|
My athletic cup is "a little uncomfortable".
Torture is torture.
So how then, would YOU get the location of the next attack from these prisoners? Ask them nicely? Promise them 72 virgins in THIS life?
There is NO reasoning with them! They cannot be reasoned with...
The only reason anyone should have a problem with this is if you're trying to rationalize the the excesses that were perpetrated since 9/11.
You can try and ignore the fact that 9/11 happened AND did not change anything, but it did...
9/11 changed everything! Prior to that, we thought it could never happen to us. That people thought like us...
That's not the real world. I mean you can't honestly tell me that the Chinese people think the same way we do. Sure we all share the human experience, but I know for a fact that the Chinese have some very different ideological differences than the rest of the "Western Word"...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
we should be appalled that some members of our administration wish to stoop to the level of terrorists in order to get unreliable confessions.
Hmmmm....
Stand naked with a bag over my face, or have my head sawed off with a dull knife (Nickolas Berg anyone)...
Wow man, really tough choice you've left me with...
All sarcasm aside, Abu Ghraib was wrong...
But not because of WHAT was done, but WHY it was done...
Again, MHO...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
So how then, would YOU get the location of the next attack from these prisoners? Ask them nicely? Promise them 72 virgins in THIS life?
And why should police not be able to beat information out of detainees?
Personally, I prefer to not use euphemisms like "make them feel uncomfortable" when I'm talking about torture. YOU do whatever you want.
All sarcasm aside, Abu Ghraib was wrong.
So why waste your breathe rationalizing the things done there?
|
Just to point out, torture can give truthful information, it is just that it is likely to give false information as well.
Can you provide evidence backing this claim?
Specifically, the part that it is 'just as likely.'
I hear this claim a lot - actually, you're unusually generous to the forced interrogation (or torture, if you prefer) side. I usually hear that it's 'always' or 'almost always' a false confession. Thing is, I've never actually seen any evidence for this on either side.
I have very little specialized knowledge on this point, but I will share the very little I know. One of the most important points I'll bring up is that we keep our interrogation manual secret for a reason. The subjects' uncertainty about what we are allowed to do is itself a great weapon for us. We try to keep high-value subjects off-balance, by doing things they are 'sure' we're not allowed to do.
The Army Field Manual is very strict about no torture, and I agree with that. But those are field soldiers, and our interrogation manual is something used by experts at interrogation. We know, from public sources, that water-boarding could be authorized at some point, and that we have used it 3 times.
Other techniques we know are allowed are the hand-slap (lots of noise, and stinging pain), cold rooms, and sleep deprivation. I do not know what else is or isn't allowed - and please keep in mind, anyone who says they do is either lying or committing a crime by revealing classified info - and if you hear it on the net, it's almost certainly the former.
I note the commonality between methods we know we're allowed to use. We pick methods that don't leave lasting harm on a body. As far as that goes, I think it's a pretty good line to draw. I do know that some people will draw the line much further south of that.
Drew Garrett
|
we should be appalled that some members of our administration wish to stoop to the level of terrorists in order to get unreliable confessions.Hmmmm....
Stand naked with a bag over my face, or have my head sawed off with a dull knife (Nickolas Berg anyone)...
Wow man, really tough choice you've left me with...
All sarcasm aside, Abu Ghrabe (spelling?) was wrong. But not because of WHAT was done, but WHY it was done...
Again, MHO...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Abu Ghraib.
And once again, the actions of our enemies does not justify ours. I cannot justify ours. When our enemies waterboarded US soldiers, they were prosecuted for WAR CRIMES. And found guilty, I may add.
I am of the belief that the ends do not justify the means. I am also of the belief that torturing prisoners makes us less safe. I mean, we've only been condemned by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH), and Amnesty International to name a few. It's not as though everybody hates us now.
