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

[daveman]

A sherriff waterboarding a prisoner in a state prison is illegal. Again different set of rules. Prisoner in a criminal setting vs. enemy combatant.

and how do you know 100% that coercive interrogation doesnt work? Prove it is a myth. you can't.

The justice department based thier decison on executive privlidge and power. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it illegal.

Executive priviledge is not in the United States Constitution. And the Constitution defines executive power. The whole notion of the Unitary Executive breached faith with the citizens of the United States and violated the United States Constitution.

...but it's okay when Obama does it.

 

[martybegan]

Oh..the United States Constitution?

Let me help you with that..

Waterboarding was not used as a punishment, but as an interrogation technique. Also it was not used on citizens, but on non citizens declared to be fighting outisde of the laws of modern warfare.

The use was authorized at the highest level, and therefore was perfomed in a legal manner.

Just because you are against it doesnt make it illegal or unconstituitonal.

Never mind that we executed Japanese who used waterboarding on Americans.

Waterboarding was like the diet coke of what the japanese did to american prisoners.

And AGAIN the americans were in uniforms, part of a legitamte fighting force, and were accorded geneva protections.

 

[daveman]

Course only the left feels it was torture in the first place so that has to be decided. Might take about 30 years or so...but by then they'll have another whipping boy to go after.

I believe you meant to say, "...but by then they'll have another lefty failure to try to distract attention away from."

 

[shintao]

American soldiers also have valuable information. The US openly engaging in torture because the end justifies the means only gives our enemies the same rights to use it against our soldiers

RW, let's see, beheading or water boarding???

Also, in a perfect world water boarding would not be needed at all.....

We are talking about three people that where water boarded who are known terrorist, they are not solders, the only reason this has anything relevance is for campaign purposes.....

Let me expand your explanation of what we are talking about.

Jamal Naseer was picked up by US Special Forces in Afghanistan in March 2003. He was held in a small, overcrowded detention cell at Gardez, a facility that did not registerits prisoners and which was closed to Red Cross monitors. No medical personnel visited Naseer during the 17 days that he was held and beaten. Men arrested with Mr. Naseer were beaten, kicked, whipped, slammed against the wall, and immersed in cold water. Their toenails either fell off or were torn off. Eyewitnesses report that Mr. Naseer suddenly fell to the ground, seized, and died. He was bleeding from his ear. The clinical history suggests that he died of a basilar skull fracture, an injury caused by severe head trauma with a hard object. His death was not mentioned in the Pentagon's updated list of 39 detainee deaths in July 2004. The Pentagon claims that it did not know of this case until a human rights organization, the Crimes of War Project, informed them of the matter.

 

[Missourian]

Human rights are human rights regardless of the uniform being worn. As soon as you start making excuses for torture, you are no better morally,than the forces of evil you claim to be fighting

The person performing torture always has a justification for why he does it. The victim deseres it, he is really saving lives, it is not really torture....the excuses haven't changed in thousands of years

You wish to speak of rights, what about the rights of innocent American civilians to live...compared to that, the right to not have water splashed it ones face runs a distant second.

You want the moral high ground, you can have it, I cede it willingly.

I'm not willing to sacrifice a love one for the moral high ground. Not one widow, grieving father or orphaned child will be consoled by the moral high ground and no sane person would trade the life of a husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter for all the moral high ground in the universe.

Two wrongs do not make a right

We should not allow them to drag our moral values down to their level

Your premise is faulty, it is wrong to take lives, it is not wrong to attempt to save them.

I'm not willing to claim the moral high ground by climbing a mountain of the bodies of dead American's to shout "See...see how much better I am than my emenies!!!"

 

[daveman]

Amnesty International can go **** themselves. The Waterboarding stopped terror attacks. Works for me.

Boo yah.

One could make the case that the people who oppose waterboarding support terror attacks.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

Is that what you think this is all about?

You're wrong. Three people were waterboarded to get information about attacks that had not happened yet. It paid off -- attacks were prevented.

It wasn't used as punishment.

You and your strawman are dismissed.

 

[shintao]

Not one rightwinged pantywaist can answer the question.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I guess they all lack credibility, are cowards down deep inside, and live in some delusional game program.

 

[Trajan]

American soldiers also have valuable information. The US openly engaging in torture because the end justifies the means only gives our enemies the same rights to use it against our soldiers

RW, let's see, beheading or water boarding???

Also, in a perfect world water boarding would not be needed at all.....

We are talking about three people that where water boarded who are known terrorist, they are not solders, the only reason this has anything relevance is for campaign purposes.....

Let me expand your explanation of what we are talking about.

