Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Again, I am assuming that we would only be doing it if it produced results. Are you contending that we are investing enormous amounts of time and energy into tactics that don’t work? Are we torturing just for the sake of torturing?[/quote]
No, i would assume the same. But that isn’t proof. The results may very well be here right now, what about tomorrow?

[quote]
who is defending what happened here? Do not see the difference between what happened here and what we are discussing? If not, conversation over.[/quote]
We are discussing torture to gain intelligence. The torture that happened on in Iraqi prisons and Guantanamo Bay is an example of how the image of the US has been damaged due to these instances.

You are assuming only guards abused prisoners for the sake of abuse. I on the other hand can only assume some of these prisoners were interrogated to gain intelligence.

[quote]
Really? Who?[/quote]
Come on, don’t play dumb. Here’s the list of all guantanmo bay detainee’s

Some of these have been proven to be innocent. Multiple of them claim to have been abused. Together with the Administration’s acknowledgement to use enhanced interrogation techniques, it’s at least plausible to assume they tell the truth.

It is what we are talking about. If you claim that no innocent men are detained, and thus not tortured, you’d need a working justice system in the region they’ve been detained. Without it, anyone can be detained if a soldier, policeman has whatever reason to believe it’s justified.

Depends. No.

Thanks for proving my point. You don’t care about what happens over there as long as you’re fine at home. Why shouldn’t the same rules apply to them? Are they inferior people? Some of 'em are, but the same thing applies at home, why not use the same torture techniques to interrogate suspects in the US?

To emphatize with them. They’re the same as you and me, except for the fact they live in a shithole without any form of rights or prosperity. Why don’t you care they can, legally, be tortured just because they happen to have been born in a desert?

My point is that it’s not an excuse to use “it’s the reality of war” to not give a shit about human suffering in war. ‘People die everyday’ is not an excuse to kill the first person i see on the street.

Well then, enlighten me. Why do you think some pissed off muslims attacked the US?

222

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Terrorism is the act of using violence/fear for political gains. When we torture terrorists, or anyone else for that matter, we become what we despise. [/quote]

100% Pure Grade A BullShit - that doublespeak is the REAL tool of terrorists. They behave in a way contradictory to our values because they are acting from a position of weakness. If we replied with comparable strength and methodology they would be destroyed practically overnight - but they insist that if we were to react in a manner consistent with their methodology it would be a violation of our values . . . when in reality applying their methodology back to them actually reaffirms our values via the same principles in which we kill killers under the rule of law.

We do not kill killers in exactly the same way they killed their victims, but we do kill them.

In the same vein, we interrogate (you can even use torture if it makes you happy) - but we do not do so with the same methods, intention, principles or values they employ.

If you cannot discern that because of our diverse opinions, checks and balances, etc

  1. the WORST form of interrogation we could use was simulated drowning with every possible protection to the health and safety of the detainee while real torture is a completely different ballgame and
  2. that with a change in majority opinion (applied to only three people in approx 12 session) we easily abandoned even this technique reaffirming that rule of law holds sway in our land and
  3. that the use of it did not destroy our values or principles but reaffirmed them because we value life, refuse to do unnecessary harm, protect and defend the weakest among us,etc
    then you suffer under some serious delusions
223

[quote]valiance. wrote:
I’m just going to state my position here again: If we executed people for doing it to our guys? It’s torture. If we learned it from Mao’s Communists? It’s torture. If it’s identical to or harsher than techniques used by the Gestapo? You guessed it… It’s torture. If people who don’t think it’s torture suddenly recant after actually experiencing it? It’s torture.

Greg Mancow recants: Mancow Waterboard (Live On-Air 2009) - YouTube
Christopher Hitchens recants: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Believe Me, It's Torture | Vanity Fair

There is room to argue that perhaps there are situations in which we should torture. You’re free to say that. But the bullshit argument that waterboarding isn’t torture has to stop. If you think Americans should torture to save the lives of their own just say so (protip: torture isn’t a good method of interrogation, either). Don’t hide behind technicalities.[/quote]

here we go again . . .

It is not bullshit to distinguish between simulated drowning under all of the restrictions applied to this technique as used in these specific instances and real physical torture

As far as Mancow and Hitchens - they did not possess the mindset or resolve of a terrorist who seeks to gladly give his life as a martyr for Allah, they are not trained or experienced in combat, they are a couple of soft, weak, pampered journalists who did it with a specific intent in mind (to fail) - on the other side, we have battle hardened killers, calloused by a life of hardships, combat and deprivation with a mindset of succeeding at all costs even death. If you thought comparing stunts with reality gives a good basis of comparison . . .well obviously you did . . .

end note - the fact that the terrorists did not “break” on the first application of the technique as did the “brave” Hitchens and Mancow proves the difference in dealing with journalists and real terrorists . . . .