Digitalelf,
When one's belief's require one to take a more difficult road, should one abandon one's beliefs?
|
|
Personally, I certainly wouldn't polish up torture with euphemisms like "make them feel uncomfortable". YOU do whatever you want, dude.
Seriously, how would you go about gleaning the information then? How would YOU get the location of the next attack?
This man knows you pose no direct threat to him, so he will either not talk or give you a false information...
How do YOU then, get him to tell you what you want to know?
I'm asking you a sincere question Kruelaid...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
And once again, the actions of our enemies does not justify ours. I cannot justify ours. When our enemies waterboarded US soldiers, they were prosecuted for WAR CRIMES. And found guilty, I may add.
To change the subject completely (which is, of course, a cue that I'm not changing the subject at all), what do you think of the recent Indian Naval action against pirates? Specifically, they stopped trying to arrest them, and simply starting sinking their ships, letting the pirates drown.
This is the traditional method to combat piracy. We, and Europe, have stopped taking that action, being highly concerned about the human rights of the pirates. Of course, the result of that has been a nearly explosive growth of piracy off the coast of Africa. Ships have been robbed, people murdered, and even an oil tanker taken now.
So, should we let their actions justify ours? Should we start sinking pirate ships again - no quarter given? I'd say yes. I think it'll save lives in the long run, and I applaud the Indian government for trying to protect the Indian Ocean from this scourge.
You know, I think I'll go even further, and disagree with your premise. Of course you must justify your actions in terms of your enemies. That is the whole basis behind proportionate response doctrine. It really can't be otherwise.
Taking that back to the original discussion, if we were in a war with, say, England, I'd assume we'd both try to treat military prisoners well. I know when we fought Germany, we treated prisoners well, but punished disobedience very harshly (a chaplain ordered a German prisoner to get water, and he refused because the water would be given to a Jew. The chaplain shot him through the head, and repeated the order to the next prisoner - he went and got some water. This example did, I confess, come as we were processing surrenders, not in a POW camp. I also can't find a link at the moment, so am relying on memory.)
Just another $.02.
Drew Garrett
|
|
Digitalelf,
When one's belief's require one to take a more difficult road, should one abandon one's beliefs?
A friend of mine had this to say:
One should believe in what one wants to believe and hold to it, however one must understand that believing in the wrong thing or failing to believe the right thing, will lead to death in one form or another...
Be careful what you stand for and that you have concrete facts and not spun speculation to make that stand upon...
-That One Digitalf Fellow-
|
|
Lots
I think that the piracy issue is a much different beast. Sinking an armed enemy's ship, even if they are severely outgunned, is not the same as waterboarding a bound, unarmed prisoner. While I certainly would prefer the capture and prosecution of pirates (as has been traditional throughout history, note that Blackbeard had a trial), sinking a pirate ship is certainly not on the same level as torturing a prisoner. I also have to point out that while a person holding a gun on a pirate ship is almost certainly attempting to engage in piracy, a person holding a gun in a middle eastern village is not necessarily an insurgent (or terrorist, if you like). Unfortunately, to my knowledge, some of those we have tortured or held without any kind of trial fall into that last category.
As for the actions of that chaplain, I understand your sentiments on the proper response to opponents and their aggression, but I don't think that just because we did it in the past makes it right. We slaughtered Indians, but that doesn't make it right.
blah blah blah
If I was part of America's multi-billion dollar intelligence establishment I would use the considerable resources which I command to see that there is no need to torture a few cogs in the machinery of terrorism.
I would stand up for the justice that I represent by abiding by its proscriptions despite the advantages it gives my enemies.
Frankly, I think you're getting a little addled over this for no reason. It's not MY responsibility to suggest methods for conducting counter-terrorist intelligence. In fact, my aunt by marriage, whose brother DOES work in the Defense Intelligence Agency and is responsible for such matters at an administrative level - and although HE has never commented on his day to day work with anyone in his family - I do know that HE agrees with my statement above, and with considerable conviction.
