Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[PubliusInfinitum]

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

That's true and the US hasn't tortured anyone... that you and the sisters of the left need to redefine torture is your problem... the word has a meaning and making a detainee, whose is DETAINED BECAUSE HE WAS BUSY PLOTTING OR EXECUTING MASS MURDER... uncomfortable or fearful of their life, is NOT TORTURE. And it will never be torture NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ERRONOUSLY CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.

So you've said before.

Yet the US Govt says otherwise, called it a war crime and prosecuted and sentence people to 15 years hard labor for doing it.

You're of course speaking of the trials of Japanese post WW2... where individuals were tried for brutal, bone crushing, muscle tearing, joint snapping TORTURE... and that you want to compare the 'water torture' implemented by those people is simply a function of your ignorance. They are not comparable in the slightest.


With regard to the current US Government which 'says so'... they're anti-American, pro-terrorist, subversives who are only presently in POWER, in the US goverment...

Of course they also say that someone is entitled to the production of another person's labor... and as is ALWAYS the case, they're simply unable to offer a valid, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for such.

I should point out that the Former US Executive said it was PERFECTLY FINE... so there seems to be a difference of opinion; what we're establishing here is that the present government's opinion is BASELESS...

 

[Yurt]

waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.

this argument is such a logical fallacy....

do you advocate sending convicts to prison?

 

[Iriemon]

so its the slippery slope argument...tell me, why then does the law allow you to kill someone in self defense when killing someone is otherwise illegal? using your argument, everyone will always then find an excuse to defend themselves and murder people...

the slippery slope argument in this case is meritless, there are checks and balances to it just like the self defense argument. perhaps you think we should away with all defenses to criminal law....

The proposal has more merit that a rule that simply permits torture. I thought about it. But it the end, I just don't want to be associated with a government that thinks torturing people can be legitimate. Nor do I think it is helpful in the war of ideas we are in.

kindly answer the right to kill in self defense and other defenses to criminal law...

Answer what?

you can leave if you don't want to be associated...

You can too.

fact is torture works and does save lives. perhaps you don't like saving lives. and really, they don't care whether we torture or not...before any torture stuff came out they were sawing people's heads off and hanging them up over bridges after beating the living shit out of them....

If torture works so great why have so many nations and international agreements banned its use. Even if it sometimes does work, the abuse if a far greater cost.

i can't fathom how it is you libs ignore that and act as if they are upset at us just because of a few torture acts when torture, cutting off hands, is allowed in islam....they won the media war, act angry and violent and scare the crap out of libs....they won, you lost

I can't fathom how you cons can sit there and soil our great nation by insisting we go out and torture people like the fucking Gestapo.

 

[WillowTree]

waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.

this argument is such a logical fallacy....

do you advocate sending convicts to prison?

I bet she even thinks you would have to jump outta a 100 story building doused with gasoline and on fire.. to understand the horror..but no matter, we won't get any terrorist wet or anything.. 3000 dead don't mean shit for the lunatic left.

 

[Iriemon]

That's true and the US hasn't tortured anyone... that you and the sisters of the left need to redefine torture is your problem... the word has a meaning and making a detainee, whose is DETAINED BECAUSE HE WAS BUSY PLOTTING OR EXECUTING MASS MURDER... uncomfortable or fearful of their life, is NOT TORTURE. And it will never be torture NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ERRONOUSLY CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.

So you've said before.

Yet the US Govt says otherwise, called it a war crime and prosecuted and sentence people to 15 years hard labor for doing it.

Anti-American, pro-terrorist, subversives who are presently in POWER in the US goverment say so...

Of course they also say that someone is entitled to the production of another person's labor... and as is ALWAYS the case, they're simply unable to offer a valid, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for such.

I should point out that the Former US Executive said it was PERFECTLY FINE... so there seems to be a difference of opinion; what we're establishing here is that the present government's opinion is BASELESS...

No, the US government after WWII said so when it sentence people to years of hard labor for doing it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Understand torture via death?

What drugs are you on Willow? I want some.

 

[Iriemon]

That's true and the US hasn't tortured anyone... that you and the sisters of the left need to redefine torture is your problem... the word has a meaning and making a detainee, whose is DETAINED BECAUSE HE WAS BUSY PLOTTING OR EXECUTING MASS MURDER... uncomfortable or fearful of their life, is NOT TORTURE. And it will never be torture NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ERRONOUSLY CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.

