Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]tme wrote:
The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. They assume that those techniques will work on others, because they know absolutely that they would work on them.

The Dick of course being the prime example. Probably include Hannity and minor ass-clowns like jeffro.
[/quote]

tme!!!

Coward? With all due humility, I’m not sure I fit that definition.

However, I have to admit, I love it when you call me names.

The closer I get to the truth, the more flailing of limbs and gnashing of teeth occurs from you and your pals.

Thanks for the validation.

JeffR

82

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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]

Stop playing with words. Calling torture “enhanced interrogation techniques” is no better than calling terrorism “man made disasters”.

Do you think they tortured Winston in Room 101? He was never hurt, but it was the height of torture.

Let’s stop playing with words and just be blunt: we torture. Some torture is okay. Some torture isn’t.

Also the concept that torture doesn’t work is bullshit. You just have to do it right.

My personal feelings on torture are irrelevant, but I’m a self-indulgent bastard so ride with me. In the ticking-time bomb situation I’d torture to any level. It should always remain illegal, but I’d still be willing to do it. It’s up to society and a jury of my peers to judge me.

mike

83

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Let’s stop playing with words and just be blunt: we torture. Some torture is okay. Some torture isn’t.

Also the concept that torture doesn’t work is bullshit. You just have to do it right.

My personal feelings on torture are irrelevant, but I’m a self-indulgent bastard so ride with me. In the ticking-time bomb situation I’d torture to any level. It should always remain illegal, but I’d still be willing to do it. It’s up to society and a jury of my peers to judge me.

mike[/quote]

84

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Personally, I can’t wait for the day when the doubleduces and gdollars37s of the world are running the republican party. Hell, that day I might even find myself pulling the “R” tab. [/quote]

Ummm, wasn’t McCain strongly anti-torture?

mike

85

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Yawn. Maybe, you should take a peek at the LA terrorist attack that was averted primarily due to these techniques.

Oh, 100% guaranteed, if you lived in LA and it was coming, you’d be all for doing whatever it takes.
[/quote]

That’s rich. Perhaps you should take your own advice and take a peek at the LA plot. Here, I’ve done your work for you…

From a whitehouse press briefing on Feb 9th, 2006 Press Briefing on the West Coast Terrorist Plot by Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

Khalid Shaykh Muhammad was the individual who led this effort. He initiated the planning for the West Coast plot after September 11th, in October of 2001. KSM, working with Hambali in Asia, recruited the members of the cell. There was a total of four members of the cell. When they – KSM, himself, trained the leader of the cell in late 2001 or early 2002 in the shoe bomb technique. You all will recall that there was the arrest of the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, in December of 2001, and he was instructing the cell leader on the use of the same technique.

*Note: Khalid Shaykh Muhammad was one of the three detainees waterboarded.

The cell leader was arrested in February of 2002, and as we begin – at that point, the other members of the cell believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward. You’ll recall that KSM was then arrested in April of 2003 – or was it March – I’m sorry, March of 2003.

So, the plot was busted in Feb 2002, yet KSM wasn’t arrested (and subsequently waterboarded) until March 2003. Your statement that the LA plot was averted primarily due to these techniques is 100% impossible.

Wrong. Waterboarding did not lead to actionable intelligence.

Justice doesn’t have context, it has text. Text that says torture is illegal.

We don’t do everything, we don’t torture. Furthermore, you know we’re talking about waterboarding. Don’t try to blunt that by lumping it in with benign crap.

Wrong. People objecting to this are people who love America enough to not want her going down the path of evil.

86

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Torture causes actual harm to the person on whom it is inflicted

Wait…you don’t think waterboarding “causes actual harm”?

No - been though it myself. No harm - even our military personnel are routinely waterboarded during training.

[/quote]

Why are they waterboarded? Oh yeah, so they know what it’s like to be tortured.

mike

87

[quote]lixy wrote:

Luckily, the large majority of Americans say that torture is never acceptable. And all presidential candidates caught the message.

[/quote]

Right, but most Americans would say that it’s not acceptable to cheat on your spose. How’s that working out? It’s easy to be anti-torture when you don’t have to face of consequences of refusing to torture.

mike

88

[quote]tme wrote:
The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. They assume that those techniques will work on others, because they know absolutely that they would work on them.

