Is Waterboarding Torture?

[Mare Tranquillity]

You missed the point.

Maybe you did too. Why don't you explain is greater detail what your point was and I'll try to keep up.

 

[PredFan]

You're drinking problem has obviously clouded your interpretation of WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID!

I said ANY & EVERY FUTURE CONFLICT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. And on top of that the fact that others do terrible heinous things doesn't in any single way justify someone else for doing it as well.

With that logic since they used to burn people at the stake or impale people and hang them to die EVERYONE CAN NOW DO IT. Pleeeease...

My best friends son an Army Special Forces Ranger Sergeant is on his 4th tour... 1 in Kuwait, 3 in Iraq. We do them a huge disservice when WE PROMOTE TORTURE.

Wow! You totaly missed the point again. Maybe you should have a drink. Clear your mind a little.

 

[PredFan]

Maybe you did too. Why don't you explain is greater detail what your point was and I'll try to keep up.

OK. Top Gun replied to my statement that I hope it is torture and I hope they suffered from it with:

Yeah never mind that it opens our brave men & women in the field to more torture in every military campaign against any country anywhere on the planet from now on.

That doesn't matter we got to water suffocate a few guys while Darth Cheney and Cowboy were in office.

To which I replied:

Do you ever get tired of being a tool?

It's not like they never tortured anyone and we were the first. Getting your head cut off with a saw while you are conscious of it, no, that's not torture is it? Thank God they didn't get waterboarded!

And this reply, which totally misses:

So you have no scruples? If someone else murders or tortures people that gives you the right to do it too? Maybe you are aiming too low if you strive to attain only the depths to which others sink.

My point is NOT that just because they do it then we can, my point is that to say we are now going to get tortured ignores the FACT that they already torture. So it's a fail argument against torture.

Clearer?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

OK. Top Gun replied to my statement that I hope it is torture and I hope they suffered from it with:
To which I replied:
And this reply, which totally misses:
My point is NOT that just because they do it then we can, my point is that to say we are now going to get tortured ignores the FACT that they already torture. So it's a fail argument against torture.

Clearer?

Why do their excesses justify ours? George Washington spoke out against torture during the war for independence, he would not allow it even though the British and Prussian mercenaries did it to our soldiers. He said that we were Americans and that one of the things that made us different was that we didn't torture people. His contention was that we should hew to the higher ground despite the actions of others.

Those people who torture are barbarians, we don't need to sink to their level.

 

[PredFan]

Why do their excesses justify ours? George Washington spoke out against torture during the war for independence, he would not allow it even though the British and Prussian mercenaries did it to our soldiers. He said that we were Americans and that one of the things that made us different was that we didn't torture people. His contention was that we should hew to the higher ground despite the actions of others.

Those people who torture are barbarians, we don't need to sink to their level.

Dang, you still missed it. Even after I spelled it out for you. I don't know if there is anything more I can do.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Dang, you still missed it. Even after I spelled it out for you. I don't know if there is anything more I can do.

Why can't you explain better? Two or three sentence explanations are obviously not adequate.

 

[top gun]

My point is NOT that just because they do it then we can, my point is that to say we are now going to get tortured ignores the FACT that they already torture. So it's a fail argument against torture.

Clearer?

No you misfit it really doesn't!

The fact they (I'm guessing you mean insurgents in Iraq) kill people, cut off their heads or whatever is completely irrelevant to what I said.

I said that because someone else is an a$$hole TORTURING terrorist doesn't mean we have to act like a$$hole TORTURING terrorists.

And I followed that up with. Now in any conflict with any nation or group anywhere around the world we have given the other side cover to TORTURE and say to the international community... We have to do it. The US will surely do it to us. READ THE WORDS... future conflicts... people who aren't even in conflict with us now... the future!

Even a guy like you that thinks drunk driving is a perfectly OK thing should be able to sort this one out as a bad thing... but I guess not.

 

[PredFan]

Why can't you explain better? Two or three sentence explanations are obviously not adequate.

I don't know how to explain it any better. I was NOT saying that it's OK to do it because they do it. I was saying that its a fail argument to state that we expose our troops to torture by torturing. It's a fail argument because they already torture. That is NOT the same thing as saying that it's OK for us to torture because they do.

 

[PredFan]

No you misfit it really doesn't!

The fact they (I'm guessing you mean insurgents in Iraq) kill people, cut off their heads or whatever is completely irrelevant to what I said.

I said that because someone else is an a$$hole TORTURING terrorist doesn't mean we have to act like a$$hole TORTURING terrorists.

And I followed that up with. Now in any conflict with any nation or group anywhere around the world we have given the other side cover to TORTURE and say to the international community... We have to do it. The US will surely do it to us. READ THE WORDS... future conflicts... people who aren't even in conflict with us now... the future!

Even a guy like you that thinks drunk driving is a perfectly OK thing should be able to sort this one out as a bad thing... but I guess not.

You said "from now on" fool. Are you going to try to claim that you aren't talking about the Taliban or AlQueda?

Go away troll.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't know how to explain it any better. I was NOT saying that it's OK to do it because they do it. I was saying that its a fail argument to state that we expose our troops to torture by torturing. It's a fail argument because they already torture. That is NOT the same thing as saying that it's OK for us to torture because they do.