And that, sir, is the kind of person who makes me feel like America still is a great country.
Ethics. Gotta love them.
|
|
Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
You know you keep saying over and over that torturing doesn't give truthful statements, so I guess waterboarding isn't torture because we have gotten some very useful info from those we've boarded. :)
|
|
You know you keep saying over and over that torturing doesn't give truthful statements, so I guess waterboarding isn't torture because we have gotten some very useful info from those we've boarded. :)Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
That's not what I've heard...
You know you keep saying over and over that torturing doesn't give truthful statements, so I guess waterboarding isn't torture because we have gotten some very useful info from those we've boarded. :)Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
Information that is elicited under duress still needs to be vetted.
Just because you get correct information from someone doesn't mean that all the information you get by torturing people is accurate.
That's not what I've heard...You know you keep saying over and over that torturing doesn't give truthful statements, so I guess waterboarding isn't torture because we have gotten some very useful info from those we've boarded. :)Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
You've heard wrong. You need to quit listening to these garbage news sources and listen to the people who are involved directly in the war on terror.
|
|
You've heard wrong. You need to quit listening to these garbage news sources and listen to the people who are involved directly in the war on terror.That's not what I've heard...You know you keep saying over and over that torturing doesn't give truthful statements, so I guess waterboarding isn't torture because we have gotten some very useful info from those we've boarded. :)Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
Sorry, but I trust my "garbage news sources" more than my current president at this point. If his administration lied about torturing and having secret prisons, why wouldn't they lie about their efficacy? I need specifics abut supposed "attacks" that were stopped because we tortured a few people. My garbage news sources have shown themselves to be much more reliable than the executive branch over the last 8 years. And as Kruelaid said, information gleaned from prisoners has to be verified by other, more accurate methods before it can even be considered reliable. So, not only is it morally reprehensible, but torture appears to be largely useless as an information gathering tool.
|
Since we have gotten on the subject, I figured it would be useful to have a working definition of torture. Here it is:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
So the next question becomes is waterboarding, sleep deprevation, being subjected to Ozzy records, etc. bad enough to constitute severe suffering. In the case of listening to Ozzy, I would say yes ;p However, having experience other "enhanced interogation techniques" in the course of my military training I would say that while they are discomforting, they are not torture. Arguably, if you buy into the "shining city on a hill" ideal then America should strive to rise above the standard. However, there is an objective standard of what constitutes torture and we should keep that in mind as we discuss the subject. The rest of the convention can be found here.
Sorry, but I trust my "garbage news sources" more than my current president at this point. If his administration lied about torturing and having secret prisons, why wouldn't they lie about their efficacy? I need specifics abut supposed "attacks" that were stopped because we tortured a few people. My garbage news sources have shown themselves to be much more reliable than the executive branch over the last 8 years. And as Kruelaid said, information gleaned from prisoners has to be verified by other, more accurate methods before it can even be considered reliable. So, not only is it morally reprehensible, but torture appears to be largely useless as an information gathering tool.You've heard wrong. You need to quit listening to these garbage news sources and listen to the people who are involved directly in the war on terror.That's not what I've heard...You know you keep saying over and over that torturing doesn't give truthful statements, so I guess waterboarding isn't torture because we have gotten some very useful info from those we've boarded. :)Digitalelf -
I recommend you read this article about torture. Granted, it is an opinion piece, but he cites sources and does not use much hyperbole.
Uh, did I mention the president? Listen to those who in the CIA. Your news sources are garbage my friend. Over the last few weeks I have heard you state over and over inaccurate information. So either your news sources are inaccurate, or you're not telling the truth. Which one is it?
...but torture appears to be largely useless as an information gathering tool.
My understanding is that when torture is conducted by someone with a background in psychology and medicine, and combined with proper vetting, analysis, and effective integration with other intelligence sources -- it can sometimes be useful.
