REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Waterboarding- the real deal

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, May 8, 2008 15:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5441
PAGE 2 of 5

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:13 AM

FLETCH2


Hummm, Can't we just decide not to do stuff like this as a matter of principle? I mean we're smart, we're tech savvy and we're not religious nutballs (well, most of us.) I'm pretty sure we could come up with far more effective techniques than this?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:18 AM

CHRISISALL


Have we abandoned sodium pentath...TRUTH SERUM?

Ask me a question that normally I would lie to Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:23 AM

FLETCH2


Well truth serum doesn't work but there are technologies that can determine if you are lying by measuring the activity and delay in certain parts of the brain. Put simply it takes more effort to lie, even for people trained to be deceptive, and we are getting close to being able to determine that in real time.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:28 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I once chocked on a biscuit. I’m pretty sure that I was inches from death and it was probably luck that the wad of saggy biscuit dislodged before I lost consciousness. That was worse then waterboarding, because I might have actually died.

Ah ya big baby, I regularly choke near to unconsciousness from swallowin' stuff down the wrong pipe (I must have ADD), it just takes the proper ugchughhhf to dislodge something, and sometimes it takes a moment or two, that's NOTHING like having your lungs rudely introduced to H2O, not even close.

That’s not what waterboarding is either.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:30 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
there are technologies that can determine if you are lying by measuring the activity and delay in certain parts of the brain.

Fletch, you're talkin' about tossing the training manuals on interrogation here...no one likes to be put out of a job...

CIA

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:41 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not what waterboarding is either.


Sorry, I understood it to be drowning someone, but not really- I thought water entered the lungs, do I understand incorrectly?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:47 AM

CHRISISALL


From Wiki:
Quote:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]
Sounds like water's in the lungs to me....

Badisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:56 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
God, you're evil.

And there we have it. It must be a very simplistic life you lead to ignore anything that might contribute to some degree of understanding beyond your ideology. It’s not enough to disagree with the use of waterboarding on the true merits of what waterboarding, you have to pretend it’s something its not and paint anyone who doesn’t except this one-sided view as stupid or evil. You don’t have any perspective and you don’t want any.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero



You keep ignoring that our government considered it torture when they were convicting the Japanese for it.

I guess it's just not torture when we do it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 11:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So, I take it you don't admit the perspective of a Pol Pot torture survivor who says waterboarding is torture ?- Rue

You go educate yourself on who and what Pol Pot was, and then we’ll talk about perspective- Finn

My god Finn, have you lost your brain somewhere? Yeah, I think we all know who Pol Pot was, and the Khmer Rouge, and knowing all that only makes Rue's point stronger because even the man who experienced Pol Pot's torture says that waterboarding is torture. And I would say THAT guy has a well-founded perspective... which is a helluva more than I can say for you!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 12:04 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

So, I take it you don't admit the perspective of a Pol Pot torture survivor who says waterboarding is torture ?- Rue

You go educate yourself on who and what Pol Pot was, and then we’ll talk about perspective- Finn

My god Finn, have you lost your brain somewhere? Yeah, I think we all know who Pol Pot was, and the Khmer Rouge, and knowing all that only makes Rue's point stronger because even the man who experienced Pol Pot's torture says that waterboarding is torture. And I would say THAT guy has a well-founded perspective... which is a helluva more than I can say for you!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.



You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what someone who was actually there experienced. If you disagree with Bush or Finn, you clearly have no perspective. Period. End of discussion.

That man clearly has no perspective on the issue, because he doesn't know what it takes to battle islamo-facists, the way Finn has - because he's been out there, in the trenches, fighting them himself. With his keyboard.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 12:04 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
In its humane zeal to protect the world from terrorist killers the US kills by the hundreds of thousands. But it's different b/c the US uses bombs and the terrorists use ...... uh, ............

Yeah, that makes sense.




