Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

It would be even more interesting how someone who calls himself a “Republican” does not even believe in a republic, in a nation of laws.

How else could I interpret it if now some people argue that it was a mistake that White House memoranda were publicized and that Bush and his gang should not be indicted?

If you kidnapped someone and “waternboarded” him more than 100 times in one month alone, you´d be Bubba´s new boy toy.[/quote]

We didn’t “kidnap” anyone - they were captured in combat - ie enemy combatants, prisoners of war!

AND the memos prove your point is ridiculous - the memos are the legal opinions of trained lawyers examining all applicable laws and making sure that the interrogation techniques applied were in keeping with those laws. THUS - in perfect keeping with our rule of law and affirming the republican principles upon which our nation is built.

22

I just read the worst physical pain the inflicted was “harsh facial slaps”. This is being called torture? My girlfriend has done worse to me!

23

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
What have you been smoking? I want some too . . .

Here’s where this “anti-torture” BS comes under the spotlight of reason. I can do it in three questions.

OK Q1- Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is trying to kill you? [/quote]

Yes.

And let me add that it is also right to kill military personnel that invaded your country in an obvious act of aggression.

24

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.

Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.

What have you been smoking? I want some too . . .

Here’s where this “anti-torture” BS comes under the spotlight of reason. I can do it in three questions.

OK Q1- Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is trying to kill you?

[/quote]
yes, but that is an individual right.

yes, if an individual is trying to kill people.

The people in jail were no longer a threat. It is no longer justifiable as individual self defense. (remember some never did anything) There is no process set up to officially weed out the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, to those trying to “kill 3000 people”.

Unless you are considering getting rounded up as proof that you are trying to kill thousands of people.

[quote]

No lasting harm has ever been done to any of these detainees under the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the US. They were developed for specifically this purpose.

REAL torture involves real harm - psychologically, emotionally and physically- ie, broken minds, broken bones, lacerations, burnings, beatings, etc.

You whiny-a$$ liberals need to get over it.

The US doesn’t torture - we interrogate - learn the difference!![/quote]

Uh, if you cared to read more in this section you?d learn I?m not a liberal.

Second, you are defining torture as permanent physical harm? So Mild electrocution, beatings, est. are okay? No amount of emotional psychological abuse is to far?

You would be okay with being water boarded?

If this is just logical interrogation, why doesn?t the military start training the police in these techniques to use on people who?ve never been tried or charged for anything? Interrogating suspects in violent crimes should obviously be done this way.

Or is there a reason punishment and depriving someone of basic human rights only occurs after publicly scrutinized convictions among a jury of peers?

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.

Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.[/quote]

Waterboarding is not torture. Hell, it used to be a hazing technique. George Marshall (Head of JC of Staff in WWII) was waterboarded at Princeton.

Waterboarding is a fucking prank, for crissakes! Torture?? Jesus…

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
yes, but that is an individual right.

yes, if an individual is trying to kill people.

The people in jail were no longer a threat. It is no longer justifiable as individual self defense. (remember some never did anything) There is no process set up to officially weed out the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, to those trying to “kill 3000 people”.

Unless you are considering getting rounded up as proof that you are trying to kill thousands of people.

Uh, if you cared to read more in this section you?d learn I?m not a liberal.

Second, you are defining torture as permanent physical harm? So Mild electrocution, beatings, est. are okay? No amount of emotional psychological abuse is to far?

You would be okay with being water boarded?

If this is just logical interrogation, why doesn?t the military start training the police in these techniques to use on people who?ve never been tried or charged for anything? Interrogating suspects in violent crimes should obviously be done this way.

Or is there a reason punishment and depriving someone of basic human rights only occurs after publicly scrutinized convictions among a jury of peers?

[/quote]

wow - straw man arguments, adding words to statements, avoiding questions - this should be interesting.

OK- you did not answer question three - you went off on a tangential argument about “threat” and sorting prisoners. You assumed we did mass rounding up of random people - again delusional. We obviously were able to sort people captured in combat situations who were real threats from those who were not - you need some real facts.

Then you go further afield trying to set up a straw-man argument about my equating being rounded up with trying to kill 3,000 people - this is the best logic you have? A point I never raised and never intimated in my comments.

If you are not a whiny-a$$ liberal, then that comment obviously would not apply to you. simple enough.

And no - i did not define torture as “permanent” physical harm - nice attempt at another straw-man argument. Please read what I actually said and try to come up with a real argument.

Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.

