Waterboarding

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

http://patriotroom.com/article/liz-c...ell-on-torture

Well put.

She's basically just parroting the same talking points as her father, although I think she's smarter than Nora O'Donnell.

But her core argument is simply wrong. Because we use some of these techniques on our own troops in training doesn't alone legally justify our use on detainees. That's really absurd and very scary when you think about it.

She also makes assertions that are impossible to back up, like the notion that we've gained valuable information only through water boarding. According to the memos that were released, we didn't even really try conventional methods on the high value detainees. Rather they just went strait to the harsh methods.

-spence

[buckman]

One question ..... Why is it OK for Obama to bomb a home of suspected terrorist and kill women and children but He's too righteous to put a know terrorist, that has info on killing US women and children in a cold box?

[spence]

How do you know again that they have any info?

Besides, the rules of engagement are different if you have someone in custody and they are under your control. By your reasoning we should be able to just execute all suspected terror prisoners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

How do you know again that they have any info?

Besides, the rules of engagement are different if you have someone in custody and they are under your control. By your reasoning we should be able to just execute all suspected terror prisoners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

My opinion on the theory behind it is due to the enemy being neutralized. As far back as England's Medieval wars (as far back as I could find reference), prisoners were treated as human beings and held under comparatively favorable conditions. Captors that mistreated their prisoners were shunned.

My point being that this isn't a new concept. Yes, some countries have been barbaric, but that has been the case since the beginning of time. Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.

On your theory, the Geneva Convention was a waste of time. No country should have signed it, because if I can shoot the enemy on the battlefield, then I should be able to shoot them after they surrender; the concept of surrender shouldn't even exist - just execute them where they stand.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.

So all we have to do is leave the arms attached and we can torture them.....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

So all we have to do is leave the arms attached and we can torture them.....

Hahaha...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

My opinion on the theory behind it is due to the enemy being neutralized. As far back as England's Medieval wars (as far back as I could find reference), prisoners were treated as human beings and held under comparatively favorable conditions. Captors that mistreated their prisoners were shunned.

My point being that this isn't a new concept. Yes, some countries have been barbaric, but that has been the case since the beginning of time. Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.

On your theory, the Geneva Convention was a waste of time. No country should have signed it, because if I can shoot the enemy on the battlefield, then I should be able to shoot them after they surrender; the concept of surrender shouldn't even exist - just execute them where they stand.

Valid points JD. From what I can see, in most cases our POWs have been tortured in just about every war. I still don't believe what the media and the left has described is torture. And I still fail to see the "high road" that the left wants to walk on, when Obamas bombing innocent women and children.

This was nothing more then an emotional decision based on appeasing the left.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

I believe the Geneva Convention would stipulate that a prisoner isn't capable of fighting back. You don't seem to be getting this...

Also, the assertion that it's fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids isn't really valid. Generally speaking, collateral damage is taken very seriously precisely because it is such a big deal. More often than not we'll avoid using force for this reason, and I'm sure with hindsight at times it's even been considered a mistake.

The notion that the "anti-torture crowd" lacks consistancy based on your question is silly because you're trying to apply black and white tests to an issue, like most issues, that is very complex and situationally dependent.

Many people who are generally against the use of torture (as I am) don't base their position simply on the basis that it's unethical (which is highly relative), but also the factor that many credible experts believe it's not reliable.

The same could be said for the death penalty (which I'm also generally against). If it was more cost effective and a proven deterrent I think you'd find more people willing to accept it. But it's not...

Even as a cost/benefit analysis it doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the Geneva Convention would stipulate that a prisoner isn't capable of fighting back. You don't seem to be getting this...

Also, the assertion that it's fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids isn't really valid. Generally speaking, collateral damage is taken very seriously precisely because it is such a big deal. More often than not we'll avoid using force for this reason, and I'm sure with hindsight at times it's even been considered a mistake.

The notion that the "anti-torture crowd" lacks consistancy based on your question is silly because you're trying to apply black and white tests to an issue, like most issues, that is very complex and situationally dependent.

Many people who are generally against the use of torture (as I am) don't base their position simply on the basis that it's unethical (which is highly relative), but also the factor that many credible experts believe it's not reliable.

The same could be said for the death penalty (which I'm also generally against). If it was more cost effective and a proven deterrent I think you'd find more people willing to accept it. But it's not...

Even as a cost/benefit analysis it doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

It didn't say it is fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids . It's what happens when, in some instances Obama approves bombings in Pakastan.
Your right this isn't a black or white thing. Some would consider, as I do, that what the CIA did was harsh interrogation at worse. I don't consider it torture.

Many credible experts believe it's reliable. That's why they did it.

And I have yet to see a person put to death for murder repeat the crime. It is 100% effective. Bundy will never kill again. Trust me

[Cool Beans]

Here's a log for the fire.....

Do Liberals consider abortion as torture?

It's ok, to rip the little guy out and leave him on the counter to die (Obama voted for this), but I can't drip water on a canvas draped over some terrorists face?????

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

Many credible experts believe it's reliable. That's why they did it.