So you've said before.

Yet the US Govt says otherwise, called it a war crime and prosecuted and sentence people to 15 years hard labor for doing it.

You're of course speaking of the trials of Japanese post WW2... where individuals were tried for brutal, bone crushing, muscle tearing, joint snapping TORTURE... and that you want to compare the 'water torture' implemented by those people is simply a function of your ignorance. They are not comparable in the slightest.

No, some were tried and sentenced for WATERBOARDING.

 

[WillowTree]

Understand torture via death?

What drugs are you on Willow? I want some.

I didn't say torture I said waterboarding,, you understand.. you'd rather watch 3000 people on fire doused with gasoline jumping to their deaths than one person being waterboarded who will live to see another day.. the jumping don't bother you at all, if it did you would do all in you power to prevent it.. sorry turds.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If torture works so great why have so many nations and international agreements banned its use. Even if it sometimes does work, the abuse if a far greater cost.

Because the torturing of combat troops serves no useful purpose... Combat troops are not privy to information which warrants such...

The implication here is that the US is routinely torturing terrorist functionaries... when in truth the US has tortured NO ONE... we have however used non-invasive coersive interrogation on those individuals who were reasonably believed to be in possession of time sensitive information which we needed to PREVENT THEIR COMRADES FROM MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Combat troops are engaged in open warfare... they are NOT engaged in the mass murder of innocent people... TERRORISTS ARE ONLY< WHOLLY> SOLELY ENGANED IN ONE SINGULAR TACTIC... TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

I can't fathom how you cons can sit there and soil our great nation by insisting we go out and torture people like the fucking Gestapo.

But that is based upon you intentional use of a pathetic misnomer... you're a carrier of a LIE... which simply determines that you're a LIAR...

Nothing particularly complex about it.

 

[Ravi]

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.

I believe you are correct... except you strip Reagan's intentions from the context in which his agreement rests...

Reagan actually understood what the international conventions were designed to do... and part and parcel of that understanding was the protections of UNIFORMED COMBATANTS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS... where one NATION WOULD NOT ABUSE THE PRISONERS OF WAR WHICH IT HELD and he agreed that the US would adhere to the same principles...

Terrorists, particularly high value EXECUTIVES of TERRORISM... are NOT COMBAT TROOPS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS...

They are MASS MURDERERS WHO ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WHICH< IF IT CAN BE HAD> WILL MOST CERTAINLY SPARE INNOCENT LIFE AND DEFEND THE BED ROCK PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ALL HUMAN RIGHTS REST.

It is the DUTY of the US, where such individuals are in our possession to INDUCE THEM TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY CERTAINLY POSSESS WHICH WILL BE USED TO PREVENT THE OPERATIONS FROM MURDERING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... as that is the ONLY TACTIC WHICH THIS ENEMY EXECUTES...

Can you tell a mass murderer or terrorist by just looking at them?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you've said before.

Yet the US Govt says otherwise, called it a war crime and prosecuted and sentence people to 15 years hard labor for doing it.

Anti-American, pro-terrorist, subversives who are presently in POWER in the US goverment say so...

Of course they also say that someone is entitled to the production of another person's labor... and as is ALWAYS the case, they're simply unable to offer a valid, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for such.

I should point out that the Former US Executive said it was PERFECTLY FINE... so there seems to be a difference of opinion; what we're establishing here is that the present government's opinion is BASELESS...

No, the US government after WWII said so when it sentence people to years of hard labor for doing it.

Yeah that's why I said so...

You're of course speaking of the trials of Japanese post WW2... where individuals were tried for brutal, bone crushing, muscle tearing, joint snapping TORTURE... and that you want to compare the 'water torture' implemented by those people is simply a function of your ignorance. They are not comparable in the slightest.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you've said before.

Yet the US Govt says otherwise, called it a war crime and prosecuted and sentence people to 15 years hard labor for doing it.

You're of course speaking of the trials of Japanese post WW2... where individuals were tried for brutal, bone crushing, muscle tearing, joint snapping TORTURE... and that you want to compare the 'water torture' implemented by those people is simply a function of your ignorance. They are not comparable in the slightest.

