A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[M14 Shooter]

A sad predictable response.

All I'm asking for is an answer to a hypothetical question to get your true feeling on the principle of waterboarding.

Sadly, even on an anonymous message board with no reprocussions to your answer, you're afraid to give it.

Predictable that he is too smart to fall for your fallacious reasoning?
Yes.
Your question is not designed to do anything but make you look good. And you stink at that.

It's a very very simple question.

Yes - very much like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Your question is based on fallacy and thus irrelevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

this message cannot be viewed because del is on your ignore list.

This discussion goes so much better when the drekk is filtered out.

 

[del]

this message cannot be viewed because del is on your ignore list.

This discussion goes so much better when the drekk is filtered out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPwPo-IAQ-E]YouTube - Verizon Wireless "Test Man Launch"[/ame]



what a loser

 

[Dr.Drock]

Predictable that he is too smart to fall for your fallacious reasoning?
Yes.
Your question is not designed to do anything but make you look good. And you stink at that.

It's a very very simple question.

Yes - very much like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Your question is based on fallacy and thus irrelevant.

It's not that in the slightest, that would mean I'm implying you beat your wife.

There's no implications in this, just a simple question to a hypothetical, but you're scared to answer it.

 

[xsited1]

that's good to know.

i don't support waterboarding under any circumstances, for anyone.

torture is wrong; we're better than that

And I know of many who think the death penalty is wrong under any circumstance.... and while I don't agree, I can appreciate their stance....

I also know of many who support harsher penalties or treatment of certain types of criminals, that are further out there than my stances... and while I don't agree, I can appreciate their stance...

The key is... IMHO it is an apples to oranges comparison in the interrogation or punishment of a foreign terrorist than it is for the common citizen criminal...

morality is absolute.

if it's wrong to to torture an american criminal, then it's wrong to torture a foreign terrorist.

you can disagree that torture is immoral, but you cannot argue that it's moral in some situations, but not others.

I understand your position because we've discussed this a year or two ago.

So who defines morality? You say torture is wrong in every circumstance. I can respect that, although my hunch is that you might approve of it in extreme situations (especially those of a personal nature). But you're saying that those who don't believe as you do on the matter of torture are not true Americans. That seems a bit extreme to me.

And here's the moral dilemma... If some of the intelligence used to locate and kill OBL was gleaned from waterboarding, should America have used that intelligence?

 

[The Rabbi]

this message cannot be viewed because del is on your ignore list.

What kind of salary do female impersonators get?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Whining about "Water-Boarding" was all about petty politics for the Left. These are the same people who love running around cheerleading and boasting about brutally slaughtering Gaddafi's Son & Grandchildren and shooting an unarmed man in the face,in his home and in front of his children. I never give the Left credibility on anything. Yea lets all freak out over dunking some brutal Terrorist's head in some water.

The War Mongering Left has lost any credibility they may have had on this stuff. Anyone with common sense knows that pretending to be outraged over "Water-Boarding" was all about them wanting to get the power back. A way to get rid of their BOOOOOOSH Boogeyman. Now that they have the power back,anything goes. Just another Leftist/Democrat scam in the end.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a very very simple question.

Yes - very much like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Your question is based on fallacy and thus irrelevant.

It's not that in the slightest, that would mean I'm implying you beat your wife.

There's no implications in this, just a simple question to a hypothetical, but you're scared to answer it.

The question is irrelevant because it is based on a fallacy.
If you have something substantive to contribute go ahead. But you aren't cutting it with this line.

 

[Samson]

I have to thank Del for making this thread. It doesn't tell us a lot of new things but it certainly separates the real Conservatives from the faux ones.

And it is important to do categorise and compartmentalise and divided because.....?

Once you do, then they can be "conquered?"

Are you saying all "Liberals" oppose waterboarding, but not state sponsored assasination?

 

[del]

this message cannot be viewed because del is on your ignore list.

What kind of salary do female impersonators get?

why, do you feel you're underpaid?

google is your friend

Impersonators Male Or Female Needed Salaries | Simply Hired

 

[MaggieMae]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A conservatives view?


Not hardly.

you wouldn't know a conservative if one bit you.

Indeed. There are conservatives, uber conservatives, and lone wolves.

 

[The Rabbi]

]

this message cannot be viewed because del is on your ignore list.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a very very simple question.

Yes - very much like "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Your question is based on fallacy and thus irrelevant.

It's not that in the slightest, that would mean I'm implying you beat your wife.
There's no implications in this, just a simple question to a hypothetical, but you're scared to answer it.

When you manage to ask a question that's not based on fallacy, I'll answer it.
But, you can't and still make the point you want to make.
You know it, and so won't even bother to try.
:shrug:

 

[kwc57]

Our special forces are waterboarded as part of their training. Are you suggesting that we are "torturing" our own men?

You folks don't seem to suggest understand the definition of torture, do you? If you're going to argue from a dishonest position, at least try to make it look logical.

Why don't you give us your definition of torture.

Being locked in a room with Rabbi and trying to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[Barb]

Yes, you have.
:shrug:

I'd call you a *****, but it would be wrong. ***** rules the world. You? well, oh well.

None of this changes the fact that you have yet to support your position with anything other than "read the Bible".

Sweetness, I gave you authoritative links spanning the spectrum of what was available at the time and now. You're now free to argue the merits of each. If you're too lazy to read them, then that speaks more ably to your veracity than to mine. Like I said, I really don't have a dog in this fight, and could give two shits less about you in particular.