Both those killed by terrorist bombs and those killed accidentally by US bombs are the victims of the terrorists. If we did nothing thousands more would die in the future because we failed to act now. I suppose your solution is for us to lay down arms and sing kumbaya with the terrorists. Our failure to follow through in Vietnam is one of the reasons the Khmer Rouge were free to kill millions. But of course you think the the US and the Khmer Rouge are morally equivalent, so I can see how seeing the distinction between collateral damage and intentional killing of innocents would escape you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 12:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Both those killed by terrorist bombs and those killed accidentally by US bombs are the victims of the terrorists
Because he made me! He started it!

Typical playground response. Are you saying that the only way to fight terrorism is to become terrorists? That there is no other effective way of dealing with an ideology other than killing a lot of people, including innocent bystanders? I thought we were wiser than that, smarter than that. I guess not. Or at least you're not.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 12:37 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Hummm, Can't we just decide not to do stuff like this as a matter of principle? I mean we're smart, we're tech savvy and we're not religious nutballs (well, most of us.) I'm pretty sure we could come up with far more effective techniques than this?

And we have, but there is no such thing as a perfect interrogation technique and what works on some will not work on others and visa versa. Although there is a line I’m not willing to cross, methods of interrogation that might save lives should not be simply tossed out without consideration. If a person commits a crime, maybe he is tortured by the presence of a stable government with a legal system and a law enforcement force. And although there are people who seem to believe that we should get rid of government for this reason or something similar to it, most people would be in favor of this kind of torture. However, the anti-torture point of view often seems to take pretty extreme views. I remember on this board discussion in which people tried to argue that sleep deprivation was torture or tearing up a Koran was torture. The point being that torture is not some big black obelisk with distinct boundaries. There is a continuum, and the question is not about principle, because my guess is that everyone would be opposed to torture at some level - the question is where is the line drawn. Although people like rue and signym like to frame it as if the delineation is so clear that if you don’t agree with them you’re an idiot or evil, the truth is that it has been nearly impossible to draw that line. I’m not willing to simply eliminate from the military arsenal a tool that could be of some use in certain extreme circumstances if that tool proves to save lives. That’s the principle we should be keeping our eye on - how effectively are we protecting the people and how many lives are we saving, because when it finally comes right down to it, there are no good and bad tactics, only tactics that best serve to protect the people and save lives and those that don't or those that do the opposite.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 1:04 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sorry, I understood it to be drowning someone, but not really- I thought water entered the lungs, do I understand incorrectly?

I guess it depends a lot on who’s doing it. Certainly you can poor water down someone’s lungs as a form of torture, which is something that I would be against, but that’s not what waterboarding is or supposed to be. Waterboarding simulates drowning, it’s not supposed to cause it.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 2:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Storymark wrote:
Friday, May 02, 2008 07:09

You fuckin' rightie wingnuts and your moral relativism make me sick.



Your being sick is a tiny price to pay for the safety of this country.






It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 2:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Finn, waterboarding IS torture. It is partial drowning. Saying that waterboarding is not torture because the person didn't drown is like saying that electric shock is not torture because the victim wasn't electrocuted.

Who says that it's torture? OUR GOVERNMENT DID when we prosecuted the Japanese for it. People who've experienced it say it is. International conventions say so. The Catholic Church says so. Even John McCain, who knows something about torture, said it's torture. And here is a detailed description from a JAG officer:
Quote:

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted....

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it. ... After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

It was used in the Spanish Inqusition and by Pol Pot. Now, I know this is difficult for you to accept... that WE would, in fact, torture people to get information. But facts are facts. We did, and we do.
Either suck it up and say "Tough times call for even tougher measures" or say we should stop torturing people, but stop hiding your head up your butt because you can't abide uncomfortable facts.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 3:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


It was a Pol Pot Cambodian torture survivor who said waterboarding is severe torture. And who, of his own volition, and from his own experience, rendered it in his torture gallery - to memorialize what tortures were done.

The US has done exactly the same thing to its prisoners.