Who, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Donnie Rumsfeld....the "chicoms"

Originally Posted by buckman

And I have yet to see a person put to death for murder repeat the crime. It is 100% effective. Bundy will never kill again. Trust me

Assuming the deathrow inmate is the actual murderer and not some mentally handicapped raggamuffin. You really think the state of Texas or Virginia has never executed someone wrongly convicted of a capital crime. Thats all I need to oppose it. I leave the bloodlusting for rest.

[buckman]

FYI
Now that we are closing Gitmo, the brave Dems will not vote to provide the money to move the prisoners. Typical grandstanding without a plan.They don't want to be know as the ones voting to bring the bad guys to the US. Now the are leaving their hero Obama in the lurch.

[buckman]

Basswipe,
No one respects the military and those that serve more then me. I thank you and my children thank you for your service. Read my past post and you will see my feelings for the men and women that serve or have served.

[scottw]

The American left has hit a new low by trivializing genuine war crimes through likening them to the discomfort inflicted by water boarding. Since the release of the "torture" memos this mantra has been repeated by liberals: we convicted and executed Japanese War criminals for water boarding so the Bush Administration has to be brought to justice.

this document from the actual trials; "Japanese Methods of Prisoner of War Interrogation."


" The victim's stomach is filled with water from a hose placed in the throat. A plank is then placed across the distended stomach, and Japanese, one on each end, then ' see-saw' thus forcing out the water from the stomach. Many of the victims die under this torture."


"The victim's thumbs are tied together and he is hitched by them to a motor car which proceeds to pull him around in a circle until he falls exhausted. This is repeated at two-or three day intervals."


Prisoners were made to beat each other, half rations for "special PWs (Army Air Corp)," beheadings? The liberal strategy of moral equivalence employed but only when it serves their political goals.

To make it even worse, the Japanese visited these atrocities, and worse, not just on captured military personnel, but on the civilian population as well. With regard to civilians, the whole purpose of this torture, often mass torture, was punitive. It was completely different from the coercive stress techniques used here to elicit information from people aiming to cause mass "man caused disasters.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Scott.
I'll give you one thing. your posts always leave me saying...
what the %$%$%$%$ is he talking about?

[scottw]

sorry RIR....here...a little more concise...the left has used "waterboarding" as a political issue as they have Valerie Plame, Domestic Spying, Abu Ghraib and many others, feigned outrage supported by the press to gain political advantage.....you cannot compare what is being called "torture" in this case based on the facts with what has been done around the world and throughout history to "actually torture" and keep a straight face if you are at all serious.... and at the same time continue to support abortion in all of it's forms.... and publically fund it as well......it's just funny what the outrages left and what does not...clearly the morality is determined by political expediency and not some basic sense of right and wrong...love ya man...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

sorry RIR....here...a little more concise...the left has used "waterboarding" as a political issue as they have Valerie Plame, Domestic Spying, Abu Ghraib and many others, feigned outrage supported by the press to gain political advantage.....you cannot compare what is being called "torture" in this case based on the facts with what has been done around the world and throughout history to "actually torture" and keep a straight face if you are at all serious.... and at the same time continue to support abortion in all of it's forms.... and publically fund it as well......it's just funny what the outrages left and what does not...clearly the morality is determined by political expediency and not some basic sense of right and wrong...love ya man...

Yes, a basic sense of write and wrong as you have defined them.

Good to see you're in charge of the moral relativism police.

-spence

[scottw]

call it immoral relativism

let's see, I'm willing to allow water to be poured into the faces of three mass(or aspiring) murderers to gain informtion that may or will(waiting for the memos) save innocent lives.....

the left in general is currently very upset that this so called torture took place and while at the same time whole heartedly supports and with public funds the abortions of milions of innocent babies....

seems to me a handful of lawyers approved both practices...

and I'm the crazy one...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, a basic sense of write and wrong as you have defined them.

Good to see you're in charge of the moral relativism police.

-spence

I have to agree with Scott here ( Surprise!) You don't think this is about politics Spence?

While my heart tells me one thing, my mind tells me another as far as abortion goes. I don't think anyone considers it the "right" thing to do. The right thing to do, is not get knocked up. I think it should have it's own thread.

[scottw]

terrorists are people...with rights!
babies are not... with none?

uncomfortable, I know...
"don't hate me because I'm sensible"

[JohnnyD]

Getting into a debate about abortion is like getting into a debate about religion, cyclical and boring.

The arguments on both sides are tired and unoriginal. The same crap has been stated over and over again by both sides for decades.

That's how arguments about morals always go. What one person finds immoral, there will always be another that finds it moral.

What's annoying to me is that abortion really has absolutely nothing to do with Waterboarding. Abortion is a moral issue, waterboarding is a legal issue.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Getting into a debate about abortion is like getting into a debate about religion, cyclical and boring.

debating the slaughter of millions of innocent children- THAT'S BORING.

That's how arguments about morals always go. What one person finds immoral, there will always be another that finds it moral. THAT'S WHAT TED BUNDY SAID.

