Waterboarding

[Prometheus]

The argument you're using is "bad guy does X, if we do X we are just as bad."

Same argument whether X is shoot/kill, bomb, waterboard, or slice open with a sharp knife.

As for "got the wrong person." What if you miss when shooting in self defense and kill the wrong person?

And afterwards, would you go around telling folk you weren't a murderer even though you killed someone?

And what if you didn't waterboard/torture/whatever and the WMD goes off in downtown, oh, pick a city, in the height of rush hour?

Again, the reasons for doing something and the circumstances surrounding the choice to do it make a big difference as to whether one is "just as bad" or not.

I cannot even begin to try and come up where you can attempt to rationalize the moral self defense of person (or nation) and the immoral murder/rape/torture of someone else.

What sort of warped mind must you have to try and equate defending oneself from a assailant and the killing an innocent child?

Your notion of a "ticking bomb" is laughable at best. You've obviously seen one too many seasons of "24".

As to ACCIDENTALLY shooting a bystander when defending yourself, again it's laughable and pathetic to try and equate an accidental miss and an intentional act of torture or murder.

Seriously man, were the good guys. We have the morals. The "scruples" as you put it earlier. How is our way of life any different than theirs in your world?

I'm sorry but under your line of thinking we should be strapping bombs to our kids "cause thats what they are doing!"

 

[jeremy]

I do not support the use of "water boarding" or torture to get information from an individual. This smacks of the inquisition and the witch hunts. The main reason the military tries to stay away from this is not necessarily the legality of the issue, but more of are you really going to get reliable information from someone who knows that you are going to cause them a lot of pain and possibly kill them. Ummmm probally not or they would have already spilled their guts out and told you everything already.

Besides "IF" we needed to torture someone that is why we have allies where it is not quite the wrong then to do there.

 

[Prometheus]

This is the problem. That person DOES pose an immediate and SERIOUS threat! They hold the information as to where the bomb is, or the ground attack, or when and where. It's not cowardly to find the where who how and when. If a person is staunch in their convictions as our enemy is, they will not willingly tell you without persuasion. Fighting for your life is nothing compared to fighting for the lives of hundreds of thousands of your Countrymen's lives. Period.

Sorry, we haven't used torture (in the open and accepted anyway) in our 200+ year history (up until the dubya anyway).

Using your logic you cannot tell me that we need torture now and didn't need it during the Revolution.. or during the war of 1812, the civil war, WWI, WWII (think atomic bomb race), Korea, Vietnam ect. ect.

Somehow some "terrorist" poses a bigger threat than a atomic armed Nazi Germany? You've got to be kidding me!

Sorry, this plea is, a plea of cowards. William Pitt had it right:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

 

[cox7215]

Well I am going to give it to you stright up........ I have been in this place for a while and I only work in the prisons, yes we should use it, yes it works, and no its not torture, yes its 100% psychological, just remember what they do to use if we are nabed! ...... Just my 2 cents........... R

 

[dburkhead]

I read your first line and I knew I had to quote you. If we torture aren't we just as bad? How about if we bomb innocent people and know it? Are we not the same? How about if we torture people? Oh wait, we do. So then we are the same. The same as the radical islamic retards. If you get cut off on the road does that then entitle you to cut them off? Or do you hold yourself to a higher regard? To a higher standard?

Furthermore, what happens during a gun battle/gun fight happen. I can not prevent the wrong time/wrong place situations.

So your argument is that we should do anything that is necessary to protect our people? Isn't that same argument the same one regarding taking guns out of the hands of citizens? For the government to protect them, the people have to lose a couple of rights.

You didn't answer me on one question, what designates a terrorist?

The reasons and situations do matter.

If we shoot people, are we not just as bad? If one is shot in self defense and another in cold blooded murder, the difference is the reasons and circumstances, not the act itself.

As for your cutting someone off example, the difference isn't "he did, therefore I do" the difference is "he cut me off because he's late for happy hour" while "I cut him off because I'm trying to get to the hospital while my wife is having a heart attack in the passenger seat.

And if it's my wife or daughter potentially dying in the passenger seat of my car then all traffic laws just become no more than advisory so far as I'm concerned.

