Waterboarding is Torture...Period

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
If I knew the Austrian gov’t was killing guys or like or the Swedes were killing guys like Lixy I’d be on the first C-130 with a rifle in my hand to help out.[/quote]

Again, that is very brave and noble of you. But you do realize the US has supported ruthless regimes throughout their worse atrocities (and is doing so to this day)?

The word pawn comes to mind.

[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe Iraq will be a rich Democracy in 50 years but whose to say that would not have happened anyway? [/quote]

People tend to forget that Saddam’s life was in danger every day of the week, and that he never traveled without body doubles and heavily armed convoys.

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Once again - what in the fuck is a moral war? I guess politically stupid is a subjective call. The stupidity is not the torture - most people could give a rat’s ass about non-lethal methods of enticing the enemy to divulge information. Political stupidity is the fact that we are still over there.

This is the problem with the entire prosecution of this war - everyone wants to be nice. Fuck nice. It leads to more needless pain suffering and death than the torture chambers.

Morals mean nothing to our enemy. Picking the fog of war as the proper time to rise above the fray and be a better man is a cowards way out. Play to win, or get off the fucking field.

I absolutely agree.

You cannot have a nice war.

This is why I think it is stupid to start one even for the most altruistic motives, like ousting Saddam.

You cannot bomb, maim and kill people or their relatives and convince them that it is in their best interest.

If you do not bomb, maim and kill people the war lasts longer which lead to even more bombing, maiming and killing.

You cannot be the “good guys” and win wars.

Yet American propaganda insist that you are the “good guys” and that that is why you are fighting those wars.

As long as you have to convince the American public you need a just cause. That just cause cannot justify any means.

Which is why the war in Iraq was probably not a good idea.[/quote]

Reasons for going to war can be noble - or moral. I think that the war on terror is a moral reason to invade known terrorist states such as Afghanistan and supporters of terror such as Iraq.

The act of war itself is the ultimate in life or death struggle. It is not moral. Immoral means can be used to gain a moral end.

Kinda like waterboarding.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Immoral means can be used to gain a moral end.
[/quote]

What exactly is the “moral” end?

Oh…nevermind!

Its like when we kill 20 innocent civilians when we were only gunning for 2 evildoers. Yes…this is perfectly moral…<scratches head?>

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So we are allowed to do it to members of our own armed forces but not to terrorists?

We’re doing this to obtain information from/demean/humiliate our troops? (The issue), or we’re doing this as a training procedure to voluntary soldiers?

What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?

Definitely not.

If the alleged terrorists agree to that procedure it is fine with me.

This is so stupid it is staggering.
[/quote]

If you mean your post, I agree.

No really, if you cannot see the difference between consenting adults and organized coercion all hope is lost for you.

See, you show more respect for your troops because you ask them first.

Get it?

If you have problems with that concept you will probably also not get why surgery is ok and what makes rape a problem for most civilized people.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Reasons for going to war can be noble - or moral. I think that the war on terror is a moral reason to invade known terrorist states such as Afghanistan and supporters of terror such as Iraq.

The act of war itself is the ultimate in life or death struggle. It is not moral. Immoral means can be used to gain a moral end.

Kinda like waterboarding.
[/quote]

First there are no terrorists states, only governments that aid terrorists.

Second the US is one of these states, because the Kurdish “freedom fighters” you happened to arm by “losing” a significant amount of weaponry to fight in Iran, are the same “terrorists” who fight in Turkey.

Funny how the same weapons and tactics can be one or the other depending on in which country this “collateral damage”/“atrocities against civilians” take place.

So if harboring terrorists is a cause for war and really, really bad, why does the US do it?

Is not aiding a terrorist as bad as being a terrorist?

I remember a US president claiming that.

Then, if terrorist/freedom fighter seems to be a rather fluid concept how do we know all those people that are called terrorists actually are terrorists?

When the US is not even able to define what is a terrorist (the Revolutionary Guard? Puullease…) how can they fight terrorism, an abstract concept, no less?

And for whom is this the ultimate life and death struggle?

For people with the oh so convenient label “terrorist”?

Yes.

For the US?

Hardly.

And to water-boarding:

In mankind’s history it has been one kind of organisation and one kind of organisation alone, that is responsible for more than 99% of all violent deaths .

