Waterboarding

[10ring]

Power begets use. Use begets misuse. While one reason to avoid torture is to protect the very soul of our nation, the other reason is that if the government gets to waterboard these guys, then they will get to waterboard me.

I don't want that power or permission in the hands of my government, period.

Too bad our enemies don't think like you do.

 

[techres]

Too bad our enemies don't think like you do.

Yeah, they have pooped in their own pool and are willing to drink the water. I am not inclined to mimic them.

 

[10ring]

Just hope they don't capture you. You might lose your head.

Comparing waterboarding to real torture and/or execution is nonsense.

 

[tk6968]

Torture?

Having watched the debreefing of POWs returning from Viet Nam in 1973, I have a different view of what torture is. I do not believe that waterboarding is torture. I also believe that there is a huge difference between what is proper to use against the enemy during a war and what is used in the USA. I do not believe that an enemy, capured during a war, is subject to the Constitution. Americans have become far too sensitive and weak. If we do not toughin up here our country will most certainly be destroyed. Research what was done to American POWs and you may have a more real veiw of what torture is.

 

[10ring]

Creating the sensation of drowning or sticking womens underwear on someones head doesn't compare to this:

School of Torture - March 4, 2008 - The New York Sun

Baquoba, June 2007: Discovery of the first torture house. Victims had drill holes in their bodies and deep gouges caused by blow torches; an Al Qaeda flag was in the torture house; many of the torture wounds were in the bottom of the feet of the victims. Torture equipment included: Drills, blow torches, chains hanging from the walls and ceiling, blood trails, saws, drills, knives, weapons, masks, and handcuffs.

Khan Bani Saad, August 2007: Discovery of rooms filled with torture tools and murdered Iraqi victims.

Arab Jibour, near Dora, south of Baghdad, August 2007: Blood splattered on the walls. Piles of corpses found outside the house.

Muqdadiyah, December 2007: Beds wired for electrical shock with electricity still on. Masks, whips, bloody knives, and chains hanging from ceiling on the site. Twenty-six bodies found buried on site: most had hands tied and were shot in the head.

I think you're the one that needs to get a freaking clue of what torture is.

 

[techres]

Research what was done to American POWs and you may have a more real veiw of what torture is.

Do not presume a lack of knowledge about torture on my part. I have spent much of my life reading in detail about the horrors of what humans have done to one another. That does not change my opinion.

And McCain, one of those vets you mention, who experienced actual torture himself, has made clear his opposition to torture as well. So, please do not equate opposition to torture as being merely based in lack of information or sheer ignorance.

 

[tk6968]

Do not presume a lack of knowledge about torture on my part. I have spent much of my life reading in detail about the horrors of what humans have done to one another. That does not change my opinion.

And McCain, one of those vets you mention, who experienced actual torture himself, has made clear his opposition to torture as well. So, please do not equate opposition to torture as being merely based in lack of information or sheer ignorance.

First off, I did not address you at all. I simply stated my opinion. As for McCain, I am well aware of what he went through, and because of that I do not believe he is in a position to make a rational decision about our interogation limits for the current war on terror. In my opinion anyone who equates our interigation methods to those of Hitler, the NVN, or Sadam is living in fantasy land. Anyone who believes that our methods have been non productive is ignorant as well. Yes I am aware of the media quoting supposed experts who say that torture does not work, but there are just as many who know that it does work, the media just does not want you to hear from them.

 

[turnandshoot4]

If anyone is in a position to talk about torture it is McCain. Not you or I. I have never been tortured. He has. So I will side with McCain here.

Why are people ignorant if they think our methods are non productive. Everyone is ignorant to what really might be going on. It's not everyone's fault, we are not there.

Even if the media doesn't want you to hear that torture does work, does that make sense? Let's look at this logically: if I want you to tell me something and you want me to stop, what are you going to do? TELL ME SOMETHING!

 

[dburkhead]

If anyone is in a position to talk about torture it is McCain. Not you or I. I have never been tortured. He has. So I will side with McCain here.

Why are people ignorant if they think our methods are non productive. Everyone is ignorant to what really might be going on. It's not everyone's fault, we are not there.