The Dick of course being the prime example. Probably include Hannity and minor ass-clowns like jeffro.
[/quote]

And if you’re pretending torture won’t work on you then you’re just a blowhard. Room 101.

mike

89

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

And you accuse me of oversimplifying. If you can’t see the deference in killing someone attacking your person in self defense and torturing someone that is a direct threat to no one to possibly get questionable intelligence that might save someone else I’m not going to be able to beat it in. The Ds are not the same.

And yes I introduced it because they are logically equivalent and equally stupid.

You cannot justify the morality of an action by stating that things someone else does are worse.

You sound like a child complaining to his parents about the little boy down the street getting to do something you can’t. Good moral responsible parents don’t care what the kid down the street does because it doesn’t change whats best or whats right and good.[/quote]

Who’s torturing anyone? That is the whole point of this thread - are we torturing the detainees at Gitmo? - I have tried time and time again to demonstrate that the techniques used are not and could never rise to the level of actual torture! Being extra sleepy and getting slapped evry once and awhile is not the same as being burnt, cut, beaten, electrocuted, etc.

The D’s are exactly the same (despite you once again changing the terms and questions I used) - preventing deaths by killing the one attempting to cause the deaths is allowed in any moral or legal setting - so why is depriving someone of sleep to accomplish the same goal somehow morally reprehensible? - and before you go off another crazy tangent - that is the extent of most of the enhanced interrogation techniques used - plain and simple sleep deprivation.

The point is - if I can kill someone to prevent them from killing others or myself - and this is morally acceptable - how can it be morally unacceptable to NOT kill them but only deprive them of a few night’s sleep to accomplish the same goal?!

Have I spelled it out simply enough for you to understand yet?

Waterboarding is the most extreme technique ever used and it was only used on three confirmed terrorists - and it is not an actual torture - it is a scary sensation - but it causes no harm. If it was so horrible, why did it take over 100 times to get the guy to say anything? He probably talked out of sheer boredom with the routine!

"Oh Allah, not the silly water thing again - I’d rather be playing chess or talking to the pretty reporters again - or checking out T-Nation’s SAMA threads . . . I never really liked Jamal anyway . . "

Choosing waterboarding over beheading is not the logical equivalent of eating a toxic substance or being shot in the face - BECAUSE waterboarding is uncomfortable but not dangerous - what is the worse that could happen in waterboarding? They run out of water? You fall asleep?

I’ve never tried to morally justify any action by saying that what someone else does is worse - i’ve maintained all along that how we have treated the detainees is not torture, does not rise to the level of torture and is in keeping with all applicable international and national law.

You love introducing analogies that have nothing to do with the discussion - who cares what parents allow their children to do or not to do and who gives a flying rat’s a$$ about the kid down the street - stay in the discussion and quit running off to never never land with flights of fancy.

90

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Stop playing with words. Calling torture “enhanced interrogation techniques” is no better than calling terrorism “man made disasters”.

Do you think they tortured Winston in Room 101? He was never hurt, but it was the height of torture.

Let’s stop playing with words and just be blunt: we torture. Some torture is okay. Some torture isn’t.

Also the concept that torture doesn’t work is bullshit. You just have to do it right.

My personal feelings on torture are irrelevant, but I’m a self-indulgent bastard so ride with me. In the ticking-time bomb situation I’d torture to any level. It should always remain illegal, but I’d still be willing to do it. It’s up to society and a jury of my peers to judge me.

mike[/quote]

I’m hardly playing with words - I know what torture is and if I had my way we would really torture the terrorist sob’s and worse. I used the terms I do, because what we do is so far from being torture that it is laughable that people can’t get that through their little heads.

But I appreciate your sentiment - I understand your underlying point, but please appreciate the fact we will never be allowed to actually torture and if we allow the techniques we actually can used to be classified as torture (which they are not) - those slap and tickle sessions will also be taken away and we will have no recourse to actually gather usable intel from the bad guys.

91

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

And you accuse me of oversimplifying. If you can’t see the deference in killing someone attacking your person in self defense and torturing someone that is a direct threat to no one to possibly get questionable intelligence that might save someone else I’m not going to be able to beat it in. The Ds are not the same.