***************************************************************
Maybe you're just having a hard time wrapping your head around that. Give it time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 4:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Either suck it up and say "Tough times call for even tougher measures" or say we should stop torturing people
You know, I don't agree with Rap on practically anything. But I'll have to say this for him, he is at least honest about what he really stands for.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 6:24 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
You keep ignoring that our government considered it torture when they were convicting the Japanese for it.

I guess it's just not torture when we do it.



Do you study history? I mean, really study it? Hypocrisy has always been at least as big a part of traditional American government as popular elections. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Centuries of saying one thing, then doing the other has gotten us where we are today, the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world.

Have no illusions, the United States has never been the pure, completely moral society that we would like to believe, and it never will be, because acting solely on the vaguely judeo-christian ethical system most Americans subscribe to is not how nations get ahead. When you base national policy on unrealistic ideals, you inevitably fail. Just look at the old Communist governments. The ones that struggled to stay true to Marx's vision failed, because it was a flawed vision. The ones that sold out, did the pragmatic thing and instituted reform, and relaxed their rigid restrictions, are still around, and, if China and North Korea are any indication, are still going strong. Look at all these petty revolutions that happen around the world every year. Look at what happens when the victors try to apply their vision of a utopian society to reality. Ever wonder why there are so many failed states out there?

Realistically, torture of any sort is iffy. Too little, and it can be resisted, too much and the subject will spout any lie to relieve the pain. What's more effective is the fear of torture. What we should be doing is telling the world that we ruthlessly torture our prisoners, regardless of whether we actually do. When this "War on Terror" began, enemy operatives were blatantly overconfident about being captured, because they "knew" that Americans were too soft to use really harsh measures on them. Tell them they're wrong. Better yet, show them they're wrong. Watch how much easier it becomes to break them without resorting to torture.

Just be realistic. Morality is irrelevant to the dead. If a greater end is achieved, the means are justified.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 6:45 PM

STORYMARK


So, we've always been assholes, so why stop?

At least you'll admit to the hypocricy. I can give that a level of respect, even if I don't agree that makes it okay.

But it's better than Finn is capable of, he who keeps ignoring the points that don't support him.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 9:00 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Either suck it up and say "Tough times call for even tougher measures" or say we should stop torturing people, but stop hiding your head up your butt because you can't abide uncomfortable facts.

One of these days, it might occur to you that you won’t look half a stupid as you do right now if you read what I say and respond to that, instead of responding to some imagined argument.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 9:22 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Either suck it up and say "Tough times call for even tougher measures" or say we should stop torturing people
You know, I don't agree with Rap on practically anything. But I'll have to say this for him, he is at least honest about what he really stands for.




While I appreciate the compliment, sort of, I have to confess.... I never typed those words for which you credit me. But they do come close enough to making my point, that there are few on this board who recognize the real and actual threat that these Islamo-Jihadist pose and how committed they are to forcing everyone to accept their brand of Islam, or die.

These are very, VERY evil people, and thankfully there are some still left who are willing to do what it takes to keep them at bay.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 10:24 PM

CITIZEN


I, for one, would like to thank American's for their anti-terrorism stance.

For instance if Americans hadn't been financing the IRA for 30 years, us Brits wouldn't have a clue how to deal with Terrorists.

Playing the long game there America, good thinking, I like it.



"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I, for one, would like to thank American's for their anti-terrorism stance.

For instance if Americans hadn't been financing the IRA for 30 years, us Brits wouldn't have a clue how to deal with Terrorists.

Playing the long game there America, good thinking, I like it.




That wasn't " Americans" as a whole, Citizen, but Irish - Americans who came here, made $$ and sent some of it back. You make is sound as if there was wide spread, whole sale support for the Irish. I'd say 97% of Americans had no clue what was going on w/ respect to the funding of the IRA or why Catholics and Protestants couldn't get along over there.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:54 AM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How'd you like to know your son can operate nearly as low as a real terrorist? He'd have some funny stories for the dinner table come the holidays, eh? "Yeah, they taught us that when you see blood being coughed up, you have to stop for a few hours- pass the mashed potatoes, please."