Even if the media doesn't want you to hear that torture does work, does that make sense? Let's look at this logically: if I want you to tell me something and you want me to stop, what are you going to do? TELL ME SOMETHING!

And if, after several times you lied and the torture got worse (because they already knew the answers to those particular questions), what are you going to do then? The truth got you a respite. Lies made things worse. So when the next question comes along, what are you going to do?

The "say anything" issue is one that interrogators are well aware of and there are ways to handle it. While it does mean that confessions wrung out of someone are worthless and that naming of "co-conspirators," at best, only serves as a place to start an investigation (of which a forced confession by the co-conspirator is not a valid result). It does not mean that all such information is worthless. Information you can check (Where is the bomb? Where is the weapons' cache? Where were you going to meet your contacts?) can be followed up on and even if you've got lies mixed in with the truth, you've reduced the search space considerably.

 

[turnandshoot4]

It does not mean that all such information is worthless. Information you can check (Where is the bomb? Where is the weapons' cache? Where were you going to meet your contacts?) can be followed up on and even if you've got lies mixed in with the truth, you've reduced the search space considerably.

What if that is my weapons' cache? I can only see that this power will be abused. Much like EVERY power has been abused. You know, like the Patriot Act. We were told that it wouldn't be abused, we were told that it would be used to curb terrorism. BULL. Now we are talking about the torture of human beings. It has to start somewhere. Why not here right?

 

[10ring]

Torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Worked

 

[turnandshoot4]

My favorite part of that article

"Those who believe that torture works may, understandably, be willing to rationalize away their moral objections."

This is the basis of my argument.

 

[10ring]

That is the opinion of the person commenting on the original article written and published in the Chicago Tribune.

Here is more opinion for this debate.

Hot Air Blog Archive Bombshell: ABC independently confirms success of CIA “torture” tactics

 

[dburkhead]

What if that is my weapons' cache? I can only see that this power will be abused. Much like EVERY power has been abused. You know, like the Patriot Act. We were told that it wouldn't be abused, we were told that it would be used to curb terrorism. BULL. Now we are talking about the torture of human beings. It has to start somewhere. Why not here right?

Those arguments apply to everything. If we allow any searches at all, then the police will just walk in wherever they feel like. If we allow the police to shoot "bad guys" then the police will just gun down random people. If we allow....

I would think that folk who are interested in their gun rights would be sensitive to that form of argument. "If we allow people to carry concealed then blood will run in the streets." It's the exact same argument. If it's valid for you, it's valid against you.

I don't happen to think it's valid in either direction.

The solution isn't to ban anything that might be abused. That way basically means abandoning everything.The solution is to codify when and where it might be properly used and keep a sharp eye out for the abuses and drop the hammer on them. It's part of that "eternal vigilance" that is the price of liberty.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I guess what I would like to see is a limiting of government power. History shows that we have lost rights slowly over time.

A while back in this thread we had a Gulf war vet, Blue Tile Spook, talk about fighting with honor. Was that post lost? Did no one read it? How is fighting with honor, no matter how hard it is, lost? Is it only instilled in our servicemen and women?

The scary thing is "terrorism" is a blanket word that can be applied to anyone. Just like communism. Please go torture terrorism. Please go hit terrorism in the face. You can't. And this war on terrorism will never end. Rather it went from war with eurasia to eastasia. I mean from communism to terrorism. The point is ANYONE can be a terrorist. Therefore anyone can be tortured. Including an American citizen.

 

[dburkhead]

I guess what I would like to see is a limiting of government power. History shows that we have lost rights slowly over time.

A while back in this thread we had a Gulf war vet, Blue Tile Spook, talk about fighting with honor. Was that post lost? Did no one read it? How is fighting with honor, no matter how hard it is, lost? Is it only instilled in our servicemen and women?

The scary thing is "terrorism" is a blanket word that can be applied to anyone. Just like communism. Please go torture terrorism. Please go hit terrorism in the face. You can't. And this war on terrorism will never end. Rather it went from war with eurasia to eastasia. I mean from communism to terrorism. The point is ANYONE can be a terrorist. Therefore anyone can be tortured. Including an American citizen.

"Fighting with honor."

