. He strived to Christianise and civilise them.

Elsewhere Trump has appearee to imply that he was not merely speaking here of collateral damage but of punishment and retribution .

Methinks that Khan Boris (before his lecturing by Pope Nicholas) and Donald Trump would probably have got on swimmingly. The key difference is that Khan Boris eventually abdicated from his Khananate and became a monk, thereby repenting of his many sins. Somehow I doubt Donald Trump will end up doing this.

Another key difference is that Trump never said he would specifically target the families of terrorists for death. The statements he made were in the context of talking about rules of engagement so strict that they sometimes result in the needless deaths of our own troops.

Instead of trying to read Trump’s mind, using awfully thin bases for doing it, perhaps it would be more fruitful to contemplate what the current administration is actually doing in some theaters where there’s no press access, while utilizing stifling rules of engagement in others where there is.

And what is the context of Pope Nicholas’ statement? What was “torture” at the time? And if the Pope had to admonish him not to directly murder the children of Bulgar warriors, it seems pretty plain that the punishment check list of the time was a lot more severe than what any western nation would do now. Kind of sounds like Boris was contemplating becoming like ISIS. I don’t think even the most ardent Hillary supporters would claim Trump would ape ISIS. Well, I guess some would, but not most.

Do you honestly believe Trump would line up Arab children and shoot them down like dogs? If you don’t, then the Boris comparison isn’t apt. And it probably isn’t in any respect.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Clinton has participated in the killing of suspected terrorists, their families and neighbors without even knowing the bad guys were at home.

Of course, when discussing targeting noncombatants,

Targeting Isis isn’t targeting noncombatants, but droning the Taliban or targeting a “terrorist” with a drone and killing civilians is what?

Further, so my question in morality class is how would intentionally killing combatants mixed with noncombatants set us apart from ISIS?

That was the entire premise of the conversation as I see with Trump, seems with all the lies we are fed theres a real conversation needed with all this illegal terrorist hunting in others countries. May have a peculiar way of doing things but he’s right we have a problem with the “terrorists”.

I don’t see the point to inform us how Obama and Trump are OK with the deaths of civilians? Hillary 1-million from the gate.

 

[Vouthon]

Another key difference is that Trump never said he would specifically target the families of terrorists for death. The statements he made were in the context of talking about rules of engagement so strict that they sometimes result in the needless deaths of our own troops.

Instead of trying to read Trump’s mind, using awfully thin bases for doing it, perhaps it would be more fruitful to contemplate what the current administration is actually doing in some theaters where there’s no press access, while utilizing stifling rules of engagement in others where there is.

And what is the context of Pope Nicholas’ statement? What was “torture” at the time? And if the Pope had to admonish him not to directly murder the children of Bulgar warriors, it seems pretty plain that the punishment check list of the time was a lot more severe than what any western nation would do now. Kind of sounds like Boris was contemplating becoming like ISIS. I don’t think even the most ardent Hillary supporters would claim Trump would ape ISIS. Well, I guess some would, but not most.

Do you honestly believe Trump would line up Arab children and shoot them down like dogs? If you don’t, then the Boris comparison isn’t apt. And it probably isn’t in any respect.

All I’m saying is that Khan Boris believed it was legitimate to kill the families of treasonous, pagan plotters of a coup against his newly Christian kingship and torture the survivors to exact confessions of guilt that could be used to suppress the entire revolt - thus ensuring that such an uprising could never occur again.

He asked Pope Nicholas if this was OK under Christian morality.

The Pope told him, in no uncertain terms, that this was against divine law and he would have to adopt fresh, civilised and humane tactics from now on if he wanted to remain right with the God he had just baptised himself and much of his people under. The Pope explicitly said that confessions to suspected crime could not be “violently extorted” by means of torture, any form of physical compulsion, that non-combatants could not be killed or made to suffer along with the guilty and that even the guilty rebels who took up arms should be spared, out of Christian clemency, capital punishment and be allowed to live.

Consequently, Boris would have to repent of these sins. He eventually did this by becoming a monk and abandoning power, that is freely giving up his Khananate and abdicating as Khan of the Bulgars. Presumably the Pope’s criticism must have weighed heavily on his soul.

Ostensibly, Donald Trump argues that the families of Islamic terrorist suspects need to be taken out and made to suffer for the alleged sins of their fathers and or husbands, and that terrorist suspects themselves should be subjected to tortures worse than waterboarding to exact confessions so as to prevent terrorism.

