[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Question: WHY is waterboarding considered torture by those on this thread that claim so? Be specific.
Because when I imagine it being done to myself, I can’t see as anything but torture.
When I imagine being jailed for an extended period of time, even if warranted, I can’t see it as anything but torture. Is it?[/quote]
It is, in my opinion. I don’t try to sugarcoat it for easy digestion.
[quote]TPreuss wrote:
orion wrote:
TPreuss wrote:
I’m pretty sure waterboarding is not regarded as torture in the Geneva convention. Not only that, but terrosirts are not even considered enemy “soldiers” since they don’t actually belong to a country or army. I agree with the OP that ‘letting go terrorists’ is a slap in the face to anyone who has been affected by them. In any case, the opening post is a bad way to start this discussion.
Waterboarding is nothing compared to what terroists do to people - talking about gasing people, cutting off limbs, mutilations, shit like that.
Awww, poor terrorists…
They desearve everything they’re getting. I don’t give a damn about their ‘civil rights’.
And when they come for you all people that cared even for yours will long be gone.
Plus, itÃ??Ã?´s “human rights”.
As in “endowed with by their creator” and, dare I say it?, inalienable.
And when they come for me? Hahaha. The reason they aren’t coming for me is because we treat them like the shit they are. . [/quote]
Oh my.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Question: WHY is waterboarding considered torture by those on this thread that claim so? Be specific.[/quote]
Because it was invented by the Spanish Inquisition specifically to torture people which is why it was called water torture?
Because whenever someone did it to US soldiers they were trialed and executed because of torture?
I dunno.
Why indeed?
Let us call it freedom snorkeling and all will be swell.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yes. We’ll hold prisoners for 10 years and torture them 100 times a month.
Ok, how long should they be kept? Where would you draw the line for torture? How soon would you have ended interogations with KSM? What would you have done with him?
[/quote]
I wouldn’t have ended it.I would have tortured him 57 times an hour for 15 years, made him sign a letter of allegiance to Stalin and confessed all of his crimes he’d committed. Then I would have shot him with a bullet bathed in pig’s blood, and invited Keifer Sutherland down there to headbutt his dead body just so he could see how it’s done. All in the name of Freedom. No lines shall ever be drawn against torturing in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It’s called rhetoric Wordsworth. Guess they didn’t teach you about it in Neocon Economics 101. It’s OK. Your side loves it.
[quote]
That’s us. Just don’t look in the secret prisons.
Secret?
Depending on who it is, I’ll add a couple more. Don’t tread on me. Don’t fuck with this. Spill the beans.[/quote]
Right. Because it’s not a well known fact that people will admit to nearly anything when they’re being tortured. So of course it helps us. Saves lives. Undoubtedly.
You’ll be great for the Ministry of Truth when we go to war with Eurasia.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Source?
[/quote]
How’s this one:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701880744/Waterboarding.html
[quote]In the United States, waterboarding has long been considered illegal or a violation of military rules of conduct. The earliest known case of a prosecution for waterboarding occurred in 1901 when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years in prison for waterboarding a Filipino guerrilla insurgent during the Philippine-American War. In 1926 the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a black man accused of murder because his confession had been obtained by waterboarding.
Following World War II (1939-1945) American prosecutors convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding Allied prisoners of war. The soldiers were tried as part of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also known as the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. During the Vietnam War, a U.S. soldier who participated in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese prisoner of war was court-martialed in 1968. As recently as 1983, a Texas sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison for waterboarding suspects in an attempt to coerce confessions.
In 1994 the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). When this international treaty was ratified, its provisions became U.S. law. The convention defined torture as â??any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.â??[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Question: WHY is waterboarding considered torture by those on this thread that claim so? Be specific.[/quote]
Come on now. You are forcing water down someone’s throat so that they think they are drowning and will give you information. What else would it be besides torture?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Question: WHY is waterboarding considered torture by those on this thread that claim so? Be specific.
Come on now. You are forcing water down someone’s throat so that they think they are drowning and will give you information. What else would it be besides torture? [/quote]
Question: WHY is it always the chickenhawks who love going to war and are all about torture when they’ve experienced neither and never will?
Question of the decade as far as I’m concerned.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Question: WHY is waterboarding considered torture by those on this thread that claim so? Be specific.[/quote]
Because the government of the United States says it is? Is that not a good enough reason? And the fact that a few of Bush’s WH lawyers came up with this theory that it isn’t if the president says so doesn’t fly at all.
Something tells me that our government hasn’t been completely honest about their version of waterboarding. I’m sure its not just me.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Something tells me that our government hasn’t been completely honest about their version of waterboarding. I’m sure its not just me.[/quote]
[i]GASP!![/i}
Are you suggesting that are government LIES!??