224

I’ll say it again.

When the next round of attacks begin, and they will (write it down), we’ll see where the polling goes then. If it becomes apparent that somebody we could have stopped had we not been so moral as to sacrifice our own citizens on the altar of some hippified concept of peace of love, was behind it, THEN we’ll see what people think.

We’ll see an instant 80-20 in favor of, or higher, once the theoretical gives way to reality… again. How soon we forget.

225

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ll say it again.

When the next round of attacks begin, and they will (write it down), we’ll see where the polling goes then. If it becomes apparent that somebody we could have stopped had we not been so moral as to sacrifice our own citizens on the altar of some hippified concept of peace of love, was behind it, THEN we’ll see what people think.

We’ll see an instant 80-20 in favor of, or higher, once the theoretical gives way to reality… again. How soon we forget.[/quote]

All we will see is a bunch of frightened sheep that will throw away any freedom that they had to be saved from a danger that is less scary than swimming pools.

Which only proves that people suck.

226

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
valiance. wrote:
I’m just going to state my position here again: If we executed people for doing it to our guys? It’s torture. If we learned it from Mao’s Communists? It’s torture. If it’s identical to or harsher than techniques used by the Gestapo? You guessed it… It’s torture. If people who don’t think it’s torture suddenly recant after actually experiencing it? It’s torture.

Greg Mancow recants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0&
Christopher Hitchens recants: Believe Me, It's Torture | Vanity Fair
Believe Me, It's Torture | Vanity Fair

There is room to argue that perhaps there are situations in which we should torture. You’re free to say that. But the bullshit argument that waterboarding isn’t torture has to stop. If you think Americans should torture to save the lives of their own just say so (protip: torture isn’t a good method of interrogation, either). Don’t hide behind technicalities.

here we go again . . .

It is not bullshit to distinguish between simulated drowning under all of the restrictions applied to this technique as used in these specific instances and real physical torture
[/quote]

I’m making the argument that simulated drowning is real torture as defined by the US, the UN, doctors and lawyers the world over etc. etc.

I would disagree that Hitchens and Mancow underwent waterboarding with the intent to fail. Their ideology before the incident indicates the opposite. That said, I would agree that there are notable differences between soft, weak, pampered journalists and battle hardened killers. Those differences don’t make waterboarding not torture, they simply make it less effective in producing terror.

227

[quote]valiance. wrote:

I’m making the argument that simulated drowning is real torture as defined by the US, the UN, doctors and lawyers the world over etc. etc.

I would disagree that Hitchens and Mancow underwent waterboarding with the intent to fail. Their ideology before the incident indicates the opposite. That said, I would agree that there are notable differences between soft, weak, pampered journalists and battle hardened killers. Those differences don’t make waterboarding not torture, they simply make it less effective in producing terror.[/quote]

It’s not torture according to everyone - that’s the point. One man’s torture is another man’s erotic wet-dream . . . Right now the prevailing opinion of those in charge is that it is torture while only a few years ago the prevailing opinion of those in charge was that it was not torture . . . just like on this board- many think it is not torture while many do think it is torture - we have been endlessly discussing opinion . . .end of debate.

228

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
valiance. wrote:

I’m making the argument that simulated drowning is real torture as defined by the US, the UN, doctors and lawyers the world over etc. etc.

I would disagree that Hitchens and Mancow underwent waterboarding with the intent to fail. Their ideology before the incident indicates the opposite. That said, I would agree that there are notable differences between soft, weak, pampered journalists and battle hardened killers. Those differences don’t make waterboarding not torture, they simply make it less effective in producing terror.

It’s not torture according to everyone - that’s the point. One man’s torture is another man’s erotic wet-dream . . . Right now the prevailing opinion of those in charge is that it is torture while only a few years ago the prevailing opinion of those in charge was that it was not torture . . . just like on this board- many think it is not torture while many do think it is torture - we have been endlessly discussing opinion . . .end of debate.[/quote]

Well either it is or it isn’t. Someone’s right. Just because the wind changed or the administration’s changed doesn’t change whether the action of waterboarding is or is not torture. Just because it’s not the worst torture imaginable doesn’t mean it’s not torture.

Those in the past administration who refused to call it torture didn’t have the facts on their side. Torture has a specific definition which waterboarding fits. Thus, waterboarding = torture. Torture which we’ve EXECUTED men for inflicting upon U.S. soldiers. It might be better than the terrorists deserve, but it is torture.