No Waterboarding, Your Child Dies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.

The honest answer for the vast majority of people is that they’d get past the “icky factor” and brutalize another human being who threatened the life of a family member, if that’s what it took to save said family member. Not just waterboarding, either. I’m talking about knocking someone’s teeth down their throat. We don’t care enough about non-family, usually, to do this.

Heck, didn’t the whole “Saw” franchise depend on the premise of people being forced to save themselves by harming/killing a stranger? I suspect it’s what made the movies (at least the first one or two) popular. The audience knew deep down–even if they didn’t want to admit it to themselves–there were some dark truths about human nature being in showcased in gory detail. So, what would we do to save the ones we love? Aren’t these the people we imagine ourselves willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for if that’s what it took to safeguard them?

I suspect the majority, if not the vast majority, would be capable of doing the most shocking things to save themselves and/or family. It’s other people’s families that might not be worth the ick factor.

Good answer but you personally and purposefully evaded the question.[/quote]

I’d let every single person here, and every one of their loved ones, die a horrible and agonizing death before I tortured, or ok’d torture. In the next life they will be rewarded for their martyrdom. Of course, if the atheist is correct, there would be no reward. Even so, before their will and consciouness fades to null, they’ll realize my stance was a noble one (assuming prior knowledge).

As for my own family? Well…I don’t want to come off as an internet Saint.

102

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Really people. We are talking about torturing enemy combantants. I can’t beleive what a bunch of illogical pussies we have become. This is absolutly insane. It one thing to abide by mutually agreed upon conduct of war, but that’s not what we are dealing with here. Grow a fucking sack.

Yes. We’ll hold prisoners for 10 years and torture them 100 times a month. That’ll be great. Land of the free, home of the brave. Shining city on the hill. That’s us. Just don’t look in the secret prisons.[/quote]

So Irish, you’re in Jersey, and it’s 9/10. You’ve got a terrorist in your hands. You know that something is up but don’t know the details. You decide to tell him all about the ‘Shining City’ and make sure he’s comfortable.

Horse-fucking-shit. You peel him like a fucking onion until he gives up the details. Waterboarding wouldn’t even cross your mind at its a college prank.

Too bad there’s no big impenetrable wall between us and the scum.

Morality only works when everyone agrees on a common set of principles.

103

[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

If that happens to me I quietly dispose of them and in the unlikely event that I should get caught I expect to be indicted, sentenced and do my term.

If an agent of my country did that in an absolute case of emergency those who knew would collectively look the other way.

If that was no longer possible we would sentence him and our president would probably pardon him.

104

[quote]Makavali wrote:
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]

Conclusive proof would be you knowing that they know X because you know they got “X” information on “X” Date at “X” Location, from “X” source. And if you already know all this information, then there really isn’t a reason to torture someone now is there.

You torture based on a hunch that the guy might know something. If you knew he knew, you would already know yourself.

V

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

I feel terrible if I even get mad enough to raise my voice, but if I could prevent a terrorist (or anyone else) from harming innocents, I peel the MFer like an onion. To harm an innocent is, to me, beyond comprehension and is pure evil.

106

[quote]pushharder wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.

how would you already know that this specific person already knows the exact information, plot, and every detail you know to stop it? and under this impossible situation how could you believe what they say? you don’t know if its a trap until its too late.

in such an imaginary world where this is possible, no one in the right mind would say theres an line that you cant cross.

but since a situation like that is impossible, whats the point of even asking?

That’s a ridiculous assumption. Do I need to explicitly describe a possible situation?

OK, simple one. Your seven year old daughter is kidnapped. You manage through whatever means to capture one of the kidnappers. You know he knows where she is. In fact he has told you he knows where she is…

Or

he is the only kidnapper and he has hidden her somewhere. You know he knows.

This is an “impossible situation”? No, I don’t think “impossible” is the word.

Anyway, what do you do, PB? Just what is a fine, moral, upstanding young man like you going to do? Are you going to serve him Smuckers on his peanut butter and jelly sandwich? With a glass of milk? And hand him the remote so he can watch whatever he wants?

Or are you going to begin to flay him alive?[/quote]

Push, I’m gonna go ahead and agree with you that I would likley do the exact same thing, only I’m probably starting by ripping off fingernails and toenails. However, just like I would take a bullet to save my family, I would have to accept the concequences of torturing someone. I would know it would be my end, but it would be worth it to me to save my child. The government should never, ever, ever, do it as policy. If some rambo fell on his sword in a “Jack Baur” type hollywood scenario, our government should take whatever useful info they could from it but then prosecute the torturer to the fullest extent of the law.

BTW, didn’t a few government agencies just recently start warning that people with ron paul stickers might be terrorists? People who carry around pocket constitutions might be terrorists? I don’t remember the whole list, but you really think if they move ahead with this game that they won’t torture US citizens? Oh, But they are terrorists, they are now enemy combatants because they are the enemy of the US. I can just see the spin machines running wild already.

V

107

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Makavali wrote:
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.