 

[del]

And I know of many who think the death penalty is wrong under any circumstance.... and while I don't agree, I can appreciate their stance....

I also know of many who support harsher penalties or treatment of certain types of criminals, that are further out there than my stances... and while I don't agree, I can appreciate their stance...

The key is... IMHO it is an apples to oranges comparison in the interrogation or punishment of a foreign terrorist than it is for the common citizen criminal...

morality is absolute.

if it's wrong to to torture an american criminal, then it's wrong to torture a foreign terrorist.

you can disagree that torture is immoral, but you cannot argue that it's moral in some situations, but not others.

I understand your position because we've discussed this a year or two ago.

So who defines morality? You say torture is wrong in every circumstance. I can respect that, although my hunch is that you might approve of it in extreme situations (especially those of a personal nature). But you're saying that those who don't believe as you do on the matter of torture are not true Americans. That seems a bit extreme to me.

And here's the moral dilemma... If some of the intelligence used to locate and kill OBL was gleaned from waterboarding, should America have used that intelligence?

i don't believe that i made a blanket statement to the effect that anyone who disagrees with me is not a true american.

i believe people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

whether they choose to use it is another story.

 

[Valerie]

Whining about "Water-Boarding" was all about petty politics for the Left. These are the same people who love running around cheerleading and boasting about brutally slaughtering Gaddafi's Son & Grandchildren and shooting an unarmed man in the face,in his home and in front of his children. I never give the Left credibility on anything. Yea lets all freak out over dunking some brutal Terrorist's head in some water. The War Mongering Left has lost any credibility they may have had on this stuff. Anyone with common sense knows that pretending to be outraged over "Water-Boarding" was all about them wanting to get the power back. A way to get rid of their BOOOOOOSH Boogeyman. Now that they have the power back,anything goes. Just another Leftist/Democrat scam in the end.

What international treaties govern torture?

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Geneva Convention III, adopted Aug. 12, 1949, prohibits mistreatment of prisoners of war, and Geneva Convention IV, also adopted Aug. 12, 1949, protects civilian populations in times of war.

In 1994, the U.S. also adopted the U.N. Convention against Torture, which defines torture as "any act by which severe pain, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" to gain information, extract a confession, or as punishment. In addition, it requires state signatories to prevent acts of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture."




The Bush administration had an intense internal battle in January and February 2002 over how to handle Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The most famous memo on the subject was written on Jan. 25 by Alberto Gonzales, the chief counsel to President Bush. He reiterated arguments expressed in an earlier memo by Assistant Attorney General John Yoo that the Geneva Conventions should not apply to Al Qaeda because it is a non-state actor and therefore not a party to international treaties of war. Yoo and Gonzales argued that the Taliban should be denied Geneva protections because Afghanistan was a "failed state" with no functioning government and because, in Yoo's words, the Taliban had become "so intertwined with al Qaeda as to be functionally indistinguishable from it."

Describing the war on terror as a "new paradigm," Gonzales laid out for the president the costs and benefits of applying Geneva, and concluded the costs outweighed the benefits. He wrote:

As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. It is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for [Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War]. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.

These arguments set off a furious response from the State Department and the military's uniformed lawyers, known as Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs). They argued that not applying Geneva protections could harm U.S. troops in this and future conflicts. Secretary Powell also argued in a memo to Gonzales and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that applying Geneva would allow the U.S. to take the moral high ground and would "present a positive international posture."

On Feb. 7, the president announced his decision: The Geneva Conventions would apply to the conflict, but neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban would be entitled to prisoner-of-war status under Geneva Convention III. However, he wrote, the U.S. would treat detainees humanely, and in the spirit of the Geneva principles "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." Critics, including some of the military's uniformed lawyers, have argued that the latter part of the president's statement provides a loophole allowing the administration to sidestep its pledge to treat detainees humanely.

Frequently Asked Questions | The Torture Question | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[del]

Yes - very much like "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Your question is based on fallacy and thus irrelevant.

It's not that in the slightest, that would mean I'm implying you beat your wife.
There's no implications in this, just a simple question to a hypothetical, but you're scared to answer it.

When you manage to ask a question that's not based on fallacy, I'll answer it.
But, you can't and still make the point you want to make.
You know it, and so won't even bother to try.
:shrug:

is backpedalling an olympic sport?

 

[del]

]

this message cannot be viewed because del is on your ignore list.

are you covering your ears and yelling lalalalalala?

because that's very effective too.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've always wondered why people who think waterboarding is great don't want it done in prisons or in trials.

If waterboarding has a magical way of getting even scumbag terrorists to become genuine, honest people instantly, why not do it to scumbag rapists, murderers etc?

Who said it was great? its a tool being used against animals who have utterly no hesitation in slaughtering innocent people for no other reason than they don't worship the same religion.

I'm having an extremely hard time coming up with any compassion for the tools of Islam had I my choice they would suffer very long and horrible deaths. We expect our Government to use everything within its power to fulfill the one role where it might do some good that being protect our nation and people how they do it is up to them.

so if the govt decided to round up all americans of a certain ethnic or religious background in order to protect us, you'd be okay with that?

Also, there can be no way of knowing how many people were waterboarded that were innocent and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If waterboarding is like taking a cold shower and for a few minutes believing you are drowning, why were all the videos destroyed?