But checking must be rigorous, because much of the responses that it elicits are just things people say under extreme duress and have no basis in fact.
That said, I've never really read up on this much so I may be wrong. My information comes studies of police interrogation that I browsed for a psych paper.
I stand by my belief that America has far more effective means of intelligence gathering at its disposal, and when those means are deployed well AND ACTED ON FOR F%++'S SAKE, the few guys who cough up some facts are really insignificant.
Personally I think the positive hits that are touted as proof of effective torturing are the same spin we've been getting from this administration from the beginning. Yes, it worked. Now let's hear about all the stuff that didn't work that nobody is telling us about, and THEN we can have an informed discussion here on the boards.
Until then we are ALL (myself included) just puffing ourselves up and spewing bummer out all over this thread.
* Grabs some popcorn and watches the politics discussion*
Beer?
* Grabs some popcorn and watches the politics discussion*
*Connects cables to BF's genitals.*
I said, "BEER?"
* Grabs some popcorn and watches the politics discussion**Connects cables to BF's genitals.*
I said, "BEER?"
LOL! Frogs have small genitals. How did you find them?
|
|
Getting back to the topic here, what's wrong with the "shining city on a hill" ideal? It's sad to see so many people, who I know love this country from what I've read here before, who are willing to just trash the values that we should aspire to just because they're inconvenient. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments, is that not enough right there?
So what does sinking to their level do to us? Will we end up on a slippery slope as time passes? A little taser in the ribs here, a bamboo splinter there, hey, what's the harm, we caught the bad guy, right?
Just for historical reference here, the Gestapo, Japanese Kempeitai, the Pinochet regime and the Kmer Rouge all used waterboarding. Hell, some Japanese were tried for war crimes because of what they did.
Taken from a story:
"Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines."
But now this is okay...?
Getting back to the topic here, what's wrong with the "shining city on a hill" ideal? It's sad to see so many people, who I know love this country from what I've read here before, who are willing to just trash the values that we should aspire to just because they're inconvenient. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments, is that not enough right there?
So what does sinking to their level do to us? Will we end up on a slippery slope as time passes? A little taser in the ribs here, a bamboo splinter there, hey, what's the harm, we caught the bad guy, right?
Just for historical reference here, the Gestapo, Japanese Kempeitai, the Pinochet regime and the Kmer Rouge all used waterboarding. Hell, some Japanese were tried for war crimes because of what they did.
Taken from a story:
"Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines."But now this is okay...?
Comparing the way we waterboard to what these regimes did is like comparing apples to oranges. They were much more intense and would occasionally cause death. Do you think that we would be doing this to our own military men if this was torture? As I mentioned before, I know people who have been waterboarded, including my own brother. Not a one believes that it was torture. Our own David Fryer has had it done to him and he doesn't think it was torture. I trust their words and judgment over what the liberals in the press and Washington think.
|
|
Frankly, I think you're getting a little addled over this for no reason.
I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I'd become "addled over this". Quite the contrary, I love a good discussion...
America's multi-billion dollar intelligence establishment
Uh, didn't old "Slick Willy" compartmentalize this and make it harder for the various agencies to share info? Didn't all this "torture" and "phone taping" also go on during his administration? Or is injustice of this kind limited only to Bush and his Administration of Evil?
WE the little people only know what the media spins to us. We know THIER truth, but we certainly don't know the WHOLE truth (because the media certainly does not have all the facts)...
And didn't Bush try to get things back on track...
Oh yeah, the media stepped in and cried foul...
Besides, Intelligence gathering can only take you so far...
I don't know, I just don't see humiliation (stripped naked with a bag over ones head), or being subjected to simulated drowning as neither severe nor acts of torture. Hell, like it's been said here within this thread, we subject the men and women within our very own military to it, and chances are, if captured, they won't even be subjected to it. No, we'll find them in abandoned alley-ways so badly mutilated that their own mothers couldn't recognize them...
