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

[LaughingCat]

I am posting this quote to display why I find it difficult to return to the Republican party. I find the current argument that "torture worked" a complete and utter hypocricy which nullifies credibility. There are so many redeeming values in the conservative movement. To piggy back on this issue on and join the public outcry is a real sign that the Republican party WILL NOT return to national prominence any time soon. Further, it opens the door for Obama to lead on issues which people would normally reject, but the only opposition is party that believes in torture. If Republicans are not going to distance themselves from this problem, the only viable party of smaller, more fiscally responsible government is the independent party (libertarians will not be taken seriously until they drop their radical side).

"The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy," - George W. Bush, urging the investigation and prosecution of prisoner abuse and torture under his command, June 26, 2003.

Why should GWB's statement not apply to members of his administration justice department who authorized torture?

 

[LaughingCat]

Here's an analogy: Claiming "torture worked" is like winning a race by cheating. The end doesn't justify the means. The only proof provided that torture worked is reciting results from the TV show 24. Jack Bauer doesn't get real results. The writers write the plot and make characters talk. I still cannot believe Justice Scalia referred to "24" when claiming torture works.

Someone please enlighten me in a way that is not simply drinking the clubhouse Kool-aide. Someone please make a lucid argument that justifies the Republican party standing behind this.

 

[clayinaustin]

The Republican has many problems. Their stance on torture is just one of their insane beliefs.

 

[BBB725]

Torture to me is an act by which severe physical pain is done not caring that death could result. Pouring water on someone making sure they won't die isn't torture IMHO.

Would yelling really loud at some one be torture? How about when the police place you in a confined space with mirrors? All mental intimidation but not torture.

 

[LaughingCat]

Maybe every politician and pundit should be waterboarded to see if it is torture. I cannot imagine a deceptive report after that session.

 

[Ratickle]

Wow, not sure how to put it....

If it causes permanent physical or mental damage it is torture. That being said, waterboarding probably is. Mental deprivation isn't. But, I always look at things from my point of view being in the same situation.

If someone had kidnapped my wife, or planted a bomb at my friends school, and I had an accomplice in my custody. Nothing would stop me from torturing him to get the answer to save my wife or my friends and their kids. Nothing.....

And, I would be willing to go to a jury of my peers and stand trial after also. So, where is the line drawn? I don't know. But waterboarding to stop a nuclear dirty bomb attack in LA would be okay in my book. I will never believe we will torture someone just to get them to confess to a crime. But to save thousands of lives????

 

[Ratickle]

Maybe every politician and pundit should be waterboarded to see if it is torture. I cannot imagine a deceptive report after that session.

I believe all seals go through it as a part of training. I also believe Sean Hannidy volunteered to go through it because he believes it is not torture.

 

[Big Time]

I did a report on this in college in the wake of 9/11....took some surveys and did some research. My results were interesting. Most people supported torturing as long as I didn't call it that. I also set up a scenario and polled my fellow peers. My scenario was something to the effect that a man walks into the local police station of you parents home town, says that he planted a dozen bombs set to go off in the next hour and he's not saying where. What do you do? Most people supported some form of "torture", one respondent I remember saying that you stick needles in his eyes until he speaks. On the flip side, those same respondents did not necessarily support gov't torturing....

Is there anyone here on the board that would honestly not support some type of torture/interogation to save your own family members....I would. If I had the chance, I would beat it out of him myself to save a loved one.

 

[Big Time]

Wow, not sure how to put it....

If it causes permanent physical or mental damage it is torture. That being said, waterboarding probably is. Mental deprivation isn't. But, I always look at things from my point of view being in the same situation.

If someone had kidnapped my wife, or planted a bomb at my friends school, and I had an accomplice in my custody. Nothing would stop me from torturing him to get the answer to save my wife or my friends and their kids. Nothing.....

And, I would be willing to go to a jury of my peers and stand trial after also. So, where is the line drawn? I don't know. But waterboarding to stop a nuclear dirty bomb attack in LA would be okay in my book. I will never believe we will torture someone just to get them to confess to a crime. But to save thousands of lives????

Just saw this post....my post pretty much says the same thing. People tend to not support "torturing" until it can save themselves (or loved ones) directly.

 

[Big Time]

"The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy," - George W. Bush, urging the investigation and prosecution of prisoner abuse and torture under his command, June 26, 2003.

Why should GWB's statement not apply to members of his administration justice department who authorized torture?

It should apply, GWB should not have said that if he didn't mean it. Then again, what is the def of torture. Is sleep deprevation (a technique used)torture?

I had a buddy that was in the Green Berets that went through training that was way worse and more demanding (mentally and physically) then any of these micky mouse torture techniques. True, he choose to do that, but then again someone in the position of being tortured is also there because they made certain choices that got them there in the first place.

 

[rbhudelson]

So, where is the line drawn? I don't know. But waterboarding to stop a nuclear dirty bomb attack in LA would be okay in my book. I will never believe we will torture someone just to get them to confess to a crime. But to save thousands of lives????

