The Case for Torturing Lt. Chase Nielsen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]borrek wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

zzzzzzzzz

[/quote]

Yeah, I’m afraid my mind gets the better of me sometimes. I blame the HOT-ROX. Come one - it’s not that bad is it? If so, geez, I’m sorry - really. I won’t kid around with you sensitive types anymore.

Look - I’ve tried to make my point of view about the enhanced interrogation methods as plain as possible. I don’t view the outlined technique of water-boarding as being torture - that’s my call on it - a lot of you disagree, I get that. But you have offered no evidence of merit that would even begin to challenge, let alone change my views. I base my view on the published conditions, intentions and limitations of its use and on the fact that real torture is a definable thing and this falls short of that in my reasoning. I think we have treated the detainees well within the bounds of all applicable law - have there been abuses in the treatment of some detainees - yes! and those responsible should be punished and the problems corrected - no problem there. But this methodology is not something I think we as a nation did wrong.

I am not advocating the abandonment of the rule of law as some have accused me - I just don’t hold with changing the rules retroactively and trying redo the past. I think the rule of law supports the use of this technique and I have tried to explain that to you at length. However, I am not going to sit here and try to explain other people’s decisions or rationales - I am only giving my take on the issues and challenging anyone to change my mind.

The truth is that I personally have no issue with actually using real torture methods when dealing with terrorists - people who by the very nature of their tactics and methodology have abandoned all sense of normal restraint, rule of law, and humanity in dealing with their chosen enemy. I have no problem dealing with them according to the terms they have set. The reality is I would rather kill them all than have to hold any of them prisoner - but if torturing one of them helps me to kill the rest - I’m happy. I want to destroy my enemies - not make peace with them. I won’t apologize for that.

You guys have jumped all over the place and brought a disorganized mish-mash of logical fallacies, changed the roles from which we are examining the issue, brought up statements from all sorts of people from all sorts of different time frames and contexts, introduced all sorts of tangential arguments, made all sorts of personal attacks, taken my statements out of context, mixed in events from different times and places, changed the chronology of the actual events in question, added to the things I said - and I have patiently tried to answer them all - I believe I have remained consistent on my views.

If you think this was torture and illegal and a breach of the rule of law and that this has somehow made America a bad country - well, you are entitled to your view and I cannot speak to your strange sense of appropriateness - good luck in dealing with the people who have no problem strapping bombs to children. I can promise you from the clarity of history that this enemy will destroy you.

let me be clear yet again . . .

  1. Water-boarding as outlined and used (according to the public sources) does not constitute torture in my view. I have explained my rationale for this understanding repeatedly - some of you agree, some don’t - great!

  2. I would prefer to actually use real torture in dealing with the terrorists, but I would really really prefer to just slaughter them all as quickly and efficiently as possible. I am not better than that.

  3. Terrorists are mercenaries in my understanding of the articles of the GC. I have also explained the rationale behind this as well.

  4. Innocent people should be protected from all forms of abuse including enhanced interrogation methods - just don’t ever put me in the same room as a terrorist if you expect him to remain in good health . . . .

Hope that clarifies things for you and look - I didn’t even try to crack any jokes . . .

62

Hello boys … I’m back! That’s what she said after leaving us hanging upside down for 4 hours with olive oil smeared all over us while she went shopping . . . for a riding crop . . . crazy little minx . . .

(Note - if you do not find disturbing mental pictures humorous, or if you completely lack a sense of humor - you should skip over that first part - oops, should have put the warning before the insanity. Sorry)

I thought I would add a bit more proof for my view that the current technique and actual application of water boarding does not constitute torture . . .

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed?s face ? not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of ?five sessions of ill-treatment.?

?The water was poured 183 times ? there were 183 pours,? the official explained, adding that ?each pour was a matter of seconds.??

The memos did not note that the sessions would be made up of a number of short pours ? the ones the U.S. official said lasted ?a matter of seconds? ? and that created the huge numbers quoted by the New York Times: 183 on Mohamed, 83 on Zubaydah.

Pours, not waterboards.
63

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Everybody has the right to torture and everybody has the right to pay the penalty for torture, however if you are torturing for your country with the approval of your country even if it’s underhanded approval then YOUR country should not be the ones penalizing you.[/quote]

Yes.

Unfortunately, yes.

64

Right-
But: if said country discovers it has a conscience and cares about certain human rights, it’s obliged to at least send the architects of torture to prison.

65

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right-
But: if said country discovers it has a conscience and cares about certain human rights, it’s obliged to at least send the architects of torture to prison.[/quote]

Just when I thought I could sit in my man cave drinking bourbon without worrying about nonsensical comments regarding this issue . . (gets out of lazy-boy and wanders over to his soap box, taps mike and takes a deep breath) . . .

Ahem . . . First, it does not logically connect that the application of an aggressive interrogation technique rises to the level of torture in the minds of everyone. Just because you think it is torture does not make it so - and vice versa.

Secondly - implying that the application of said aggressive interrogation method constitutes a lack of conscience on the part of those who do not agree with your characterization of it as torture is a hug leap on conjecture to say the least and definitely rises to the level of condescension and bigotry.

As an addendum to the second point - it also does not follow that should one not think this technique constitutes torture that same person does not care about human rights (this falls into begging the question -look it up for yourself)

Thirdly - just because it is your opinion does not make it so - and vice versa, so calling for the jailing of people given the authority and responsibility to decide this is a bit nonsensical and constitutes an Ex Post Facto act which is unconstitutional to say the least. - - - - even if you are going to send every member of the DOJ, DOD, CIA, NGA, OLC, JCS, White House, Congress (both houses), select members of the press and attached civilian employees of the any involved agency - basically everyone who was involved with this determination from day 1 - who knew about, was privy to, instrumental in, consulted regarding, complicit in enacting, or in any way involved with the discussion, decision or implementation of this technique.

You are basically trying to rewrite a legally binding, legally constructed, legally enacted action just because you personally don’t agree with it. that, for clarity, is an Ex Post Facto act if I have ever heard of one. The duly elected and appointed officials of the Executive and Legislative Branches of your government approved and implemented this technique determining that it passed muster with all applicable law in force at the time of the decision. Even the Democratic Congressional representatives consulted about and privy to were concerned it was not aggressive enough of a technique!!

Using that rationale - I want Big O’s election overturned because he has broken the majority of his campaign promises and we’re going to pass a law saying no president can ever lie about a campaign promise and hold office- then apply it retroactively.

And finally - begging the question by intimating that people who don’t agree with you are without a conscience and don’t care about human rights is a rank amateur approach to an adult conversation - how about you actually use some real arguments or at least apply some true logic rather than relying a juvenile logical fallacies that only show your bigotry toward those who disagree with you . . . .eh?