You pinko commi fuck, you’ll never do another movie for Hollywood again!
IMO there is conclusive proof that someone has knowledge about a terrorist plot you torture them. If there is a possibility that you are wrong, you don’t.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Question: WHY is waterboarding considered torture by those on this thread that claim so? Be specific.
Come on now. You are forcing water down someone’s throat so that they think they are drowning and will give you information. What else would it be besides torture?
Question: WHY is it always the chickenhawks who love going to war and are all about torture when they’ve experienced neither and never will?
Question of the decade as far as I’m concerned.
Whoa, pardner. You have not seen me necessarily advocate it here. I asked a question. Or two. Climb the fuck down off your high horse and scroll backward.
You and others may have attempted to infer my feelings on the subject but you might better practice the use of good judgment. I asked an honest question to keep the debate going.[/quote]
Wasn’t necessarily directed at you. More like the internet warriors like Dhicky and the ever charming SuperChickenHawk Headhunter.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I wouldn’t have ended it.I would have tortured him 57 times an hour for 15 years, made him sign a letter of allegiance to Stalin and confessed all of his crimes he’d committed. Then I would have shot him with a bullet bathed in pig’s blood, and invited Keifer Sutherland down there to headbutt his dead body just so he could see how it’s done. All in the name of Freedom. No lines shall ever be drawn against torturing in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
[/quote]
way to contribute. is a replacement for intellegent conversation, or do you plan post a serious response.
You don’t know what a neocon is if you think I am a neocon. Again, can we expect an intellegent response or is this it?
[quote]
Right. Because it’s not a well known fact that people will admit to nearly anything when they’re being tortured. So of course it helps us. Saves lives. Undoubtedly.
You’ll be great for the Ministry of Truth when we go to war with Eurasia. [/quote]
A well known fact? by who? we’ve had a few people claim that interogation does not work, yet no one offer any proof of this. Will you be the first?
Was the CIA lying when they claimed to have stopped a planned attackin LA based on info they gathered from KSM? I know enough of the CIA to chuckle a bit while typing that, but unfortunatly they are all we have. If they say it works, who else can we cite to say that it doesn’t?
I have seen others disect reports and peal out parts they like, but have not seen anyone refute that we have gathered useful information.
So, please pick you arguement. Is it that certain interogation techniques you don’t like haven’t worked, or that we shouldn’t use them anyway? Do you think a serious answer is possible this time?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Wasn’t necessarily directed at you. More like the internet warriors like Dhicky and the ever charming SuperChickenHawk Headhunter. [/quote]
Why don’t you just take off and let the grown-ups have a conversation here. You obviously have no intention of adding anything useful.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I wouldn’t have ended it.I would have tortured him 57 times an hour for 15 years, made him sign a letter of allegiance to Stalin and confessed all of his crimes he’d committed. Then I would have shot him with a bullet bathed in pig’s blood, and invited Keifer Sutherland down there to headbutt his dead body just so he could see how it’s done. All in the name of Freedom. No lines shall ever be drawn against torturing in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
way to contribute. is a replacement for intellegent conversation, or do you plan post a serious response.
[/quote]
It is serious. I’ve seen the light. Talked to Jesus. Recognized that torture is that path to enlightenment. Woo-hoo America. Wrap me in the stars and stripes and walk me to Washington.
Most of the posts on this subject don’t deserve any type of serious response.
Interrogation? Ahh that’s cute, I see what you did there. I said nothing of interrogation. We are talking of torture, and those lessons are written in blood by both the Gestapo and the Kremlin. Go seek them out for yourself if you’re fool enough not to know this shit already.
Once again, you twist your own words to twist out of the argument. Interrogation, intelligence gathering, scouting, preventative measures, preemptive attacks, call them what you will you proponents of Newspeak.
Do I believe the CIA? No. Is it possible that they stopped an attack? Yes. Is it likely? Not particularly.
Does that change the fact that torturing someone is a crime against humanity, even though it’s only the losers of the war who are punished? No.
Certain techniques do not have a place in the repertoire of the country that villianized those that used those very same techniques. I am not an expert on the methods they use, but I do know that waterboarding is a terrible crime that the US itself prosecuted the Japanese for.
I guess the Japanese didn’t know that it’s only OK if you do it in the name of freedom and safety. Oh well.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Wasn’t necessarily directed at you. More like the internet warriors like Dhicky and the ever charming SuperChickenHawk Headhunter.
Why don’t you just take off and let the grown-ups have a conversation here. You obviously have no intention of adding anything useful.[/quote]
It’s better than the happy horshit that you spew that counts as “politics.”
Take your “grown up” talk and fuck yourself with it.