I see no conflict between taking that position when my loved ones' life is at stake and criticizing someone cutting me off to make two-for-one hour at Joe's Pub.

In like vein I see no conflict between condemning groups that use torture as a matter of course, mainly to terrify others, and the tactics used by the US for the purpose of saving innocent lives. The two are not the same.

At no point here did I make a "tit for tat" argument (although there are pretty strong arguments that, handled properly "tit for tat" is a pretty good way of "training" the other guys to behave civilly), but rather a different circumstances do justify different actions.

There is an easy way for you to prevent ever shooting an innocent person by mistake: don't ever carry or use a gun. Simple. I do not ask you to do that, however. I recognize your (generic you--meaning anyone) right to self defense while recognizing that sometimes that will mean the innocent will be hurt or killed. I justify that by the recognition that on balance more will be saved than harmed.

What designates a terrorist? That's actually a good question. Frankly, I dislike the current tendency to define everything as terrorism. And, frankly, the definition of "terrorist" really has little to do with my argument except that I probably made a mistake in using/accepting the term as shorthand for "the folk we're currently fighting."

However, that said, to me a terrorist is defined by several factors:

• Someone who does not meet Geneva Convention standards for lawful combatants (things like uniform, not targeting civilians, etc.).
• Someone who, in fact, deliberately targets non-combatants rather than military/government targets, for the express purpose of causing fear and terror to promote a political agenda.
• Someone who is not under the control of a state which can take responsibility for his actions.

- The folk who attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut, for example would not be terrorists (not for that act, anyway, but insurgents).
- The bomber pilots on either side of WWII, even when bombing population centers, would not have been terrorists.
- Even the SS of WWII would not be terrorists under these rules ("War criminals" yes, but not all war criminals are terrorists).
- Timothy McVeigh is a more questionable case. Had he spent a bit more effort to deliberately target the ATF offices rather than indiscriminately blowing up the whole area I think "terrorist" would be the wrong term. But he did blow up the whole area with no concern whatever for things like the day care facility; he wasn't an agent of a government who could take responsibility for him; and he wasn't a lawful combatant per the Geneva conventions. Thus, terrorist.

 

[dburkhead]

I cannot even begin to try and come up where you can attempt to rationalize the moral self defense of person (or nation) and the immoral murder/rape/torture of someone else.

What sort of warped mind must you have to try and equate defending oneself from a assailant and the killing an innocent child?

Your notion of a "ticking bomb" is laughable at best. You've obviously seen one too many seasons of "24".

As to ACCIDENTALLY shooting a bystander when defending yourself, again it's laughable and pathetic to try and equate an accidental miss and an intentional act of torture or murder.

Seriously man, were the good guys. We have the morals. The "scruples" as you put it earlier. How is our way of life any different than theirs in your world?

I'm sorry but under your line of thinking we should be strapping bombs to our kids "cause thats what they are doing!"

Please stop with the straw men. I have not made the argument that "they did it, therefore it's okay that we do it." (Note, however, that the Geneva Conventions, under some circumstances, do make that actual argument. Reprisals, that would normally be war crimes, are permitted under certain conditions in direct retaliation for war crimes by the other side.)

You don't get to just assign labels. "Moral act of self defense." "Immoral murder/rape/torture" of someone else. (How about "immoral act of killing someone." "Moral act of saving lives.")

Neither murder nor rape were something I have ever endorsed, so that's another straw man on your part.

I'm going to have to ask you to cite where I have ever endorsed "killing an innocent child" or to retract that statement immediately.

As for calling the "ticking bomb" laughable, is it your assertion that there never has been and never will be a case where information that could save lives has a short "service life" find out in a day, lives saved; find out in a week, too late? The hypothetical was extreme, so stipulated, but lesser examples happen all the time.

By the way. I've never watched "24." Not one episode.

Would any of the various hostages that have been murdered over time have appreciated if we found their locations before their heads were sawn off rather than after?

I'm really wondering if you are even reading my responses. The accidentally shooting of a bystander was compared to the accidentally waterboarding someone who wasn't actually one of the bad guys. Accidents can happen in defending your own life. Accidents can happen in defending our nation. Tragic? Yes. Reason to exercise extreme caution? Absolutely. Reason to throw away effective means of defense? There I draw the line.