You KILL the bad guys if you have to, you don't swim in the same sewer of depravity that they do.


That's a bunch of bull, and your moral equivalency of the issue puts you in the Rev. Wright category. If some terrorists or Al Qaida was holding hostage someone I loved, or cared about, or liked, or just knew I'd do anything to get them back if we had one of their's to question. And the same goes true if there was information about a threat against my country. Christ, pouring some water on these animals is actually a favor for them in terms of their personal hygiene.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 2:46 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How'd you like to know your son can operate nearly as low as a real terrorist? He'd have some funny stories for the dinner table come the holidays, eh? "Yeah, they taught us that when you see blood being coughed up, you have to stop for a few hours- pass the mashed potatoes, please."

You KILL the bad guys if you have to, you don't swim in the same sewer of depravity that they do.


That's a bunch of bull, and your moral equivalency of the issue puts you in the Rev. Wright category. If some terrorists or Al Qaida was holding hostage someone I loved, or cared about, or liked, or just knew I'd do anything to get them back if we had one of their's to question. And the same goes true if there was information about a threat against my country. Christ, pouring some water on these animals is actually a favor for them in terms of their personal hygiene.


It's easy to be outraged by the use of torture by the evil monsters in the government, but if you put it on a personal level like Riverlove does it gets easier to see how it might be required in some situations. If the Kirkules family and the Chrisisall family were being held by terrorists and were going to be beheaded in one hour, I would have no problem turning over a terrorist captive to Chrisisall for interrogation. He would do what is required to save his family and so would the rest of you, you just see a big difference between it being done by an individual and it done by the government. Water boarding would be the least of the terrorist's worries if they were holding your family and you were in charge.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


RAP
Quote:

there are few on this board who recognize the real and actual threat that these Islamo-Jihadist pose
Which brings me back to... Oh, really?

Think back to May 2001 and be honest: Were you expecting 9-11? Were you expecting a mjaor terrorist attack on American soil? 'Cause if not you were not recognizing the threat of Islamic extremists.

Say, were you for the Carter Admin arming the Taliban with shoulder-fired missiles? At the time, we were all told they were mujahideen which meant- in the American propagandist lexicon- freedom fighters. Did you recognize the danger in that?

I'm gonna make a prior claim to your so-called knowledge, Rap. You obviously feel you're one of the few who "really" knows what's going on. But you mistake panic for understanding, and you also mistake panic for effectiveness. But based on your posts, I peg you as a confused ignorant tool who hasn't a frigging clue about what's going on because you won't look past your comfort zone and THINK about .... well, pretty much anything. So you continue as perhaps the most gullible person on the board.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It's easy to be outraged by the use of torture by the evil monsters in the government, but if you put it on a personal level like Riverlove does it gets easier to see how it might be required in some situations. If the Kirkules family and the Chrisisall family were being held by terrorists and were going to be beheaded in one hour...
Ah yes, the Jack Bauer scenario. It's so disheartening sometimes to see how many people confuse a frigging TV show with real life!

If that were the case then yes, real agents would prolly use torture. But there's no reason to make it "legal" across the board because then it would be applied to all kinds of situations that- amazingly - don't look anything like 24.

Some of you are strict "law and order' types. You believe that law and punishment deters crime, and if laws are removed crime will flourish. If that's the case, then by your own logic making torture "legal" simply allows torture when it's not warranted.

But perhaps the Jack Bauer scenario comes up on very rare occasion: Somebody knows something important and in order to prevent an occurrence you have to get the information out of them right away. At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may. As President of the USA, Commander in Chief, and ultimate world diplomat, the responsibility for breaking the Geneva Convention (which we signed and ratified, making it "the law of our land") should fall on his shoulders.

On a side-note, in the case of violent civilian criminals who generally aren't calculating their actions, laws and punishment aren't a good deterrent. Civilian violent crime is mostly unpremeditated, and consequences aren't part of the equation. OTOH laws on torture are one of the instances where laws WOULD work, because the people who apply torture... people for whom this is "a job"... will think about what happens afterwards.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 5:22 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah yes, the Jack Bauer scenario. It's so disheartening sometimes to see how many people confuse a frigging TV show with real life!