And then you go for the grand-daddy of all whoppers - If the military can use these techniques on enemy soldiers, why shouldn’t we use them on criminals here in the US. - again you oversimplify, ignore facts and build a straw-man argument. We used these techniques on proven enemies - people who had fought and killed us soldiers.

If you cannot understand the difference between an enemy and a citizen, between gathering war-time intelligence and punishing convicted criminals - you need to go back to school. It is called the RULE OF LAW - see my original post concerning this issue.

Better yet, let me restate to save you the trouble - the enhanced interrogation method memo’s were the actual legal review of these methods to ensure that they were in keeping with all applicable international and national laws!

27

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.

Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.

What have you been smoking? I want some too . . .

Here’s where this “anti-torture” BS comes under the spotlight of reason. I can do it in three questions.

OK Q1- Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is trying to kill you?

Q2 - Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is trying to kill 3,000 people?

and finally Q3 - if it is right to kill people under those circumstances, why is it wrong to keep someone awake for 48 hours to prevent them from killing someone else?

No lasting harm has ever been done to any of these detainees under the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the US. They were developed for specifically this purpose.

REAL torture involves real harm - psychologically, emotionally and physically- ie, broken minds, broken bones, lacerations, burnings, beatings, etc.

You whiny-a$$ liberals need to get over it.

The US doesn’t torture - we interrogate - learn the difference!![/quote]

Show me the part of the US constitution where it says your government can torture.

You can´t?

Arrest Bush and trial him.

Unless of course you believe that governments are above the law.

28

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
To be clear we are talking about the same people that video tape decapitation to intimidate their enemies.
[/quote]

Now we don´t.

We are talking about people who were innocent when captured and where deliberately kept in Guantanamo so that the Bush administration would not be embarassed.

Which is totally irrelevant though because even if they caught Josef Mengele the US government still does not have the right to kidnap and torture people.

If you want them to have that right, change the law.

If they have done so without a law they are criminals.

edited

29

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

It would be even more interesting how someone who calls himself a “Republican” does not even believe in a republic, in a nation of laws.

How else could I interpret it if now some people argue that it was a mistake that White House memoranda were publicized and that Bush and his gang should not be indicted?

If you kidnapped someone and “waternboarded” him more than 100 times in one month alone, you´d be Bubba´s new boy toy.

We didn’t “kidnap” anyone - they were captured in combat - ie enemy combatants, prisoners of war!

AND the memos prove your point is ridiculous - the memos are the legal opinions of trained lawyers examining all applicable laws and making sure that the interrogation techniques applied were in keeping with those laws. THUS - in perfect keeping with our rule of law and affirming the republican principles upon which our nation is built.[/quote]

Sure, people who were bought off the Iraqis and Afghans were all caught in combat.

Absolutely.

Then, Japanese officers were executed because they did torture Americans the exact same way those Arabs were tortured.

But it is easy to find out.

Indict them and have a fair trial.

30

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I just read the worst physical pain the inflicted was “harsh facial slaps”. This is being called torture? My girlfriend has done worse to me![/quote]

Waterboarding someone 160 times in a month?

31

I’m curious as to how many of you have actually looked at any of the so called “torture memos.”

I read the one dealing with Abu Zubaydah, and it is only a legal opinion. The memo doesn’t say that the course of conduct is definitely proper; it says that in the attorney’s opinion, the conduct likely does not violate the definition of torture that is found in the statute.

Torture is defined as:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.

In the analysis, the attorney points to the fact that the techniques employed have been used on over 10,000 U.S. military personnel during training with very low incidences of psychological problems resulting from the training. Obviously no physical harm resulted from their use.

32

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Show me the part of the US constitution where it says your government can torture.

You can´t?

Arrest Bush and trial him.

Unless of course you believe that governments are above the law.

[/quote]

Wait, whut?

What part of my post didn’t you read? Apparently all of it.

I stated unequivocally that we do not torture - we interrogate. Your question is a batty as a Louisville Slugger.

33

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
To be clear we are talking about the same people that video tape decapitation to intimidate their enemies.

Now we don´t.

We are talking about people who were innocent when captured and where deliberately kept in Guantanamo so that the Bush administration would not be embarassed.

Which is totally irrelevant though because even if they caught Josef Mengele the US government still does not have the right to kidnap and torture people.

If you want them to have that right, change the law.

If they have done so without a law they are criminals.

edited[/quote]

Where do you get your information? Perhaps you should talk with some military personnel involved with the process as I have.