No, some were tried and sentenced for WATERBOARDING.

No... SOME WERE TRIED FOR TORTURE OF EVERY VARIETY OF WHICH THEIR VERSION OF WATERBOARDING WAS USED, WHICH WAS A VASTLY MORE BRUTAL FORM OF WHAT WE USE...

Consider, a spanking... I've been spanked and I've spanked... Now as I implement the spanking, I use a device which is flexible and while designed to deliver a punctuated sting, it's fairly innoculous, as well as serving the utlilty of holding up my pants... I limit the force of the implement, as well as the period of implementation and the number of strikes.

Now I've seen evidence where such was NOT limited in it's application... the device was not flexible, the force, period and number of strikes NOT MEASURED...

And while my particular technique, as I was trained to deliver it, does not bruise (much...) break the skin, tear the muscle, break the bones... while the other non-measured system does ALL OF THAT...

Now the species of reasoning which you're advancing wants to strip ALL OF THAT CRITICAL CONTEXT and EQUATE one with the other...

Which is, as I've said many times and am certain to say many more times: ABSURD IN THE EXTREME.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.

I believe you are correct... except you strip Reagan's intentions from the context in which his agreement rests...

Reagan actually understood what the international conventions were designed to do... and part and parcel of that understanding was the protections of UNIFORMED COMBATANTS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS... where one NATION WOULD NOT ABUSE THE PRISONERS OF WAR WHICH IT HELD and he agreed that the US would adhere to the same principles...

Terrorists, particularly high value EXECUTIVES of TERRORISM... are NOT COMBAT TROOPS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS...

They are MASS MURDERERS WHO ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WHICH< IF IT CAN BE HAD> WILL MOST CERTAINLY SPARE INNOCENT LIFE AND DEFEND THE BED ROCK PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ALL HUMAN RIGHTS REST.

It is the DUTY of the US, where such individuals are in our possession to INDUCE THEM TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY CERTAINLY POSSESS WHICH WILL BE USED TO PREVENT THE OPERATIONS FROM MURDERING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... as that is the ONLY TACTIC WHICH THIS ENEMY EXECUTES...

Can you tell a mass murderer or terrorist by just looking at them?

You bet... I know when I was in the business of capturing bad guys, we used these things called "Photographs"... as a general rule, they would give us some inside skinny on the target; why he was being sought and where we might find him... As part of the package, these "Photographs" sometimes referred to as 'Pictures' were provided, so that when we got closer... we could determine who the bad-guy was... They're VERY good for that kinda thing.

Here's an example of such... and just for fun, this is a 'picture' of a known terrorist:

Courtesy of these folks: http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ksmohammed.jpg

 

[Ravi]

I believe you are correct... except you strip Reagan's intentions from the context in which his agreement rests...

Reagan actually understood what the international conventions were designed to do... and part and parcel of that understanding was the protections of UNIFORMED COMBATANTS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS... where one NATION WOULD NOT ABUSE THE PRISONERS OF WAR WHICH IT HELD and he agreed that the US would adhere to the same principles...

Terrorists, particularly high value EXECUTIVES of TERRORISM... are NOT COMBAT TROOPS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS...

They are MASS MURDERERS WHO ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WHICH< IF IT CAN BE HAD> WILL MOST CERTAINLY SPARE INNOCENT LIFE AND DEFEND THE BED ROCK PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ALL HUMAN RIGHTS REST.

It is the DUTY of the US, where such individuals are in our possession to INDUCE THEM TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY CERTAINLY POSSESS WHICH WILL BE USED TO PREVENT THE OPERATIONS FROM MURDERING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... as that is the ONLY TACTIC WHICH THIS ENEMY EXECUTES...

Can you tell a mass murderer or terrorist by just looking at them?

You bet... I know when I was in the business of capturing bad guys, we used these things called "Photographs"... as a general rule, they would give us some inside skinny on the target; why he was being sought and where we might find him... As part of the package, these "Photographs" sometimes referred to as 'Pictures' were provided, so that when we got closer... we could determine who the bad-guy was... They're VERY good for that kinda thing.

Here's an example of such... and just for fun, this is a 'picture' of a known terrorist:

Courtesy of these folks: http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ksmohammed.jpg

Interesting. So you'll torture anyone that "looks" like a terrorist.

