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

Erm, how does that show that I'm ignorant on the subject, are you are just spouting meaningless drivel in an attempt to avoid making a point?

It shows you are ignorant on the subject as you are attempting to redefine reality to fit with your views .

I mean, isn't part of the debate that we disagree with what constitutes torture?

Exactly , torture is clearly defined but you wish to rewrite the definition , life doesn't work like that , the world doesn't bend to accomodate your particular view.

It is interesting how you're attempting to settle that difference by essentially simply stating that it is settled

It is settled , unless you can get the courts to turn around their decisions , get governments and militaries to rewrite their rules of law and ge the international bodies to redefine torture .
But there is no hope of that as your definition of torture is rubbish , after all under your definition hundreds of exceptionally nasty forms of torture which are rightly banned and condened would become just "torture".

Ah yes, the typical argument of "you are wrong therefore you are wrong" without ANY basis whatsoever.

Plenty of basis and very soild basis at that , whereas you have tried in addition to redefinition some crazy comparisons . Waterboarding isn't as bad as beheading . OK but who said beheading is OK . Theres a name for that isn't there , its called a formal fallacy , in this case a completely illogical and false arguement .

So judging by the Neo Nazi kids who did a mean thing to some Jewish folks, you believe they should be beaten to the very inch of their lives until the see the light of the law and grow up. Should not a terrorist that killed thousands receive the same or is he a misguided individual that needs counseling?

Wow , you know I mentioned reading earlier , no offence but how on earth did you get that from what was written in that particular topic ?
You managed to take someones arguement against something and portray it as a arguement for something and added a strawman for good measure.

No, my reasoning is this, waterboarding has been put on the table as the most evil practice on the earth as of late.

Your reasoning is once again completely flawed , you are acting on a false premise , in fact by doing so it is by definition not reasoning at all .

[AVGWarhawk]

And now there is some back-tracking...ACLU up in arms over the lack of transparency promised by the White House. No photos to be sent out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...etainee-abuse/

Should have left well enough alone............

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

No, my reasoning is this, waterboarding has been put on the table as the most evil practice on the earth as of late. We are deemed as some sort of monster for waterboarding terrorists.

I'd argue that torture is an evil practice, and waterboarding is just one method. I don't think a line can be drawn between waterboarding and more bloody/loud forms of torture. Sleep deprivation is a horrific form of torture, but it doesn't produce any blood or visual disfigurement. Does that make it ok in your book?

Waterboarding is only one of the methods that were used. Sleep deprivation (up to 11 days chained up), starvation, beatings, refusing medical treatment until the suspect started to talk (done to a US citizen).

In my view, he is getting off much lighter then those who are paraded around on the internet before, during and after the beheadings.

Why does this matter? Honestly, I can't see the logic in it being ok to torture bad people, just because they're bad people. All you seem to focus on is how awful terrorists are, not on why it is ok for a nation to torture people.

And again, as stated above, torture in the physical sense that John McCain received I do not agree with. Suffering a bit with a cloth on your face and water poured over it to simulate drowning, although not pleasent and not meant to be, is fine by me. Although you may not see my view on this I do not see your view on waterboarding(not out and out torture for the rackmaster as you believe I'm thinking)...just the sole question and debate on waterboarding itself.

Waterboarding is torture, AVG. It is "out and out" torture. The only people saying otherwise are those who have been caught doing. Waterboarding also isn't the only thing that was going on. Read the released memos and you'll see this.
You can't have it both ways on this, really.

Guards beat detainees and filmed it. Sleep deprivations. Same as happened to John McCain. But I suppose that's somehow not "out and out" torture.

As far as I'm concerned, any right to anything a terrorist might have was lost just after the aircrafts crashed into several buildings killing thousands on 9/11.

I can't believe this. It's OK to torture anyone we think is a terrorist, because we've been hurt.

Surely a challenging time like post-9/11 is a chance to prove that you are not weak and barbaric.
If you claim to value peace and justice, kidnapping and torturing people makes these hobbies, not values.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, seriously, your point was that, due to some "bad" information, enhanced interrogation shouldn't occur. My counter-point is that there is good information being learned as well, but that you're acting as though only bad information exists.

No, my point boils down to the idea that torture should not be allowed because it is a repellent and disgusting practice, not because it does or does not work.

[Aramike]

It shows you are ignorant on the subject as you are attempting to redefine reality to fit with your views .

I have no once attempted to redefine reality.

You should seriously stop attempting to "win" the discussion by implying that you're position is the default (read: only) one.

That is definitely an attempt to "redefine reality".

Exactly , torture is clearly defined but you wish to rewrite the definition , life doesn't work like that , the world doesn't bend to accomodate your particular view.

Huh? You're confusing me with someone else. I couldn't care less about the definition of the word.

The LEGAL definition is what matters. Legal definitions are defined and redefined constantly.