It seems to me that the "Jack Bauer scenario" is exactly what we are talking about here. You act as if the use of torture by our government is widespread. The Feds have used waterboarding three times while Amnesty Int. has used it once. This hardly amounts to the indiscriminate use of torture you suggest. When terrorists with info of a future attack are in custody it's always a "Jack Bauer scenario" for someones family, just not yours, because the odds are on your side.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 5:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FINN
Quote:

One of these days, it might occur to you that you won’t look half a stupid as you do right now if you read what I say and respond to that, instead of responding to some imagined argument.
I read what you write Finn, and I also understand what you mean- prolly better than YOU understand yourself. So I'm gonna engage in a little psychoanalysis here, and if doesn't ring true to you I'm sure it will to people who're familiar with your posts.

It's very important that you see yourself as a moral person. You're not a cynic. Your believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity of human life, freedom, democracy, your way of life. And these beliefs are shining beacons on a white hill.

But then it comes to real life. Actions are taken in support of some beliefs which contravene others. You believe in the sanctity of human life and you're against abortion. But what about collateral damage? You excuse that as "accidental" because we didn't intend to kill (hundreds of thousands to millions of) innocent bystanders. The way you justify very messy "means"- torture, murder, the imposition of tyranny- is by saying: We didn't mean to. It was for a greater good. It's not torture. Not as many people were killed as you think and besides, they weren't "really" innocent. It was technically legal. Worse would have happened otherwise. It's not about oil/ copper/ shipping/ bananas- it's about freedom. You will find a way to justify ANY means, including thermonuclear war, using some sort of "greater good" theory. Your righteousness is dangerous, because if anyone is a practitioner of moral relativism, it's you.

I've learned quite a few things from this board. I learned one huge lesson by comparing your ideology to real life, and what I've figure out is that bad means most often create bad ends: blowback. Taking over Iran via the Shah created Khomeini. Arming the Taliban and supporting Hussein created monsters. Turning South and Central America into our economic colonies created poverty, continuous revolutions, and an immigration problem that can't be stopped. Granting China MFN status when they were using prison (slave) labor drained away our jobs.

We should have walked our talk instead of aiming for World Domination. Sure, we wouldn't have become the world Imperial Power but we'd have a helluva higher standard of living and I think we'd be a lot more secure than we are now.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 5:32 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
RAP
Quote:

there are few on this board who recognize the real and actual threat that these Islamo-Jihadist pose
Which brings me back to... Oh, really?

Think back to May 2001 and be honest: Were you expecting 9-11? Were you expecting a mjaor terrorist attack on American soil? 'Cause if not you were not recognizing the threat of Islamic extremists.

Say, were you for the Carter Admin arming the Taliban with shoulder-fired missiles? At the time, we were all told they were mujahideen which meant- in the American propagandist lexicon- freedom fighters. Did you recognize the danger in that?

I'm gonna make a prior claim to your so-called knowledge, Rap. You obviously feel you're one of the few who "really" knows what's going on. But you mistake panic for understanding, and you also mistake panic for effectiveness. But based on your posts, I peg you as a confused ignorant tool who hasn't a frigging clue about what's going on because you won't look past your comfort zone and THINK about .... well, pretty much anything. So you continue as perhaps the most gullible person on the board.




How many shoulder rocket attacks have we had here in the US the past 28 yrs ? Oh, none? Ok. You clearly forget the REASON why we helped the actual freedom fighters in Afghanistan, don't you ? The Soviet Union's quest for a warm water port, a well as being one step closer to the Mid East oil fields.