Okay, I understand what you mean now. I think the argument is not that our torturing would make them torture, but rather that it will tend to help them justify their behavior to themselves and the world. Who did it first is less important, we make a good statement about who and what we are by NOT torturing ever.

 

[PredFan]

Okay, I understand what you mean now. I think the argument is not that our torturing would make them torture, but rather that it will tend to help them justify their behavior to themselves and the world. Who did it first is less important, we make a good statement about who and what we are by NOT torturing ever.

What would be the point of making that statement?

They won't need our torturing to make an excuse for theirs. Who do you think we would go to war with that wouldn't torture any of the soldiers they captured? Unless we go to war with France or England then it'll be done. Again, I'm not saying that we should because they do, I'm saying that it's a fail argument against torture.

Hell, waterboarding isn't even torture. They are just lucky I wasn't in charge of it. I'd have the information, and there'd be no photos taken and no living witnesses aside from those who actually administered the "interrogation".

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What would be the point of making that statement?

They won't need our torturing to make an excuse for theirs. Who do you think we would go to war with that wouldn't torture any of the soldiers they captured? Unless we go to war with France or England then it'll be done. Again, I'm not saying that we should because they do, I'm saying that it's a fail argument against torture.

Hell, waterboarding isn't even torture. They are just lucky I wasn't in charge of it. I'd have the information, and there'd be no photos taken and no living witnesses aside from those who actually administered the "interrogation".

The statement would be a good thing for everyone to hear, our enemies and our friends, it sets a standard that can be admired and emulated. It emphasizes that we are NOT the barbarians in the conflict.

Torture is a barbaric anachronism, it's not even particularly useful. It's destructive to the people who do the torture as well as the victims. It's based on a belief that the victim has the information you want, but you may never know if that's true even if you torture the person to death--and what if you're wrong and you torture someone who's innocent? Torture is always done because you HOPE the person has something you can use, you never know.

Torture is a social evil as you yourself stated: '...there'd be no photos taken and no living witnesses aside from those who actually administered the "interrogation" '. Anyone who would do that to another human being would not hesitate to lie about it, torture once accepted as a valid tool will be used more and more often--and why not? If it's a valid, legal tool then why not use it all the time on every criminal? People will admit to almost anything under torture so you'll be able to solve crimes right and left in jig time. But will the people be really guilty? And how far will you go? Will you be willing to torture/rape/murder the victim's family to make him talk? Why not? Torture cannot be controlled, it can only be abolished.

 

[PredFan]

The statement would be a good thing for everyone to hear, our enemies and our friends, it sets a standard that can be admired and emulated. It emphasizes that we are NOT the barbarians in the conflict.

In a time of war, that is a luxury one cannot afford.those people are trying to kill you and yours. Nice guys die.

Torture is a barbaric anachronism, it's not even particularly useful. It's destructive to the people who do the torture as well as the victims. It's based on a belief that the victim has the information you want, but you may never know if that's true even if you torture the person to death--and what if you're wrong and you torture someone who's innocent? Torture is always done because you HOPE the person has something you can use, you never know.

You can't know whether it is useful or not. Even if it's "not particularly useful" it's still useful to some degree. How is it destructive to the people who torture? If you capture someone on the battlefield, they are not innocent. It's true you never know if they have useful info, but almost ANY info is useful, even if it simply backs up what you already suspect to be true.

Torture is a social evil as you yourself stated: '...there'd be no photos taken and no living witnesses aside from those who actually administered the "interrogation" '. Anyone who would do that to another human being would not hesitate to lie about it, torture once accepted as a valid tool will be used more and more often--and why not? If it's a valid, legal tool then why not use it all the time on every criminal? People will admit to almost anything under torture so you'll be able to solve crimes right and left in jig time. But will the people be really guilty? And how far will you go? Will you be willing to torture/rape/murder the victim's family to make him talk? Why not? Torture cannot be controlled, it can only be abolished.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it is a social evil. I wouldn't take photos because it's a stupid idea, and I'd kill them simply because they are pure scum.

Don't give me that slippery slope BS. We should not use it on Americans, even criminals are not in an act of war against us. There is a difference.

Just because YOU say torture cannot be controlled doesn't make it so.

 

[top gun]

You said "from now on" fool. Are you going to try to claim that you aren't talking about the Taliban or AlQueda?

Go away troll.

Listen my friend from the Island of Misfit Toys... I'm talking about any... all... every... conflict from now until the end of time... we have NO, ZERO, NOTTA BIT of moral highground to protest TORTURING bound, defenseless detainees & prisoners.

Now if you think that's a better position for us to be in when we want international pressure put on our enemies NOW OR IN THE FUTURE you're simple undeniably WRONG.

Furthermore if you belive your rationale that my friend's son in Iraq is somehow safer because an American President was a TORTURER... you're wrong again.

Will there be instances where the other side tortures & kills prisoners. Most certainly. Is there even less of a chance of getting some hostages back at times because we are now known as TORTURERS OURSELVES. Absolutely.

I'm not like you. I don't gamble that maybe things will be the same or OK either way. When it comes to the lives of people I want to stack every possible card in our favor. If it gets even just one kid back in this conflict or any subsequent conflict it's well worth it.

The Radical Right left unchecked will try and justify anything... it's just sick.