His logic doesn’t seem dissimilar to Khan Boris’ in relation to dealing with his treasonous heathen and apostate plotters, who wanted to depose and kill him to restore a pagan Khan.

Thus I feel that Pope St. Nicholas’ long answer and the principles enunciated are worth bringing up.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All I’m saying is that Khan Boris believed it was legitimate to kill the families of treasonous, pagan plotters of a coup against his newly Christian kingship and torture the survivors to exact confessions of guilt that could be used to suppress the entire revolt - thus ensuring that such an uprising could never occur again.

He asked Pope Nicholas if this was OK under Christian morality.

The Pope told him, in no uncertain terms, that this was against divine law and he would have to adopt fresh, civilised and humane tactics from now on if he wanted to remain right with the God he had just baptised himself and much of his people under. The Pope explicitly said that confessions to suspected crime could not be “violently extorted” by means of torture, any form of physical compulsion, that non-combatants could not be killed or made to suffer along with the guilty and that even the guilty rebels who took up arms should be spared, out of Christian clemency, capital punishment and be allowed to live.

Consequently, Boris would have to repent of these sins. He eventually did this by becoming a monk and abandoning power, that is freely giving up his Khananate and abdicating as Khan of the Bulgars. Presumably the Pope’s criticism must have weighed heavily on his soul.

Ostensibly, Donald Trump argues that the families of Islamic terrorist suspects need to be taken out and made to suffer for the alleged sins of their fathers and or husbands, and that terrorist suspects themselves should be subjected to tortures worse than waterboarding to exact confessions so as to prevent terrorism.

His logic doesn’t seem dissimilar to Khan Boris’ in relation to dealing with his treasonous heathen and apostate plotters, who wanted to depose and kill him to restore a pagan Khan.

Thus I feel that Pope St. Nicholas’ long answer and the principles enunciated are worth bringing up.

If Boris planned to kill the children of combatants, it would not have been some drone strike or bomb. It would have been face-to-face, one-on-one. Living child-sword stroke-dead child. That’s a whole different thing from collateral casualties in modern war.

And killing captured combatants? We don’t do that, and nobody is saying we should. We lock them up on a sea-breeze washed tropical island with Korans, prayer rugs, halal food, television set, basketball courts, soccer fields. Nobody is talking about killing captives.

Sounds to me like Boris had ISIS-type tortures in mind; roasting people in iron cages, that sort of thing. Until we know what those things were, it’s just wild-eyed imagining to think Trump is in Boris’ shoes.

The discourse of late amazes me. On the one hand, we have a man who has never killed anyone, who is generally against war, who favors waterboarding and the acceptance of collateral damage in war.

On the other hand, we have a woman who is so in love with war she even made up her own part in one of them, laughed at the torture death in another, backed the Muslim Brotherhood, ran guns to terrorists, promotes the killing of a million children per year, and wants us to “change our religion” to accommodate that killing.

And some of us go bilious over the first while blandly accepting the second.

Astonishing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So with all the talk of torture what did Obama do make sure this doesn’t happen?

The amendment does not ban extraordinary rendition, in which prisoners are sent abroad to be held and possibly tortured by foreign governments. The Obama administration has never repudiated this practice; it has only vowed to seek assurances from foreign governments that they will not torture prisoners transferred to their custody. Although we have no evidence that suspected enemies have been flown off to countries such as Egypt and tortured under Obama, as they were under Bush and President Bill Clinton, captives have been transferred from U.S. custody in Afghanistan to facilities run by the Afghan security forces where many allege torture took place. More recently, prisoners caught in Iraq with U.S. assistance have reportedly been mistreated. The new law does not regulate such transfers or renditions at all — a glaring omission, given the recent past.

Obama admitted that “we tortured some folks.” The Justice Department declined to prosecute anyone and has also repeatedly invoked state-secrets privilege to stop civil litigation brought by torture victims.

 

[Vouthon]

If Boris planned to kill the children of combatants, it would not have been some drone strike or bomb. It would have been face-to-face, one-on-one. Living child-sword stroke-dead child. That’s a whole different thing from collateral casualties in modern war.

And killing captured combatants? We don’t do that, and nobody is saying we should. We lock them up on a sea-breeze washed tropical island with Korans, prayer rugs, halal food, television set, basketball courts, soccer fields. Nobody is talking about killing captives.

Sounds to me like Boris had ISIS-type tortures in mind; roasting people in iron cages, that sort of thing. Until we know what those things were, it’s just wild-eyed imagining to think Trump is in Boris’ shoes.