The people captured were not innocent - they were captured as the direct result of armed combat with our troops. They were kept at a military base because they were military prisoners of war.

You use the same straw-man argument so many parrot from the media - kidnapped and tortured! They were not kidnapped (you also said captured earlier on) and they were not tortured - they were not harmed in any fashion and there were medical personnel there to ensure that they were not harmed.

The applicable laws did not forbid the techniques used - get some freaking facts!

34

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
To be clear we are talking about the same people that video tape decapitation to intimidate their enemies.

Now we don´t.

We are talking about people who were innocent when captured and where deliberately kept in Guantanamo so that the Bush administration would not be embarassed.

Which is totally irrelevant though because even if they caught Josef Mengele the US government still does not have the right to kidnap and torture people.

If you want them to have that right, change the law.

If they have done so without a law they are criminals.

edited[/quote]

How would releasing a captive that is innocent embarrass the Bush Administration?

As far as I am concerned you have to fight fire with fire. It is easy to say torture is wrong and America is wrong, but the fact of the matter is war is ugly. You do not defeat your enemies by treating them like your best friend.

What I find strange is how we, as in the entire world, try to eliminate unfair or cruel tactics in favor of fair and non cruel killing tactics. As long as the enemy isn’t in to much pain before they die then it is okay right? Flamer throwers, the Atomic Bomb, and various other weapons aren’t used because they aren’t humane, but we use equally deadly measures to defeat our enemies. How dumb is that?

As far as I am concerned if enemy combatants have to be tortured to save my family and our troops lives then so be it.

35

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Sure, people who were bought off the Iraqis and Afghans were all caught in combat.

Absolutely.

Then, Japanese officers were executed because they did torture Americans the exact same way those Arabs were tortured.

But it is easy to find out.

Indict them and have a fair trial.

[/quote]

was there actually a point you were trying to make?

The japanese carried out unspeakable medical experiments on pows, randomly executed prisoners for no reason, chopped off hands and feet for no reason, beat and clubbed them daily, threw them alive into a pit filled with gasoline and lit them on fire, tested poisons, drowned, decapitated, refused food and water, refused medical care - yes, these men were executed for crimes as defined in the Geneva convention!

Are you trying to equate that with regular meals, bedding, medical care (check on their conditions as many as three times a day), fitness facilities, etc.

Are you really trying to equate this with having water poured on your head, occasionally lightly slapped or poked with a finger, being kept awake with Christina Aguilera songs, sitting in an interrogation room with pictures of 9-11 victims and their families, etc.

Get a grip!

36

I, for one, welcome the era where debate is about the legality of torture and whether Bush & co should face charges.

It’s a change from previous debate where people are arguing for and against obliterating Iran.

I think Obama should get the credit.

37

How can it be OK for us to train our own military by actually putting them through the same exact stuff we did at Gitmo, but it’s NOT ok for War prisoners who vow to kill us all?

We do this shit to our own people as part of special ops training.

If we had not used these techniques we would have been attacked again and would not know as much about the enemy.

This is WARTIME people.

Would you all rather have another attack instead?

I’m also convinced that another terror attack on us is the ONLY thing that will get the batshit left on board in actually PROTECTING this country with substantial policies instead of kissing enemy ass.

38

…no president will ever allow the prosecution of the previous president. That will make him vulnerable too…

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.

Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.

Waterboarding is not torture. Hell, it used to be a hazing technique. George Marshall (Head of JC of Staff in WWII) was waterboarded at Princeton.

Waterboarding is a fucking prank, for crissakes! Torture?? Jesus…

[/quote]

So you’d be okay if it was your boy or maybe your mom? Or if Cops did it?

40

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.

Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.

Waterboarding is not torture. Hell, it used to be a hazing technique. George Marshall (Head of JC of Staff in WWII) was waterboarded at Princeton.

Waterboarding is a fucking prank, for crissakes! Torture?? Jesus…

So you’d be okay if it was your boy or maybe your mom? Or if Cops did it?[/quote]

wow - you are truly unbelievable. a sad attempt at moral equivalency -seriously?

Yes - if my mom or my son was a captured prisoner of war and a terrorist mastermind plotting to kill thousands of innocent people, I would agree to their being waterboarded to prevent it.

Again - you run off to comparing the interrogation of POW’s under the existing laws to the interrogation by our police under an entirely different set of laws with completely different scenarios involved in each - this is your idea of a logical argument?