I want someone in office that I feel is going to protect me and my family, so I don't have to worry about when the extremists are going to start blowing themselves up at Starbucks or some other public place here in America...
Think that will never happen here? I refer you back to 9/11 (which, if you recall, was the impossible made manifest)...
Obama does not give me that warm and fuzzy feeling...
Bush had his flaws, but he kept those willing to do us harm busy...
Does anyone here think that if we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan, that the "Terrorists" would just wander off and knit sweaters while drinking tea?
Seems to me, that they would be planning bigger and better ways of killing us (without the distraction of us "infidels" soiling their lands with our mere presence)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
There is NO reasoning with them! They cannot be reasoned with...
Yeah, because I mean, there're barely even people, right? It's not as if they have families, or feelings.
Human beings do not treat other human beings in this manner. No equivocation; period. If you cannot bring yourself to realize how wrong this is, then something essentially human has fallen away from you at some point. Work hard to get it back.
It doesn’t matter what information you get, true or false, lifesaving or not, once you torture, you have become the monster. I have a vision of a perfect world for my son, but the truth is, at the end of the day I wouldn’t belong there. The things I would have to do to provide that world for him would mean I could never be a part of it.
What would the world be like today if, after 9/11, we had forgiven? Now, don’t go all apecrap on me, because I know that’s something I might not be able to ever bring myself to do if my loved ones had died inside, or even with the countless people I didn’t know. Maybe they would have taken it for weakness, and we’d have all died for our principles. On the other hand, maybe, something unprecedented could have happened.
If you want to torture, you go ahead and torture. Just don’t pretend you still get to put the white hat on.
|
|
Human beings do not treat other human beings in this manner. No equivocation; period.
You are correct. Honorable human beings share these things and do not do treat each other in that manner...
Have you seen those pictures of the decapitated heads with a penis stuffed into the mouths? I have. That is how hey treat us!
Have you seen the "Nickolas Berg" video? I have. That is how they treat us!
These are the "people" we are dealing with!
You go and talk to them, reason with them, see why it is that they hate us so much...
I do not think you'll find that "unprecedented" surprise you speak of...
Again I state, if we have to humiliate them to their fellow terrorists by stripping them naked and placing bags over their heads, or "waterboarding" them, if, if for the only reason, that my family can sleep safely tonight without the threat of them (the terrorists) blowing themselves up at the local Starbucks or Disneyland, then so be it!
Does that make me a "black hat"? Seriously? I doubt it, but if so, then that is a risk I am willing to take...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Does that make me a "black hat"? Seriously? I doubt it, but if so, then that is a risk I am willing to take...
It also makes me just as scared of you as I am of them. Mission accomplished.
|
|
It also makes me just as scared of you as I am of them. Mission accomplished.
It was not my mission to make you "scared of me". It saddens me actually that you would be...
What scares me however, is the possibility that "we" have elected a man into the Office of the White House that shares your "world view"...
-That One Digialelf Fellow-
Have you seen those pictures of the decapitated heads with a penis stuffed into the mouths? I have. That is how hey treat us!
Have you seen the "Nickolas Berg" video? I have. That is how they treat us!
These are the "people" we are dealing with!
Yes, I have. But its not how I treat them. Because Im better than that.
Again I state, if we have to humiliate them to their fellow terrorists by stripping them naked and placing bags over their heads, or "waterboarding" them, if, if for the only reason, that my family can sleep safely tonight without the threat of them (the terrorists) blowing themselves up at the local Starbucks or Disneyland, then so be it!
Maybe they will. Or maybe theyll take me and saw my head off with a dull knife. Those are risks I willingly accept in order to be the better person.
Does that make me a "black hat"? Seriously? I doubt it, but if so, then that is a risk I am willing to take...
Yes, it does.
It was not my mission to make you "scared of me". It saddens me actually that you would be...