Do all the other torture supporters agree that you can look at someone and tell they are a terrorist?

 

[WillowTree]

Can you tell a mass murderer or terrorist by just looking at them?

You bet... I know when I was in the business of capturing bad guys, we used these things called "Photographs"... as a general rule, they would give us some inside skinny on the target; why he was being sought and where we might find him... As part of the package, these "Photographs" sometimes referred to as 'Pictures' were provided, so that when we got closer... we could determine who the bad-guy was... They're VERY good for that kinda thing.

Here's an example of such... and just for fun, this is a 'picture' of a known terrorist:

Courtesy of these folks: http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ksmohammed.jpg

Interesting. So you'll torture anyone that "looks" like a terrorist.

Do all the other torture supporters agree that you can look at someone and tell they are a terrorist?

DF is unbecoming,, very

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Can you tell a mass murderer or terrorist by just looking at them?

You bet... I know when I was in the business of capturing bad guys, we used these things called "Photographs"... as a general rule, they would give us some inside skinny on the target; why he was being sought and where we might find him... As part of the package, these "Photographs" sometimes referred to as 'Pictures' were provided, so that when we got closer... we could determine who the bad-guy was... They're VERY good for that kinda thing.

Here's an example of such... and just for fun, this is a 'picture' of a known terrorist:

Courtesy of these folks: http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ksmohammed.jpg

Interesting. So you'll torture anyone that "looks" like a terrorist.

Do all the other torture supporters agree that you can look at someone and tell they are a terrorist?

This is why it is SO critical that we come to grips with Citizens meeting MINIMUM intelligence standards before they are able to vote...

The fact is that there is absolutely NOTHING in what I said that could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to conclude that I am advocating people because they 'look like a terrorist.'

Yet that is precisely what you came to conclude... thus it cannot be argued, using the available evidence that YOU are a reasonably intelligent person.

And I suspect that there are MANY people who recognize the necessity of non-invasive coercive interrogation techniques that understand that where one has an individual who is known to be a terrorists, that it is the duty of those holding them, to garner from them, the information which they possess regarding the operational plans of their organization WHICH SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MASS MURDER OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS...

Now it should also be noted that using the species of reasoning advanced by this sub-standard intellect, that the Police should not be able to detain ANYONE... who just happens to LOOK like a criminal... or the specific criminal which is known tohave engaged in criminal activity.

Of course she'll claim that simply detaining someone isn't the same as 'TORTURING THEM'... yet detaining someone that one doesn't reasonably believe to be a criminal who violated a specific criminal code... is a violation of their human rights... so such a defense is invalid.

The US isn't toruturing anyone... they aren't even applying coercive interrogation upon anyone that is not known to be engaged in and reasonably believed to be in possession of, time sensitive information which is critical to the sparing of innocent human life.

 

[Yurt]

The proposal has more merit that a rule that simply permits torture. I thought about it. But it the end, I just don't want to be associated with a government that thinks torturing people can be legitimate. Nor do I think it is helpful in the war of ideas we are in.

kindly answer the right to kill in self defense and other defenses to criminal law...

Answer what?



You can too.

fact is torture works and does save lives. perhaps you don't like saving lives. and really, they don't care whether we torture or not...before any torture stuff came out they were sawing people's heads off and hanging them up over bridges after beating the living shit out of them....

If torture works so great why have so many nations and international agreements banned its use. Even if it sometimes does work, the abuse if a far greater cost.

i can't fathom how it is you libs ignore that and act as if they are upset at us just because of a few torture acts when torture, cutting off hands, is allowed in islam....they won the media war, act angry and violent and scare the crap out of libs....they won, you lost

I can't fathom how you cons can sit there and soil our great nation by insisting we go out and torture people like the fucking Gestapo.

answer what??? the question was the quote....twice...

if slavery is so bad, why did so many nations have legal slavery? do you like arguing logical fallacies, appealing to popularity

you value life less than someone's temporary mild pain, i don't

 

[Ravi]

You bet... I know when I was in the business of capturing bad guys, we used these things called "Photographs"... as a general rule, they would give us some inside skinny on the target; why he was being sought and where we might find him... As part of the package, these "Photographs" sometimes referred to as 'Pictures' were provided, so that when we got closer... we could determine who the bad-guy was... They're VERY good for that kinda thing.