So, ignoring your inane comments about " panic " and " the most gullible " , I'll simply write you off as just another one of those clueless myrmidons who thinks every culture is equally nice, until provoked. And then there's nothing under the sun they can do wrong to avenge what ever supposed wrong has fallen upon them. You continue to come up w/ what ever excuse you want to make for the Islamo-fascist. Whether it's that we created them, ( we didn't ) or that if only we'd leave Iraq, they'd be nice to us ( an absurd notion ) or what ever else your vapid little mind can come up w/, so long as you don't have to face the facts.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 5:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It seems to me that the "Jack Bauer scenario" is exactly what we are talking about here. You act as if the use of torture by our government is widespread. The Feds have used waterboarding three times while Amnesty Int. has used it once. This hardly amounts to the indiscriminate use of torture you suggest. When terrorists with info of a future attack are in custody it's always a "Jack Bauer scenario" for someones family, just not yours, because the odds are on your side.
Did you read my post? I said (and gosh, I apologize for repeating myself for people who can't read, but it appears necessary:
Quote:

[But perhaps the Jack Bauer scenario comes up on very rare occasion: Somebody knows something important and in order to prevent an occurrence you have to get the information out of them right away. At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may. As President of the USA, Commander in Chief, and ultimate world diplomat, the responsibility for breaking the Geneva Convention (which we signed and ratified, making it "the law of our land") should fall on his shoulders.
That doesn't mean re-defining torture as non-torture, or making torture legal. It means breaking the law and taking the consequences. What the Bush Administration wanted was to have their cake and eat it too.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 5:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You clearly forget the REASON why we helped the actual freedom fighters in Afghanistan, don't you
So, what did we have against the Soviets in Afghanistan? They built roads and hospitals and airports. They built schools, and educated women to the point where half of the doctors were women. Meanwhile, the so-called "freedom fighters" included Osama bin Laden and similar religious fanatics whose main ambition- one that we helped them realize- was to turn Afghanistan into a concentration camp for women, in which millions of people starved. So now we have a failed state controlled by warlords and religious fanatics with opium as its major export.

Great.

Just what we wanted.

And what interest did we have in Afghanistan anyway? Sometimes you have to judge who your greater enemy is. Now, IMHO ANY government that advances the causes of stability, prosperity, and human rights within its borders, and which does not have imperial designs on its neighbors, is a plus. And I use that as a rule of thumb to define our real national interest, and we should be promoting that instead of stumbling from one crisis du jour to another. We should have been HELPING the Soviet Union bring Afghanistan into the modern world, instead of dragging it back into the stone age.
Quote:

The Soviet Union's quest for a warm water port, a well as being one step closer to the Mid East oil fields.
So WTF do we care if they had a warm-water port or not? It's not as if they're taking one of ours, is it? I mean, we'd still have plenty of our own, wouldn't we? And what the hell would they want with the Mideast oil fields? They've got plenty of their own.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 5:59 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...there are few on this board who recognize the real and actual threat that these Islamo-Jihadist pose and how committed they are to forcing everyone to accept their brand of Islam, or die.

These are very, VERY evil people, and thankfully there are some still left who are willing to do what it takes to keep them at bay.



The questions of their vicious intent, and the actual threat they pose, are very different concerns. You can't seem to separate the two, but they're aren't remotely the same thing. The fact of the matter is, they are no significant threat to our nation - except in their ability to inspire fear and panic. And even then, the fear and panic aren't a significant danger to our national survival, unless people use it as an excuse to undermine our national values. Which is what YOU are doing.

The terrorists are very dangerous as a criminal threat, but they aren't an army and have no real ability to challenge our existence as a sovereign nation.

Regardless, this is all a smokescreen. The real issue isn't whether serious action should be taken to counter the terrorist's efforts. Despite your claims, we all agree on that. The issue is that you and others are eager to toss aside fundamental freedoms and protection in favor of fascist, police-state tactics. What you can't seem to understand is that doing that actually caters to the terrorists' goals, and maximizes the effect of their fleeting attacks.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 7:56 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

It's easy to be outraged by the use of torture by the evil monsters in the government, but if you put it on a personal level like Riverlove does it gets easier to see how it might be required in some situations. If the Kirkules family and the Chrisisall family were being held by terrorists and were going to be beheaded in one hour...
Ah yes, the Jack Bauer scenario. It's so disheartening sometimes to see how many people confuse a frigging TV show with real life!