We're the good guys, you say? So said the French at Agincourt and Crecy. Being "the good guys" is no defense when the arrows come raining down.

 

[dburkhead]

I do not support the use of "water boarding" or torture to get information from an individual. This smacks of the inquisition and the witch hunts. The main reason the military tries to stay away from this is not necessarily the legality of the issue, but more of are you really going to get reliable information from someone who knows that you are going to cause them a lot of pain and possibly kill them. Ummmm probally not or they would have already spilled their guts out and told you everything already.

That turns out not to be the case. For one thing, what people think they can take and what they actually can take are two different things.

BTW, did you know that waterboarding is part of SERE training in the US military? Do you honestly think the military tortures its own people then has record levels of re-enlistments?

There is the argument often made about how unreliable the information gotten from "aggressive interrogation" (up to and including torture), however, that can be addressed by both how the interrogation is conducted and what specific information one is looking for. The claim is, they'll say anything to stop the torture. Well, that's true. They'll say anything, including the truth. The trick is to get them to learn early on that lies do not get them a reprieve but the truth does.

Besides "IF" we needed to torture someone that is why we have allies where it is not quite the wrong then to do there.

And you have just undermined your entire argument. Contracting out what you're not willing to do yourself is the same as doing it yourself only sleazier.

 

[dburkhead]

Sorry, we haven't used torture (in the open and accepted anyway) in our 200+ year history (up until the dubya anyway).

Using your logic you cannot tell me that we need torture now and didn't need it during the Revolution.. or during the war of 1812, the civil war, WWI, WWII (think atomic bomb race), Korea, Vietnam ect. ect.

Somehow some "terrorist" poses a bigger threat than a atomic armed Nazi Germany? You've got to be kidding me!

Sorry, this plea is, a plea of cowards. William Pitt had it right:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

Nice sound bite. However you don't even believe it yourself. If you did, you'd put down your guns and sing Kumbayah the next time a violent criminal comes around.

That "necessity" is misused doesn't mean that there aren't real cases of it out there.

I'd also suggest you learn a bit more about history. Our hands aren't so lily white as you seem to think. You can start with the Trail of Tears (compare and contrast to the Bataan Death March), or maybe a quick look at Wild Bill Donovan's organization in WWII. You think they played patty cake with Germans when operating behind the lines? Or just ordinary treatment of POW's during the Revolution, War of 1812, and the Civil War. How much of that would be considered "torture" today? Oh, then there are the various Indian Wars, well, pretty much from the time Europeans first set foot in what would become the US until the natives were thoroughly subjugated.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Nice sound bite. However you don't even believe it yourself. If you did, you'd put down your guns and sing Kumbayah the next time a violent criminal comes around.

That "necessity" is misused doesn't mean that there aren't real cases of it out there.

I'd also suggest you learn a bit more about history. Our hands aren't so lily white as you seem to think. You can start with the Trail of Tears (compare and contrast to the Bataan Death March), or maybe a quick look at Wild Bill Donovan's organization in WWII. You think they played patty cake with Germans when operating behind the lines? Or just ordinary treatment of POW's during the Revolution, War of 1812, and the Civil War. How much of that would be considered "torture" today? Oh, then there are the various Indian Wars, well, pretty much from the time Europeans first set foot in what would become the US until the natives were thoroughly subjugated.

So why condone what is going on today? The mentality of "we've had an ugly past, why not an ugly future?" Because some politician told you it is in your best intrest? What rights are next?

Do you honestly want the government to go unchecked?

 

[dburkhead]

So why condone what is going on today? The mentality of "we've had an ugly past, why not an ugly future?" Because some politician told you it is in your best intrest? What rights are next?

Do you honestly want the government to go unchecked?

Will you please stop with the straw men.

What I wrote there was in response to the claim that "we have never...." which was patently absurd.

No, I don't want government to go unchecked. But I also don't want to lose the fight against Radical Islamic Fundamentalism, which would be just as bad. And I don't want to end up watching the country go Option Zero either.

Imagine, if you will, two football teams on the field, one from Europe and one from the US ("football" as each nation understands the term). I'd rather not be the guy playing by European football rules when the other team is playing by American football rules.