The French fought with "honor" at Agincourt and Crecy. There's no "honor" in extinction. And there's no honor in letting thousands of civilians die horribly because of squeamishness.

If they're willing to play nice, I'm willing to play nice.

If they insist on war to the knife. I'll give them war to the knife.

Frankly, we do play a lot nicer than they do. They count on it, in fact. If we were to actually play by the RIFs (note: shorthand for Radical Islamic Fundamentalist--not a term for all muslims) rules, the response to 9/11 would have been glow-in-the-dark glass parking lots at Medina and Mecca.

Frankly, if we played by their rules we'd be a whole lot better at it.

It is said that one should pick one's enemies carefully because sooner or later you'll become just like them. Unfortunately, that only works when you get to pick your enemies. We didn't pick Radical Islam as an enemy, they picked us. And they should remember the converse. Sooner or later, the enemy you pick may become just like you.

Recommended reading: "A Desert Called Peace" by Tom Kratman and John Ringo's essay on Option Zero

 

[turnandshoot4]

History shows that we picked them. We took the jews from Germany after WW2 and put them in Palestine. We can go back even further to the crusades. We picked them my friend.

 

[SavageEagle]

History shows that we picked them. We took the jews from Germany after WW2 and put them in Palestine. We can go back even further to the crusades. We picked them my friend.

That's like saying you and I owned slaves. That's an arguement that doesn't work.

Remember, we aren't talking about cutting fingers off like the Yakuza, or putting someone on a bed frame hooked to a car battery. We are talking about waterboarding. While it may be an awful thing to go through, we also aren't talking about American Citizens, or even innocent foriegners. We are talking about enemy combatants that are trying to wipe US of the map along with Israel. And if a terrorist turns out to be an American Citizen, that constitutes treason and he/she's going to die anyway.

Yes, there will be abuses of this power, but as was said before, you drop the hammer on those people. They are breaking the law by doing so. If they declare a drug runner an "enemy combatant", you lock the person(s) up that declared him one and tortured him/her since running drugs is not terrorism.

We have already defined terrorists as Radical Religious Extremeists out to kill as many people as possible. To just start declaring criminals as terrorists crosses the line and those whom do so should be punished, even if that means it extends to the President himself. Period. There can be no wiggle room or they will continue to abuse their powers.

We have given up enough rights last century, how about this century we start taking them back?

 

[dburkhead]

History shows that we picked them. We took the jews from Germany after WW2 and put them in Palestine. We can go back even further to the crusades. We picked them my friend.

And by that logic we can go even farther to the original Jihad. Had they not conquered palestine in the first place, there would have been no Crusades.

The only way we "picked" them was in just not rolling over for them.

 

[DarkLight]

I guess what I would like to see is a limiting of government power. History shows that we have lost rights slowly over time.

A while back in this thread we had a Gulf war vet, Blue Tile Spook, talk about fighting with honor. Was that post lost? Did no one read it? How is fighting with honor, no matter how hard it is, lost? Is it only instilled in our servicemen and women?

The scary thing is "terrorism" is a blanket word that can be applied to anyone. Just like communism. Please go torture terrorism. Please go hit terrorism in the face. You can't. And this war on terrorism will never end. Rather it went from war with eurasia to eastasia. I mean from communism to terrorism. The point is ANYONE can be a terrorist. Therefore anyone can be tortured. Including an American citizen.

But if you don't give up a couple little rights this instant the 'government' can't protect you right now. Don't worry, you'll get them back as soon as the danger has passed. Of course you'll need to give up a few more rights for future protections...and you probably won't ever get back those original rights either; but you will be SAFE, and that is what counts, right?

There is always danger and there will always be an enemy. How can we call them the savages, terrorists, bad guys if we act just as savagly. How can we preach to others that we are the good guys when we torture people in the back ground? War is more than just guys, guns, and bombs. War is in our hearts, and our minds; if we can't win over people mentally and emotionally it will never matter how many 'enemies' we destroy, the next generation will just pick up where the old one left off because we proved to them that we were the 'evil ones'.

Torture like water boarding MAY give us short term advantages (even that is a gamble), but it will only lead to failure in the long term.