Waterboarding used 266 times on 2 suspects

[Oleg Bach]

You mean...like...actually killing people?

Men will kill other men - those that are sexually dysfuctional will torture instead - you had a whole administration of limp dicked men that justified tormenting a person tied to a chair as being normal - they all need some therapy....I still can not get over so-called honourable men standing up in congress saying that torture saves lives -----AS IF THEY GAVE A FLYING F**K FOR LIVES...their own people or those abroad...these are the rich and the dickless who need viagra and a picture of micheal jackson to get it up....also - anyone who needs Viagra is with the wrong woman - and all of the unions of the rich and powerful are not based on love - but on social and economic climbing of the ladder to hell.... In conclution - it is better to kill a man out right than to torture - The telling phrase - was originated by Henry Kissenger "power is the greatest aphrodisiac..meaning - he was impident unless he was torturing directly or indirectly - You folks that torture are losers - and I repeat - sexual dysfuctionals..

[myata]

You mean...like...actually killing people?

Most certainly, if one'd advocate torture as a means of extracting information (of highly questionnable value), somebody else could rationalize killing to defend / protect / whatever. One is not a nanometer better than another; both belong to that savagely lawless dark ages way of life when stronger arm was all the moral, the law and justice unto itself.

[Oleg Bach]

Most certainly, if one'd advocate torture as a means of extracting information (of highly questionnable value), somebody else could rationalize killing to defend / protect / whatever. One is not a nanometer better than another; both belong to that savagely lawless dark ages way of life when stronger arm was all the moral, the law and justice unto itself.

It's not about justice or even information - it's a quirky and sick pass time....either you are mentally healthy or you are not - those that torture or condone it are sick - HOW can America be the light of the free world when that light is extinguished and in the darkness they partake in evil?

[bush_cheney2004]

Most certainly, if one'd advocate torture as a means of extracting information (of highly questionnable value), somebody else could rationalize killing to defend / protect / whatever. One is not a nanometer better than another; both belong to that savagely lawless dark ages way of life when stronger arm was all the moral, the law and justice unto itself.

That's the funny thing about torture in all its political definitions....we have already graduated to the next extreme long ago. It reminds me of the sometimes odd responses concerning murder victims....as in...well, at least the victim wasn't raped!

Edited April 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

No, certainly nothing special about this episode, it only confirms that everybody already knew. Opens another perspective on our infinitely and morally superior way of life. It's not like we have't been involved in killing innocents, helping agressors, starting wars on flimsiest pretexts or even without, and etc and yada. The only difference is that we like to wrap it all into a pretty shiny package, that's supposed to tell something .. to somebody.. serve as proof, explanation and evidence, all in itself.. that somehow, it should look, smell and sound different, when performed by us. Not sure who's actually listening. Looks the same stinky sh.. to me.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....serve as proof, explanation and evidence, all in itself.. that somehow, it should look, smell and sound different, when performed by us. Not sure who's actually listening. Looks the same stinky sh.. to me.

I'm glad you used this analogy, for you see, "sh.." is very important, even though we take great measures to hide and avoid it if at all possible. It is the natural product of consumption.....feel free to decorate the metaphor as you please.

[myata]

Well.. speaking theoretically, in another time and place, possibly far away, there could have existed people, sentient beings, etc who'd have sufficient knowledge, wisdom, will and courage to handle (large part) of their own "products of consumption" rather than dump them on others. Those people could have a claim, no, not to moral superiority over others, but to simple self respect.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well.. speaking theoretically, in another time and place, possibly far away, there could have existed people, sentient beings, etc who'd have sufficient knowledge, wisdom, will and courage to handle (large part) of their own "products of consumption" rather than dump them on others. Those people could have a claim, no, not to moral superiority over others, but to simple self respect.

Again, this is a burden of your own making. My perspective is amoral, and quite satisfied to count the "sh.." as part of the larger human condition / domain. And from a practical matter, it is somewhat disingenuous to cry "foul!" about such things while benefitting from all that has gone on before.

[myata]

But of course! Why worry dumping our byproducts on others, or being saddened, disappointed, rightfully and justfully angered if / when they happen to do the same? Comes with the package.

