Where fools rush in.. (Dem's & hearings)

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Not hypocritcal at all. Here, again, is this foolish assumption that we are simply waterboarding everyone and asking "what do you know?".

The waterboarding McCain experienced was an arbitrary application of the method, designed simply to break a man's spirit for the sake of doing so.

The waterboarding the detainees experience is used on specific individuals to gain specific information.

In what realm does slamming someone against a wall 20 or 30 times not constitute an intent to cause extreme pain, i.e. torture? It's all okay if you think the guy knows something you want to know? Why do it in the first place? Just because you say you're only doing it to shock and alarm someone into talking doesn't make it so. The same could be said about kicking a guy in the jewels.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

In what realm does slamming someone against a wall 20 or 30 times not constitute an intent to cause extreme pain, i.e. torture? It's all okay if you think the guy knows something you want to know? Why do it in the first place? Just because you say you're only doing it to shock and alarm someone into talking doesn't make it so. The same could be said about kicking a guy in the jewels.

Or beheading...no wait, we did not go that route.

[Aramike]

In what realm does slamming someone against a wall 20 or 30 times not constitute an intent to cause extreme pain, i.e. torture? It's all okay if you think the guy knows something you want to know?

Yes, absolutely, positively, 100% no doubt, it is okay if the guy knows something that we need to know to save AMERICAN LIVES, and that information cannot be extracted quickly enough to be useful.

The limit that should be respected is causing serious injury or disfigurement, or the use of enhanced techniques without probable cause to do so.

Yes, absolutely, positively, 100% no doubt, it is okay if the guy knows something that we need to know to save AMERICAN LIVES, and that information cannot be extracted quickly enough to be useful.

So supporting torture using the pathetic ticking bomb routine and throwing in nationalist crap for good measure well done.

The waterboarding the detainees experience is used on specific individuals to gain specific information.

Yeah KSM gave specific information that he had done every islamic terrorist attack in modern hisory .

So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?

Murder , what do you call it ?
What do you call beheading non-Americans ? I still call it murder .
Murder is murder and toryure is torture , it doesn't matter what country or citizen is doing it .

Hogwash. The military and CIA interrogators aren't foolish - they are unlikely to continue employing interrogation methods which don't work.

In the course of the recent publicity over the US using torture how many military and agency interregators have gone on record criticising the method and its effectiveness is obtaining actionable intelligence ?

them. Those people will use any method - including torture - INDISCRIMINATELY to cause terror and disrupt/destroy our way of life.

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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

How, exactly, are we destroying our way of life? I'm guessing that you're attempting to employ empty rhertoric in support of your argument, because, quite frankly, this makes no sense.

Let's say we're talking about out-and-out torture (even though I support no such thing). Employing said torture against those who are not protected by our freedoms; who, in fact wish to destroy our freedoms, does NOT compromise said freedoms in any way. In fact, it may protect them.

Nice job attempting to use a lefty talking-point, without attempting to make sense of it.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The same could be said about kicking a guy in the jewels.

If the guy knows where and when the next 9-11 is going to occur then maybe kicking him in the jewels to encourage him to share that information might be justified.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

If the guy knows where and when the next 9-11 is going to occur then maybe kicking him in the jewels to encourage him to share that information might be justified.

So torture is OK?

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

From the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

So torture is OK?

Okay, I'll bite: torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay.

Although, I wouldn't call that "torture" ... I'd call that "pressure".

I'm just going off of the semantic trap you're trying to lay.

[Tchocky]

Aramike, I'm not laying any sort of trap. I want to know if August would approve of torture. Simple as.

That you think there is a semantic trap here is, I think, illustrative of the Bush Administrations attempts in this area, whether you meant it or not.
"We want to torture people, but we're not allowed. Let's find a way to torture someone while calling it something else. Lawyers, write us a definition please."

The US Gov't signed the Convention Against Torture, you can take the definition therein to be tacitly accepted by almost every nation on Earth.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Aramike, I'm not laying any sort of trap. I want to know if August would approve of torture. Simple as.

That you think there is a semantic trap here is, I think, illustrative of the Bush Administrations attempts in this area, whether you meant it or not.
"We want to torture people, but we're not allowed. Let's find a way to torture someone while calling it something else. Lawyers, write us a definition please."

The US Gov't signed the Convention Against Torture, you can take the definition therein to be tacitly accepted by almost every nation on Earth.

They did rename it....enhanced techniques I believe.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

They did rename it....enhanced techniques I believe.

A rose by any other name...

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The US Gov't signed the Convention Against Torture, you can take the definition therein to be tacitly accepted by almost every nation on Earth.

Unless I miss your meaning thats one of the most niaeve things I've ever heard.

Im sure than now that we have a Convention terrorists will put down there machettes, car batterys, and whatever weird **** they use to torture people, sometimes just for sport. Yes all that will end now.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Unless I miss your meaning thats one of the most niaeve things I've ever heard.

Im sure than now that we have a Convention terrorists will put down there machettes, car batterys, and whatever weird **** they use to torture people, sometimes just for sport. Yes all that will end now.

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

You are correct - I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

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?

Look, we're talking about innocent, civilian lives and people who are hell bent in taking them. Those people will use any method - including torture - INDISCRIMINATELY to cause terror and disrupt/destroy our way of life.

The Bush Administration realized that. Obama along with the very left-leaning UN does not.

The fact that they wish to gamble with the lives of civilians in order to attempt to make a political statement is wrong.

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

Waterboarding someone who knows information that can save lives, and will not disclose it, is not wrong.

What about pulling out fingernails?

Preventing the extraction of such information, especially for mere political gain, is MORALLY DEPRAVED.

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

I would buy this line of thinking.

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?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Aramike, I'm not laying any sort of trap. I want to know if August would approve of torture. Simple as.

That you think there is a semantic trap here is, I think, illustrative of the Bush Administrations attempts in this area, whether you meant it or not.
"We want to torture people, but we're not allowed. Let's find a way to torture someone while calling it something else. Lawyers, write us a definition please."

The US Gov't signed the Convention Against Torture, you can take the definition therein to be tacitly accepted by almost every nation on Earth.

You are correct - I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

And I agree with that.

Look, we're talking about innocent, civilian lives and people who are hell bent in taking them. Those people will use any method - including torture - INDISCRIMINATELY to cause terror and disrupt/destroy our way of life.

We're not talking about tank formations on a battlefield. This is about one guy with a backpack containing a dirty bomb walking into NYC. The game has changed, along with the rules. The Bush Administration realized that. Obama along with the very left-leaning UN does not.

The fact that they wish to gamble with the lives of civilians in order to attempt to make a political statement is wrong.

Waterboarding someone who knows information that can save lives, and will not disclose it, is not wrong. Preventing the extraction of such information, especially for mere political gain, is MORALLY DEPRAVED.