I think you nailed the question. It is easy for us to all say torture is wrong - because it is. But, at least in my mind, the answer is not so black and white. I can't believe that our country's people would say don't torture the person that has the knowledge to stop a small nuke detonation in LA or New York. I just can't believe it. I would like to think that if that condition ever existed, Obama would waterboard the MoFo himself and if that didn't work to start breaking bones.

I've never really understood absolutes; I would agree that torture is wrong given any circumstance but there are some circumstances that would warrant going medieval on someone.

 

[GregP]

If it took 240 tries among 30 (I think they said, was a very small number) people it sure wasn't very effective.

-g

 

[LaughingCat]

It should apply, GWB should not have said that if he didn't mean it. Then again, what is the def of torture. Is sleep deprevation (a technique used)torture?

I had a buddy that was in the Green Berets that went through training that was way worse and more demanding (mentally and physically) then any of these micky mouse torture techniques. True, he choose to do that, but then again someone in the position of being tortured is also there because they made certain choices that got them there in the first place.

There's been plenty of talk about SEALs and Green Berrets going through it. But we can all admit that we KNOW none of them are actually in danger, or have the fear, of dying during these sessions. It is the same as every police officer being tased in training. They know it's going to hurt, probably real bad. But they also know as soon as they show real signs of distress, it will stop and aide rendered.

 

[LaughingCat]

If it took 240 tries among 30 (I think they said, was a very small number) people it sure wasn't very effective.

-g

I heard that this weekend. If it took 287 sessions in one month to get information out of him, then the first 286 sessions were either 1) useless, or 2) a build-up of anxiety to where the subject decided it was time to say anything to make it stop. The likelihood of finally getting the truth out was dminished with each session.

 

[LaughingCat]

I did a report on this in college in the wake of 9/11....took some surveys and did some research. My results were interesting. Most people supported torturing as long as I didn't call it that. I also set up a scenario and polled my fellow peers. My scenario was something to the effect that a man walks into the local police station of you parents home town, says that he planted a dozen bombs set to go off in the next hour and he's not saying where. What do you do? Most people supported some form of "torture", one respondent I remember saying that you stick needles in his eyes until he speaks. On the flip side, those same respondents did not necessarily support gov't torturing....

Is there anyone here on the board that would honestly not support some type of torture/interogation to save your own family members....I would. If I had the chance, I would beat it out of him myself to save a loved one.

I agree. But in the world of politics, it's not about individual incidents. It's about the court of public opinion. I support a rouge agent torturing a suspect and they move through their investigation, but that's probably becasue I love "24" and cant wait for Jack to torture Almeida for turning sides.

But in reality, we cannot have a program sanctioned by our government. You could easily say Abu Graib and Gitmo were the strongest recruiting tools for Al Queda. And if you are trying to win a war, that was bad. If you are trying to make sure the war continues indefinitely so you can keep making money off it, it was a masterful move.

 

[Tony]

Waterboarding isnt torture, watch the entire series of Rambo movies is you want to see real torture. I think everyone here would unanimously agree that they would excersise any and all means possible to extract necessary info from someone who was trying to kill your wife, children, family, or friends.

Now take a good long deep look at what terrorism really is, those fukers dont want to be our firends, they want us all dead plain and simple.

 

[Big Time]

But in the world of politics, it's not about individual incidents. It's about the court of public opinion. QUOTE]


Completely agree, I think that was what I was trying to point out. I think a lot of people tend to think that "torturing" is wrong and that it doesn't have a place in today's society, but when it hits really close to home then all of a sudden it becomes relavant.


If you ask me, the current administration never should have released such information...there are some things that we are better off not knowing. No good came of it, other then furthering his own parties political agenda.

 

[Ted]

The Dem party has nothing else to offer than their political agenda. This is why you don't give the keys to your car to the 12 year old. We will have 4 years of taking the country down in the face of the rest of the world and then it will take the adults getting back into power to fix it by being hard asses for the next 20 years. Bush had to clean up Clinton's mess and we are still cleaning up Carter's mess. As for these terrorist fux being "tortured" the fact of the matter is that people like them are not soldiers or criminals, they are religious zealot psychopaths. They do not deserve the Geneva convention, and they do not care about the rule of law. And if even one attack was thwarted, tough sh1t on them. The worst thing about the whole incident is how we now look like pussie$ for even being worried about putting a guy in a box with a bug or wrapping a towel around Abdul's neck before we slam him into a wall. And as for SEALS and Green Berets, and Force Recon, they do not go into it knowing they won't die, they go into it with the understanding that others have died before them, during training, doing exactly what they are about to do.

 

[Offshoredrillin]

so according to everyone heres theory, I was tortured by my ex wife. because she caused permanent mental damage. I also saw in a movie once where the toy Gi Joes played the spice girls at full blast... I'll admit it, torture works and i wont lose any sleep over it. If only Nick Berg could find his head, I'm sure waterboarding would be a walk in the park for him.

 

[fund razor]

Now sailboaters, those fukers dont want to be our firends, they want us all dead plain and simple.

Sorry for the hijack, but I just realized how well that fit.