Youre scared of them, yet youre willing to do exactly what they do. Why SHOULDNT he or anyone else be scared of you also?
So how then, would YOU get the location of the next attack from these prisoners? Ask them nicely? Promise them 72 virgins in THIS life?There is NO reasoning with them! They cannot be reasoned with...
You'd be surprised. I'd check out the FBI's record with interrogating the suspects in the first attack on the World Trade Center and the prosecutions that followed. All without resorting to torture. Not only did they get a lot of good information, it was also legally actionable.
Bush had his flaws, but he kept those willing to do us harm busy...Does anyone here think that if we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan, that the "Terrorists" would just wander off and knit sweaters while drinking tea?
I always find this line of reasoning particularly bizarre. There's a point to getting involved in places to deny training centers for terrorist groups. But that really only applies to Afghanistan since Iraq really didn't factor into that equation.
And as far as preventing attacks - in Iraq we really ended up exposing more people to cheaper and easier attacks than the riskier operations in the US, Britain, and Spain. They were less spectacular as individual attacks, but the thousands of dead and wounded GIs rather undermines the claims that we're really preventing attacks. Unless you consider "keeping them busy" to mean giving them the opportunity to launch a much larger number of smaller attacks while keeping the local population radicalized against us by the conflict.
|
|
Youre scared of them, yet youre willing to do exactly what they do.
Damn right they scare me...
But how do you equate me "willing to do exactly what they do", with what I actually said? I said, humiliate and/or waterboard them. I said NOTHING about us (as a nation) cutting heads off, and stuffing a penis into the mouth of the decapitated heads (which is what they seem to enjoy doing)...
How are the two a similar practice? How are they even within the same ballpark??
Why SHOULDNT he or anyone else be scared of you also?
I am not the one holding a dull knife shouting obstinacies into a camera in hopes of "Pleasing Allah" so I'll get 72 virgins when I'm in "paradise"...
Nor am I the one willing to strap a bomb to my young son and wife in the hope that they will die a martyr's death...
No, no, FEAR ME, because I say humiliate the bastards. FEAR ME, because I say poor water onto their face so that they "feel" like they are drowning...
I better go buy me a black hat now, because I'm just one sick and evil SOB. I'm somehow no better than they are (mind you, they'll kill you and do sick and obscene things to your corpse, but THAT is somehow irrelevant and beside the point)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
I always find this line of reasoning particularly bizarre... As well as some other relevant stuff...
I think Bush did a terrible job of handling the War...
If we would have let the generals on the ground make the decisions instead of the elected officials in Washington, the war in Iraq probably would have been over by now, and with a lot less casualties...
You'd be surprised. I'd check out the FBI's record with interrogating the suspects in the first attack on the World Trade Center and the prosecutions that followed. All without resorting to torture. Not only did they get a lot of good information, it was also legally actionable.
Perhaps, but neither of us were there. Reports that are made public (especially from agencies that tend to keep secrets) seldom contain all of the relevant facts...
*EDIT*
Besides, not once have I said humiliate and/or waterboard every single terrorist captured. If accurate information can be gleaned from just simple questioning, that's great (I do not think that is the norm however. I still stand by what I said, in that I believe the norm to be that they cannot be reasoned with)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
So, what you're basically saying is that the people I know who've been waterboarded and have experienced it are wrong and you and the democrats are right because you're more "enlightened". Thanks Bill for clearing that up for me.
It's not just Democrats. Until he sold out the last vestiges of his integrity to try to get elected, John McCain was vehemently against waterboarding because it was torture. While he's never said he was waterboarded (at least not to my knowledge), I think we can agree that he has more experience with torture than you or your friends who have experienced a view of that world through training.
Now that his presidential aspirations have been dashed, I hope the old McCain comes back out. The Republican side of the aisle desperately needs his perspective on some issues.
