Hitler, Bush, and Torture.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt - why don’t you define “torture” for me.

I’d not have a problem if the pedophiles you keep bringing up (which in itself is puzzling) were say caned in public. Like they do in Singapore.

If that’s what society determines to be the punishment - and or deterrent - to pedophiles, I don’t see myself losing sleep over it.

Take it on a case by case basis. We just have very different points of view. No big deal.

[/quote]

Ok, I’m done. When you have to resort to “Why dont you define torture for me”, you’re accepting that you cant defend your position without splitting hairs or other such nonsese.

42

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Exactly. I can’t believe this debate is even happening in America today, and I’d like to think 50 years ago anyone using Orwellian euphemisms to call for torturing our enemies would be ignored. Now those people are in some of the highest offices in the land…[/quote]

Good post all over.

makkun

43

Is withholding recreational activities torture? Not providing for religious practices? What about isolation?

What of those are legit to obtain information from a Jihadist personality, in an effort to unravel a terror cell already here? I’m having the hardest time believing traditional interrogation techniques are effective enough.

Ok, I’m imagining an Al Qaeda operative has been captured. One that has been sought after, and one that can names and locations. I don’t see myself getting bothered if he’s kept isolated, without recreational time/materials, without access to religious materials, etc. Basically, staring at four blank walls, till he start cooperating with interrogators.

Is that torture? If it’s still torture…I’m sorry I won’t trade hundreds or thousands of American lives to make him more comfortable. Frankly, I think it would be immoral to do so.

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is withholding recreational activities torture? Not providing for religious practices? What about isolation?

What of those are legit to obtain information from a Jihadist personality, in an effort to unravel a terror cell already here? I’m having the hardest time believing traditional interrogation techniques are effective enough.

Ok, I’m imagining an Al Qaeda operative has been captured. One that has been sought after, and one that can names and locations. I don’t see myself getting bothered if he’s kept isolated, without recreational time/materials, without access to religious materials, etc. Basically, staring at four blank walls, till he start cooperating with interrogators.

Is that torture? If it’s still torture…I’m sorry I won’t trade hundreds or thousands of American lives to make him more comfortable. Frankly, I think it would be immoral to do so.

[/quote]

Would you support this kind of treatment for any other criminal?

It seems like the main place where we differ is that I dont think of “terrorists” as being completely different than other criminals.

As such, I dont allow fear of them to make me think differently. Hell, thats exactly what terrorists want, by definition: You get scared and it affects the way you think.

45

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is withholding recreational activities torture? Not providing for religious practices? What about isolation?

What of those are legit to obtain information from a Jihadist personality, in an effort to unravel a terror cell already here? I’m having the hardest time believing traditional interrogation techniques are effective enough.

Ok, I’m imagining an Al Qaeda operative has been captured. One that has been sought after, and one that can names and locations. I don’t see myself getting bothered if he’s kept isolated, without recreational time/materials, without access to religious materials, etc. Basically, staring at four blank walls, till he start cooperating with interrogators.

Is that torture? If it’s still torture…I’m sorry I won’t trade hundreds or thousands of American lives to make him more comfortable. Frankly, I think it would be immoral to do so.

Would you support this kind of treatment for any other criminal?

It seems like the main place where we differ is that I dont think of “terrorists” as being completely different than other criminals.

As such, I dont allow fear of them to make me think differently. Hell, thats exactly what terrorists want, by definition: You get scared and it affects the way you think. [/quote]

Sorry man, but I’m not trading away the lives of hundreds/thousands of my fellow citizens, so a man that fights in a way to deliberately maximize civilian casualties on both sides, can get rec. time and religious materials. If the methods I posted above are torture, I hereby express my support for those torture methods.

46

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is withholding recreational activities torture? Not providing for religious practices? What about isolation?

What of those are legit to obtain information from a Jihadist personality, in an effort to unravel a terror cell already here? I’m having the hardest time believing traditional interrogation techniques are effective enough.