What's annoying to me is that abortion really has absolutely nothing to do with Waterboarding. Abortion is a moral issue, waterboarding is a legal issue.

BUT...waterboarding three dirt bags....now that's a "legal issue" that the left can really get up in arms about .....weird.....

wait...I though torture was a moral issue??? "WE DON'T TORTURE"...remember..we only dismember....not terrorists of course...the question with waterboarding is if in fact, it is actual torture...on the scale of possible torture methods it seems to be WAAAAYYY down on the worst that could be employed....bordering on...oh, I don't know....ENHANCED INTERROGATION..and apparently , at the time a perfectly acceptable way of eliciting information for a host of dem. lawmakers..that was, until they could make it a political issue...keep separating law and morality when it's convenient for you

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

BUT...waterboarding three dirt bags....now that's a "legal issue" that the left can really get up in arms about .....weird.....

wait...I though torture was a moral issue??? "WE DON'T TORTURE"...remember..we only dismember....not terrorists of course...the question with waterboarding is if in fact, it is actual torture...on the scale of possible torture methods it seems to be WAAAAYYY down on the worst that could be employed....bordering on...oh, I don't know....ENHANCED INTERROGATION..and apparently , at the time a perfectly acceptable way of eliciting information for a host of dem. lawmakers..that was, until they could make it a political issue...keep separating law and morality when it's convenient for you

Well, it has become very apparent that you've paid zero attention to anything I have said previously.

First, Waterboarding has never been a *moral issue* for me. I have repeatedly stated, "If they broke the law, then they should be prosecuted."

Second, Waterboarding has already been *defined* as torture by the US and other countries. "Enhanced Interrogation" is merely a euphemism. A politically inaccurate term developed so that politicians can refer to the actions without saying "torture"... and the American public has so far been stupid enough to go along with it. Looks like you've taken the bait hook, line and sinker as well.

I don't separate law and morality when it's convenient for me. I've been quite explicit that this whole issue is a legal one. Maybe you should look back at previous posts in this very thread once in a while. *You're* the one conflating the matter.

It's funny. I've never mentioned my opinion of abortion before but you assume my position on it because I think people in the Bush Administration should be tried for ordering torture.

Your massive level of ignorance is amazing. Pull the shroud from your eyes and take a step outside of your bubble. Don't bother replying to any more of posts by me with the expectation of a response because I'm done with you. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with people like you is impossible, with your verbal diarrhea. It's like you take a thousand random subjects, throw them in a hat and pull one out to use as a rebuttal, regardless of the subject.

[fishbones]

What is the world coming to? She has been very outspoken about prosecuting Bush Administration members for torture. Now, Nancy Pelosi approves of waterboarding?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120801664.html

This is all very confusing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

What is the world coming to? She has been very outspoken about prosecuting Bush Administration members for torture. Now, Nancy Pelosi approves of waterboarding?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120801664.html

This is all very confusing.

Nah, it's not confusing at all. Just displays the point that Pelosi is a complete, unethical moron. She demonstrates one opinion behind closed doors because the public won't see it, yet was outspoken about prosecuting the Bush Administration because it was the cool thing to do.

Corrupt pieces of Sh&t. I'm going fishing....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Well, it has become very apparent that you've paid zero attention to anything I have said previously.

First, Waterboarding has never been a *moral issue* for me. I have repeatedly stated, "If they broke the law, then they should be prosecuted."

Second, Waterboarding has already been *defined* as torture by the US and other countries. "Enhanced Interrogation" is merely a euphemism. A politically inaccurate term developed so that politicians can refer to the actions without saying "torture"... and the American public has so far been stupid enough to go along with it. Looks like you've taken the bait hook, line and sinker as well.

I don't separate law and morality when it's convenient for me. I've been quite explicit that this whole issue is a legal one. Maybe you should look back at previous posts in this very thread once in a while. *You're* the one conflating the matter.

It's funny. I've never mentioned my opinion of abortion before but you assume my position on it because I think people in the Bush Administration should be tried for ordering torture.

Your massive level of ignorance is amazing. Pull the shroud from your eyes and take a step outside of your bubble. Don't bother replying to any more of posts by me with the expectation of a response because I'm done with you. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with people like you is impossible, with your verbal diarrhea. It's like you take a thousand random subjects, throw them in a hat and pull one out to use as a rebuttal, regardless of the subject.

very touchy for someone who himself can be quite annoying
cranky know it all
I went a fished the end of the drop while you were writing all of that and now have some filleting to do, you should forget politics for a while and fish a little and relax......you seem uptight...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

very touchy for someone who himself can be quite annoying
cranky know it all
I went a fished the end of the drop while you were writing all of that and now have some filleting to do, you should forget politics for a while and fish a little and relax......you seem uptight...

I'm not touchy at all. However, you've made it quite apparent that you pay zero attention to anything people say, make nonsense points, and try to relate topics that don't even have the slightest relationship to each other. Then you try to accuse me of separating morals and legality as I see it fit, when I've never implied any opinion about morals.

I'll be fishing all weekend.

[EarnedStripes44]

ahhh... the plot thickens