Waterboarding

[archenemy]

Careful.

[tvashtarkatena]

My man nipples are getting hard.

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Crux]

I'll bet Mr. Pearl would have appreciated these rules.

 

Oh wait, only we have to follow them.

 

Actually no, I think the assertion made by BushCorp is that only we DO NOT have to follow the rules.

[Choada_Boy]

 

 

Looks fine to me. People pay for this shit at any good spa.

 

 

[archenemy]

 

Looks fine to me. People pay for this shit at any good spa.

 

People pay for this in my bedroom.

[chucK]

I'm not sure if I'm following your logic either, but you appear to be excusing torture if it will lead to saving someone else's life.

 

I would guess there would also be a caveat that the victim should be a bad guy? Does that bad guy also have to be directly involved in the situation that is threatening someone else's (assumed good guy) life?

 

Rarely are you going to find a cut and dried situation where it is completely clear that a prisoner has info that could save a life. If our government waited until this was the case, I am sure that the instances would be rare enough, and the personnel involved would be well-trained enough that all of our resources could completely keep this practice from the light of day. EVEN with the horrible pinko press wanting to know about stuff. There would be no problem. In fact there's probably plenty of interrogations that have happened that we don't know about.

 

The problem we have now is that torture and very harsh interrogation practice is being signed off on regularly by this administration. This has invariably led to sloppy practices by under-trained troops, myriad exposure to the press and world eye, and probably hundreds or thousands of cases of innocent people being tortured for no reason.

 

Having torture being publicly unapologetically excused at the highest level of our government (the president) also removes our credibility as a humane leader in the world. It also makes any information we report to have gleaned from detainees suspect.

 

There may be very rare occasions that torture can be excused. But we definitely should not be torturing so systematically that it requires a declaration from our president that we won't rule it out.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

There may be very rare occasions that torture can be excused. But we definitely should not be torturing so systematically that it requires a declaration from our president that we won't rule it out.

 

THis is the same specious argument the administration uses. "Only in extreme circumstances", which basically means "Whenever we feel like it." The rule of law, and human decency, at this point, is gone.

 

There is no situation that warrants torture, just as there is none that warrants slavery, or rape, or any other inhumane act. None. You either agree to give up basic human rights as a value, or not.

 

And there is no 'gray area'. That is a bullshit fictional PR campaign brought forth by the administration to allow them to continue doing whatever they want to in this area. The law is clear: if it's inhumane, degrading, or humiliating, it's illegal. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, dogs, mock executions, stripping prisoners and mocking them, disallowing access to a toilet, and all the other 'soft' techniques, by this standard, are prohibited by our own laws.

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[lizard_brain]

 

There may be very rare occasions that torture can be excused. But we definitely should not be torturing so systematically that it requires a declaration from our president that we won't rule it out.

 

THis is the same specious argument the administration uses. "Only in extreme circumstances", which basically means "Whenever we feel like it." The rule of law, and human decency, at this point, is gone.

 

There is no situation that warrants torture, just as there is none that warrants slavery, or rape, or any other inhumane act. None. You either agree to give up basic human rights as a value, or not.

 

Sure, we'll give up human rights if it is for the good of the nation. I think Hitler not only said that, he made it law.

 

 

[JayB]

There's also the issue of striking targets where you know there will be civilians.

 

If all of AQ's leadership were sitting in a building, and had five or six of their family members with them, then striking that building means passing an immediate, trial-free death sentence on people that are not guilty and by themselves pose no threat. Seems like this morally worse than torturing people who you have even the slightest reason to suspect are or have been engaged in acts of terrorism.

 

Seems to me like our distaste for using painful interrogation techniques is significantly greater than our distaste for ordering an airstrike on a compound full of terrorists that may or may not have civilians in it. I wonder why this is.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Seems to me like our distaste for using painful interrogation techniques is significantly greater than our distaste for ordering an airstrike on a compound full of terrorists that may or may not have civilians in it. I wonder why this is.

 

Remember when Reagan bombed Qaddafi's home/complex whatever, and killed some of his wives/children. That shut the f***er up for a while, didn't it?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

For some of us, the distaste is the same.

[chucK]

Didn't you see Star Trek? The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or something to that effect.

 

I think if one were absolutely certain that torturing some person could get information that would prevent, say, a nuclear bomb from destroying Los Angeles, then it would be quite the moral dilemma, to say the least, as to what to do. I don't think I'd be following any absolute rules of no torture.

 

Obviously, this extreme case will probably never happen, but I think this may be the jist of Archenemy's argument.

 

I'm not saying that it should be legal to torture, that guy who knows the bomb secret, or anyone. But I think if it were clear cut enough, that you'd be saving enough lives, then one would be willing to break the law, and suffer the consequences. Analogous to diving on the grenade to save the team.