Ok, I’m imagining an Al Qaeda operative has been captured. One that has been sought after, and one that can names and locations. I don’t see myself getting bothered if he’s kept isolated, without recreational time/materials, without access to religious materials, etc. Basically, staring at four blank walls, till he start cooperating with interrogators.

Is that torture? If it’s still torture…I’m sorry I won’t trade hundreds or thousands of American lives to make him more comfortable. Frankly, I think it would be immoral to do so.

Would you support this kind of treatment for any other criminal?

It seems like the main place where we differ is that I dont think of “terrorists” as being completely different than other criminals.

As such, I dont allow fear of them to make me think differently. Hell, thats exactly what terrorists want, by definition: You get scared and it affects the way you think. [/quote]

By the way, what exactly would you support to get an Al Qaeda leader to divulge where his cell is about to strike in the US?

Look, I’m not talking about scenarios where lengthier interrogations are viable. I’m talking about actively attempting to foil a present danger.

47

[quote]Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is withholding recreational activities torture? Not providing for religious practices? What about isolation?

What of those are legit to obtain information from a Jihadist personality, in an effort to unravel a terror cell already here? I’m having the hardest time believing traditional interrogation techniques are effective enough.

Ok, I’m imagining an Al Qaeda operative has been captured. One that has been sought after, and one that can names and locations. I don’t see myself getting bothered if he’s kept isolated, without recreational time/materials, without access to religious materials, etc. Basically, staring at four blank walls, till he start cooperating with interrogators.

Is that torture? If it’s still torture…I’m sorry I won’t trade hundreds or thousands of American lives to make him more comfortable. Frankly, I think it would be immoral to do so.

Would you support this kind of treatment for any other criminal?

It seems like the main place where we differ is that I dont think of “terrorists” as being completely different than other criminals.

As such, I dont allow fear of them to make me think differently. Hell, thats exactly what terrorists want, by definition: You get scared and it affects the way you think.

Sorry man, but I’m not trading away the lives of hundreds/thousands of my fellow citizens, so a man that fights in a way to deliberately maximize civilian casualties on both sides, can get rec. time and religious materials. If the methods I posted above are torture, I hereby express my support for those torture methods. [/quote]

You didn’t even answer my one (direct) question.

I’ll ask again:

Would you support that treatment for other criminals, such as rapists, pedophiles, arsonists, or drug dealers?

48

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is withholding recreational activities torture? Not providing for religious practices? What about isolation?

What of those are legit to obtain information from a Jihadist personality, in an effort to unravel a terror cell already here? I’m having the hardest time believing traditional interrogation techniques are effective enough.

Ok, I’m imagining an Al Qaeda operative has been captured. One that has been sought after, and one that can names and locations. I don’t see myself getting bothered if he’s kept isolated, without recreational time/materials, without access to religious materials, etc. Basically, staring at four blank walls, till he start cooperating with interrogators.

Is that torture? If it’s still torture…I’m sorry I won’t trade hundreds or thousands of American lives to make him more comfortable. Frankly, I think it would be immoral to do so.

Would you support this kind of treatment for any other criminal?

It seems like the main place where we differ is that I dont think of “terrorists” as being completely different than other criminals.

As such, I dont allow fear of them to make me think differently. Hell, thats exactly what terrorists want, by definition: You get scared and it affects the way you think.

Sorry man, but I’m not trading away the lives of hundreds/thousands of my fellow citizens, so a man that fights in a way to deliberately maximize civilian casualties on both sides, can get rec. time and religious materials. If the methods I posted above are torture, I hereby express my support for those torture methods.

You didn’t even answer my one (direct) question.

I’ll ask again:

Would you support that treatment for other criminals, such as rapists, pedophiles, arsonists, or drug dealers?
[/quote]

That’s assuming I see them as “just another criminal.”

I wouldn’t send Officer Smith in his squad car over to Afghanistan so he could serve an arrest warrant to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.

Nor, would I call for an artillery barrage, air strikes, etc to arrest Mafia suspects in New York.

I have a hard time believing you’d support either of those. Therefore, I’m having a real hard time believing you see Al Qaeda cell members as “just more criminals.”

