Torture poll

[amrchaos]

If you call them "torture" and believe them to be torture, then you are wrong. If you do not consider it torture, and others do, then it comes down to a legal ruling, does it not?

The argument is sound. You just have no answer for it.

But what if I knowingly create a new method of torture and used it, then later a court rules it was torture.

Does that mean that I can not be accused of torture. Also, how detailed must a troture method be in order to say that some one used a mthod. For instance, if The Spanish cure is to pour water on the face, what If I had the person lie on their torso and sprayed a high jet stream of waters upwards into the victims face. Would that be the Spanish Cure as well?

And you talk about semantics.....

Word games. Got to love them. If you KNOWING create a method of torture, and believe it to be torture, and everyone else believes it to be torture, then it doesn't need to be ruled on by a court. It already has.

If however, you use a means of coersion not defined as torture, and is borderline, I most certainly would not condemn you for torture just because a court later ruled it is unlawful to use.

And yeah, I'm talking about semantics. Stop trying to play them with me.

First, I said I knowingly create a torture method. No one else may realize it is torture until later. If I unknowingly did it, ignorance before the law does not protect me. Second. How about if I modified a torture technique--is that a form of torture? How close to a torture method does one needs to be in order for it to be called torture without a court?

Finally, I did not include everyone else because the post did not include.

There are definitions for torture, you have to make the decision is it or is it not. and why would you use it over another method.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Can you define torture?

Perhaps I should broaden the question.

Do you feel it's okay for the countries we're fighting against, if they capture one of our soldiers, to use the same interrogation techniques they use against us? Sleep deprovation, waterboarding, etc.?

You mean for them to use the same interrogation techniques we use against them?

Water boarding . . . . or beheading. Gee, tough choice.

 

[DavidS]

Perhaps I should broaden the question.

Do you feel it's okay for the countries we're fighting against, if they capture one of our soldiers, to use the same interrogation techniques they use against us? Sleep deprovation, waterboarding, etc.?

You mean for them to use the same interrogation techniques we use against them?

Water boarding . . . . or beheading. Gee, tough choice.

So then we're just as bad them, huh? We're just like everyone else. Except we can pretend a whole lot better.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it's ok for us to torture, why isn't it ok for them to torture?

Us good, them bad?

This poll is stupid.

No it isn't, Gunny.

In fact this turnabout is fair play poll is one of the more intelligent posts that DavidS has penned in some time.

Supporters of torture like to use the example of torture to save lifes as a MORAL justification for allowing torture.

DavidS asks us to put our MORALS to the test to see if our concept of torture as being moral is entirely hypocritical.

Are supporters of America's right to torture (to save American lives) willing to acknowledge that if it's moral for America to torture, it is moral for our enemies to torture our people (to save their people's lives)?

This IS an important question.

Assume that the USA gets into a war and uses torture.

And so does the enemy.

Now assume we win the war.

Do we have the high moral ground to take their torturing leadership to trial for torturing our people, if we were torturing their people?

The US did not torture anyone. Pretty simple concept. If you are asking is it ok to do what we did to Americans the answer would be yes, Because it was NOT torture.

 

[Red Dawn]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Wingnuts have told me that waterboarding, stuffing people in small boxes with insects, and slamming them into walls isn't torture.

So if captive americans were subject to these types of treatment, it wouldn't be torture in wingnut world. In fact, in wingnut world, these would be accceptable methods of interogation on captive americans.

 

[Sinatra]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Wingnuts have told me that waterboarding, stuffing people in small boxes with insects, and slamming them into walls isn't torture.

So if captive americans were subject to these types of treatment, it wouldn't be torture in wingnut world. In fact, in wingnut world, these would be accceptable methods of interogation on captive americans.

If Swayze were here he would kick in your pacifist teeth - cancer or no cancer...

 

[DiamondDave]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Wingnuts have told me that waterboarding, stuffing people in small boxes with insects, and slamming them into walls isn't torture.

So if captive americans were subject to these types of treatment, it wouldn't be torture in wingnut world. In fact, in wingnut world, these would be accceptable methods of interogation on captive americans.

Soldiers are... and in many cases are trained to deal with it..