Jamal Naseer was picked up by US Special Forces in Afghanistan in March 2003. He was held in a small, overcrowded detention cell at Gardez, a facility that did not registerits prisoners and which was closed to Red Cross monitors. No medical personnel visited Naseer during the 17 days that he was held and beaten. Men arrested with Mr. Naseer were beaten, kicked, whipped, slammed against the wall, and immersed in cold water. Their toenails either fell off or were torn off. Eyewitnesses report that Mr. Naseer suddenly fell to the ground, seized, and died. He was bleeding from his ear. The clinical history suggests that he died of a basilar skull fracture, an injury caused by severe head trauma with a hard object. His death was not mentioned in the Pentagon's updated list of 39 detainee deaths in July 2004. The Pentagon claims that it did not know of this case until a human rights organization, the Crimes of War Project, informed them of the matter.

and this has what to do with the issue? are we down to the emotional appeal plateau because you cannot craft logical post?

 

[daveman]

Not one rightwinged pantywaist can answer the question.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I guess they all lack credibility, are cowards down deep inside, and live in some delusional game program.

The question isn't worth answering because it's not an accurate analog to the purpose for which we used waterboarding.

But, please, by all means, pound your chest and pretend you scored a point.

 

[Missourian]

Human rights are human rights regardless of the uniform being worn. As soon as you start making excuses for torture, you are no better morally,than the forces of evil you claim to be fighting

The person performing torture always has a justification for why he does it. The victim deseres it, he is really saving lives, it is not really torture....the excuses haven't changed in thousands of years

You wish to speak of rights, what about the rights of innocent American civilians to live...compared to that, the right to not have water splashed it ones face runs a distant second.

You want the moral high ground, you can have it, I cede it willingly.

I'm not willing to sacrifice a love one for the moral high ground. Not one widow, grieving father or orphaned child will be consoled by the moral high ground and no sane person would trade the life of a husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter for all the moral high ground in the universe.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

No, I believe if you have an opportunity to save American lives by using waterboarding, sleep deprivation, or other non lethal, non maiming advanced interrogation techniques, you have an obligation to do so.

 

[martybegan]

Not one rightwinged pantywaist can answer the question.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I guess they all lack credibility, are cowards down deep inside, and live in some delusional game program.

One can argue that putting a person in a prison and a cell for 50 years for murder is torture. Should we release all of our murderers beacuse we are impacting them in a negative way?

The question is the use of coercive interrogation on known terrorist leaders. Anything else is a diversion because you dont like the answer to the actual question.

 

[rightwinger]

A sherriff waterboarding a prisoner in a state prison is illegal. Again different set of rules. Prisoner in a criminal setting vs. enemy combatant.

and how do you know 100% that coercive interrogation doesnt work? Prove it is a myth. you can't.

The justice department based thier decison on executive privlidge and power. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it illegal.

Human rights are human rights regardless of the uniform being worn. As soon as you start making excuses for torture, you are no better morally,than the forces of evil you claim to be fighting

The person performing torture always has a justification for why he does it. The victim deseres it, he is really saving lives, it is not really torture....the excuses haven't changed in thousands of years

A very aristotilian viewpoint, but very naive as well. Human rights are those brought up by treaty and law. when one decides to act outside of such treaties, one removes oneself from its protection, and has to accept the consequences thereof.

And we are still better than the forces we are fighting, because we see the use of such measures as a last resort, to be done under a controlled framwork, and in the end the person is not permenently physically harmed. For being a terrorsit they were probably mentally screwed up to begin with.

A scenario where a terrorist uses harsh techniques is probably not for getting information at all, but to influence weak willed people such as yourself, to attempt to get you to do the terrorist's dirty work to end the conflict against him. He figures if he can shock enough people without the stomach for it, he wins.

What a horrific viewpoint of when human rights apply. "If I recognize your uniform, I have to provide you humane treatment...if I don't, I am free to torture you in any way I see fit"

Do you honestly believe that as long as we don't sink to the level of depravation of our enemies that it somehow makes us right?

Human rights apply to all people......even the most heinous criminal
That is part of being a civilized society

 

[shintao]

Is that what you think this is all about?

You're wrong. Three people were waterboarded to get information about attacks that had not happened yet. It paid off -- attacks were prevented.

It wasn't used as punishment.

You and your strawman are dismissed.

Some opinion of what is torture, and nothing is dismissed. Torture is torture dudley, for whatever reason it is done. For fun, for information, for resentment, etc. You haven't a clue what it was used for Dudley, as you try to justify it in that lil marble of yours. LOL! Torture is still torture, and still a war crime, and some war criminals went to prison for it. So you might take your lame excuses up with the judges who sent them there.