Conclusive proof would be you knowing that they know X because you know they got “X” information on “X” Date at “X” Location, from “X” source. And if you already know all this information, then there really isn’t a reason to torture someone now is there.

You torture based on a hunch that the guy might know something. If you knew he knew, you would already know yourself.

V[/quote]

As in you know A is an associate of B and has had dealings that would say I know what’s going on, like X previously provided bomb to B for an attack.

108

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Makavali wrote:
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.

Conclusive proof would be you knowing that they know X because you know they got “X” information on “X” Date at “X” Location, from “X” source. And if you already know all this information, then there really isn’t a reason to torture someone now is there.

You torture based on a hunch that the guy might know something. If you knew he knew, you would already know yourself.

V

As in you know A is an associate of B and has had dealings that would say I know what’s going on, like X previously provided bomb to B for an attack.[/quote]

Yea, but the reason Al queda was succsessful to this point is their compartmentalization. The guy who supplied the bomb had no idea what the person he was giving it to was going to use it for. The loose knit command structure meant even OBL didn’t know of every operation going on, there was a general theme, and OBL would respond with a video after the fact. You could catch a guy and he might know his part of something, which may have simply been Pick up this guy and drive him to this place. But after that, you are still guessing, so you just tortured a guy who gave you very little useful info.

Like I said above, as an individual, I could accept the concequences of torturing someone to save my family. I would have to answer to god as my judge and jury. Government should never use it as policy ever. I could be labeled a terrorist one day or my children and I could be responsible or partly responsible for getting them tortured by our own government because I supported it in my day and time.

V

109

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Morality only works when everyone agrees on a common set of principles.

[/quote]

Incorrect. Morality is about how you conduct yourself, not about what the other kids are doing.

110

[quote]borrek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Morality only works when everyone agrees on a common set of principles.

Incorrect. Morality is about how you conduct yourself, not about what the other kids are doing.

[/quote]

What if the other ‘kids’ don’t observe your moral code? You’re kind and fair, while they want to put your kids up on pikes, rape and murder your wife, burn your house to the ground, all while you watch and all to the alleged glory of Allah?

111

Is torturing morally right?
Is waterboarding torture?
In what situations are there acceptions?
Aren’t terrorists people just like the rest of us and desearving of basic human rights?
Who is to say that the people we torture actually know anything usefull?
Is NOT torturing terrorists hurting our chances of preventing future attacks?

These are far too complex of questions to argue about via bodybuilding forum. You’d need to have a sit down face to face with someone to come to any sort of agreement, even if it’s the old “agree to disagree”.

112

[quote]TPreuss wrote:
Is torturing morally right?
Is waterboarding torture?
In what situations are there acceptions?
Aren’t terrorists people just like the rest of us and desearving of basic human rights?
Who is to say that the people we torture actually know anything usefull?
Is NOT torturing terrorists hurting our chances of preventing future attacks?

These are far too complex of questions to argue about via bodybuilding forum. You’d need to have a sit down face to face with someone to come to any sort of agreement, even if it’s the old “agree to disagree”.

[/quote]

Let’s totally give up guys.

113

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
borrek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Morality only works when everyone agrees on a common set of principles.

Incorrect. Morality is about how you conduct yourself, not about what the other kids are doing.

What if the other ‘kids’ don’t observe your moral code? You’re kind and fair, while they want to put your kids up on pikes, rape and murder your wife, burn your house to the ground, all while you watch and all to the alleged glory of Allah?

[/quote]

If they live in caves, have no way whatsoever to live up to their promises and are 6000 miles away…

… ignoring them would be the best option.

edited

114

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
borrek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Morality only works when everyone agrees on a common set of principles.

Incorrect. Morality is about how you conduct yourself, not about what the other kids are doing.

What if the other ‘kids’ don’t observe your moral code? You’re kind and fair, while they want to put your kids up on pikes, rape and murder your wife, burn your house to the ground, all while you watch and all to the alleged glory of Allah?

[/quote]

So if 1 percent of the population of the world, rapes, pilages, murders, should the other 99% of the population of the world do the same just because they want to be on an equal footing “morally” as the 1% of fucktards? No, you do what is just and right and maintain the high ground, while dealing with the scum as you can. If you catch someone in the act or have solid concrete evidence against them, you prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. You do not treast them as less than human, or even less than animal. You can’t even torture an animal, it is against the law. You will go to prison for torturing a dog. Our strength comes from our conviction to do right. I don’t need anything other than my gut to know that torturing a living being is not right. Will I ever individually torture, the possibility is left open, no one is arguing that. It should however, never be the policy of a govarnment to torture.

Like I said before, the government could save millions of more lives by outlawing the automobile and fast food, all of which do not infringe upon anyones basic human rights, than they could by torturing any singular individual, regardless of the circumstances. They do not outlaw the automobile and they do not outlaw fast food, so why should they torture someone? These are just two examples, there are literally hundreds more.

V

115

YES I would rather die in a terrorist bomb myself than have one innocent person waterboarded and locked up without trial or charge.

Firstly don’t even try to say waterboarding is not torture. It makes you sounds really stupid. This is not even an issue for discussion in most of the world except some areas of the USA.