But also please remember that there are differences between sleep deprivation, using a person's fears (such as fear of insects), harsh physical exertion, some physical contact/attack, etc that are really not torture

Do I WISH to see any of my military brothers and sisters tortured? Nope... Do I think that any group or country that would commit torture against our soldiers or innocent civilians, should be prosecuted? Yep... But a lot of the things you deem as torture from the extreme left/libby world, are easier than some of the military training and treatment I went through... oooohhh bugs ... ooohhhhh sleep deprivation .... oohhhhhh a little "wall to wall counseling"
Give me a break

 

[Zoom-boing]

You mean for them to use the same interrogation techniques we use against them?

Water boarding . . . . or beheading. Gee, tough choice.

So then we're just as bad them, huh? We're just like everyone else. Except we can pretend a whole lot better.

No, unless you somehow equate water boarding with beheading.

You asked if the bad guys should use our interrogation techniques against our guys, when our guys are taken prisoner. Wouldn't it be great if neither side had to use any type of 'technique' against the other side? Keep dreaming. Given a choice between water boarding and beheading . . . I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say water boarding is preferable to beheading. If you interpret that to mean I want our guys to be harshly interrogated or worse, you're mistaken.

 

[FactFinder]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

I'm going out on a limb here without reading the follow up posts, and am guessing you're setting up a point about whether it's OK for Americans to torture but not to be tortured.

If so, what a pointless point.

Actually, just the opposite. I DON'T fell it's ok for America to do to what we've done to these animals. I don't care about them personally... they could be hung on a meat hook covered with honey above a fire ant mound for all I care. What I DO care about is how this country acts. The entire principles of this country are: NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Then you would agree that Feinstein shoud be prosecuted?

 

[Shadow]

yeah, the death penalty would be wrong, too. as is imprisoning someone against his will. might as well fight to get KSM a trial in the US so he can be set free and blow up another skyscraper...oh wait, Obama's already doing that.

So I guess thats that. Tell us, why do we need justice again?
OH --To build a civilization. Without Justice, we would have Anarchy in the streets!! The whole point of founding a nation goes out the window if we no longer distinguish what is moral and immoral.

Now I am starting to sound like a preacher!! I dislike you elvis!!

In the meantime, the left continues attempting to destroy every moral this Nation is founded upon. They only hold the right and the military to any moral standard and it's a standard they could never hope to live up to.

Of course. Because it's all "do as I say, not as I do" with elitist ,entitled, above everyone else Liberals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

10 Pages and yet NO TORTURE actually took place. Go figure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

don't be an idiot.

If the right wing-nut talking heads

so you're patterning yourself on others you think of as nut cases?

thanks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Define torture

people like you make this place look stupid as shit. there are agreed upon definitions of torture (legal).

I am with Alan Dershowitz on this one. Make it legal and have procedures...

nuance is demanded for any rational and coherent argument on this subject.

 

[Iriemon]

This poll is stupid.

No it isn't, Gunny.

In fact this turnabout is fair play poll is one of the more intelligent posts that DavidS has penned in some time.

Supporters of torture like to use the example of torture to save lifes as a MORAL justification for allowing torture.

DavidS asks us to put our MORALS to the test to see if our concept of torture as being moral is entirely hypocritical.

Are supporters of America's right to torture (to save American lives) willing to acknowledge that if it's moral for America to torture, it is moral for our enemies to torture our people (to save their people's lives)?

This IS an important question.

Assume that the USA gets into a war and uses torture.

And so does the enemy.

Now assume we win the war.

Do we have the high moral ground to take their torturing leadership to trial for torturing our people, if we were torturing their people?

The US did not torture anyone. Pretty simple concept. If you are asking is it ok to do what we did to Americans the answer would be yes, Because it was NOT torture.

Because waterboarding is only torture when other countries do it?

 

[Iriemon]

Normally, most of what you posted wouldn't be considered torture. But - most of these detainees were kept awake for 170-180 hours. When your awake that long, your body feels pain much more, little things like slaps and stress positions can be severely painful.

Sucks being a terrorist.

How do you know all the people tortured were terrorist?

 

[Iriemon]

I'm the first person with the balls to vote yes. You guys are a bunch of cowards.

The problem here is that I oppose war in general, but in the event of war, I know that both sides are fighting for something. I'm not naive enough to say that our side should be the only one to use whatever means necessary to win.

Pointing out that American expects a higher moral attitude about prisoners than the terrorists have is, I think, a point that has merit.

The question is, I think, does torture help us more than it hurts us?

Experts in interogation are giving us mixed messages about its efficacy.

Experts in the war of propaganda likewise give us mixed messages about whther our use of torture actaully do our cause more harm than good, too.