Sorry, but life DOES work like that.

It is settled , unless you can get the courts to turn around their decisions , get governments and militaries to rewrite their rules of law and ge the international bodies to redefine torture .

That is by far the weakest. argument. ever.

So, because you believe certain people agree with YOUR position, it's the right position? Can't you illustrate your points on the basis of their merits, or is defaulting to the positions of others the best you got?

I'd also like to remind you what the discussion is about, but I'll let you read back yourself. (Hint: I couldn't care less about international legal issues, and therefore have not been debating them. In fact, I've even acknowledged that the Bush administration was trying to get the legal parameters of torture changed).

But there is no hope of that as your definition of torture is rubbish , after all under your definition hundreds of exceptionally nasty forms of torture which are rightly banned and condened would become just "torture".

Again, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Please try to carefully read my points in the future. I remember specifically stating that I don't care if waterboarding is called torture or not. That isn't the debate. The debate is whether or not the practice should be allowed.

I mean, I know its difficult to resist the temptation to change the focus of the discussion on something you can actually make a coherent point on, but do try.

Plenty of basis and very soild basis at that , whereas you have tried in addition to redefinition some crazy comparisons . Waterboarding isn't as bad as beheading . OK but who said beheading is OK . Theres a name for that isn't there , its called a formal fallacy , in this case a completely illogical and false arguement .

Well, considering that I never said that "waterboarding isn't as bad as beheading"... I'll let you finish the thought, because you clearly seem to know exactly the point.

But, just for fits and giggles, let's look back at what you're referencing, shall we? I said, "So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?" Which, was in DIRECT RESPONSE to, "If American soldiers were being waterboarded by an enemy, we'd call it torture."

The point was pretty simple in scope and message, but I'll spell it out for you anyway: Americans (and civilians) ARE being tortured, but for some reason we don't call it that.

That's an irony, and has little to do with the point of the discussion. It was merely a response to a comment (and one that you didn't even make).

Now stop embarrassing yourself.

[Aramike]

No, my point boils down to the idea that torture should not be allowed because it is a repellent and disgusting practice, not because it does or does not work.

Okay, fair enough. But, on the other hand, allowing the possible wholesale slaughter of civilians because you are unwilling to do something you find "repellent and disgusting" is pretty sick, isn't it?

In fact, its morally depraved..

Unfortunately, in the real world, things that are "repellent and disgusting" often have to occur. War comes to mind. War is always disgusting, but we can't just let every Hitler have Europe now can we?

[AVGWarhawk]

You don't understand Tchocky...

I could give a rats a$$ about a terrorist getting waterboarded.

Again, you might understand my point of view or see it as a non-issue for me if said 9/11 incident happened in your neighborhood. Again, any and all rights afforded a terrorist after 9/11 are null and void in my book.

also, torture is an ends to a problem or a means to obtain something correct? Beheadings on youtube, IED, recruiting kids to carry bombs into market places, car bombs, taking aircraft, letting gas loose in the subways are a means to obtain something for the terrorist. Really man, the torture does not hold a candle to the laundry list crap the terrorist do. These terrorist threaten and plan everyday to do something to innocent people. So hey, one guy in the torture chamber 'took of for the team'. 3500 innocent took one for the team on 9/11.

I do not understand your outrage concerning a tortured individual that would probably cut your throat if given the opportunity.

Furthermore, I did not state waterboarding is not torture. Yes, it is a form of torture but far less than say using the 'Iron Maiden'. As far a kidnapping people??????? WTH, the nice folks who lost their heads were kidnapped. That is rich...kidnapped....no, they were rounded up as terrorist for killing thousands. We did not kidnap them. Furthermore, it is not a hobby, it is no less than what the terrorist are doing. Such is life.

I see your view as torture being barbaric, etc. No issue there. My view is I really do not care about a terrorist being tortured.

Good to go!

[Tchocky]

they were rounded up as terrorist for killing thousands. We did not kidnap them

Um, lots of the prisoners in Gitmo were bought from the Northern Alliance, had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Torture them as well? I mean, they're supposed to be the "worst of the worst"

My view is I really do not care about a terrorist being tortured

Do you not think it makes things an awful lot worse for Americans to be known as torturers, practitioners of a practice that almost the entire world has rejected? For a US soldier captured in combat, does this make things better or worse? For recruiting potential terrorists, does this act as a deterrent, or as a reason to fight America?

Again, torture isn't about the characteristics of the tortured, but of the torturer. It says something about you, not the guy in the chair.

I can appreciate that you don't care. It just depresses me that Americans don't care, and in some cases, want to torture people. (EDIT, meant to type "some" americans, my mistake). There's a bloodthirsty streak in some of this that is scary to see. The fact that several posters here are giving 9/11 as an excuse to torture reeks of revenge.
In fairness, 99% of the Americans who want to torture people that I've met, have been on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, fair enough. But, on the other hand, allowing the possible wholesale slaughter of civilians because you are unwilling to do something you find "repellent and disgusting" is pretty sick, isn't it?