Governments.

If you think that it is wise to give organisations with such a record the means to write their own warrants, spy on people or torture them you will see a time were you will pray for as harmless a problem as AL Qaeda.

In the end you hope that Americans are better people than the Germans or the Japanese were.

Trust me, they aren`t.

[quote]orion wrote:

No really, if you cannot see the difference between consenting adults and organized coercion all hope is lost for you.
…[/quote]

If you cannot see the difference between our soldiers and the evil AQ psychotics then all hope is lost for you. But I already knew that about you.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Torture comes with no guarantee of death or promise of after-life pussy, whereas blowing themselves up they die instantly (and one would assume painlessly, but I’m not about to test it) with hopes of a little cloud sex.

Torture = all the pain of the innocents they harm, none of the reward

I don’t believe knowingly blowing yourself up to harm innocents gets you pussy (or dick for that matter). It gets you straight to hell. [/quote]

And they clearly do not hold the same belief you do if they see martyring one’s self (suicide bomber) as a gateway to heaven and a boatload of virgins.

With all due respect, it does not matter what you believe, nor what I believe, or anyone but the would be terrorist believes.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:

No really, if you cannot see the difference between consenting adults and organized coercion all hope is lost for you.

If you cannot see the difference between our soldiers and the evil AQ psychotics then all hope is lost for you. But I already knew that about you.[/quote]

But that wasnt your question Darling, wasnt it.

But wow you´re so rugged and manly, chopping down that straw man of yours…

You asked:

The answer is:

Obviously not because you ask your troops first and that makes all the difference.

Anything else where I can substitute for your withered moral compass?

Anything else you “learned” about me by forgetting your own posts?

Does torture work?
Yes.
Does the western world lose the moral high gronud if we succumb to the lure of using it?
Yes.
So that is the bottom line.
Do we strive to just win?
Or win with some shred of morality on our side?

That is a personal question that will determine one’s viewpoint on this issue.

One cannot have it both ways.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You guys that claim it doesn’t work are kidding yourselves. [/quote]

Can you cite some documented cases where waterboarding (or similar torture techniques) have successfully saved lives?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You guys that claim it doesn’t work are kidding yourselves.

Can you cite some documented cases where waterboarding (or similar torture techniques) have successfully saved lives? [/quote]

Can you prove to me it wasn’t? There are a number of links already posted saying it made the bad guys sing like canaries. When they started turning in other terrorists that equals saved lives.

It is very hard to get real information on exactly what these guys say during interrogation. We don’t want the enemy to know what we have learned so any news stories you read do not have a complete picture. If they pretend to then they are lying and they can be discounted.

It is a moot point wether any info can be produced that it does or does not work.

So if it is proven to work then it’s ok?

Any man can be broken.This isn’t ‘24’,‘Sleeper cell’,or some other Hollywood wank fest.

Do the ends justify the means?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh…nevermind!

Its like when we kill 20 innocent civilians when we were only gunning for 2 evildoers. Yes…this is perfectly moral…<scratches head?>[/quote]

Well, that’s better than killing 20 innocent civilians because your gunning to kill innocent civilians.

Morality? I thought we agreed to trash the concept. In fact, I was under the impression we treated each other as if under some contractual agreement. “You don’t kill me, I don’t kill you.” “You don’t steal my stuff, I won’t steal yours.”

Well, Al Qaeda and pals don’t respect such an ideal. They will amputate your arm, use a power drill on you, and after it’s all over, remove your head with a sawing like motion. They will place bombs and use death squads in ways to ensure maximum civilian casualties. I would be happy to see them send a diplomat to work with the US on a treaty dealing with the treatment of prisoners, ours and theirs. Yes, it would be great to see them agree to respect more humane rules of combat and such. But, they haven’t and won’t.

So, if we live under a social structure of “I won’t do this, if you don’t do that,” the unspoken agreement has been breached by the enemy in the most absolute brutal ways. There isn’t a formal or unspoken contract here. There never will be.

Now, if the argument is about morality, it’s a tough one. Watching the body count continue to mount, as a bombing/death squad cell continues to operate, while a top Lt. of that group sits uncooperative in a cell…Where’s the morality in that? What’s moral about dozens, hundreds, or thousands more dying while the guy with names and locations sit defiantly in a cell, praising Allah for his brothers’ continued attacks?