If that were the case then yes, real agents would prolly use torture. But there's no reason to make it "legal" across the board because then it would be applied to all kinds of situations that- amazingly - don't look anything like 24.

Some of you are strict "law and order' types. You believe that law and punishment deters crime, and if laws are removed crime will flourish. If that's the case, then by your own logic making torture "legal" simply allows torture when it's not warranted.

But perhaps the Jack Bauer scenario comes up on very rare occasion: Somebody knows something important and in order to prevent an occurrence you have to get the information out of them right away. At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may. As President of the USA, Commander in Chief, and ultimate world diplomat, the responsibility for breaking the Geneva Convention (which we signed and ratified, making it "the law of our land") should fall on his shoulders.

On a side-note, in the case of violent civilian criminals who generally aren't calculating their actions, laws and punishment aren't a good deterrent. Civilian violent crime is mostly unpremeditated, and consequences aren't part of the equation. OTOH laws on torture are one of the instances where laws WOULD work, because the people who apply torture... people for whom this is "a job"... will think about what happens afterwards.

This is how Signym rationalizes her position. On one hand she attacks people who even suggest that such measures should ever be used, then on another she confesses that there are situations in which they should be used. The difference is that Signym wants the law to be broken. It makes her feel more comfortable if we torture people against the law and the President is the one who takes sole responsibility for it. That way she can have her cake and eat it too. She supports the use of torture, while not having to take responsibility for that position. Very brave of you signym.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:03 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
God, you're evil.

So now that we all know that Signym supports the use of torture, would you like to extend this accusation of evilness to Signym, or change your point of view too?



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 9:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"That doesn't mean re-defining torture as non-torture, or making torture legal. It means breaking the law and taking the consequences. What the Bush Administration wanted was to have their cake and eat it too."

I thought SignyM's position was clear - torture is against the law and should always be against the law. And a person who takes it uopn themself to break the law - even a president - has to face the consequences - in this case being put on trial for war crimes.

Do you have a problem with that ?

***************************************************************
And, dude, it doesn't add up to support.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 10:31 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"That doesn't mean re-defining torture as non-torture, or making torture legal. It means breaking the law and taking the consequences. What the Bush Administration wanted was to have their cake and eat it too."

I thought SignyM's position was clear - torture is against the law and should always be against the law. And a person who takes it uopn themself to break the law - even a president - has to face the consequences - in this case being put on trial for war crimes.

Yes, it is quite clear. Signym has no problem leaving the President out to dry for acting on what she claims to support. It’s intellectually dishonest.

So I ask you again, Signym supports the use of torture by her own admission. Is Signym evil?



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:01 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may."

AH - I suspect the use of the word 'should' is confusing to you. In the context of the entire argument (context is something I know you have trouble with) it means is this - IF you support the use of torture it needs to be kept consequential for the person who orders it -ie the president.

Is that better ?


***************************************************************
And no, SignyM does NOT support the use of torture - as do you; and is not evil - as you ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:14 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may."

AH - I suspect the use of the word 'should' is confusing to you. In the context of the entire argument (context is something I know you have trouble with) it means is this - IF you support the use of torture it needs to be kept consequential for the person who orders it -ie the president.

Is that better ?

So basically neither of you have the intellectual fortitude to face this very serious issue. Perhaps you both need to do some research and soul searching. In the mean time, I think people who have taken the time to honestly evaluate the difficult issues to come to an opinion, like Auraptor, Kirkuls and myself would appreciate it if you would keep your hate for those you disagree with to yourself, at least until you can come to some sort of honest grasp of the issue.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"neither of you have the intellectual fortitude to face this very serious issue"

So basically, you're so lazy, violent, stupid, or dishonest you say it's either torture, or nothing.