Here's an example of such... and just for fun, this is a 'picture' of a known terrorist:

Courtesy of these folks: http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ksmohammed.jpg

Interesting. So you'll torture anyone that "looks" like a terrorist.

Do all the other torture supporters agree that you can look at someone and tell they are a terrorist?

This is why it is SO critical that we comes to grips with Citizens meeting MINIMUM intelligence standards before they are able to vote...

The fact is that there is absolutely NOTHING in what I said that could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to conclude that I am advocating people because they 'look like a terrorist.'

Yet that is precisely what you came to conclude... thus it cannot be argued, using the available evidence that YOU are a reasonably intelligent person.

And I suspect that there are MANY people who recognize the necessity of non-invasive coercive interrogation techniques that understand that where one has an individual who is known to be a terrorists, that it is the duty of those holding them, to garner from them, the information which they possess regarding the operational plans of their organization WHICH SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MASS MURDER OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS...

Now it should also be noted that using the species of reasoning advanced by this sub-standard intellect, that the Police should not be able to detain ANYONE... who just happens to LOOK like a criminal... or the specific criminal which is known tohave engaged in criminal activity.

Of course she'll claim that simply detaining someone isn't the same as 'TORTURING THEM'... yet detaining someone that one doesn't reasonably believe to be a criminal who violated a specific criminal code... is a violation of their human rights... so such a defense is invalid.

The US isn't toruturing anyone... they aren't even applying coercive interrogation upon anyone that is not known to be engaged in and reasonably believed to be in possession of, time sensitive information which is critical to the sparing of innocent human life.

I concluded it because that is what you said, asshole.

We aren't torturing anyone...then why are your panties in such a twist to justify doing it?

 

[manu1959]

waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.

i will tell you what....i am not trying to kill 3000 people nor did i.....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Interesting. So you'll torture anyone that "looks" like a terrorist.

Do all the other torture supporters agree that you can look at someone and tell they are a terrorist?

This is why it is SO critical that we comes to grips with Citizens meeting MINIMUM intelligence standards before they are able to vote...

The fact is that there is absolutely NOTHING in what I said that could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to conclude that I am advocating people because they 'look like a terrorist.'

Yet that is precisely what you came to conclude... thus it cannot be argued, using the available evidence that YOU are a reasonably intelligent person.

And I suspect that there are MANY people who recognize the necessity of non-invasive coercive interrogation techniques that understand that where one has an individual who is known to be a terrorists, that it is the duty of those holding them, to garner from them, the information which they possess regarding the operational plans of their organization WHICH SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MASS MURDER OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS...

Now it should also be noted that using the species of reasoning advanced by this sub-standard intellect, that the Police should not be able to detain ANYONE... who just happens to LOOK like a criminal... or the specific criminal which is known tohave engaged in criminal activity.

Of course she'll claim that simply detaining someone isn't the same as 'TORTURING THEM'... yet detaining someone that one doesn't reasonably believe to be a criminal who violated a specific criminal code... is a violation of their human rights... so such a defense is invalid.

The US isn't toruturing anyone... they aren't even applying coercive interrogation upon anyone that is not known to be engaged in and reasonably believed to be in possession of, time sensitive information which is critical to the sparing of innocent human life.

I concluded it because that is what you said, asshole.

No... that is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I SAID... you simply LIED... but that's what liars DO...

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN WHAT I SAID, WHICH COULD LEAD ANY REASONABLY INTELLIGENT PERSON TO CONCLUDE WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU CAME TO PROJECT IN RESPONSE TO MY STATED POSITION.

But just to be FAIR... I hereby directly and unambiguously challenge you to QUOTE ME SAYING WHAT IT IS YOU CLAIM I SAID... and when you fail, which is a 100% certainty, then you will have, once again, exposed yourself as an addle-minded FOOL and a LIAR.

We aren't torturing anyone...then why are your panties in such a twist to justify doing it?

I have not advanced so much as a single word, towards justifying torture; not on this board or anywhere else.

My position is to debrief the terrorist enemy; and once we're certain that we have farmed the maximum potential of their understanding, with regard to their terrorist operations, they should be summarily executed without delay... "Well that's it... looks like we have everything we need... BANG"

"Clean up in Debreifing room 6..."