Since I'm not an expert in either field, (and as far as I know, neither is anyone else on this board) I think we're spinning our wheels on this issue.

I think our foreign policy should ALWAYS ask itself whenever it questions any policy, what gives us the greatest good?

In this case, I'm not sure any of us really know.

That is not the only question. The other question is: Do we want that same rule to apply to us?

We may think that by torturing the hell out of every son of a bitch our agents grab off the street, we might learn something helpful.

But if we say "that is the rule" are we ok with the same thing being applied against our folks?

Seems to me we already answered that question for waterboarding. When someone did it to our guys, we said the rule is: waterboarding is torture.

To say we don't have to abide by our own rule is the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Iriemon]

yeah, the death penalty would be wrong, too. as is imprisoning someone against his will. might as well fight to get KSM a trial in the US so he can be set free and blow up another skyscraper...oh wait, Obama's already doing that.

So I guess thats that. Tell us, why do we need justice again?
OH --To build a civilization. Without Justice, we would have Anarchy in the streets!! The whole point of founding a nation goes out the window if we no longer distinguish what is moral and immoral.

Now I am starting to sound like a preacher!! I dislike you elvis!!

In the meantime, the left continues attempting to destroy every moral this Nation is founded upon. They only hold the right and the military to any moral standard and it's a standard they could never hope to live up to.

You mean like this one?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[Iriemon]

Flipping it around? You mean playing a semantical game? Because that's all it amounts to.

Define "torture." Then define "terror." Every time you threat to punish your child or DO punish your child, it can be dishonestly misconstrued to say it's one, the other, or both. There is no honesty to the argument, and as is typical of most leftwing arguments/accusations, it then just becomes a matter of misconstruing words or using broad, general terms they can twist to mean whatever they want.

And for some reason, this board seems to have recently attracted quite the little group of leftwing, word-game players. Unfortunately for them, they aren't even good at it.

The simple facts are, we, as a Nation, do not torture. We as a nation have ALWAYS used coercion to obtain information, and the limit gets pushed every time. By every administration; regardless, which side of the aile they are on.

Until one of the blabbermouths on here can provide an instance where waterboarding was used AFTER it was ruled illegal in a US court, then this is just more leftwingnut, beating a dead horse to take the attention off their own fuckups bullshit.

Losers.

It's a DISCUSSION for God's sake. What would YOU like to talk about? Why don't YOU start a thread to discuss some OTHER fuckup by leftwingnuts. Maybe then it wouldn't get moved to the Flame Zone, which is probably where this one is destined since it was started by someone I'm sure you consider a flaming liberal.

Did you catch this part of the post?

Until one of the blabbermouths on here can provide an instance where waterboarding was used AFTER it was ruled illegal in a US court, then this is just more leftwingnut, beating a dead horse to take the attention off their own fuckups bullshit.

SO If I create new methods of torture, then it is not considered torture until a US court says it is. That arguement does not hold water, and I can not believe some one actually made it.

The US government prosecuted, convicted and sentenced folks for war crimes for waterboarding after WWII. How much more illegal can it be shown to be?

 

[jreeves]

don't be an idiot.

If it's ok for us to torture, why isn't it ok for them to torture?

Us good, them bad?

Well the Navy already tortures its own people, they waterboard them. So I guess if you consider that torture then......

 

[jreeves]

If you call them "torture" and believe them to be torture, then you are wrong. If you do not consider it torture, and others do, then it comes down to a legal ruling, does it not?

The argument is sound. You just have no answer for it.

But what if I knowingly create a new method of torture and used it, then later a court rules it was torture.

Does that mean that I can not be accused of torture. Also, how detailed must a troture method be in order to say that some one used a mthod. For instance, if The Spanish cure is to pour water on the face, what If I had the person lie on their torso and sprayed a high jet stream of waters upwards into the victims face. Would that be the Spanish Cure as well?

And you talk about semantics.....

Word games. Got to love them. If you KNOWING create a method of torture, and believe it to be torture, and everyone else believes it to be torture, then it doesn't need to be ruled on by a court. It already has.

If however, you use a means of coersion not defined as torture, and is borderline, I most certainly would not condemn you for torture just because a court later ruled it is unlawful to use.

And yeah, I'm talking about semantics. Stop trying to play them with me.

They shouldn't have called it waterboarding but called it, underwater contingency planning.Lmao