Your question is fatally flawed in my opinion. It assumes I view Al Qaeda on the same level as a bank robber. Come on now…

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
I thought the right wing liked to decry what they called moral relativism?

If you are dead, then morality has no meaning for you. You’re dead.

The only time morality comes into play is in the initiation of violence or threat thereof. The victim is morally correct in stopping the violence or threat.

[/quote]

Not if the threat is from a bad source of information, like, I don’t know… a torture victim, perhaps?

Morals are morals. If you can argue this, why can’t I argue that sometimes, abortion is moral? Or gay marriage is moral? Or anything else conservative “moralists” like to rail against is moral?

50

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s assuming I see them as “just another criminal.”

I wouldn’t send Officer Smith in his squad car over to Afghanistan so he could serve an arrest warrant to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.

Nor, would I call for an artillery barrage, air strikes, etc to arrest Mafia suspects in New York.

I have a hard time believing you’d support either of those. Therefore, I’m having a real hard time believing you see Al Qaeda cell members as “just more criminals.”

Your question is fatally flawed in my opinion. It assumes I view Al Qaeda on the same level as a bank robber. Come on now…[/quote]

Maybe I’m just dumb. Explain it to me: What makes a “terrorist” intrinsically different from all other criminals?

51

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That’s assuming I see them as “just another criminal.”

I wouldn’t send Officer Smith in his squad car over to Afghanistan so he could serve an arrest warrant to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.

Nor, would I call for an artillery barrage, air strikes, etc to arrest Mafia suspects in New York.

I have a hard time believing you’d support either of those. Therefore, I’m having a real hard time believing you see Al Qaeda cell members as “just more criminals.”

Your question is fatally flawed in my opinion. It assumes I view Al Qaeda on the same level as a bank robber. Come on now…

Maybe I’m just dumb. Explain it to me: What makes a “terrorist” intrinsically different from all other criminals?
[/quote]

Would you require soldiers to have arrest warrants for each member of Al Qaeda? That is, before they roll up and try to engage them?

Would you support an an air strike against a crack house? Even if armed individuals are known to make frequent use of the house? Would you support calling in a air-strike against Al Qaeda members meeting in a house in Afghanistan?

Yes, I answered your questions with questions. However, in this case, it serves to illustrate the flaw you’re making. Frankly, I don’t believe you’re approaching your question honestly. I’m very skeptical that you see Al Qaeda members as “just more criminals.” Depending on the the way you answer those questions above…

52

Bah, the terrorists have already won. They’ve created a ton of fearful closed minds that will have no choice but to fuel hatred because of the actions this fear allows them to perpetrate.

When it comes to winning hearts and minds, or empowering the moderate arabic population, you are your own worst enemies.

Good job!

I guess I’ll just buy some marshmallows and wait until we get to a planetwide us vs them conflict. Or, maybe, before that happens, somebody will let go of the fear and hatred and find a way to not drive all the potential enemies to be actual enemies.

The odds are obviously low.

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
Bah, the terrorists have already won. They’ve created a ton of fearful closed minds that will have no choice but to fuel hatred because of the actions this fear allows them to perpetrate.

When it comes to winning hearts and minds, or empowering the moderate arabic population, you are your own worst enemies.

Good job!

I guess I’ll just buy some marshmallows and wait until we get to a planetwide us vs them conflict. Or, maybe, before that happens, somebody will let go of the fear and hatred and find a way to not drive all the potential enemies to be actual enemies.

The odds are obviously low.[/quote]

Sadly, I agree with your conclusion. Chances are, radical Islam has won. But, we diverge on the reasons, I think. Anyways, I doubt I’ll live long enough to see the true consequences of their victory. It’s something my grand kids will inherit.

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That’s assuming I see them as “just another criminal.”

I wouldn’t send Officer Smith in his squad car over to Afghanistan so he could serve an arrest warrant to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.

Nor, would I call for an artillery barrage, air strikes, etc to arrest Mafia suspects in New York.