Western civilisation is fighting against extreme elements of a culture that has different values to ours.

If we change our values in order to win a military victory we have already lost the war.

Here in western countries we do not torture criminals. We need to treat ‘terrorists’ as what they are murdering criminals. No special status either in listening to their demands or in prosecuting them. Allowing the torture of criminals is basically removing the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. Torture is punishment and we can not punish anyone until they have had a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers and

The only way to win this ‘war’ is to show the muslim world that we are not scared and that our values and society are prosperous and have merit and integrity. Whilst at the same time handing tough punishments to those convicted or criminal (terrorist acts). We are not doing this at the moment by changing our own values in order to win some Pyhrric victories.

Now Mak’s idea a couple of pages back of torturing know tried and convicted members of criminal gangs for information… That sounds like a good idea to me. As far a I’m concerned once someone has been found guilty of certain crimes after a fair legal trial they have given up some of their basic human rights.

116

[quote]lou21 wrote:
Now Mak’s idea a couple of pages back of torturing know tried and convicted members of criminal gangs for information… That sounds like a good idea to me. As far a I’m concerned once someone has been found guilty of certain crimes after a fair legal trial they have given up some of their basic human rights. [/quote]

I think the justification (if you want to call it that) for the limited use of torture is to extract information rapidly in order to thwart an impending attack in the very near future. Having the time for a trial removes even that justification.

118

[quote]pushharder wrote:
lou21 wrote:

…The only way to win this ‘war’ is to show the muslim world that we are not scared and that our values and society are prosperous and have merit and integrity. Whilst at the same time handing tough punishments to those convicted or criminal (terrorist acts). We are not doing this at the moment by changing our own values in order to win some Pyhrric victories…

The only way, huh? The idyllic and naive way is the only way?

You don’t understand the mindset of the people we’re dealing with. And your lack of understanding warps your contribution to the list of proposed solutions.[/quote]

Even though it wasn’t addressed to me push,

I understand thier mindset, but that does not really have anything to do with my mindset. If we become evil in an attempt to preserve what we origionally are from destruction by an outside evil force, have we really preserved anything? I think we preserved something, but it wasn’t the noble entity we once were or claimed to be. Slippery slopes and all, eventually who is to say that we don’t become the most evil entity on the planet? Some might say we already are (I don’t quite agree with that at this point). So are we trying for self preservation purley of existance? Or would we also like to preserve our way of life and noble disposition? Is anyone really worried that terrorist attacks are going to bring the collapse of the united states? I can think of a few bankers who have me quite a bit more worried than said bearded dudes in a cave.

V

120

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Vegita wrote:
pushharder wrote:
lou21 wrote:

…The only way to win this ‘war’ is to show the muslim world that we are not scared and that our values and society are prosperous and have merit and integrity. Whilst at the same time handing tough punishments to those convicted or criminal (terrorist acts). We are not doing this at the moment by changing our own values in order to win some Pyhrric victories…

The only way, huh? The idyllic and naive way is the only way?

You don’t understand the mindset of the people we’re dealing with. And your lack of understanding warps your contribution to the list of proposed solutions.

Even though it wasn’t addressed to me push,

I understand thier mindset, but that does not really have anything to do with my mindset. If we become evil in an attempt to preserve what we origionally are from destruction by an outside evil force, have we really preserved anything? I think we preserved something, but it wasn’t the noble entity we once were or claimed to be. Slippery slopes and all, eventually who is to say that we don’t become the most evil entity on the planet? Some might say we already are (I don’t quite agree with that at this point). So are we trying for self preservation purley of existance? Or would we also like to preserve our way of life and noble disposition? Is anyone really worried that terrorist attacks are going to bring the collapse of the united states? I can think of a few bankers who have me quite a bit more worried than said bearded dudes in a cave.

V

Don’t get me wrong. I understand your argument. Maybe you understand mine. The crux of the matter is that this is a conundrum with a lot of really good thoughts swirling around on both sides. It is difficult for me to argue against your point of view in many cases and I daresay it is difficult for you argue the other way at times.

For me and without having invested a huge amount of thought in this subject I think it comes down to the theory (NO TORTURE EVER) and the practicality (YEAH, BUT WHAT ABOUT…) of the matter present a huge challenge.

So what if I said, “I dunno?”[/quote]

No No, I agree on your point about you doing the torturing on someone whereas you believe that by you doing so would save the life of your family or a loved one. I get that and I would likley do the same. But I still don’t think a government should ever do it. A man can do it and be held accountable, he can fall on his sword to save his loved ones. A Government doing it is a whole nother can of worms, one in which there are way too many bad scenarios to come out of it for it to be worth it as policy. I mean you know how politicians are spineless idiots. You also know there are some pretty bad people pretty high up on the power ladder. I just would never want that tool to be used maliciously on even one innocent american by his own government sworn to protect them. If we look at police officers and tazer abuse, yes it is a good tool, it is mostly nonlethal, but it does get abused from time to time by bad cops. No one could ever give me a promise I could believe that if you allowed it period that it would never be used against an innocent US citizen.

V