And the war we're in (No, it's not a war against "terror." as has been mentioned "terrorism" is a tactic, not an opponent. The war is against Radical Islamic Fundamentalism, however much politicians and the media don't want to admit that.) is of far more import than a football game.

Perhaps you are confident that we can win by playing patty cake and singing Kumbayah. I am less sanguine.

The growth of government in the US is not irreversible even in the short/medium term. A victory by the other side may very well be.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Did you actually read that in the actual act or are you repeating what the Media has said about it? Frankly, I can't find either "enemy" or "combatant" in the text of the Patriot Act.

If it's what you've actually read, could you please provide a reference so I can see it for myself.

If it's what the Media has said, could you please remember that the media lie a lot.

Sorry, David, I think you're right that it was not the so-called Patriot Acts. I did not read it in the Act myself, but IIRC, it was instead the Military Tribunals Act. Again, though, I did not read it in the Act for myself. If memory serves, I read it here on INGO, amidst a discussion of the revocation of habeas corpus.

Thanks for the reminder; I believe I misstated which Act it was several months ago and simply continued the misstatement without realizing I needed to reverify it. I do not have time to review it at present, but I'm sure someone will have quoted it on my return to INGO tomorrow evening.

Blessings,
B

 

[Prometheus]

Will you please stop with the straw men.

TurnandShoots' quote was in no way a straw man argument. You plainly equated past abuses as being reason to justify current and future abuses.

Personally I think you are just frustrated your thoughts on this matter are so easily picked apart by logical deduction.

It's ok, we all have ill conceived notions from time to time. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong when presented with a more logical position. We can't all be right all the time. Even I am occasionally mistaken... from time to time

 

[dburkhead]

Sorry, David, I think you're right that it was not the so-called Patriot Acts. I did not read it in the Act myself, but IIRC, it was instead the Military Tribunals Act. Again, though, I did not read it in the Act for myself. If memory serves, I read it here on INGO, amidst a discussion of the revocation of habeas corpus.

Thanks for the reminder; I believe I misstated which Act it was several months ago and simply continued the misstatement without realizing I needed to reverify it. I do not have time to review it at present, but I'm sure someone will have quoted it on my return to INGO tomorrow evening.

Blessings,
B

If it is a "military tribunals act" I suspect what you have is a codification of existing practice. In every war we've ever fought, who do you think determined whether someone was an enemy combatant (lawful or otherwise) but the military itself?

People talk about review by the courts but military courts (of which the tribunals under discussion are a special case) are courts every bit as much as the one's you'll find in downtown Indianapolis. And, quite frankly, the conventional wisdom is that if you're innocent you're better off in front of a military court; if you're guilty, you're better off in front of a civilian court. And from what I've seen, the conventional wisdom is spot on.

I suspect a lot of what you hear is a matter of someone seeing something in the Media (who delights in not just painting the current Administration in the worst possible light, but is not above outright lying to do it), thinking it's an actual correct interpretation of events. This is called believing the enemy's propaganda.

While I'm not Bush's biggest fan*, I also recognize that most of the "bad" things claimed about him are exaggerations or outright fabrications from the Left. My biggest fear is that the Left will believe their own propaganda and simply assume that the powers they claim Bush has stolen are rightfully theirs since they stole, er, I mean "won", this election.

*Typical of my unhappiness with Bush is the TSA. On 9/11, three out of four airplanes were not only highjacked but hit their targets. The fourth was hijacked but didn't hit it's target, whatever that target might have been. What was different in that case? Simple: the people fought back. The lesson I take from 9/11 is that the best response to the threat of hijacking is to permit, encourage, and facilitate the passengers fighting back. My ideal of "airport security" is from Michael Z. Williamson's book Freehold:

At the airport, the procedure was strange to her. There was no search of her or her luggage, she didn't need fingerprints or retina pics to prove who she was and they had a procedure for weapons safety. She'd forgotten she was wearing her sidearm, as she now wore it out of habit.
[FONT=&quot]"Please clear your weapon, Ms Pacelli," an attendant asked. She blushed and complied, stuffing the magazine and spare round into her pouch. "We'd prefer that you store it in your pouch and in the underseat stowage. You'll still be able to reach it quickly in an emergency, but it eliminates the chance of an accident." [/FONT]

And I am dead serious.