Oh, my strawman is still standing Dudley.

 

[Missourian]

Not one rightwinged pantywaist can answer the question.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I guess they all lack credibility, are cowards down deep inside, and live in some delusional game program.

Are you borderline retarded? Not one person in this thread has uttered a single word about torturing a murderer.

 

[martybegan]

Human rights are human rights regardless of the uniform being worn. As soon as you start making excuses for torture, you are no better morally,than the forces of evil you claim to be fighting

The person performing torture always has a justification for why he does it. The victim deseres it, he is really saving lives, it is not really torture....the excuses haven't changed in thousands of years

A very aristotilian viewpoint, but very naive as well. Human rights are those brought up by treaty and law. when one decides to act outside of such treaties, one removes oneself from its protection, and has to accept the consequences thereof.

And we are still better than the forces we are fighting, because we see the use of such measures as a last resort, to be done under a controlled framwork, and in the end the person is not permenently physically harmed. For being a terrorsit they were probably mentally screwed up to begin with.

A scenario where a terrorist uses harsh techniques is probably not for getting information at all, but to influence weak willed people such as yourself, to attempt to get you to do the terrorist's dirty work to end the conflict against him. He figures if he can shock enough people without the stomach for it, he wins.

What a horrific viewpoint of when human rights apply. "If I recognize your uniform, I have to provide you humane treatment...if I don't, I am free to torture you in any way I see fit"

Human rights apply to all people......even the most heinous criminal
That is part of being a civilized society

its called reality. To allow people who deliberately work outside a given ruleset to benefit from that ruleset defeats the enitre purpose of having the rules, and eventually leads loss of the conflict.

 

[daveman]

Is that what you think this is all about?

You're wrong. Three people were waterboarded to get information about attacks that had not happened yet. It paid off -- attacks were prevented.

It wasn't used as punishment.

You and your strawman are dismissed.

Some opinion of what is torture, and nothing is dismissed. Torture is torture dudley, for whatever reason it is done. For fun, for information, for resentment, etc. You haven't a clue what it was used for Dudley, as you try to justify it in that lil marble of yours. LOL! Torture is still torture, and still a war crime, and some war criminals went to prison for it. So you might take your lame excuses up with the judges who sent them there.

Oh, my strawman is still standing Dudley.

You concern for terrorists is touching, but they still want you dead. Luckily, there are brave men and women who will protect you from them.

 

[GWV5903]

If you believe waterboarding is legal, moral, and ethical, for its purpose, then you have no legitimate cause to object to it being used on captured Americans.

And you're going to prevent this happening to US Troops how???

 

[rightwinger]

You wish to speak of rights, what about the rights of innocent American civilians to live...compared to that, the right to not have water splashed it ones face runs a distant second.

You want the moral high ground, you can have it, I cede it willingly.

I'm not willing to sacrifice a love one for the moral high ground. Not one widow, grieving father or orphaned child will be consoled by the moral high ground and no sane person would trade the life of a husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter for all the moral high ground in the universe.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

No, I believe if you have an opportunity to save American lives by using waterboarding, sleep deprivation, or other non lethal, non maiming advanced interrogation techniques, you have an obligation to do so.

All people engaged in torture claim they are doing so for rightious reasons. Ask John McCain.......his torturers considered him to be a war criminal and were doing it to obtain information to save innocent VietNamese lives

 

[shintao]

Not one rightwinged pantywaist can answer the question.

So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I guess they all lack credibility, are cowards down deep inside, and live in some delusional game program.

Are you borderline retarded? Not one person in this thread has uttered a single word about torturing a murderer.

Oh, that is correct! Those we tortured were innocent chained and detained citizens. You are quite right.

I should ask you if you would torture innocent chained & detained citizens?

 

[shintao]

Is that what you think this is all about?

You're wrong. Three people were waterboarded to get information about attacks that had not happened yet. It paid off -- attacks were prevented.

It wasn't used as punishment.

You and your strawman are dismissed.

Some opinion of what is torture, and nothing is dismissed. Torture is torture dudley, for whatever reason it is done. For fun, for information, for resentment, etc. You haven't a clue what it was used for Dudley, as you try to justify it in that lil marble of yours. LOL! Torture is still torture, and still a war crime, and some war criminals went to prison for it. So you might take your lame excuses up with the judges who sent them there.

Oh, my strawman is still standing Dudley.

You concern for terrorists is touching, but they still want you dead. Luckily, there are brave men and women who will protect you from them.

Yes, how touching you can justify torture, murder & rape of innocent human beings who are chained & detained, by war criminals. You are such a hero Dudley..........


Again,................... So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?