The discourse of late amazes me. On the one hand, we have a man who has never killed anyone, who is generally against war, who favors waterboarding and the acceptance of collateral damage in war.

On the other hand, we have a woman who is so in love with war she even made up her own part in one of them, laughed at the torture death in another, backed the Muslim Brotherhood, ran guns to terrorists, promotes the killing of a million children per year, and wants us to “change our religion” to accommodate that killing.

And some of us go bilious over the first while blandly accepting the second.

Astonishing.

I’m not blandly accepting Clinton’s support for intrinsic evils, her involvement in the disastrous Libyan War or her seemingly perverse pleasure at Ghaddafi’s death.

However I won’t, in dualistic fashion, overlook the fact that Trump has advocated for things that are intrinsically evil as well - including targeting the families of suspected terrorists:

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182960/Donald-Trump-says-military-wont-refuse-his-orders-to-water-board-terror-suspects.html

**Mr Trump then repeated a debunked conspiracy theory about the families of the 9/11 hijackers being ushered out of the US to make his point that terrorists’ families were appropriate targets.

His responses on torture went down well with those in the auditorium, as did his explanation of why even illegal orders he gave would be followed**.

Does what he said above sound like collateral damage? He raised a debunked theory about traitorous 9/11 hijackers’ family members to justify his belief that terrorists’ families actually are TARGETS.

This is not a case of mere collateral damage (i.e. children and wives being in the way) which he endorses too. No over and above this he claims to view them as actual, legitimate targets to be “taken out” - killed or punished severely in some fitting fashion.

If he means what he says, then yes he is advocating a modern version of something not unlike what Boris did to the pagan Bulgar rebels and their families IMHO - as shocking as that might be and minus the up-front sword combat.

Now, I am not claiming that he is morally equivalent to Boris prior to the latter’s penitent monasticism - but I do see a disturbing parallel in terms of the logic guiding both men and the principles laid down by Pope Nicholas which they violate.

Trump stated:

"Then they came to me," he said, ‘what do you think of waterboarding?’ I said ‘it’s fine’. And I’d go stronger too, because frankly that’s the way I feel."

He is explicitly saying - and with evident pride - that as President he will employ illegal torture methods more severe than waterboarding on suspected terrorists, again like Khan Boris.

Pope Nicholas laid down two principles that both Boris and Trump seem to infringe with impunity, namely = (1) don’t kill or punish the non-combatant family members of suspected rebels/terrorists and (2) don’t use violence/torture to exact confession from them.

At face value, Trump is adamantly in favour of both of these intrinsic evils.

 

[estesbob]

“00”

He is explicitly saying - and with evident pride - that as President he will employ illegal torture methods more severe than waterboarding on suspected terrorists, again like Khan Boris.

Mr Trump has disavowed the use of torture:

Mr. Trump, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal about his views on harsh interrogation of terror suspects, said he would “use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”

He added, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”

 

[Vouthon]

Mr Trump has disavowed the use of torture:

Mr. Trump, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal about his views on harsh interrogation of terror suspects, said he would “use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”

He added, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”

But he is baldly contradicting himself. It’s insane. He says one minute he’ll make US troops act illegally on his orders, then says he won’t. Maybe he has a schizophrenic personality disorder.

And still, he isn’t disavowing his personal support for torture - clearly he wants tortures worse than waterboarding to be made legal in the war on terror. He has said so himself that he supports this, so that is the only way to read consistency into his statements without making him seem like an utter moron

 

[estesbob]

But he is baldly contradicting himself. It’s insane. He says one minute he’ll make US troops act illegally on his orders, then says he won’t. Maybe he has a schizophrenic personality disorder.

And still, he isn’t disavowing his personal support for torture - clearly he wants tortures worse than waterboarding to be made legal in the war on terror. He has said so himself that he supports this, so that is the only way to read consistency into his statements without making him seem like an utter moron

He said he doesn’t support torture You keep saying he does.

 

[Vouthon]

He said he doesn’t support torture You keep saying he does.

He said he supports waterboarding and “a hell of a lot worse”. How is that not advocating torture? We have testimony straight from his own lips on numerous occasions - plainly enthusiastic testimony at that.

His own military advisor admits that waterboarding is on the table:

**Retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, is now an informal adviser to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump — and he’s not shying away from the candidate’s most controversial policy proposals…

When asked whether he, like Trump, supports waterboarding. “I’m going to be a bit unpredictable here with you Mehdi, because I am a believer in leaving as many options on the table right up until the last possible minute,” Flynn said.**

Flynn also refused to come out against Trump’s proposal to kill the families of terror suspects as a counter-terrorism strategy, saying that he “would have to see what the circumstances of that situation were.”