[tvashtarkatena]

Seems to me like our distaste for using painful interrogation techniques is significantly greater than our distaste for ordering an airstrike on a compound full of terrorists that may or may not have civilians in it. I wonder why this is.

 

Remember when Reagan bombed Qaddafi's home/complex whatever, and killed some of his wives/children. That shut the f***er up for a while, didn't it?

 

Yes, and when Hitler invaded Poland, that shut those fuckers up, too. Good argument.

 

The Reagan bombing really shut up Qaddafi's little girl. Very admirable.

[chucK]

There you go with your specious argument again about Hitler, spanish inquisition, Khmer Rouge, etc...

 

Just cause Hitler said something doesn't mean it's wrong. Think about it, Hitler probably had a beer now and then, does this imply that beer is evil? Probably drank milk as a kid too, etc.

 

ETA my comment refers to Lizard Brain's, not Tvash's. I am not attempting to excuse Hitler's invasion of Poland

Edited November 9, 2007 by chucK

[prole]

Seems to me like our distaste for using painful interrogation techniques is significantly greater than our distaste for ordering an airstrike on a compound full of terrorists that may or may not have civilians in it. I wonder why this is.

 

I don't know about "our" distaste, but it seems that bombing people from space is politically more salable than torturing people.

[tvashtarkatena]

Didn't you see Star Trek? The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or something to that effect.

 

I think if one were absolutely certain that torturing some person could get information that would prevent, say, a nuclear bomb from destroying Los Angeles, then it would be quite the moral dilemma, to say the least, as to what to do. I don't think I'd be following any absolute rules of no torture.

 

Obviously, this extreme case will probably never happen, but I think this may be the jist of Archenemy's argument.

 

I'm not saying that it should be legal to torture, that guy who knows the bomb secret, or anyone. But I think if it were clear cut enough, that you'd be saving enough lives, then one would be willing to break the law, and suffer the consequences. Analogous to diving on the grenade to save the team.

 

This is a completely mythical (but oft quoted) scenario. If, however, you had a suspect in custody who had a high likelihood of having valuable information, offering witness protection has been, by far, the most effective means to get that information in a reliable form out of them.

 

Most high level terrorists captured so far have been ego maniacs. They love to brag.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Seems to me like our distaste for using painful interrogation techniques is significantly greater than our distaste for ordering an airstrike on a compound full of terrorists that may or may not have civilians in it. I wonder why this is.

 

I don't know about "our" distaste, but it seems that bombing people from space is politically more salable than torturing people.

 

I don't know... seems like the appeal of Dirty Harry was how he was willing to step over rules to get done what needed to be done (e.g. shooting a sick murderer in the leg, than stepping on the wound until said perp gave up the whereabouts of a girl said perp had raped, tortured, and killed). If there's another terrorist attack on the US, you'll see a lot of things become more "politically salable".

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Assassination by airstrike does fall under a different area of international law. It is clearly illegal to target civilians. This is the main area of contention between proponents and opponents of this 'problem solving' technique.

 

Targeting the enemy in wartime, of course, is legal.

 

Now, whether or not we're actually fighting a legitimate war is a whole other argument.

[mattp]

I cannot believe how this administration has managed to make an "issue" out of the grey area of whether or not waterboarding is torture. This is a technique that has been defined as torture for 50 years! Our own military people are saying it is torture and we've court marshalled our own soldiers for doing it. And we certainly don't want to suggest that somebody else should do it to OUR guys once they are captured.

 

The question as to whether torture is effective, too seems pretty clear cut: ChucK points out that somebody must think it works but in all of the debate over the last couple of years since the Abu Ghraib scandal was on our newscreen I don't recall seeing a single interrogation expert state that torture is either effective or necessary.

 

What's up with this discussion?

[prole]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

[lizard_brain]

There you go with your specious argument again about Hitler, spanish inquisition, Khmer Rouge, etc...

 

Just cause Hitler said something doesn't mean it's wrong. Think about it, Hitler probably had a beer now and then, does this imply that beer is evil? Probably drank milk as a kid too, etc.

 

ETA my comment refers to Lizard Brain's, not Tvash's. I am not attempting to excuse Hitler's invasion of Poland

 

Oh, okay. Hitler's disregard for human rights was completely worthwhile. Executing the handicapped, retarded, and homosexuals in the name of the good of Reich was a wonderful idea. You are indeed right. I stand corrected. I apologize.

 

:kisss:

[tvashtarkatena]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

Maybe 70's fashions AND B movie vigilante justice will come back!

 

Mod Squad!

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

We're not like you. Thank God.

 

[chucK]

Hasn't Bush already said that waterboarding got valuable information out of three detainees?

 

He must think it works. I think Bush is a jerk, an incompetent and looking out for a lot of peoples' interests before that of the country, but I don't have any reason to believe that he supports torture just because he's a sadist.

 

There's nothing new about Bush finding his own path and ignoring experts on the matter.

[lizard_brain]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

MAKE MY DAY!