Starting debate, not stirring sh!t. So let's have a mature discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like it. We all have diverse views. There are differing levels of torture. Having your head cut off is certainly more deadly than being waterboarded in a controlled environment where the intent is not death. But 287 times in one month only reveals that we had Jeffrey Dahlmer or Ted Bundy in charge. there's no reason for that. If you want to torture him, make it painful and get it over with. But don't dress it up with claims that you want information. You're either going to get it or not.
 
I like it. We all have diverse views. There are differing levels of torture. Having your head cut off is certainly more deadly than being waterboarded in a controlled environment where the intent is not death. But 287 times in one month only reveals that we had Jeffrey Dahlmer or Ted Bundy in charge. there's no reason for that. If you want to torture him, make it painful and get it over with. But don't dress it up with claims that you want information. You're either going to get it or not.

Agreed. After like 3 or 4 attempts, they should move directly to the firing squad. 287 times is ridiculous. No wonder things cost so dam much in the military. Gitmo could have been closed years ago, and saved us so much money.
 
I'd like to see the people that think waterboarding is not torture have it done to them a number of times and get their opinion afterwards. I'll even offer to pour the water.
ed
 
I'd like to see the people that think waterboarding is not torture have it done to them a number of times and get their opinion afterwards. I'll even offer to pour the water.
ed

Did not say it wasn't torture, said if it worked, in certain circumstances, I'd do it and gladly face a jury of my peers to accept proper punishment for reasons I chose to use it.

And if it was your daughter who was about to be beheaded, and you wouldn't, I'd have no respect for your decision or you. But that's just me, it's not personal.
 
I'd like to see the people that think waterboarding is not torture have it done to them a number of times and get their opinion afterwards. I'll even offer to pour the water.
ed
I don't disagree, the point is normal people aren't doing things that would call for water boarding as measure of extracting information. To me as soon as someone joins a force against the US, they are putting themselves in a positon of a warrior, being at war. As the old saying goes, "all's Fair".

If I go out an murder someone in a state that supports the Death penalty, do i have the right to complain if I get sentenced to death?
 
I was not taking a ethical position on torture. I said waterboarding is torture and given the opportunity I could prove it.
ed
 
I'd like to see the people that think waterboarding is not torture have it done to them a number of times and get their opinion afterwards. I'll even offer to pour the water.
ed

+1

I'll take the pictures, Ed.

Some random info on the subject:

If I had one belief in politics, it would be that the freedoms secured by the modern West are worth fighting for. Absolutely central to those freedoms is barring the executive branch from torturing people. No power is more fatal to freedom and the rule of law than torture. It is like Tolkien's ring: no society remains free, if its rulers use it. Its power is banned because it is a solvent to the rule of law, the establishment of truth, and the limits of government. For an administration to secretly and illegally unleash this weapon - against citizens and non-citizens alike - and to demand that it not be subsequently called to account, that it be allowed to get away with it under some absurd notion that it's too divisive to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes is and was an outrage. Punishing those responsible for war crimes is not "scapegoating". You know what scapegoating is? It's throwing Lynndie England in jail for following orders given by George W. Bush, while leaving him to the luxury of a Texan suburb.

The precedent of a torturing American president must be reversed. That means it cannot be allowed to stand.

*

The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq...

*

"As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save," - former senior military interrogator Matthew Alexander.

*

After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

*
I hope all those bastards from bu$hco do time.
They aren't patriots, they're war criminals.
 
And I don't completely disagree with Jay. My only contention is there are certain circumstances where I would do it and willingly face the jurors.
 
I like it. We all have diverse views. There are differing levels of torture. Having your head cut off is certainly more deadly than being waterboarded in a controlled environment where the intent is not death. But 287 times in one month only reveals that we had Jeffrey Dahlmer or Ted Bundy in charge. there's no reason for that. If you want to torture him, make it painful and get it over with. But don't dress it up with claims that you want information. You're either going to get it or not.

Would it have been better to have a 911 attack on LA or waterboarding?

I'll go with waterboarding
 
I like it. We all have diverse views. There are differing levels of torture. Having your head cut off is certainly more deadly than being waterboarded in a controlled environment where the intent is not death. But 287 times in one month only reveals that we had Jeffrey Dahlmer or Ted Bundy in charge. there's no reason for that. If you want to torture him, make it painful and get it over with. But don't dress it up with claims that you want information. You're either going to get it or not.

I don't understand what you are saying. you would have been fine if they tried waterboarding once, then bumped it up to shooting the guy in the foot, then upped that to sticking him in a bath tub with a toaster?

But just waterboarding is bad? Who gives a flying F@#$. They are terrorists. we used to just shoot the bastards so there was no conversation to be had later.
 
Would it have been better to have a 911 attack on LA or waterboarding?

I'll go with waterboarding

Of course not. But soldiers are coming out revealing the truth. they were not waterboarding to thwart terror attacks, but to make a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. That's the controversy. it's not finding out what they knew. It's getting them to tell you what you want them to say. 287 tiimes will do that.

Huge difference between a Jack Bauer imminent threat interrogation and waterboarding Rush limbaugh until he admits he's gay.
 
After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

There were 5 cases where Japanese citizens (one was a Japanese civilian) were prosecuted for torture that INCLUDED as part of the torture charges "water torture." The first problem is they were also charged with much worse things along with "water torture." The second is that the "water torture" that took place then is not the same as CIA "waterboarding."
They were pouring water DIRECTLY into their nose and mouth... When the CIA waterboards people, a rag is placed over the face to PREVENT water from entering the nose and mouth. This is a much harser and dangerous act. -- In some of the other Japanese cases, the "water torture" included strapping people to ladders and dunking them face down into swimming pools until they passed out. This is not the same as waterboarding.
 
um, that whole scenario has been discounted as bs. try to keep up.

Didn't hear that, who discounted it? This the latest I had.

On Tuesday, the CIA confirmed to Terry Jeffrey at Townhall that it stands by assertions credited to the agency in z 2005 memo that subjecting KSM to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation including waterboarding caused him to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.
 
When the CIA waterboards people, a rag is placed over the face to PREVENT water from entering the nose and mouth. .

Your information is incorrect. The rag is placed over the head not to prevent water from getting, but to prevent the subject from being able to expel the water and gain access to air. The wet rag gives the full simulation of drowning (water in the body, air unaccessible.)That is the reason they invert the subject.

If it were as you describe, the person merely cannot get air. This could be achieved by handcuffing the person and taping their nose and mouth shut. No water needed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top