![]() They are crusaders for perversion, for licentiousness, for nihilism and worse.” The leaders of this party are severely out of touch with mainstream, traditional American values. Any American who would vote for Democrats is guilty of fostering the worst kind of degeneracy. “The national Democratic Party is immoral to the core. ![]() ![]() Liberals were least accurate about both groups. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup's morality. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. Journalist Ron Suskind says one FBI analyst described Zubaydah as “certifiably insane.” Water-boarded 83 times, “he began to speak of plots of every variety - against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty.” Each of these lunatic plots had to be investigated, wasting valuable resources.We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. It is contended that a major terrorist attack was thwarted through Zubaydah’s “enhanced interrogation.” In fact there is no proof that he ever said anything, since all records of his questioning were destroyed, and the putative time-line puts his confession after the date of the plot that was supposedly prevented. But the takeaway was that every time the military opened a can of whoopass on someone, the flow of usable intelligence dried up.Ī go-to case for fans of torture is the water-boarding of al-Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaydah. Army differed over debriefing techniques at Guantanamo. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But he also added that under torture the other 40% “would tell you anything.” He called torture of insurgents in Iraq “counter-productive,” since it produced garbage intelligence and prompted reprisals against American troops. A post-9/11 Pentagon report authored by retired Colonel Stuart Harrington offered that the success rate with jihadists might be closer to 60%. During the Second World War, the Algerian conflict, the Vietnam war and even at Guantanamo Bay, it is estimated that 90% of the time the enemy can be effectively debriefed with a warm room, cigarettes and playing cards. Don’t take it from Amnesty International. ![]() But that’s the problem with the militant anti-terror crowd (is there a pro-terror crowd?): Everything they know about the issue they learned from a movie or TV show.In the real world, torture simply does not work. Are we going to allow a dirty bomb to go off in downtown Toronto in order to please a few weak-kneed liberals? Except, of course, the ticking-time-bomb scenario is so rare there is no record of it ever having occurred outside of an episode of 24. Activate your Online Access Now Article contentĪt first blush, it seems like common sense. If you are a Home delivery print subscriber, unlimited online access is included in your subscription. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |