Bob Barr At CPAC: 'How Would You Like To Be Waterboarded?'

[CMike]

lol, do you even realize what you are saying?

can you at least acknowledge the problem of bad intelligence reached by torture?

I don't acknowledge that it is torture.

And as I said that's why we have trained interrogators doing this.

What you think is torture is immaterial as to what is torture. Bob Barr, for one, disagrees. Tens of millions upon tens of millions of Americans of all political stripes despise your position. Rightfully so, too.

Bob Barr can have any opinion he wants.

Let's see the survey please?

I would love to see a survey that asks that if waterboarding 3 terrorists stops two major terrorists attacks and saves thousands of american lives would you oppose it?

I bet most americans would pour the first bucket.

 

[CMike]

Because you are wrong, I am a lefty? Not at all. You are a reactionary, not a conservative. Simplicity itself is merely what one wants to see in the other instead of really trying to figure out the reasons and politics for the positioning.

Bob Barr, a real conservative, says your position is wrong, so he is a lefty, too, by your reasoning. You are being a silly man.

Bobb Barr is a libertarian

Libertarians come in various stripes, and those who are such treated Barr very shabbily. He has always been a Republican. Get over it.

Barr's right and you are wrong. Move on.

Barr isn't a conservative.

Libertarian's are isolationists, conservatives aren't.

Also libertarian's differ on social issues. For example, they are usually for legalizing all drugs and prostitution. Conservatives don't believe in that.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, would it be OK for the British to Waterboard Washington?
I think we could reasonably assume that the British King would have seen him as a terrorist rebell.

Its not really the waterboarding, actually there are a number of nastier things that could happen to you in captivity (such as dieing to hunger or a preventable disease, which, historically is a far more frequent death cause than murder or side effects of torture), it is that you give the gouverment the right to decide that A) People are terrorists, and B) People can be tortured. Since people will C) Say anything under torture, you effectivly give them the right to really abuse whoever they conceivably want.

Another sideffect is the following one: Lets assume someone is innocent. I mean, there seem to be a couple of ways that an innocent person may end up at Gitmo, given that Gitmo released quite a couple.

So, you get tortured. Badly. Are you sure that, once the torturer gets the idea that you may be innocent, he will stop? Perhaps he will not, since his "professional reputation" may be at stake, torture you a bit more to get that "confession".

What do you propose should be the recompensation for a tortured innocent?

Your post is full of generalities. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Lets stick with the here and now. The present day dirtbag terrorists who would kill you just because they could.

What do you propose for recompensation for the families of someone killed or maimed by a terrorist suicide bomber??? Folks who may well have been saved if the info to save them was there and we did what we needed to do to get that info. Heaven knows there are plenty of those around as opposed to 3 waterboarded terrorists.

I'll be interested in your reply and unlike Ol'Vanquished. I will respect your opinion.

First, something personal: On a private note, a USA that tortures scares me a lot more than terrorists that kill. Basically, the terrorist war amounted to like what, 4000 civilian casulties in the west? That is significantly less than what happened on an average DAY during world war 2/world war 1.
The thing is, the USA is a lot more powerfull than their opponents, it is also a lot more powerfull than my country, therefor it is of course held to another standart than some fundamentalist dirtbags hiding in caves.
Secondly, I am doubting that A) only 3 people were ever Waterboarded (there are clearly more than 3 people on the Abu Ghraib fotos for example), that B) the information could not have been gotten otherwise (you know, these ticking time bomb situations are incredibly rare, secondly, it is not as if someone who has been incarcerated for more than at most 2 months will know a lot about the details of further plans). Also, if there is a true ticking time bomb, torture will propably be applied regardless of what gouverment regulation say.

My main reason for doubting this is that there apperantly no people incarcerated according to this "critical info".
Thirdly: Historically, torture simply does not have a great history of success.

Considering compensations for someone killed and maimed by a terrorist:
Two possiblities, A) You are at war with the terrorist nation, in that case your gouverment will hopefully demand reparations, which would go towards the victims.
B) You are not at war, in this case it is murder. Whatever rules you have regarding compensating murder victims and their relatives apply.


P.S. In a war, any member of the opposing state would kill me just because he can. And if I am a civilian, more so because killing me will be easier.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bobb Barr is a libertarian

Libertarians come in various stripes, and those who are such treated Barr very shabbily. He has always been a Republican. Get over it.

Barr's right and you are wrong. Move on.

Barr isn't a conservative.

Libertarian's are isolationists, conservatives aren't.

Also libertarian's differ on social issues. For example, they are usually for legalizing all drugs and prostitution. Conservatives don't believe in that.

You loon, libertarianism is a philosophy, which for some has conservative principles. That is what Barr is, and what you opine is worthless.

If Barr calls your beliefs unworthy, he is worth believing. You are not.

 

[CMike]

Libertarians come in various stripes, and those who are such treated Barr very shabbily. He has always been a Republican. Get over it.

Barr's right and you are wrong. Move on.

Barr isn't a conservative.

Libertarian's are isolationists, conservatives aren't.

Also libertarian's differ on social issues. For example, they are usually for legalizing all drugs and prostitution. Conservatives don't believe in that.

You loon, libertarianism is a philosophy, which for some has conservative principles. That is what Barr is, and what you opine is worthless.

If Barr calls your beliefs unworthy, he is worth believing. You are not.

Barr has his beliefs. He is entitled to his beliefs. You are entitled to your beliefs, and I am entitled to your beliefs.

Barr is not a conservative. He is a libertarian.

His beliefs are not greater or worse than anyone else's beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

His beliefs are certainly more constructive and integrated than your misbmash of kneejerk reactions.

If you believe you are a conservative, then you are the makings of a great comedy skit.

Where do you get the idea that all opinions are equal? They are not. Barr's far more intelligent and correct than the meandering you have been doing in this thread.

You are a good for a chuckle, along with some of your misguided companion loons, but that is OK. We all need a good laugh now and then.

 

[CMike]

His beliefs are certainly more constructive and integrated than your misbmash of kneejerk reactions.

If you believe you are a conservative, then you are the makings of a great comedy skit.

Where do you get the idea that all opinions are equal? They are not. Barr's far more intelligent and correct than the meandering you have been doing in this thread.

You are a good for a chuckle, along with some of your misguided companion loons, but that is OK. We all need a good laugh now and then.

Okay enjoy worshipping Barr

 

[bodecea]

His beliefs are certainly more constructive and integrated than your misbmash of kneejerk reactions.

If you believe you are a conservative, then you are the makings of a great comedy skit.

Where do you get the idea that all opinions are equal? They are not. Barr's far more intelligent and correct than the meandering you have been doing in this thread.

You are a good for a chuckle, along with some of your misguided companion loons, but that is OK. We all need a good laugh now and then.

Okay enjoy worshipping Barr

What is it with people like you and lying about what others are saying?

 

[JakeStarkey]

His beliefs are certainly more constructive and integrated than your misbmash of kneejerk reactions.

If you believe you are a conservative, then you are the makings of a great comedy skit.

Where do you get the idea that all opinions are equal? They are not. Barr's far more intelligent and correct than the meandering you have been doing in this thread.

You are a good for a chuckle, along with some of your misguided companion loons, but that is OK. We all need a good laugh now and then.

Okay enjoy worshipping Barr

I enjoy mocking a knee-jerk reactionary like you.

 

[Claudette]

Well, would it be OK for the British to Waterboard Washington?
I think we could reasonably assume that the British King would have seen him as a terrorist rebell.

Its not really the waterboarding, actually there are a number of nastier things that could happen to you in captivity (such as dieing to hunger or a preventable disease, which, historically is a far more frequent death cause than murder or side effects of torture), it is that you give the gouverment the right to decide that A) People are terrorists, and B) People can be tortured. Since people will C) Say anything under torture, you effectivly give them the right to really abuse whoever they conceivably want.

Another sideffect is the following one: Lets assume someone is innocent. I mean, there seem to be a couple of ways that an innocent person may end up at Gitmo, given that Gitmo released quite a couple.

