And by using torture , secret prisons , detntin without trial , operating outside of your own laws you are destroying your way of life .

Er, no. You're being obtuse. How did you possibly come to the conclusion that a convention against torture means an end to terrorism?

No terrorist signed the convention against torture, the US and other nations did. It doesn't mean that terrorism will vanish overnight, it means that certain nations agreed that there are things they will not do.

Not legal under the definition in the Convention Against Torture. They should have withdrawn from the Convention if they wanted any of this to be legal. Why do it in secret? Why hide away?

It's not possible that they believe that torturing is wrong? Not possible at all?

What about pulling out fingernails?
Information from torture is notoriously unreliable.
The ticking-time-bomb scenario that you're describing just doesn't occur outside of 24.

So you approve of torture, AVG?


Does you believe that a nation will create more enemies by torturing the ones it captures?

Do you not believe that when America tortures prisoners, that it proves Al-Qaeda propaganda to be correct?

A rose by any other name...

Just politically correct in this day of age...just poltically correct:D

You know what, beheading individuals is far worse then what waterboarding is...specifically if these individuals are just citizens or reporters doing a job. So yep, I have no issue with it. Last thing I want to see is a another beheading at the hands of terrorists. You know, waterboarding may not be fun and is torture but hey, the 'victim' gets up afterwards and given a towel to dry off. What happens to the beheaded innocent....why he is paraded on you-tube for all to see. Al-Qaeda propaganda...what are we supposed to be portrayed as the nice guys? Come on, they bought it here, we did not ask for it. Responding with three hots and cot plus TV all day without recourse is ridiculas. Time to spill the beans with some help of natures abundant water.

It does , that fella that got the information on Al-zacahawis location said the ticking bomb situation was commonplace in Iraq , but he said that torture doesn't work .
He also said that most of the local and foriegn terrorists he dealt with in Iraq gave the US use of torture and the prisoner abuse as major reasons for them joining the terrorists in the first place .

Yeah and murder is worse than theft so that means stealing is perfectly OK
What a fruitcake:down:

I can't understand your reasoning, AVG. Torture is OK because there are other people doing worse things.

I wasn't asking specifically about waterboarding, but about torture. Are you in favour of using torture as a means of furthering US policy?

Oh, so to fight the percieved "use of torture" and prisoner abuse they put explosives on themselves, walk to a market place and blow innocents up in the name of jihad?
Makes sense.
Let's try and find some more excuses for terrorists. Could be fun.

"use of torture" ?????
Oh I get it ...When the Gestapo did it against people they called terrorists it was torture , when Imperial Japan did it against enemies of the empire it was torture , when N.Korea did it against what they called Imperialist lackeys it was torture , but when some retard who got into the whitehouse says its OK then it isn't torture .

Let me make this real easy and clear for those of you who dont get it.....

If you sign a treaty or agreement - your bound to follow its dictates - whenever you deal with any other signatory. However - the terrorists didn't sign on - so they dont fall under the agreement. Just like they don't fall under the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of POW's.

Now call it waving the national flag or whatever you want to try and demean it - but here is the way it is when your dealing with MOST Americans....

"MY People are worth more to me than yours are."

I've said it time and again - its a question of them or us, and the fact is that you had people with the balls to say "well - in a them or us situation - its going to be them that gets the short end of the stick." Like it or not - thats the way it is.

So make your snide little comments about "waah your playing the nationalism card" (being from canada I can see why you don't have an understanding of national pride.... though don't think we don't appreciate that you sent 7 guys and that tank to WW2. See we remember!)

*For all my Canuck friends - thats a joke mates!*

Whine about the ticking time bomb - but heres the question - when do you know that there is one? Apparently you want to stick your head in the sand and say "well there just CANT be one" - well buddy, we had that attitude pre 9/11 - and see what it got us? To quote a famous saying...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Until you figure out that there are people out there that want to not only kill you - but destroy your very society - and take that threat seriously, you will be unable to win against terrorism. Its not pleasant that things must - thankfully RARELY - be done outside the normal procedures - but if one guy gets made a little uncomfortable so we can verify some info and save lives, thats ok.

If you think its torture - don't ever try to play streetball in NY brother - cuz the rules are simple - no blood, no foul.

Sure you are. Your question is an over simplified generalization. It's like asking someone if they approve of killing without mentioning the particular situation in which the killing occurs.

For example:
1. Do you approve of killing the man who is currently engaged in trying to kill your wife and children?

2. Do you approve of killing the man who is not?

If your answer to one question is different than the other then you are a hypocrite.

So pretending an argument doesn't have validity because you can't make an effective rebuttal in a run-on sentence well done.

In any case, trying to pretend that there aren't national interests and that terrorists don't attempt to bomb nations, and THEN trying to present that as a counter argument, is just STUPID.

Give it some thought, why don't you?You're right - murder is murder.

However, you clearly don't understand how legal systems work. Germany, for instance, doesn't prosecute murder the same way as, say, the US.

Defining crimes in the context of the citizens who are victimized is normal, no matter what nation you're from. I know you'd like to see it as "nationalistic", and so be it.

Only left-wing lunatics tend to believe (unfoundedly) that the world doesn't consist of different nations, with different cultures and different criminal codes.

Have fun with your Kool-Aid.

Poeple get what you and the other torture supporters are saying , the problem is that what you are saying is a load of bollox .
You also demonstrate that you understand neither international law or US law , but luckily both your government appointed judges and your military lawyers understand those laws .
So go on remind me for a good laugh , how is it you can say.......when your supreme court and the military manual repeatedly say otherwise?

What's the difference?

You're changing the argument from "is it right?" to a technicality. Frankly, when it comes to civilian life, I couldn't give a damn about technicalities.It's irrelevent.

If they have a demonstrably better method at producing human intelligence, I'm all for it. However, the fact is that the administration's "beliefs" are secondary to their task of defending American interests, as is incumbent upon the Commander in Chief.

I mean seriously, if they believed that oil is wrong should the country just prohibit its use? If so, why aren't you advocating the Bush Administration in its belief that abortion is wrong?

"Belief" means nothing. At some level, politics and policy must be pragmatic.
I'd be opposed to it - I already said I oppose disfigurement.That depends upon the information and the method of retrieving it. You are correct - information from torture is unreliable - when indiscriminately applied. People who know nothing will indeed say anything.

HOWEVER, that is not the situation. We are applying so-called "torture" to people who DO know something. And guess what? They say what they know.

Which is exactly the point (oddly enough that is exactly a point your side never addresses).You're nuts if you actually believe that.

Hypothetically, let's say that, on 9/10, we had captive someone who knew of the WTC plot. Would that not qualify as a "ticking time bomb" scenario to you?

Wouldn't pretty much any terrorist attack that has ever occurred been, at some point, a ticking time bomb scenario?

I think you should revisit your point.Again, you infer that the so-called "torture" is indescriminate and wholesale, and avoid the point that it is targetted.

I'm curious as to why you keep avoiding that point...