And yes I introduced it because they are logically equivalent and equally stupid.

You cannot justify the morality of an action by stating that things someone else does are worse.

You sound like a child complaining to his parents about the little boy down the street getting to do something you can’t. Good moral responsible parents don’t care what the kid down the street does because it doesn’t change whats best or whats right and good.

Who’s torturing anyone? That is the whole point of this thread - are we torturing the detainees at Gitmo? - I have tried time and time again to demonstrate that the techniques used are not and could never rise to the level of actual torture! Being extra sleepy and getting slapped evry once and awhile is not the same as being burnt, cut, beaten, electrocuted, etc.

The D’s are exactly the same (despite you once again changing the terms and questions I used) - preventing deaths by killing the one attempting to cause the deaths is allowed in any moral or legal setting - so why is depriving someone of sleep to accomplish the same goal somehow morally reprehensible? - and before you go off another crazy tangent - that is the extent of most of the enhanced interrogation techniques used - plain and simple sleep deprivation.

The point is - if I can kill someone to prevent them from killing others or myself - and this is morally acceptable - how can it be morally unacceptable to NOT kill them but only deprive them of a few night’s sleep to accomplish the same goal?!

Have I spelled it out simply enough for you to understand yet?

Waterboarding is the most extreme technique ever used and it was only used on three confirmed terrorists - and it is not an actual torture - it is a scary sensation - but it causes no harm. If it was so horrible, why did it take over 100 times to get the guy to say anything? He probably talked out of sheer boredom with the routine!

"Oh Allah, not the silly water thing again - I’d rather be playing chess or talking to the pretty reporters again - or checking out T-Nation’s SAMA threads . . . I never really liked Jamal anyway . . "

Choosing waterboarding over beheading is not the logical equivalent of eating a toxic substance or being shot in the face - BECAUSE waterboarding is uncomfortable but not dangerous - what is the worse that could happen in waterboarding? They run out of water? You fall asleep?

I’ve never tried to morally justify any action by saying that what someone else does is worse - i’ve maintained all along that how we have treated the detainees is not torture, does not rise to the level of torture and is in keeping with all applicable international and national law.

You love introducing analogies that have nothing to do with the discussion - who cares what parents allow their children to do or not to do and who gives a flying rat’s a$$ about the kid down the street - stay in the discussion and quit running off to never never land with flights of fancy.[/quote]

So if there was a US solider being deployed that you knew what going to kill 5 people, you would kill him to prevent death?

No, situations preventing death are NOT always equal. A death is not always morally equivalent. Self defense from physical attack is completely a different issue.

You are completely oversimplifying your D variable. Your “Ds” ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

NOW I’M UPSET BECAUSE I KNOW LIXY IS GOING TO READ THIS AND ENJOY IT. You through your ignorance are making me lend thoughts to lixy.

92

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Waterboarding is the most extreme technique ever used and it was only used on three confirmed terrorists - and it is not an actual torture - it is a scary sensation - but it causes no harm. If it was so horrible, why did it take over 100 times to get the guy to say anything? He probably talked out of sheer boredom with the routine! [/quote]

If it is so harmless, why was it declared illegal for us to use during the Vietnam war? Why was an episode of waterboarding used as testimony against the war crimes of the Japanese captors of the Doolittle raiders? Why did the picture above result in the court martial of the soldier performing the waterboarding?

93

My Opinion:

Water-boarding is not torture. But it is certainly cruel and unusual.

Therefore, we should not do it.

(Not saying it is ILLEGAL. I’m not a constitutional law scholar. I just think it goes against the spirit of the natural rights described in our Bill of Rights).

94

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

So if there was a US solider being deployed that you knew what going to kill 5 people, you would kill him to prevent death?

No, situations preventing death are NOT always equal. A death is not always morally equivalent. Self defense from physical attack is completely a different issue.