So, you get tortured. Badly. Are you sure that, once the torturer gets the idea that you may be innocent, he will stop? Perhaps he will not, since his "professional reputation" may be at stake, torture you a bit more to get that "confession".

What do you propose should be the recompensation for a tortured innocent?

Your post is full of generalities. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Lets stick with the here and now. The present day dirtbag terrorists who would kill you just because they could.

What do you propose for recompensation for the families of someone killed or maimed by a terrorist suicide bomber??? Folks who may well have been saved if the info to save them was there and we did what we needed to do to get that info. Heaven knows there are plenty of those around as opposed to 3 waterboarded terrorists.

I'll be interested in your reply and unlike Ol'Vanquished. I will respect your opinion.

First, something personal: On a private note, a USA that tortures scares me a lot more than terrorists that kill. Basically, the terrorist war amounted to like what, 4000 civilian casulties in the west? That is significantly less than what happened on an average DAY during world war 2/world war 1.
The thing is, the USA is a lot more powerfull than their opponents, it is also a lot more powerfull than my country, therefor it is of course held to another standart than some fundamentalist dirtbags hiding in caves.
Secondly, I am doubting that A) only 3 people were ever Waterboarded (there are clearly more than 3 people on the Abu Ghraib fotos for example), that B) the information could not have been gotten otherwise (you know, these ticking time bomb situations are incredibly rare, secondly, it is not as if someone who has been incarcerated for more than at most 2 months will know a lot about the details of further plans). Also, if there is a true ticking time bomb, torture will propably be applied regardless of what gouverment regulation say.

My main reason for doubting this is that there apperantly no people incarcerated according to this "critical info".
Thirdly: Historically, torture simply does not have a great history of success.

Considering compensations for someone killed and maimed by a terrorist:
Two possiblities, A) You are at war with the terrorist nation, in that case your gouverment will hopefully demand reparations, which would go towards the victims.
B) You are not at war, in this case it is murder. Whatever rules you have regarding compensating murder victims and their relatives apply.


P.S. In a war, any member of the opposing state would kill me just because he can. And if I am a civilian, more so because killing me will be easier.

YOu consider waterboarding torture, I don't. Thats the fundamental difference between your thoughts and mine.

I respect your opinon on this issue and your right to that opinon.

I would, however, still save the 10,000 and you apparantly would not.

 

[bodecea]

Your post is full of generalities. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Lets stick with the here and now. The present day dirtbag terrorists who would kill you just because they could.

What do you propose for recompensation for the families of someone killed or maimed by a terrorist suicide bomber??? Folks who may well have been saved if the info to save them was there and we did what we needed to do to get that info. Heaven knows there are plenty of those around as opposed to 3 waterboarded terrorists.

I'll be interested in your reply and unlike Ol'Vanquished. I will respect your opinion.

First, something personal: On a private note, a USA that tortures scares me a lot more than terrorists that kill. Basically, the terrorist war amounted to like what, 4000 civilian casulties in the west? That is significantly less than what happened on an average DAY during world war 2/world war 1.
The thing is, the USA is a lot more powerfull than their opponents, it is also a lot more powerfull than my country, therefor it is of course held to another standart than some fundamentalist dirtbags hiding in caves.
Secondly, I am doubting that A) only 3 people were ever Waterboarded (there are clearly more than 3 people on the Abu Ghraib fotos for example), that B) the information could not have been gotten otherwise (you know, these ticking time bomb situations are incredibly rare, secondly, it is not as if someone who has been incarcerated for more than at most 2 months will know a lot about the details of further plans). Also, if there is a true ticking time bomb, torture will propably be applied regardless of what gouverment regulation say.

My main reason for doubting this is that there apperantly no people incarcerated according to this "critical info".
Thirdly: Historically, torture simply does not have a great history of success.

Considering compensations for someone killed and maimed by a terrorist:
Two possiblities, A) You are at war with the terrorist nation, in that case your gouverment will hopefully demand reparations, which would go towards the victims.
B) You are not at war, in this case it is murder. Whatever rules you have regarding compensating murder victims and their relatives apply.