In fact, its morally depraved..

I'd prefer to live at risk in a country that didn't torture people. I think I would live at a lower risk in such a country, too. I think the fact that America has tortured prisoners has hurt it, been a cause celebre for terrorists, and made it less safe for Americans in general.

Unfortunately, in the real world, things that are "repellent and disgusting" often have to occur. War comes to mind. War is always disgusting, but we can't just let every Hitler have Europe now can we?

Not every situation is comparable to 1939. I don't see how the present situation is analogous. If we're talking WW2, it's worth remembering that the US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes and torture, on evidence of waterboarding.
I believe that it is good for a nation to say that there are certain practices that it will not indulge in, that are beneath it. The concept of a just war is a difficult one, but I don't believe the question of torture is.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Um, lots of the prisoners in Gitmo were bought from the Northern Alliance, had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Torture them as well? I mean, they're supposed to be the "worst of the worst"

Do you not think it makes things an awful lot worse for Americans to be known as torturers, practitioners of a practice that almost the entire world has rejected? For a US soldier captured in combat, does this make things better or worse? For recruiting potential terrorists, does this act as a deterrent, or as a reason to fight America?

Again, torture isn't about the characteristics of the tortured, but of the torturer. It says something about you, not the guy in the chair.

I can appreciate that you don't care. It just depresses me that Americans don't care, and in some cases, want to torture people. There's a bloodthirsty streak in some of this that is scary to see. The fact that several posters here are giving 9/11 as an excuse to torture reeks of revenge.
In fairness, 99% of the Americans who want to torture people that I've met, have been on the Internet.

You are reading to much into it Tchocky. First of all, I did not say I approve of torture. I said I did not care if it was done. Secondly, you have thrown the whole lot of Americans into the 'don't care' about torture pile. There are a bunch at the ACLU that do care. 9/11 is not an excuse, it is a fact. Also, the 99% of American who want to torture people you found on the net...I never said I wanted torture nor promote it. I do not care about this particular brand of terrorist being tortured. I see one in this thread who promotes torture and is fine in his view. So be it.

Do I think it deters torture for American soldiers who are captured...nope. But you know what, they are going to torture anyway whether we torture or not. Beheading to follow. For some reason, you have painted a human face on a terrorist...this was your first mistake. Find me a compassionate terrorist and I will find you unicorn.

The northern alliance? Alliance means what? This alliance was allied with what entity then?

America known as torturers that the world has rejected such practices? What world is that who has rejected torturing people? Happens everyday. Heck, some countries do not bother to torture, if they do not like you, you simply disappear.

Torture watch

http://www.irct.org/Torture-in-the-world-35.aspx

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

You are reading to much into it Tchocky. First of all, I did not say I approve of torture. I said I did not care if it was done. Secondly, you have thrown the whole lot of Americans into the 'don't care' about torture pile. There are a bunch at the ACLU that do care. 9/11 is not an excuse, it is a fact. Also, the 99% of American who want to torture people you found on the net...I never said I wanted torture nor promote it. I do not care about this particular brand of terrorist being tortured. I see one in this thread who promotes torture and is fine in his view. So be it.

I meant to type "some" Americans, edited now. I believed that you approved until you said you just didnt care.

Do I think it deters torture for American soldiers who are captured...nope. But you know what, they are going to torture anyway whether we torture or not. Beheading to follow.
For some reason, you have painted a human face on a terrorist...this was your first mistake. Find me a compassionate terrorist and I will find you unicorn.

For some reason? What in blazes are you talking about? Terrorists are people. They blow up people, and bleed when they got shot. They're not mythical incarnations of evil, sent by an angry God.
I grew up with a few terrorists, my next door neighbour blew up 30 people in a shopping centre. They are humans. It's possible for a human to do horrible things.

The northern alliance? Alliance means what? This alliance was allied with what entity then?

The Northern Alliance from the war in Afghanistan, allied with the US in the initial war there.

What world is that who has rejected torturing people? Happens everyday. Heck, some countries do not bother to torture, if they do not like you, you simply disappear.

Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture, which includes the US.

http://www.irct.org/Torture-in-the-world-35.aspx

I know it still happens, I find it sad that the US is one country that tortures people.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is sad that tortured performed. Reading up on the disposition today, a less harmful technique was used and information gained. There was pressure to use more diabolical techniques after this initial technique worked. The problem here Tchocky is the thread concerned Pelosi and the rest of the crew...what did they know? They knew everything but sat on their thumbs yet they come out on their high horse. Total rubbish. This entire debacle is not about torture...it is political jockeying..nothing more. That is sadder then the actual torture itself because it shows the world that our politcal parties are self-serving. This speaks volumes to me and the world.

