bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)

[rightwinger]

Oh, I didn't realise we were fighting the Japanese in Iraq and Afganistan.

Carry on.

Idiots

The cuckoo sign belongs to your argument, Samson. History clearly illustrates exactly what constitutes torture. The lessons of WWII are instructive. That you want to dismiss them in no way helps your argument.

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

Oh ...I get it now

The definition of what is and is not torture changes based on who we are fighting

You are right

 

[Samson]

The cuckoo sign belongs to your argument, Samson. History clearly illustrates exactly what constitutes torture. The lessons of WWII are instructive. That you want to dismiss them in no way helps your argument.

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

Oh ...I get it now

The definition of what is and is not torture changes based on who we are fighting

You are right

Wow, I think you've finally got it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, I didn't realise we were fighting the Japanese in Iraq and Afganistan.

Carry on.

Idiots

The cuckoo sign belongs to your argument, Samson. History clearly illustrates exactly what constitutes torture. The lessons of WWII are instructive. That you want to dismiss them in no way helps your argument.

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

The examples of WWII are not red herrings but instructive as to the OP. It cannot be limited, and tu quoque does apply here.

 

[bornright]

Those conducting torture always hae a rationale as to why the victim deserves it and why the information they seek will save lives. The VietNamese believed the pilots were targeting civilians and were thus war criminals

That is why you have to have international standards of how prisoners should be humanely treated. Just because YOU think you will save lives by torturing someone does not make it just

The pilots were in uniform and represented this country which is considerably different than the inferior species that flew the planes into the towers.

There is a code of war and the US Constitution neither of which applies to these prisoners that you feel was so brutally tortured.

Human rights does not wear a uniform. Even the most despicable criminal is allowed his rights.

By your reasoning, because of the uncertain legal standing of terrorists we are justified in using any means of torture we please.

So you think it is a moral issue rather than law? Do you actually think these animals are deserving of any rights? All they deserve is "death".

 

[daveman]

No, but we should

So if they don't subscribe to the rule, our behavior isn't going to make any difference, is it?

They are judged by their behavior....

We are judged by ours

Doesn't look to me like they much give a shit how the world judges them.

Of course, there are always useful idiots more than willing to take their side and hamper our fight against them any way they can. And some of them are Americans. Pretty damn disgusting, isn't it?

Hint: The correct answer is "yes".

 

[daveman]

In fact the government has a constitutional obligation to extract that information from the terrorists. "To Promote the General Welfare".

Getting information stop terrorists attacks is "general welfare".

Also the obligation to the government from the First Amendment

"Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic"

In other words there is a constitution obligation for the CIA to get the information to stop terrorist attacks, there is no constitutional right for illegal foreign combatants to not be waterboarded.

No, no, no..."promote the general welfare" only means "give money to Democrat special interest groups".

 

[rightwinger]

The pilots were in uniform and represented this country which is considerably different than the inferior species that flew the planes into the towers.

There is a code of war and the US Constitution neither of which applies to these prisoners that you feel was so brutally tortured.

Human rights does not wear a uniform. Even the most despicable criminal is allowed his rights.

By your reasoning, because of the uncertain legal standing of terrorists we are justified in using any means of torture we please.

So you think it is a moral issue rather than law? Do you actually think these animals are deserving of any rights? All they deserve is "death".

Yes, I believe those "animals" deserve rights

If not, It is we who become animals

 

[Samson]

Human rights does not wear a uniform. Even the most despicable criminal is allowed his rights.

By your reasoning, because of the uncertain legal standing of terrorists we are justified in using any means of torture we please.

So you think it is a moral issue rather than law? Do you actually think these animals are deserving of any rights? All they deserve is "death".

Yes, I believe those "animals" deserve rights

If not, It is we who become animals

Absurd, but not unlike most academic POV.

When has any Civilization ever defined itself by the amount of abuse it is willing to stand?

 

[Sallow]

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

Oh ...I get it now

The definition of what is and is not torture changes based on who we are fighting

You are right

Wow, I think you've finally got it.

Please..please never get near a network.

The way you deal with protocols..it would never work.

 

[Samson]

The cuckoo sign belongs to your argument, Samson. History clearly illustrates exactly what constitutes torture. The lessons of WWII are instructive. That you want to dismiss them in no way helps your argument.

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

The examples of WWII are not red herrings but instructive as to the OP. It cannot be limited, and tu quoque does apply here.

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

 

[martybegan]

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

The examples of WWII are not red herrings but instructive as to the OP. It cannot be limited, and tu quoque does apply here.

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

This is the argument I have been trying to forward, but evidently you are having just as little luck getting through that I was.