 

[dburkhead]

TurnandShoots' quote was in no way a straw man argument. You plainly equated past abuses as being reason to justify current and future abuses.

No. I did not. You made a claim that was patently false ("we never....") and I called you on it.

You are basically setting a standard that nobody has ever met and then wonder when others question whether it is actually a viable standard.

Personally I think you are just frustrated your thoughts on this matter are so easily picked apart by logical deduction.

Given your accuracy of psychoanalyzing people over the Internet (as demonstrated here), I would strongly recommend you not quit your day job.

Hint: repeating the same logical fallacies over and over is not "logical deduction."

It's ok, we all have ill conceived notions from time to time. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong when presented with a more logical position. We can't all be right all the time. Even I am occasionally mistaken... from time to time

And when you present one, I will. Until then, I'll go right on disagreeing with the vision through the rosy lenses of your glasses.

 

[ruger17hmr]

All forms of torture against other human beings should be prohibited under any circumstances. It is simply cruel and inhumane way to collect information.

 

[dburkhead]

All forms of torture against other human beings should be prohibited under any circumstances. It is simply cruel and inhumane way to collect information.

All forms of violence against other human being should be prohibited under any circumstances. It is simply cruel and inhumane.

How's that work for you? If it doesn't why does your form work any better?

 

[ruger17hmr]

All forms of torture are simply wrong.
Ends do not justify the means!
Does our government have alternative ways of collecting info?
Yes, it does.
Do they work better than using the methods of torture?
I do not have data for it.

It is my understanding that torture is the easiest and most economical way of collecting info. Although, it is debatable how effective the torture is as information gathering tool.

 

[ruger17hmr]

Simply put, there are many efficient and effective methods that do not require violence to collect info.

 

[SavageEagle]

We are nit picking at each other here. This is not good.

Ok look, a crime is a crime is a crime. Torture is torture is torture. Waterboarding is NOT torture. It does no long term damage. If anything, being held captive as a POW is torture in and of itself. You can't tell me being locked up in some dark damp room secluded from the outside world with little to no food and taunts from guards isn't psychological torture too.

So should we lock up POWs because it is psychologicly damaging? We aren't talking about everyday criminals here. Throw that idea away because we are talking about TERRORISTs. People out to KILL, MASS MURDER HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS, MILLIONS of PEOPLE. Not just buildings, not just infastructure, not just the economy, but PEOPLE. You really think there are enough sats in space to track every terrorist that's in this Country? I don't think so. Not when we DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE....

Ok, think about this. FBI is following the trail of 8-12 people (they're not sure how many beyond 8) and they capture 1 but the others disappear. They know from survaillence that they plan a nuclear strike on 3 targets along the East Coast, enough to wipe out 30-40million people all at once. They're smart so radiation isn't showing up on any Sats or Heli-mounted detectors. Time is running out because they were ready to move. You have one guy that possibly knows everything since he seemed to be one of the leaders of the cell.

Now tell me how you plan to stop the cell with the info I gave you. Do you sit around and watch cameras looking for these guys knowing what they look like? Do you use Sats even though they probably ditched everything familiar at that time? Do you use deprevation techniques on the POW even though those take time? Do you pull a "The Unit" on the POW making him think the bombs went off? What would you do?

 

[turnandshoot4]

Honestly Savage, the scenario that scares me is a hypothetical one as well.

The government bans many forms of religon citing it is too "severe." Fights break out when government officials shut down sunday masses. Some of these religous groups that are now a threat have taken up arms, which now pose a threat to our "peace" within the country. The administration passes widespread laws to ban firearms creating millions of criminals, due to them owning firearms. As widespread civil war breaks out congress is held. They decide that waterboarding and other forms of turture should be allowed. The people fighting for their rights are now "terrorists" and deserve no rights. Waterboarding, sleep deprevation, and others are used to get the innerworkings of the revolt under control.

This might be far fetched but we can not condone these acts. They might be used against american citizens some day.



Everyday on this site we talk about a government run amok. Why in the world do we want to give them more power? Because we are afraid?




THEN MY FRIENDS, THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON. THEY HAVE INFLICTED ENOUGH TERROR IN US TO SUSPEND THE BASIC HUMANITY OF OURSELVES.