So, what you're basically saying is that the people I know who've been waterboarded and have experienced it are wrong and you and the democrats are right because you're more "enlightened". Thanks Bill for clearing that up for me.It's not just Democrats. Until he sold out the last vestiges of his integrity to try to get elected, John McCain was vehemently against waterboarding because it was torture. While he's never said he was waterboarded (at least not to my knowledge), I think we can agree that he has more experience with torture than you or your friends who have experienced a view of that world through training.
Now that his presidential aspirations have been dashed, I hope the old McCain comes back out. The Republican side of the aisle desperately needs his perspective on some issues.
"His last vestiges of integrity"? Even though I'm not a McCain fan I would have to say he has more integrity in his pinky finger that Obama has in his whole body.
|
|
Comparing the way we waterboard to what these regimes did is like comparing apples to oranges. They were much more intense and would occasionally cause death. Do you think that we would be doing this to our own military men if this was torture? As I mentioned before, I know people who have been waterboarded, including my own brother. Not a one believes that...
It is apples and oranges because I doubt our soldiers exposed to it had it done for hours, days, weeks at a time with no relief. And how do you know no one died? Just look up Abed Hamed Mowhoush and tell me nothing happened then or perhaps any other time.
Link.The fact is that these were regarded as war crimes after WWII. In the past, U.S. generals and even Teddy Roosevelt stated that they were illegal. And yet, here we are today saying it's okay. Why is that?
|
|
John McCain was vehemently against waterboarding because it was torture. While he's never said he was waterboarded (at least not to my knowledge), I think we can agree that he has more experience with torture than you or your friends who have experienced a view of that world through training.
I forgot to mention that as well.
"His last vestiges of integrity"? Even though I'm not a McCain fan I would have to say he has more integrity in his pinky finger that Obama has in his whole body.
Then you have a warped sense of integrity. How do you explain sponsoring a bill against torture and then refusing to vote for it? How do you square calling guys like Falwell "agents of intolerance" and buddying up to him at the Libery College speech to re-launch his presidential aspirations? How do you explain hiring some of the same strategists who were punching him below the belt when he ran against Dubya in 2000?
Surely I'm not the only one who watched him sell out and thought it was very unfortunate. I think he tried to figure out what he had to do to win the nomination this time but read the signs wrong, very wrong, and his integrity took a hit.
Comparing the way we waterboard to what these regimes did is like comparing apples to oranges. They were much more intense and would occasionally cause death. Do you think that we would be doing this to our own military men if this was torture? As I mentioned before, I know people who have been waterboarded, including my own brother. Not a one believes that...It is apples and oranges because I doubt our soldiers exposed to it had it done for hours, days, weeks at a time with no relief. And how do you know no one died? Just look up Abed Hamed Mowhoush and tell me nothing happened then or perhaps any other time.
Link.The fact is that these were regarded as war crimes after WWII. In the past, U.S. generals and even Teddy Roosevelt stated that they were illegal. And yet, here we are today saying it's okay. Why is that?
Where do you get that we have been doing it nonstop to certain individuals? That isn't true. Trust me, if someone had died from it the press would have found out about it, playing it over and over and telling us how evil Bush is.
|
|
It is apples and oranges because I doubt our soldiers exposed to it had it done for hours, days, weeks at a time with no relief. And how do you know no one died? Just look up Abed Hamed Mowhoush and tell me nothing happened then or perhaps any other time.
Link.
Based on the description of his injuries I suspect that Gen. Mowhoush was beaten while being held down using towels or blankets of some sort. Unfortunately a lot of our younger soldier, raised on movies like Full Metal Jacket, believe that this is an acceptable way of dealing with "problem" individuals. I even heard rumors of it happening to people in other units once or twice while I was in basic training. The other thing to remember is that the people who did this were in fact prosicuted, which means that it was not an accepted or sactioned practice. Here is a video of some kids beating their friend for being the first to fall asleep. While they did it as a joke, it shows something about our society as a whole and the youth in particular.