A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[bigrebnc1775]

As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.

IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.

And what would shoting an unarmed man be?

 

[The T]

As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.

IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.

Needs of the MANY for LIBERTY outweigh the needs of the FEW or the ONE.

Especially if Combatants are being interrogated...THOSE individuals put themselves into the fray...and should PAY the price.

POOR judgement on their part, don't you suspect?

 

[Wicked Jester]

As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.

IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.

And that's just another prime example as to how abjectly stupid you are.

Go find a damn Kumbaya board, ya' moonbat.

 

[bodecea]

I think that those who DO the waterboarding, who DO the questioning after waterboarding....should have the experience for themselves first....no holds barred.....useful data collecting and all.....mind you.

 

[GWV5903]

"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

One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, **** OFF you pompous ass....

Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....

 

[del]

"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

One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, **** OFF you pompous ass....

Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....

thanks for sharing.

 

[GWV5903]

"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

One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, **** OFF you pompous ass....

Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....

thanks for sharing.

your welcome....

 

[The T]

I think that those who DO the waterboarding, who DO the questioning after waterboarding....should have the experience for themselves first....no holds barred.....useful data collecting and all.....mind you.

They DO...

It's part of training...

 

[bluemoon22]

What makes us better is our values and beliefs, however, when we do not practice what we preach we stoop to a lower moral state...

 

[theHawk]

Moral of the story - waterboarding, which leaves no permenant damage, is wrong. Putting a bullet in an someone's head is A-OK.

Liberal logic at its best folks.

So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.

Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.

 

[mal]

I hope they are water boarding all of Osama's widows as we speak, if for no other reason than to get the taste of camel ass out of their mouths.

lead paint chips aren't snack food

del's an Evironmentalist... He's Recycling his Insults...



peace...

 

[Flopper]

Moral of the story - waterboarding, which leaves no permenant damage, is wrong. Putting a bullet in an someone's head is A-OK.

Liberal logic at its best folks.

So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.

Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.

The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.

Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.

 

[Liability]

So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.

Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.

The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.

Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.

All of those who insist that "torture" doesn't work (because the tortured person will say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear to stop the torture) seem to willingly overlook the fact that false statements may then result in even greater infliction of suffering. Logically, sooner or later, the tortured individual (motivated by a desire to end the pain) might just figure out that lying only makes matters worse in the longer run.

So while it might be true that the first thing said by the tortured individual might prove unreliable, it is probably safe to assume that the same logic that got him to just "say anything" at the outset will also work to get him to tell JUST the truth after a time.

Those who insist that torture doesn't work cannot point to a whole lot of valid studies -- gee -- for "some" reason.

And, of course, this persists in the silly misuse of language. Water boarding is quite unpleasant and so is torture, but that doesn't make water boarding torture.

 

[Valerie]

I am saying, Valerie, that if hundreds or thousands of innocent lives are at stake and time is of the essence, I don't think we can be too picky about what they do to a terrorist to get the information necessary to stop those deaths from happening.

I think intellectual honesty requires that we at least look at that.

It's all well and good to say that honorable people stand on principle and that Christians would not violate their principles no matter what. But what about a principle of savings hundreds or thousands of innocent lives and doing whatever is necessary to do that?

It's sort of the principle involved in dropping the Atomic bomb. Is it justifiable to kill tens of thousands to save millions? That was the choice our leaders were up against at that time.

Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.

It is the situation that probably resulted in the directive to the Navy Seals to shoot on sight. Unlike the Nazi leaders in Germany, we were dealing with a person who was plotting and who was capable of causing thousands of more deaths to innocents in the USA and elsewhere. Was it necessary to shoot him? I don't know. I can't celebrate that, but I also can't find it in my heart to feel real bad about the fact they did.

Intellectual honesty requires that all this be included in the debate.

The OP stance is an absolute repudiation of torture. Absolute, meaning never ever under any circumstances... You are saying the OP and those who agree are being "intellectually dishonest", while you speak out of both sides of your mouth. Fine, if you want to disagree, but the fact is we are currently being threatened in such a manner that could kill thousands of innocent Americans and it is my stance that accepting a policy of torture is wrong period.



Our repudiation of torture is absolute — the international Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, allows for “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever.’’ That unconditional repudiation is one of the lines that separates us from the barbaric jihadists with whom we are at war.