If I was to receive yet another market bombing report about the guy’s group, while knowing he’s getting his recreation time in at that very moment, I damn sure wouldn’t feel like I was doing the moral thing. Thirty seconds of water-boarding, or who knows how many more successful bombings and deaths/maimings?

I would kill or maim the enemy about to detonate a bomb in the middle of a market. So, I just don’t have any qualms about water-boarding the guy who helped arm this man, who knows who he is and where he might be, and where he may strike. In such a situation he IS actively aiding his brother in killing the next mob of civilians. Now, this is assuming conventional interrogations are reasonably exhausted, or if a deadly attack is imminent in which techniques relying on an extended amount of time are just not possible.

Merely as punishment? Never, ever.

To gather information so as to thwart conventional military operations (i.e. attacks aimed solely at our military?)
Never. If combatants aim to keep it between combatants, all efforts to treat the enemy as a conventional prisoner should be taken.

To rescue a US soldier being held in humane conditions (as opposed to dismemberment and being dragged through the street)? Never.

Those are not the kind of things were waterboarding even becomes a possibility to me.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100M would be championing the use of torture if his guys were in the white house.
[/quote]
Obviously false. There would still be better/more effective methods of interrogation.

I could have quoted any member of the armed forces I suppose.

US military?

This doesn’t even make sense, the only people really for it are handfuls of civilians at CIA and Pentagon and Whitehouse, echoed by idiots who have been wrong about absolutely everything at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Wash.Times etc.

[quote]
What is all this about a moral war? When the hell did war become moral? There is no morality in war. Side A should kill people and break shit of Side B until Side B quits, or has all their people killed and shit broke.

If torture facilitates an expedited means to that end - it should be used. [/quote]
If it doesn’t and causes side A to waste time and resources and further motivates side B, then best to not do it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So we are allowed to do it to members of our own armed forces but not to terrorists?

We’re doing this to obtain information from/demean/humiliate our troops? (The issue), or we’re doing this as a training procedure to voluntary soldiers?

What difference does it make? Do you respect terrorists more than our volunteer troops?

Definitely not.

If the alleged terrorists agree to that procedure it is fine with me.

This is so stupid it is staggering.
[/quote]
Uh no. This was staggering stupidity: “What difference does it make?”
Jeebus!

[quote]pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh…nevermind!

Its like when we kill 20 innocent civilians when we were only gunning for 2 evildoers. Yes…this is perfectly moral…<scratches head?>

Well, that’s better than killing 20 innocent civilians because your gunning to kill innocent civilians.[/quote]

I think he’s convincing me that more people need to be tortured so that fewer soldiers can apprehend more evildoers while risking fewer civilians lives.

Maybe the Japanese have it figured out, torture everyone, kill no one. A war where nobody dies (or at least not without a trial) might fit the definition of a moral war.

Can we please stop saying water-boarding motivates the enemy, or people into joining the enemy to fight us? "Holy Jihad, the US waterboards? I’ll go join the fight against them.

I wonder how I go about contacting the brothers so I can voluteer? I did see that one group holding up the head of an infidel (or Iraqi Soldier), while standing next to his shredded and disfigured body. Maybe I can get some contact info from one of my brothers at the local mosque!"

The enemy, and those joining them, don’t give a flip about the US waterboarding…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You guys that claim it doesn’t work are kidding yourselves.

Can you cite some documented cases where waterboarding (or similar torture techniques) have successfully saved lives?

Can you prove to me it wasn’t? There are a number of links already posted saying it made the bad guys sing like canaries. When they started turning in other terrorists that equals saved lives.

It is very hard to get real information on exactly what these guys say during interrogation. We don’t want the enemy to know what we have learned so any news stories you read do not have a complete picture. If they pretend to then they are lying and they can be discounted.[/quote]

Despite there being no credible evidence that torture produced reliable evidence, it’s enough for Zap if the president says it works, even if he also says we don’t do it.

Meanwhile the evidence it doesn’t work/ or is unwarranted is just ignored. So despite the fact there are countless stories now of people like Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi giving up false information(or as Zap would put it “singing like a canary”) under torture (info already known to be false but STILL used by Powell at the UN) Zap will still trust “unknown sources” in the whitehouse or the national review.