You are completely oversimplifying your D variable. Your “Ds” ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

NOW I’M UPSET BECAUSE I KNOW LIXY IS GOING TO READ THIS AND ENJOY IT. You through your ignorance are making me lend thoughts to lixy.[/quote]

And there we go again - a-whole-nother line of reasoning completely tangential to the original question - now we are off on the topic of the morality of soldiers killing other soldiers in combat and trying to find moral equivalency with my original questions and the prevention of innocent deaths . . .wow - you never cease to amaze me with your rabbit trails - well - good luck with that one - you’re on your own out there . . .

you can’t answer my original question three without conceding my point - so you insist that the prevention of deaths by killing someone is somehow not equivalent to the prevention of deaths by not killing them . . .sheesh, So rather than answer the question, you try to continually prop up your straw man argument about self-defense versus organizations versus soldiers in combat versus Japanese torturers versus - ah hell, I’ve forgotten all of the wild goose chases you’ve been on in this thread . . .

Discussing this with you is like trying to nail grease to a wall. You can’t even complete your own line of reasoning and refuse to deal directly with mine . . . well, when you can - let me know.

95

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

So if there was a US solider being deployed that you knew what going to kill 5 people, you would kill him to prevent death?

No, situations preventing death are NOT always equal. A death is not always morally equivalent. Self defense from physical attack is completely a different issue.

You are completely oversimplifying your D variable. Your “Ds” ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

NOW I’M UPSET BECAUSE I KNOW LIXY IS GOING TO READ THIS AND ENJOY IT. You through your ignorance are making me lend thoughts to lixy.

And there we go again - a-whole-nother line of reasoning completely tangential to the original question - now we are off on the topic of the morality of soldiers killing other soldiers in combat and trying to find moral equivalency with my original questions and the prevention of innocent deaths . . .wow - you never cease to amaze me with your rabbit trails - well - good luck with that one - you’re on your own out there . . .

you can’t answer my original question three without conceding my point - so you insist that the prevention of deaths by killing someone is somehow not equivalent to the prevention of deaths by not killing them . . .sheesh, So rather than answer the question, you try to continually prop up your straw man argument about self-defense versus organizations versus soldiers in combat versus Japanese torturers versus - ah hell, I’ve forgotten all of the wild goose chases you’ve been on in this thread . . .

Discussing this with you is like trying to nail grease to a wall. You can’t even complete your own line of reasoning and refuse to deal directly with mine . . . well, when you can - let me know.
[/quote]

You actually just admitted the morality of a death is not equivilant. (D1 is not D2 is not D3)

If your answer to your own original 3 questions is yes, then you agreed to killing the american soldier.

Yes the killing a soldier isn’t morally equivalent, that’s the point. You said the same thing I did. Why are you insisting death is death then saying soldiers are different?

96

[quote]borrek wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

If it is so harmless, why was it declared illegal for us to use during the Vietnam war? Why was an episode of waterboarding used as testimony against the war crimes of the Japanese captors of the Doolittle raiders? Why did the picture above result in the court martial of the soldier performing the waterboarding?

[/quote]

That would be a difference in actual technique and the extent to which it is applied. Original “water torture” involved being strapped to the board and being completely immersed head-first into a barrel of water - you could actually drown and die - and that fear and possible result was the actual torture and in fact in at least one case from WW2 a US soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for killing a prisoner he was supposed to be guarding when he used this technique without authorization and killed the prisoner.

The picture above resulted in court-martial because it was being done without any pretext of interrogation or under any type of controlled environment. As is still evident in the picture-it was being done to entertain the soldiers. They were not court-martialed because the particular technique but because of the manner and purpose in which it was conducted.

The reason water torture was considered illegal was because it actually involved drowning the restrained victim - the modern technique of water boarding has no inherent danger of drowning- the maximum amount of water than can be used at any one time was 1.5 gallons being dumped all at once onto the face of the restrained individual (1/10 of the amount of gatorade routinely dumped on coaches). Within 20 seconds the cloth must be removed and normal unrestricted breathing resumes.

Doctors are there to monitor the individual in case at any time they manage to actually ingest any water - at which point the whole exercise is canceled. In addition the technique is controlled by a person uninvolved in the procedure who can cancel it at anytime they believe it is being done improperly for any reason - they have the final say.

Love the rabbit trails - keep 'em coming.

97

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

You actually just admitted the morality of a death is not equivilant. (D1 is not D2 is not D3)

If your answer to your own original 3 questions is yes, then you agreed to killing the american soldier.

