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

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 .

[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 They should have withdrawn from the Convention if they wanted any of this to be legal.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?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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

A rose by any other name...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

A rose by any other name...

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

[AVGWarhawk]

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?

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.

The ticking-time-bomb scenario that you're describing just doesn't occur outside of 24.

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 .

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

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 .

You know what, beheading individuals is far worse then what waterboarding is

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

[Tchocky]

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

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.

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

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 .

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.

Oh, so to fight the percieved "use of torture" and prisoner abuse

"use of torture" ?????
Oh I get it ...

It certainly isn't comparable to the "traditional" (and common sense) idea of torture

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 .

[CaptainHaplo]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Aramike, I'm not laying any sort of trap.

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.

[Aramike]

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

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?

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 .

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.

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

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....

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.

...when your supreme court and the military manual repeatedly say otherwise?

[Aramike]

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?

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

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.

What about pulling out fingernails?

I'd be opposed to it - I already said I oppose disfigurement.

Information from torture is notoriously unreliable.

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).

The ticking-time-bomb scenario that you're describing just doesn't occur outside of 24.

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.

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?

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...