P.S. In a war, any member of the opposing state would kill me just because he can. And if I am a civilian, more so because killing me will be easier.

YOu consider waterboarding torture, I don't. Thats the fundamental difference between your thoughts and mine.

I respect your opinon on this issue and your right to that opinon.

I would, however, still save the 10,000 and you apparantly would not.

We can play this game all day.

Would you torture a potential murderer to save a murder victim?

Would you torture a potential speeder to save others from crashes?

Would you torture a potential drunk driver to save others from his crashes?

Would you torture a potentially bad pilot to save those he might kill in crashes?

Just think of all those we could torture to prevent all the untimely deaths in the world.


That. Doesn't. Make. It. Right.

That. Doesn't. Make. It. Legal.

You don't love the Constitution and what our country stands for....pretty obvious. For you, it's whatever you "feel" is the thing to do at the moment.

Civilized people don't do that.

 

[Claudette]

First, something personal: On a private note, a USA that tortures scares me a lot more than terrorists that kill. Basically, the terrorist war amounted to like what, 4000 civilian casulties in the west? That is significantly less than what happened on an average DAY during world war 2/world war 1.
The thing is, the USA is a lot more powerfull than their opponents, it is also a lot more powerfull than my country, therefor it is of course held to another standart than some fundamentalist dirtbags hiding in caves.
Secondly, I am doubting that A) only 3 people were ever Waterboarded (there are clearly more than 3 people on the Abu Ghraib fotos for example), that B) the information could not have been gotten otherwise (you know, these ticking time bomb situations are incredibly rare, secondly, it is not as if someone who has been incarcerated for more than at most 2 months will know a lot about the details of further plans). Also, if there is a true ticking time bomb, torture will propably be applied regardless of what gouverment regulation say.

My main reason for doubting this is that there apperantly no people incarcerated according to this "critical info".
Thirdly: Historically, torture simply does not have a great history of success.

Considering compensations for someone killed and maimed by a terrorist:
Two possiblities, A) You are at war with the terrorist nation, in that case your gouverment will hopefully demand reparations, which would go towards the victims.
B) You are not at war, in this case it is murder. Whatever rules you have regarding compensating murder victims and their relatives apply.


P.S. In a war, any member of the opposing state would kill me just because he can. And if I am a civilian, more so because killing me will be easier.

YOu consider waterboarding torture, I don't. Thats the fundamental difference between your thoughts and mine.

I respect your opinon on this issue and your right to that opinon.

I would, however, still save the 10,000 and you apparantly would not.

We can play this game all day.

Would you torture a potential murderer to save a murder victim?

Would you torture a potential speeder to save others from crashes?

Would you torture a potential drunk driver to save others from his crashes?

Would you torture a potentially bad pilot to save those he might kill in crashes?

Just think of all those we could torture to prevent all the untimely deaths in the world.


That. Doesn't. Make. It. Right.

That. Doesn't. Make. It. Legal.

You don't love the Constitution and what our country stands for....pretty obvious. For you, it's whatever you "feel" is the thing to do at the moment.

Civilized people don't do that.

Yes. We can play this game all day. It is pointless though. I'm not going to agre with you and you aren't going to agree with me. I do respect your opinion and your right to have that opinion even if I don't agree with it.

I do respect the Constitutioin and the law of the land. I just don't consider captured enemy combatants as having the same protections as the drunk drivers, murders, speeders and all the others you named.

Bottom line is that I would do what it took to protect the 10,000 and you would not. YOu would rather let them die than do what it took to save their lives. I would not.

 

[bodecea]

YOu consider waterboarding torture, I don't. Thats the fundamental difference between your thoughts and mine.

I respect your opinon on this issue and your right to that opinon.

I would, however, still save the 10,000 and you apparantly would not.

We can play this game all day.

Would you torture a potential murderer to save a murder victim?

Would you torture a potential speeder to save others from crashes?

Would you torture a potential drunk driver to save others from his crashes?