 

[Valerie]

America is still in a situation where we are being threatened with a potential crisis situation where hundreds or thousands of innocent lives could be lost...


The author of the article is not a "lefty", del is not a "lefty", the US Military JAGS, Colin Powell, not "lefties"... This is not a matter of left/right politics, but a matter of long standing American principles, that is the entire point of the OP, so I'm not sure why you imagine lefties should come in here and speculate about hypotheticals which would justify torture...???

I wasn't referring to the article in the OP, however, when I made my observation. And yes, it was an ad hominem observation, but it is an honest observation just the same.

The degree of 'terribleness' of any controversial activity is too often determined by which political party, religion, group, person etc. does it.

It was based on long experience with a pronounced double standard too often applied based on ideology or political party or sociopolitical leanings.

Old Rocks negs me because he says I am advocating torture which I have not done at any time in any fashion.

I have been clear that that our national policy is and should be that cruel and inhumane treatment is neither condoned nor utliized.

I have been clear that I will condemn any enhanced interrogation used to find out whether or if somebody knows something useful. And I certainly will strongly consign to hell those who would do that for their amusement.

Nor have I bashed the left or liberals in this discussion but rather only observed the usual M.O. (actually from both sides) that an action is usually condoned or condemned according to who does it. At least that was my intent.

And I have observed that almost nobody is willing to even consider whether that secret agent was justified in shooting off that toe,

or whether one would of necessity look the other way should enhanced interrogation be utilized in a matter in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were in imminent danger.

For me, intellectual honesty includes what may be necessary as well as what must be policy.

Are you saying torture may sometimes be necessary or not???







>>>

I'm saying that the leftwing will NOT even look at, much less discuss, what they would do in a crisis situation in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were at stake. The conservatives have at least acknowledged they would not apply the standard policy at such times. I used an illustration from a scene in "Guarding Tess" and said it would be ignored. It was.

And I think I know how it works well enough to believe that had the Annointed One been the one to use waterboarding to get useful information on the whereabout of bin Laden instead of that happening during the Bush Administraation, we probably would not have enough discussion about it to fill twenty seven pages of a thread now.

The current administration did act on intelligence that was obtained by President Bush.


In my my book, some things go way beyond politics... I think it's sad some people have such little faith in the intentions of their fellow Americans...

And I have observed that almost nobody is willing to even consider whether that secret agent was justified in shooting off that toe,

or whether one would of necessity look the other way should enhanced interrogation be utilized in a matter in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were in imminent danger.

Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.

Foxfyre, I have no idea what you are talking about here... ^^^

 

[Valerie]

So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.

Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.

The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.

Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[Liability]

Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.

The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.

Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.

Yes, I agree with this.

Your agreement is of no actual value to the discussion, however, since that claim is unsupported, factually.

If instead of blowing off the top of Osama's head he had been taken alive and we discovered that he had info that we desperately needed to prevent him and his al qaeda pals from setting off a dirty bomb in the middle of town during the second leg of the Triple Crown (so much for the Pimlico race track?) --

torturing him MIGHT yield initially unreliable information. But possibly if we persisted in extracting the information from him by punishing him for every untruthful response, he just MIGHT get "trained" to respond promptly AND honestly.

Yet, torture makes us feel all icky. So as a matter of national policy and pride we should refrain from insisting that he give up every scrap of the plans to us?

Bye bye Baltimore? And the winner of the Preakness Stakes? A photo finish:

"American Virtue Intact" finishes a NOSE behind "Osamasdead Butgetsrevenge."

 

[Valerie]

If water boarding (water torture) was determined to be torture by the USA previously, WHY OH WHY would it not be considered torture now?

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture." History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding - ABC News

I just do not see what makes it ok now if it was not ok with the USA before?

Exactly. People are willing to give up their principles out of fear as if it is a given that torturing someone will save lives...

Despite little reb's constant parroting of a Panetta quote as if it's proof torture worked, the CIA had intel on the courier which contradicted with a lie told by one who was water boarded. That contradiction was a flag to that one bit of info. IMO that does not vindicate a torture policy in the least...

 

[bodecea]

"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

One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, **** OFF you pompous ass....

Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....

As you become what you fear......

 

[bodecea]

I think that those who DO the waterboarding, who DO the questioning after waterboarding....should have the experience for themselves first....no holds barred.....useful data collecting and all.....mind you.

They DO...

It's part of training...

Oh really? And you know this.....how?