 

[estesbob]

He said he supports waterboarding and “a hell of a lot worse”. How is that not advocating torture? We testimony straight from his own lips on numerous occasions.

His own military advisor admits that waterboarding is on the table:

Here’s the latest thing he has said about torture:

Mr. Trump, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal about his views on harsh interrogation of terror suspects, said he would “use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”

He added, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not blandly accepting Clinton’s support for intrinsic evils, her involvement in the disastrous Libyan War or her seemingly perverse pleasure at Ghaddafi’s death.

However I won’t, in dualistic fashion, overlook the fact that Trump has advocated for things that are intrinsically evil as well - including targeting the families of suspected terrorists:

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182960/Donald-Trump-says-military-wont-refuse-his-orders-to-water-board-terror-suspects.html

Does what he said above sound like collateral damage? He raised a debunked theory about traitorous 9/11 hijackers’ family members to justify his belief that terrorists’ families actually are TARGETS.

This is not a case of mere collateral damage (i.e. children and wives being in the way) which he endorses too. No over and above this he claims to view them as actual, legitimate targets to be “taken out” - killed or punished severely in some fitting fashion.

If he means what he says, then yes he is advocating a modern version of something not unlike what Boris did to the pagan Bulgar rebels and their families IMHO - as shocking as that might be and minus the up-front sword combat.

Now, I am not claiming that he is morally equivalent to Boris prior to the latter’s penitent monasticism - but I do see a disturbing parallel in terms of the logic guiding both men and the principles laid down by Pope Nicholas which they violate.

Trump stated:

He is explicitly saying - and with evident pride - that as President he will employ illegal torture methods more severe than waterboarding on suspected terrorists, again like Khan Boris.

Pope Nicholas laid down two principles that both Boris and Trump seem to infringe with impunity, namely = (1) don’t kill or punish the non-combatant family members of suspected rebels/terrorists and (2) don’t use violence/torture to exact confession from them.

At face value, Trump is adamantly in favour of both of these intrinsic evils.

Trump walked back the “illegal” part of the statement. Possibly you don’t know that.

I truly don’t understand why you would be so anxious to make Trump seem worse than he is and yet overlook his competitor’s far worse policies.

Again, without knowing what Pope Nicholas was talking about in admonishing against “torture” on Boris’ part, this part of the conversation is meaningless. Was he talking about the “iron maiden” or the “secret brand” or something like that? Is it comparable to waterboarding and in the absence of the Church ever saying waterboarding as practiced on the three terrorists is “torture” are we to make an equivalence without knowing one part of the comparison and without having any Church guidance concerning the other?

Again, with Boris, killing family members would have been taking a sword to children, face to face, with deliberate and unmistakable intent to kill those children. When the context of Trump’s statement is clearly aimed at “rules of engagement” that prevent collateral damage, you can’t say the two are equivalent.

Again, you’re assuming your premise. You’re assuming waterboarding should be regarded as “torture”, therefore “intrinsic evil”. The Church doesn’t say that, and it can be doubted because people undergo it voluntarily in pursuit of reasonable goals and sometimes even out of curiosity. Did anyone ever volunteer for whatever King Boris had in mind? We don’t know, because you won’t tell us what it was, if you even know. “Torture” is one of those things that admits of subjective interpretation of the facts. Some people truly do, for example, regard “solitary confinement” as “torture”. Some regard the sort of interrogation the FBI does as “torture”. Some would regard what I went through pledging a college fraternity as “torture”. You’re taking a fact situation and making yourself the moral arbiter of what is and what is not an intrinsic evil without so much as a shadow of Church sanction in doing so. And harking back to whatever it was that Boris did or thought to do tells us absolutely nothing about waterboarding, let alone the soul of Donald Trump.

On the other hand, you are making that equivalent to the deliberate and systematic killing of a million children per year and deliberate unjust war. Elective abortion admits of no interpretation or degrees, and the Church does say that. Alive is alive, and dead is dead, and direct intent is direct intent. Civilian deaths and injuries in war are almost never the intent and might or might not happen. Killing the enemy is the intent. Killing is always the intent in abortion and it always happens.

I truly don’t know why you would protect abortion and obvious warmongering in this way. I would not have expected it.

Oh, and when, if ever, the redacted 28 pages of the 911 commission report are made public, we’ll have some better understanding of who were conspirators in it and who weren’t. Can you tell us what those pages say, or about whom? No, of course not.