I have a hard time believing you’d support either of those. Therefore, I’m having a real hard time believing you see Al Qaeda cell members as “just more criminals.”

Your question is fatally flawed in my opinion. It assumes I view Al Qaeda on the same level as a bank robber. Come on now…

Maybe I’m just dumb. Explain it to me: What makes a “terrorist” intrinsically different from all other criminals?

Would you require soldiers to have arrest warrants for each member of Al Qaeda? That is, before they roll up and try to engage them?

Would you support an an air strike against a crack house? Even if armed individuals are known to make frequent use of the house? Would you support calling in a air-strike against Al Qaeda members meeting in a house in Afghanistan?

Yes, I answered your questions with questions. However, in this case, it serves to illustrate the flaw you’re making. Frankly, I don’t believe you’re approaching your question honestly. I’m very skeptical that you see Al Qaeda members as “just more criminals.” Depending on the the way you answer those questions above…[/quote]

I would, and do, not support American soldiers going into any other country and arresting/apprehending anyone based on the suspecion that they may be planning to harm Americans. Preemptive movements are not a part of the constitutional use of the United States Armed Forces.

I would not support an air strike against a crack house.

Yes, even if armed individuals make frequent use of the house.

No, I would not support an air strike of members of Al Qeada. See above for reason.

I, unlike you, am consistant. Let me guess… you’d support an air strike in hopes it kills memebers of Al Qeada (since they scare you so much), ignoring civilian causualties… but would not support an air strike looking for a group who is planning to bomb an abortion clinic… because Gawd forbid we have any American casualites.

I’m done. You’ve had too many chances to answer direct questions and failed to do so. I’m bored with this type of exchange.

55

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That’s assuming I see them as “just another criminal.”

I wouldn’t send Officer Smith in his squad car over to Afghanistan so he could serve an arrest warrant to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.

Nor, would I call for an artillery barrage, air strikes, etc to arrest Mafia suspects in New York.

I have a hard time believing you’d support either of those. Therefore, I’m having a real hard time believing you see Al Qaeda cell members as “just more criminals.”

Your question is fatally flawed in my opinion. It assumes I view Al Qaeda on the same level as a bank robber. Come on now…

Maybe I’m just dumb. Explain it to me: What makes a “terrorist” intrinsically different from all other criminals?

Would you require soldiers to have arrest warrants for each member of Al Qaeda? That is, before they roll up and try to engage them?

Would you support an an air strike against a crack house? Even if armed individuals are known to make frequent use of the house? Would you support calling in a air-strike against Al Qaeda members meeting in a house in Afghanistan?

Yes, I answered your questions with questions. However, in this case, it serves to illustrate the flaw you’re making. Frankly, I don’t believe you’re approaching your question honestly. I’m very skeptical that you see Al Qaeda members as “just more criminals.” Depending on the the way you answer those questions above…

I would, and do, not support American soldiers going into any other country and arresting/apprehending anyone based on the suspecion that they may be planning to harm Americans. Preemptive movements are not a part of the constitutional use of the United States Armed Forces.

I would not support an air strike against a crack house.

Yes, even if armed individuals make frequent use of the house.

No, I would not support an air strike of members of Al Qeada. See above for reason.

I, unlike you, am consistant. Let me guess… you’d support an air strike in hopes it kills memebers of Al Qeada (since they scare you so much), ignoring civilian causualties… but would not support an air strike looking for a group who is planning to bomb an abortion clinic… because Gawd forbid we have any American casualites.

I’m done. You’ve had too many chances to answer direct questions and failed to do so. I’m bored with this type of exchange.[/quote]

First, I thought my answer was very clear. I don’t see Al Qeada and their affiliates as “just some criminals.” You attempted to frame the question under your own beliefs. You asked it as if we were in agreement on that notion. We’re not…

Second, wow…You wouldn’t approve of an air-strike against targets at war with your country? Now, you’re just the kind of leader the Axis powers would have loved to have had in England, The US, Canada, etc. And, the kind of mindset Al Qaeda hopes for.

Just damn, I can’t get over your answer.