 

[Samson]

The examples of WWII are not red herrings but instructive as to the OP. It cannot be limited, and tu quoque does apply here.

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

This is the argument I have been trying to forward, but evidently you are having just as little luck getting through that I was.

Moral Relativists that will be quite happy to argue that circumstances may justify an act of terrorism, find it impossible to embrase the concept that circumstances may justify water-boarding, etc.

 

[Intense]

The examples of WWII are not red herrings but instructive as to the OP. It cannot be limited, and tu quoque does apply here.

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

This is the argument I have been trying to forward, but evidently you are having just as little luck getting through that I was.

Japan was water boarding regular POW's, Legal Combatants. I don't support enhanced interrogation within the regular Military, as SOP, but I believe that there are circumstances where it is warranted, that is for the top of the chain of command to decide, and back up.

 

[Sallow]

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

This is the argument I have been trying to forward, but evidently you are having just as little luck getting through that I was.

Japan was water boarding regular POW's, Legal Combatants. I don't support enhanced interrogation within the regular Military, as SOP, but I believe that there are circumstances where it is warranted, that is for the top of the chain of command to decide, and back up.

The Japanese were terrible to all prisoners. They performed live medical disections on the Chinese and beheaded Americans. And there are no circumstances where it's "warranted" to torture people. From reports that I have read, KSM gave all his useful information prior to being waterboarded. After waterboarding he started babbling about delusional nonsense.

 

[Intense]

This is the argument I have been trying to forward, but evidently you are having just as little luck getting through that I was.

Japan was water boarding regular POW's, Legal Combatants. I don't support enhanced interrogation within the regular Military, as SOP, but I believe that there are circumstances where it is warranted, that is for the top of the chain of command to decide, and back up.

The Japanese were terrible to all prisoners. They performed live medical disections on the Chinese and beheaded Americans. And there are no circumstances where it's "warranted" to torture people. From reports that I have read, KSM gave all his useful information prior to being waterboarded. After waterboarding he started babbling about delusional nonsense.

Who was responsible for interrogating him? Military? CIA?

 

[rightwinger]

So you think it is a moral issue rather than law? Do you actually think these animals are deserving of any rights? All they deserve is "death".

Yes, I believe those "animals" deserve rights

If not, It is we who become animals

Absurd, but not unlike most academic POV.

When has any Civilization ever defined itself by the amount of abuse it is willing to stand?

Since the first time we had something called a civilization. That is what a civilization is, a definition of how we can and cannot respond to these abuses

 

[rightwinger]

I suppose if Bush had been president during both WWII and during Iraq/A-stan you may have a point.

The OP is about water boarding terrorists. If you want to throw in as wild a red herring as WWII for the morons to chase, then I guess that's the best you have to support your weak arguement.

The fact is, the USA isn't expecting combatants in Iraq/A-stan to behave any better than our intelligence services, and never has: So your moral quid pro quo arguement fails.

The examples of WWII are not red herrings but instructive as to the OP. It cannot be limited, and tu quoque does apply here.

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

The OP is about the acceptability of waterboarding and the US defending the procedure= Apples

The Japanese used the same procedure and the US prosecuted them= Apples

 

[Samson]

Yes, I believe those "animals" deserve rights

If not, It is we who become animals

Absurd, but not unlike most academic POV.

When has any Civilization ever defined itself by the amount of abuse it is willing to stand?

Since the first time we had something called a civilization. That is what a civilization is, a definition of how we can and cannot respond to these abuses

I disagree: Civilization is in no way subjectively defined by what you decide are "these abuses."

 

[Intense]

Yes, I believe those "animals" deserve rights

If not, It is we who become animals

Absurd, but not unlike most academic POV.

When has any Civilization ever defined itself by the amount of abuse it is willing to stand?

Since the first time we had something called a civilization. That is what a civilization is, a definition of how we can and cannot respond to these abuses

So let's open up all the Prison's then. Rather than suffer abuses in Prisons, Society should just close them all down. Born Free, Live Free, Die Free.

I sense another song coming. Where is Samson?

Seriously, I think that we are far from knowing what justice is.

 

[daveman]

"instructive as to the OP?"

The OP is about waterboarding terrorists whose acts are independent of national (and therefore, international) norms = Apples

Japan was a nation that attacked the USA = Oranges

But, please, continue with your silly charade; it amuses me to see who chases it.

This is the argument I have been trying to forward, but evidently you are having just as little luck getting through that I was.

Moral Relativists that will be quite happy to argue that circumstances may justify an act of terrorism, find it impossible to embrase the concept that circumstances may justify water-boarding, etc.

It's a simple equation:

If it benefits America, it's bad. If it benefits America's enemies, it's excusable.