Would you torture a potentially bad pilot to save those he might kill in crashes?

Just think of all those we could torture to prevent all the untimely deaths in the world.


That. Doesn't. Make. It. Right.

That. Doesn't. Make. It. Legal.

You don't love the Constitution and what our country stands for....pretty obvious. For you, it's whatever you "feel" is the thing to do at the moment.

Civilized people don't do that.

Yes. We can play this game all day. It is pointless though. I'm not going to agre with you and you aren't going to agree with me. I do respect your opinion and your right to have that opinion even if I don't agree with it.

I do respect the Constitutioin and the law of the land. I just don't consider captured enemy combatants as having the same protections as the drunk drivers, murders, speeders and all the others you named.

Bottom line is that I would do what it took to protect the 10,000 and you would not. YOu would rather let them die than do what it took to save their lives. I would not.

Maybe because I know there is no way of knowing that by torturing a person I'm going to get anything that saves 10,000 people...while I am using other methods to save those 10,000.


You...you are willing to use the possible saving of 10,000 people as an EXCUSE to get to torture someone who may or may not give you the correct information you want.

Are you just as willing to be tried and convicted for your choice?

 

[Claudette]

We can play this game all day.

Would you torture a potential murderer to save a murder victim?

Would you torture a potential speeder to save others from crashes?

Would you torture a potential drunk driver to save others from his crashes?

Would you torture a potentially bad pilot to save those he might kill in crashes?

Just think of all those we could torture to prevent all the untimely deaths in the world.


That. Doesn't. Make. It. Right.

That. Doesn't. Make. It. Legal.

You don't love the Constitution and what our country stands for....pretty obvious. For you, it's whatever you "feel" is the thing to do at the moment.

Civilized people don't do that.

Yes. We can play this game all day. It is pointless though. I'm not going to agre with you and you aren't going to agree with me. I do respect your opinion and your right to have that opinion even if I don't agree with it.

I do respect the Constitutioin and the law of the land. I just don't consider captured enemy combatants as having the same protections as the drunk drivers, murders, speeders and all the others you named.

Bottom line is that I would do what it took to protect the 10,000 and you would not. YOu would rather let them die than do what it took to save their lives. I would not.

Maybe because I know there is no way of knowing that by torturing a person I'm going to get anything that saves 10,000 people...while I am using other methods to save those 10,000.


You...you are willing to use the possible saving of 10,000 people as an EXCUSE to get to torture someone who may or may not give you the correct information you want.

Are you just as willing to be tried and convicted for your choice?

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

 

[maineman]

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

silly hypothetical.... and it falls squarely in the "slippery slope" category, doesn't it?

If you have one captive whose information can save 10K lives, you say torture them.

What if the number is only 1K instead of 10K? I would assume you would torture them.

What if we had ten captives and we were almost certain that at least one of them had informatin that would save 500 lives? I would assume you would torture them all.

What if we had five hundred captives and we had a pretty good idea that one of them had information that would save TEN lives? torture them all?

The point being..... once you start down that slope, it is impossible to use any moral justification to refrain from continuing down it.

 

[bodecea]

Yes. We can play this game all day. It is pointless though. I'm not going to agre with you and you aren't going to agree with me. I do respect your opinion and your right to have that opinion even if I don't agree with it.

I do respect the Constitutioin and the law of the land. I just don't consider captured enemy combatants as having the same protections as the drunk drivers, murders, speeders and all the others you named.

Bottom line is that I would do what it took to protect the 10,000 and you would not. YOu would rather let them die than do what it took to save their lives. I would not.

Maybe because I know there is no way of knowing that by torturing a person I'm going to get anything that saves 10,000 people...while I am using other methods to save those 10,000.


You...you are willing to use the possible saving of 10,000 people as an EXCUSE to get to torture someone who may or may not give you the correct information you want.

Are you just as willing to be tried and convicted for your choice?

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

I don't know....I honestly don't. But I DO know that if I tortured him, I would be breaking the law and would be willing to take my punishment for breaking the law.

Would you?