[bush_cheney2004]

But of course! Why worry dumping our byproducts on others, or being saddened, disappointed, rightfully and justfully angered if / when they happen to do the same? Comes with the package.

I will only be impressed by those who actually stand in front of an IDF Caterpillar D-9.

[myata]

This is an old world and you'll be amazed to find out how much things change, with time. E.g. there was Rome. A host of empires before it. And after. All had something to boast about / with, all went the same way.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is an old world and you'll be amazed to find out how much things change, with time. E.g. there was Rome. A host of empires before it. And after. All had something to boast about / with, all went the same way.

Reprise: "Tis better to have been an empire and lost, than never to have been one at all".

...with apologies to Sir William.

Edited April 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[kuzadd]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/

I know for some the methods used presents no problems. However, the value of the intelligence derived is questionable. Do people who are tortured give useful information?

Moreover, if waterboarding is not torture according to some who were in the previous administration, why do they think so? And why do they think it is useful?

hmm if I recall one of these men tortured the alleged 9/11 mastermind, lol, under torture of course admitted to a whole slew of incidents and crimes, I think some of them either never happened or someone else was charged, something along that line.

Which makes it obvious torture doesn't work.

KSM claims, "I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the New (or Second) Wave of attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: ...Plaza Bank, Washington state."

KSM was arrested in March 2003. According to the Plaza Bank's website, the organization was founded in early 2006, and yet he plotted to attack Plaza Bank 3 yrs before it's existence.

Man, he must be psychic also, I mean really and truly psychic.

Oh well as long as the gullible belive his "confession" given of his own free will

Edited April 22, 2009 by kuzadd

[myata]

Reprise: "Tis better to have been an empire and lost, than never to have been one at all".

...with apologies to Sir William.

With waterboarding in 21 century, Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq? If being an empire necessitates such acts, I'd reserve my opinion. May be better for Sir William, no argument about that.

[bush_cheney2004]

With waterboarding in 21 century, Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq? If being an empire necessitates such acts, I'd reserve my opinion. May be better for Sir William, no argument about that.

As if waterboarding was acceptable in the 20th century, not to mention Berlin Airlift, Korean War, Suez Crisis, October Crisis, Serbia , or Haiti?

[JerrySeinfeld]

However, if it doesn't make them safer and only makes them weaker by giving up moral authority, then I guess your argument is shot to hell.

Moral authority? Give me a break.

We're talking about an enemy that hides behind women and childeren and that doesn't present itself wearing a uniform ready to fight fair.

So don't talk to me about "moral authority" when we're fighting with one hand tied behind our back in the mid-east while our "citizens" (and I use the term loosely) back home protest how we fight.

The geneva conventions were established during a time when enemies fought eachother and agreed upon a set of "rules of war".

Since our enemy chooses to "fight" by hiding in schools and hospitals, chop people's heads off for snuff films and intentionally blow up civilian targets, I would say that from a moral standpoint, the geneva conventions are no longer worth the paper upon which they're written.

The geneva conventions and torture guidlines are meant to be applied to enemy "soldiers" who fight as a unit, wear uniforms and have a country to which they are loyal.

These f*ckers have only one loyalty: allah. And they don't fight by the rules. Therefore, in my mind they are exempt from said rules.

Drown 'em.

Edited April 22, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[kuzadd]

Moral authority? Give me a break.

We're talking about an enemy that hides behind women and childeren and that doesn't present itself wearing a uniform ready to fight fair.

So don't talk to me about "moral authority" when we're fighting with one hand tied behind our back in the mid-east while our "citizens" (and I use the term loosely) back home protest how we fight.

The geneva conventions were established during a time when enemies fought eachother and agreed upon a set of "rules of war".

Since our enemy chooses to "fight" by hiding in schools and hospitals, chop people's heads off for snuff films and intentionally blow up civilian targets, I would say that from a moral standpoint, the geneva conventions are no longer worth the paper upon which they're written.

The geneva conventions and torture guidlines are meant to be applied to enemy "soldiers" who fight as a unit, wear uniforms and have a country to which they are loyal.

These f*ckers have only one loyalty: allah. And they don't fight by the rules. Therefore, in my mind they are exempt from said rules.

Drown 'em.

Is this one of your moral authorities???

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

You sound like him.

[Oleg Bach]

America might just be the great satan after all - if they are...then time to start firing the weirdos that torment a man till he pees his pants - I don't care how powerful or how well connected - elected or appointed - if they agree on the use of torture - THEY ARE NOT FIT FOR THE POSITION OF LEADERSHIP! They have to be let go - every last one that voted in favour or that did not protest barbaric sadism...they are frinking FIRED - FROM THE HUMAN RACE.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Is this one of your moral authorities???

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

You sound like him.

I certainly agree with the waterboarding of Terrorists (the topic of this thread).

But where's your cite of where I called for the annhilation of Arabs?

oh gosh I forgot. for the left, it's not about debate. It's about running out of logical arguments and quickly turning to calling people racists and bigots at every chance.

Good one.

[BubberMiley]

These f*ckers have only one loyalty: allah. And they don't fight by the rules. Therefore, in my mind they are exempt from said rules.

Drown 'em.

But that makes you no better than they are. I already knew that, but you'd think with your contempt for them you'd want to at least prove yourself superior.

[JerrySeinfeld]

But that makes you no better than they are. I already knew that, but you'd think with your contempt for them you'd want to at least prove yourself superior.

What do you mean by "better"?

War, when fought against thugs who don't play by the rules, isn't about moral superiority. It's about winning.

[CANADIEN]

Moral authority? Give me a break.

We're talking about an enemy that hides behind women and childeren and that doesn't present itself wearing a uniform ready to fight fair.

So don't talk to me about "moral authority" when we're fighting with one hand tied behind our back in the mid-east while our "citizens" (and I use the term loosely) back home protest how we fight.

The geneva conventions were established during a time when enemies fought eachother and agreed upon a set of "rules of war".

Since our enemy chooses to "fight" by hiding in schools and hospitals, chop people's heads off for snuff films and intentionally blow up civilian targets, I would say that from a moral standpoint, the geneva conventions are no longer worth the paper upon which they're written.

The geneva conventions and torture guidlines are meant to be applied to enemy "soldiers" who fight as a unit, wear uniforms and have a country to which they are loyal.

These f*ckers have only one loyalty: allah. And they don't fight by the rules. Therefore, in my mind they are exempt from said rules.

Drown 'em.

Romeo Dallaire, a man of have seen the worse of what human beings can do to each other, put it very clearly: torture is a slippery slope towards losing our moral standing.

This is not about who is getting tortured. Or its dubious value as an intelligence gathering tool. It's about the fact that moral superiority is proven by adhering to hugh moral standards, not torture, not kangaroo court, not illegal detention or other methods only slightly above those employed by terrorists.

[cybercoma]

Pretty tough to play by "the rules" when they heavily favour the side with the wealth and technology. I'm not condoning acts of war; however, condemning them for using rudimentary tactics, the only tactics available, is pretty narrow-minded.

[CANADIEN]

What do you mean by "better"?

War, when fought against thugs who don't play by the rules, isn't about moral superiority. It's about winning.

You may delude yourself in thinking that torture is the way to win the war. In reality, it's the way to lose something even bigger. Who we claim to be.

[August1991]

But that makes you no better than they are. I already knew that, but you'd think with your contempt for them you'd want to at least prove yourself superior.

For heaven's sake, do you think waterboarding and chopping off someone's head with a hacksaw are morally equivalent?

In any case, Bubbler, I happen to think that Western Civilization are the good guys in this drama - and it has nothing to do with what tactics are used.

The Geneva Convention aside, what do you think happened to innocent civilians in WWII, even at the hands of Canadian soldiers? I recently saw a movie (The Wind That Shakes the Barley) in which British soldiers used pliers to remove fingernails from Irish Republicans. In comparison, waterboarding is a benign experience.

-----

My own opinion about all this is: does it work? (And I would offer that question as a reasonable first defence of Western Civilization.)

Edited April 23, 2009 by August1991