At any rate, things like this prevent a reoccurrance in the furture(so it is hoped)

I have no once attempted to redefine reality.

You have repeatedly attempted to redefine what constitutes torture.

Huh? You're confusing me with someone else. I couldn't care less about the definition of the word.

Is that why you keep trying to show that waterboarding isn't really torture when by definition it is torture?

The LEGAL definition is what matters. Legal definitions are defined and redefined constantly.

Good point , can you show any ruling that redefines what constitutes torture to back up your actual views or have you just done an epic fail ?

In fact, I've even acknowledged that the Bush administration was trying to get the legal parameters of torture changed).

Well done you prove my point , the attempt to get torture redefined failed because what they were trying to claim was not torture is obviously torture.

The debate is whether or not the practice should be allowed.

If it is illegal it is illegal , throwing the rule of law out of the window destroys your way of life and the values your country is built on

But, just for fits and giggles, let's look back at what you're referencing, shall we? I said, "So what do you call beheading American civilians and non-combantants?" Which, was in DIRECT RESPONSE to, "If American soldiers were being waterboarded by an enemy, we'd call it torture."

Murder is murder and torture is torture , it doesn't matter who does it it is still murder and torture .

The point was pretty simple in scope and message, but I'll spell it out for you anyway: Americans (and civilians) ARE being tortured, but for some reason we don't call it that.

Bull**** , visit the Pearle website , lots of newpaper links and politicians quotes there about Daniels torture and murder , though of course his family is strongly against the use of torture .

Again, you might understand my point of view or see it as a non-issue for me if said 9/11 incident happened in your neighborhood.

Such arrogance , where were you on that day ? who did you lose ? How many funerals were you at in NY ? who have you lost to Islamic terrorism before then ?
Don't try and come high and mighty with such views as you really havn't got a clue and are a relative newcomer to the problems of terrorism.

[Aramike]

You have repeatedly attempted to redefine what constitutes torture.

I have never, not once, attempted this throughout this thread.

You should stop making things up.

Is that why you keep trying to show that waterboarding isn't really torture when by definition it is torture?

Again, I have never, not once attempted to show that.

Seriously, are you even reading the thread?

In fact, I SPECIFICALLY WROTE THE FOLLOWING: "Okay, I'll bite: torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay."

Is that clear enough for you to understand now, or do you insist upon continuing to assign me positions for you to debate against?

I for one believe that waterboarding is a form of torture (although that wouldn't be my first descriptor of the activity, it is indeed accurate). That's not my point, and has never been such.

My point is, AGAIN, "torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay."

Would you like me to record and upload an audio file so you don't have to read it?

Good point , can you show any ruling that redefines what constitutes torture to back up your actual views or have you just done an epic fail ?

That's an idiotic question to ask in a debate.

Opinions can stand on merits other than the opinions of others (such as the courts). By your logic, original thinking shouldn't be allowed because there wouldn't be any opinions to back the original thought. That logic itself is an "epic fail".

And yes, there are four members of the US Supreme Court who wrote sharp dissents that agree with my views. Or are they not allowed to have an opinion, either?

What the real failure is, however, the fact that you keep assigning me arguments rather than addressing the ones I've actually made.

Well done you prove my point , the attempt to get torture redefined failed because what they were trying to claim was not torture is obviously torture.

I didn't "prove your point". I wrote that like 30 posts back.

Bull**** , visit the Pearle website , lots of newpaper links and politicians quotes there about Daniels torture and murder , though of course his family is strongly against the use of torture .

Was discussing in the context of the thread at the time I wrote it. More importantly, in general discussion it isn't called "torture" ... it's called a "beheading".

Again, not that difficult to comprehend. Or is it?

Was discussing in the context of the thread at the time I wrote it. More importantly, in general discussion it isn't called "torture" ... it's called a "beheading".

No , there were three seperate levels of crime committed , kidnap first , then torture , then murder

Again, not that difficult to comprehend. Or is it?

Ask yourself , as you clearly havn't got it

I have never, not once, attempted this throughout this thread.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No , there were three seperate levels of crime committed , kidnap first , then torture , then murder

Ask yourself , as you clearly havn't got it

Ah yes, you keep attempting to imply that I said something that I didn't.

Funny how you avoid the actual FACTS that were posted in favor of the fantasy world where you're points actually make sense as a rebuttal.

Too difficult for you, huh?

[AVGWarhawk]

Tribeman/Aramike,

You both have missed the entire reason for this to be brought up. The now transparent government is two faced. This is nothing but political positioning. If you really think they cared about torture they would have raised their hand in 2003 when this was brought up in closed door briefings. This is nothing but making a set up for the next elections. It is all about power. They could care any less that some terrorist suffered some form of torture.