 

[Claudette]

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

silly hypothetical.... and it falls squarely in the "slippery slope" category, doesn't it?

If you have one captive whose information can save 10K lives, you say torture them.

What if the number is only 1K instead of 10K? I would assume you would torture them.

What if we had ten captives and we were almost certain that at least one of them had informatin that would save 500 lives? I would assume you would torture them all.

What if we had five hundred captives and we had a pretty good idea that one of them had information that would save TEN lives? torture them all?

The point being..... once you start down that slope, it is impossible to use any moral justification to refrain from continuing down it.

My hypothetical is no sillier than yours is. LOL

Suffice to say that I am not going to agree with you and you are not going to agree with me. End of story.

Peace

 

[bodecea]

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

silly hypothetical.... and it falls squarely in the "slippery slope" category, doesn't it?

If you have one captive whose information can save 10K lives, you say torture them.

What if the number is only 1K instead of 10K? I would assume you would torture them.

What if we had ten captives and we were almost certain that at least one of them had informatin that would save 500 lives? I would assume you would torture them all.

What if we had five hundred captives and we had a pretty good idea that one of them had information that would save TEN lives? torture them all?

The point being..... once you start down that slope, it is impossible to use any moral justification to refrain from continuing down it.

My hypothetical is no sillier than yours is. LOL

Suffice to say that I am not going to agree with you and you are not going to agree with me. End of story.

Peace

Would you be willing to go to prison for torturing your so called terrorist?

 

[CMike]

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

silly hypothetical.... and it falls squarely in the "slippery slope" category, doesn't it?

If you have one captive whose information can save 10K lives, you say torture them.

What if the number is only 1K instead of 10K? I would assume you would torture them.

What if we had ten captives and we were almost certain that at least one of them had informatin that would save 500 lives? I would assume you would torture them all.

What if we had five hundred captives and we had a pretty good idea that one of them had information that would save TEN lives? torture them all?

The point being..... once you start down that slope, it is impossible to use any moral justification to refrain from continuing down it.

It's not at all hypothetical. And I don't buy your definition of torture.

If waterboarding 3 arch mass murdering terrorists stops a terrorist attack, I would be happy to pour the first bucket of water.

I would guess most americans would say the same thing.

Once again waterboarding the three terrorists stopped two major terrorist attacks which saved thousands of lives.

The better question is would you allow thousands of americans to be tortured by dying agonizing deaths because you refuse to wateboard 3 arch terrorists, whose information would thwart the attacks?

 

[bodecea]

Since we are speaking hypothetically here. Lets assume the captured dirtbag has all the iinfo you need to save those 10,000 lives and you have a limited amount of time to act.

What would you do???

silly hypothetical.... and it falls squarely in the "slippery slope" category, doesn't it?

If you have one captive whose information can save 10K lives, you say torture them.

What if the number is only 1K instead of 10K? I would assume you would torture them.

What if we had ten captives and we were almost certain that at least one of them had informatin that would save 500 lives? I would assume you would torture them all.

What if we had five hundred captives and we had a pretty good idea that one of them had information that would save TEN lives? torture them all?

The point being..... once you start down that slope, it is impossible to use any moral justification to refrain from continuing down it.

It's not at all hypothetical. And I don't buy your definition of torture.

If waterboarding 3 arch mass murdering terrorists stops a terrorist attack, I would be happy to pour the first bucket of water.

How would you KNOW they were terrorists?

How would you KNOW that torturing them would stop a terror attack?

I would guess most americans would say the same thing.

Once again waterboarding the three terrorists stopped two major terrorist attacks which saved thousands of lives.

I am still waiting for the proof that that is true at all.

The better question is would you allow thousands of americans to be tortured by dying agonizing deaths because you refuse to wateboard 3 arch terrorists, whose information would thwart the attacks?

Hey, if we kill every prisoner in our prisons, that would save some thousands of Americans from theft and death in the future.

If we shut down our roads, that would save some hundreds of thousands of Americans from fiery deaths in the future.

If we stop the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, that would save some millions of Americans from cancer deaths.

You up for that too?