Yes the killing a soldier isn’t morally equivalent, that’s the point. You said the same thing I did. Why are you insisting death is death then saying soldiers are different?[/quote]

for crying out loud - you really love these straw man arguments. I have not admitted any such thing. and NO, i did not agree to killing the soldier - I told you it was a tangential argument.

You are off in never never land again - trying to extrapolate an whole new argument out of nothing based on an analogy you introduced to prove a straw man argument you created in some weird attempt to move the discussion into the realm of when is killing not killing, when is murder not murder, when is self-defense not self-defense - sheesh - dude, seriously - stick on a point.

Question 1 - would you kill someone to prevent them from killing you (yes or no - and yes this is self-defense - congratulations on that wonderfully astute observation)

Question 2 - would you kill someone to prevent them from killing other people (yes or no - and yes this applies equally to soldiers, cops, and citizens - and no this is not the time for arguing the distinctions of combat, police action or national/community/family defense - resist the rabbits!)

and finally Question 3 - if you agree with the first two (in their normal sense - not your wild never-never land with the kid down the street) as being morally acceptable (again RESIST the urge to follow those rabbits - resist!) then how can it be morally unacceptable to deprive someone of few nights sleep to accomplish the same goal (that of preventing the deaths of innocent people)?

It really is that simple - you can create all of the strawman arguments you want- but it comes down those simply questions and their simple answers.

Yes, it is morally acceptable to defend your life by killing the person trying to kill you.

Yes, it is morally acceptable to defend the lives of others by killing the person trying to kill them.

And YES,it is morally acceptable to keep someone awake for a few days to try to prevent the deaths of yourself and other innocent individuals.

That’s it - that’s the whole point - the whole enchilada.

That is what 99.99% of all of the “enhanced interrogation methods” amounted to - sleep deprivation and the occasional slap, finger poke and “Come on Over” marathon . . .

RESIST THE RABBIT!

98

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.[/quote]

Well, most everyone agrees that Iran is run by kooks and that they should be obliterated. I don’t think anyone here wanted to kill ALL Iranians, unless that was necessary in order to get the maniacs…kind of like invading and bombing Germany in the WW.

99

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
<<< hah. how is breaking the law pro-american?

would you feel it’s ok for a cop to waterboard you for speeding? after all you could be speeding becuase your trafficking drugs.

I can’t believe some of the mindless bullshit that people expect to be taken serious for.

2 things.

If you cannot discern the difference between a foreign enemy combatant/POW in a time of war and a traffic violation, it’s a mystery how you get your own socks on.

  1. Measures taken in the acquisition of intelligence should be commensurate and proportionate to the potential and probability of both the threat and the quality of the information.

No sane person supports the torturing anybody except where national security is at stake and the subject represents a high probability of actionable intelligence.

In war the only rule is winning. It is not a %@#$%#$ hockey game. I don’t want fair and civilized. I want victory. Decisive, unambiguous, “we dare anybody else to try that” victory. Meet Little Boy. I sure wish the world wasn’t like that, but as long as it is that is the only way to survive. Again, I wonder planet some people think they’re living on and or if they’ve been paying attention in the least.

I’m sorry man I can’t disagree more. What you are stating now is the exact opposite of what I see you normally stand up for.

This country is supposed to stand for something. We are supposed to be about freedom, justice, individual rights, and liberty. Torture is the opposite of that. Period.

These people, even the guilty ones, can’t hurt anyone anymore.

These interrogation techniques are the opposite of the American ideal we’re fighting for. This isn’t the solution to America being slowly torn down, it’s part of it. This is just another chip off of what we stand for.[/quote]

I agree with your principles but not with your conclusions. The line between making someone uncomfortable and torture is gray, which is why there’s any controversy about all of this.

America was established with an egoistical philosophy that conflicts with the altruism that most people have been taught and believe. Which will win in the end?

100

It is not torture if : 1. some clown will do it on a Japanese game show or Fear Factor for a prize. 2. If we do it to our own troops in training, ie, waterboarding. I know multiple service men that have had that done in training and they’re just fine.

  1. If college kids do it to themselves. All nighters for studying anyone?

You people remind me of the Spanish Inquisition on Monty Python. Maybe we should get out the comfy chair and tea and crumpets and poke them with the soft pillows? How about getting out the 'rack", ie, the dish rack and pretend.