Got it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:28 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"neither of you have the intellectual fortitude to face this very serious issue"

So basically, you're so lazy, violent, stupid, or dishonest you say it's either torture, or nothing.

I’ve never said that, nor could any honest person find that in anything I have said. Which once again, demonstrates my point. Until you can grasp the issue with some degree of honesty, please keep this hatred to yourself.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You never asked what I, or SignyM, would do rather than torture. You never considered how torture might be riskier for the country as a general concept in a democracy and as a specific practice which garners enemies.

For you, it's either torture, or nothing.

Got it. Again.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:43 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:

That's a bunch of bull, and your moral equivalency of the issue puts you in the Rev. Wright category.

? Riverlove is unclear.
Quote:


If the Kirkules family and the Chrisisall family were being held by terrorists and were going to be beheaded in one hour, I would have no problem turning over a terrorist captive to Chrisisall for interrogation.

If I were convinced he knew info that would keep our families alive, I'd break whatever bone in his body I needed to to get it, and later, I'd expect to be tried for my actions, which I'd hope would be seen as justifiable under the circumstances...see, cause torturing peeps should be AGAINST THE LAW. Like I would speed to the hospital if my Wife was in labour, and hope a police officer wouldn't give me a ticket once he knew why I did it. Sometimes you break the law for a justifiable reason, but that doesn't mean you're not breaking the law. And for a government to cover their collective asses by making something magically legal for them to do that other governments and regular citizens would be condemned, invaded or imprisoned for is just sheer hypocrisy.

EDIT: but please remember that the above example Kirkules posed is a TV-like one, and in all probability would NEVER HAPPEN.
OK? Are we real here?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:50 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You never asked what I, or SignyM, would do rather than torture. You never considered how torture might be riskier for the country as a general concept in a democracy and as a specific practice which garners enemies.

For you, it's either torture, or nothing.

Got it. Again.

Actually, I’ve considered all those things. You however, have no interest in what I consider or what I think. You labeled me “evil” and Sigym labeled me an “idiot” before either of you had any idea what I think, simply because it is easier to despise someone instead of dealing with this complex issue yourself.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 11:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You say you've thought about all of it. Then you know that torture doesn't work, harms the US politically across the globe, decreases security, diminishes constitutional protections and democracy, and is never going to add up on a balance sheet (except in the fevered imaginations of "24" writers) - and you endorse it anyway.

So, what are my choices to describe you ? You tell me.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:13 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You however, have no interest in what I consider or what I think.

To be fair Finn, you are sometimes almost cryptically vague in your responses...I know that I personally have to read past the actual words you sometimes type here to recognize that not only are you not "evil", your beliefs are actually more in line with those of James Kirk than Khan Noonian Singh...

Just an observationisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:18 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
torture doesn't work, harms the US politically across the globe, decreases security, diminishes constitutional protections and democracy, and is never going to add up on a balance sheet (except in the fevered imaginations of "24" writers)

All absolutely true...but cut us some slack Rue, remember that most of us here were raised by 60's, 70's, & 80's TV, not actual hands-on parents...it's no wonder that our perceptions of reality are, shall we say, infected with a propensity towards drama.



Dirty Harry Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:21 PM

RIGHTEOUS9



What I want is for our officers to understand how important our laws are...how important our constitution is, how above all those things are to be upheld by them...

so that, if it came down to it and they felt a moral imperitive to do something against our laws for the sake of this country's immediate safety, they would not make the decision based on whether or not they could get into trouble. They would make the decision based on an unquibbleable neccesity,

and that yet, they would be so beholden to our country's ideals that they would understand why laws against such actions must be in existence and must be enforced. They shouldn't be going so far out of their way trying to cover their own asses at the expense of our country's core values. They shouldn't be prying the door wide open for easy abuse for anybody who wishes to use the cover of patriotism for something more nefarious. Frankly, I can't understand why any of you would want that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:44 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
They shouldn't be prying the door wide open for easy abuse for anybody who wishes to use the cover of patriotism for something more nefarious.

Zactly.

Succinct Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL