LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThe big difference is that Nazi victims don't come out of the room alive. Our victims come out of the room P!ssed Off at being tricked.
That is starting to sound like a tune the nazis sang in WW2. "Just following orders" There is absolutely no comparison in the actions between today and yester year, but individuals do have a moral obligation to take responsibility for their actions and do the right thing. Even in war. The fun with ethics is they are rarely black and white.
The big difference is that Nazi victims don't come out of the room alive. Our victims come out of the room P!ssed Off at being tricked.
Chimo
Well, 'effective'' is open to interpretation and there are degrees of effectiveness. But even with the most restrictive definition, 'effective' ANYthang in a war is exactly the object. So whatever degree of falseness we have to put up with, in the final analysis and taking in all of the negative aspects, if it's even just somewhat effective, we DO it.Originally Posted by Expat Canuck
Part of the art of intelligence-gathering is determining TRUTH, and seperating out the false. A good interrogator will not just elicit information, he'll DEMAND it, and make his subject PROVE it. The most common trap a prisoner/detainee can make is throwing a lie out there to 'trick' the interrogator. If you're attempting to withold information, your best hope - usually futile in the face of determined and ruthless collectors - is to attempt to withold ANY information, true OR false. I've been throught resistance training myself, and that's the exact advice we're givrn.I'm sure you can't tell me the answer to that even if you knew the correct answer but I'll try anyway.
Well, actually, that's EXACTLY what it means. I think you'll find that's the only thing we can go on, the agreed-upon definition of words. 'Torture' is exactly what it's defined as, nothing more or less.I know that these sick bastards torture and just because from a legal stand point waterboarding isn't torture doesn't mean it isn't.
And, as currently defined, it is NOT torture. If it were, we could not do it, not on a terrorist of great rank with vital information, nor on our own military members, to prepare them for the duress that they're likely to face...but well short of EVERYTHING they're likely to expect. And why is THAT? Because while waterboarding is short of REAL torture, we can't subject our people to THAT, no matter whether they're unprepared or not.
I'm not being snarky here, but let me aquaint you with what war is: it's our society setting our heavily-armed young men on theirs, in an attempt to kill them in large numbers, and subdue the enemy's ability to resist our will. What is more barbaric than doing THAT? Once things have gotten to that point - when we can no longer do anything but kill each others' people until the entire society falls into the others' power - then there can be no rational restraint of measures short of that, can there? You don't wish to be medieval about it, nor going to the level of our enemies, but please drop the hyperbole - waterboarding isn't on the same level. No drills are being used on enemy crania, no amputations, no burning flesh, no acid in the eyes.Sure it's not to the level of say "the rack" or other fun stuff like that but does that mean we in a free society should act like we're still in the middle ages just like the freaks we are fighting now?
So, please...knock off the breathless declarations of our descent to the level of our barbaric enemies. It's DISCOMFORT, of a scrupulously-undamaging kind. You need to get over your girlish squeamishness, because if you can't stand the thought of THAT, how can you contemplate using high-speed metal, concussion and heat to destroy people so utterly that sometimes there isn't even anything left to bury?
Waterboarding is merely UNPLEASANANT. We're way past that point when we're at war.
Waterboard 'em. They've earned it; we deserve to see 'em get what's coming to 'em.I understand your feelings behind your anger and I feel the same way and would love nothing more than to see them die a horrible painful death. Actually the mental image is making me smile right now but that's as far as it should go. Lock them up forever and do our best to get information out of them, see if we can cut deals maybe?
Not for them to get out but a heater or something like a blanket would be nice eh? Maybe a prayer mat?
These are prbably crap examples but I'm not trained in extracting information.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Ok, are you gonna prosecute those who waterboards your fellow comrades?
To me, waterboarding is torture. No other way about it. Torture is extremely UNPLEASANT. Otherwise, slapping across the face a couple times could not be termed torture because it would just be unpleasant. Sleep deprivation would not be torture under your definition because it is just unpleasant. Hitting the bottom of the soles would not be torture because it would just be unpleasant.
I don't buy any of that sh!t. Waterboarding is torture.
Certainly, because our side adheres to the Geneva Conventions and all of the Laws of Armed Conflict. Because they do, they're entitled to all of the protections afforded to them by same, and anybody that waterboards OUR men are in violation, and can be prosecuted. The detainees in Gitmo can claim no such protection. There's the difference.
And who are YOU? Just another guy with a wrong opinion, certainly of no legal standing to determine what is and isn't torture.To me, waterboarding is torture.
Your obdurate claim to the contrary notwithstanding, there IS another way about it: NOT TORTURE, and I've got much more than an opinion to back that up, so if you'd like to out-bid THAT, please bring more than a petulant little foot-stomp of a worthless opinion, please.No other way about it.
Obviously, but it's much more than that, I think you'll find, or else every little aspect of captivity could be said to be torture.Torture is extremely UNPLEASANT.
It IS just unpleasant. Look it up: torture is always defined using the words 'extreme' or 'severe'. What you're talking about is corporal punishment, not torture. And, not to belabor the point too much, is also forbidden under the Geneva Conventions except in certain cases, so, yeah, if our guys are lucky enough to only be getting slapped across the face by their captors, I'd still seek prosecutions if we're lucky enough to win the war, with people such as you trying to get us to lose it by prohibiting common-sense effective measures to be employed to protect ourselves from people that are NOT entitled to those protections.Otherwise, slapping across the face a couple times could not be termed torture because it would just be unpleasant.
'Severe'; 'extreme'. It can be carried into the realm of torture, just as face-slapping can be, but inducing fatigue is the very first weapon ANY interrogator will employ. NOT TORTURE; merely UNPLEASANT. Carried past that point, though, and it IS torture. But first, it must be 'severe', 'extreme'.Sleep deprivation would not be torture under your definition because it is just unpleasant.
See above.Hitting the bottom of the soles would not be torture because it would just be unpleasant.
I don't give a good god dam' WHAT you'll buy, Sally. You're poorly informed on the subject; your opinion is worthless.I don't buy any of that sh!t.
Why, because you don't like it?Waterboarding is torture.
Do you get to define all words to suit a meaning that pleases you, or do you accept that all words have a meaning that don't reference what YOU happen to believe?
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Whoaaa,
Where is this anger coming from? If you think my opinion is worthless, fine by me. That is your call. But don't forget that I am an American citizen and a voter. So when enough of us say that waterboarding is torture as in 51% of the population, well then waterboarding is torture and our opinions are not so worthless, eh?
Be careful when you are debating with someone, you don't launch ad hoc hominem attacks. It is fine to disagree with someone but to call their opinions as worthless, that's really stepping over the line.
As for legal standing, well, I am a lawyer if that means anything to you so I would have a better idea of what I am talking about. But then again, it may not go in my favor because as well as you know, all lawyers are crap unless they happen to support your stance and opinions.
Waterboarding is torture because it produce this fear of being drowned and causing a gag reflex. As a result, it does produce pain. And why do we waterboard people? To get confessions or information. Well that very much fit the definition of torture.
If you wanna call me an idiot or a clueless guy, fine go ahead but it does reveal your true character when somebody has the temerity to disagree with you.
As for backing up your claims, ok well I want to see it right now. Produce it.
Ok by that very much standard, those guys can waterboard you guys because you give them no such protection. The convention only works when both sides agree to convey the protections to both sides. So if you are not gonna give the protection to the Taliban soldiers, then it means that the Taliban don't have to abide by the Convetion and can waterboard any captured US soldier.
For example, for some obscure reasons and for the sake of argument, America gets into a conflict with Pakistan. Captured Pakistan soldiers have information on Osama Bin laden. Are you gonna say that waterboarding those soldiers is not torture?
Does being a lawyer mean anything?And who are YOU? Just another guy with a wrong opinion, certainly of no legal standing to determine what is and isn't torture.
The Convetion expressly allows the captivity of captured soldiers until the end of war or the given promise of those soldiers not to return to the battlefront. Thus, there is an exception.Obviously, but it's much more than that, I think you'll find, or else every little aspect of captivity could be said to be torture.
No you are not allowed to give corporal punishment to captured soldiers that enjoy the convetions. Torture by all definition is unpleasant. Severity or extreme plays no bearing in that aspect of categorization. How is waterboarding not extreme or severe? It produces a gag reflex and induces such a strong fear of being drowned. By definition, torture is severe when the threat of death or severe bodily harm is strongly implied. This definition has been met when the fear of being drowned is induced.It IS just unpleasant. Look it up: torture is always defined using the words 'extreme' or 'severe'. What you're talking about is corporal punishment, not torture. And, not to belabor the point too much, is also forbidden under the Geneva Conventions except in certain cases, so, yeah, if our guys are lucky enough to only be getting slapped across the face by their captors, I'd still seek prosecutions if we're lucky enough to win the war, with people such as you trying to get us to lose it by prohibiting common-sense effective measures to be employed to protect ourselves from people that are NOT entitled to those protections.
'Severe'; 'extreme'. It can be carried into the realm of torture, just as face-slapping can be, but inducing fatigue is the very first weapon ANY interrogator will employ. NOT TORTURE; merely UNPLEASANT. Carried past that point, though, and it IS torture. But first, it must be 'severe', 'extreme'.
Be very careful on how you call someone wortheless when that person is going to vote in the next election.I don't give a good god dam' WHAT you'll buy, Sally. You're poorly informed on the subject; your opinion is worthless.
I could say the same thing about you.Do you get to define all words to suit a meaning that pleases you, or do you accept that all words have a meaning that don't reference what YOU happen to believe?
Frustration in dealing with ignorance, I suppose.
Your opinions are not POLITCALLY worthless, that's true; I was speaking about the LEGAL weight of your opinion. That value is ZERO.If you think my opinion is worthless, fine by me. That is your call. But don't forget that I am an American citizen and a voter. So when enough of us say that waterboarding is torture as in 51% of the population, well then waterboarding is torture and our opinions are not so worthless, eh?
No, it's absolutely true, and except when I'm trying to make a good impression on the person I'm conversing with, there is no 'line', just objective truth. It's just too bad if you're having a problem with that.Be careful when you are debating with someone, you don't launch ad hoc hominem attacks. It is fine to disagree with someone but to call their opinions as worthless, that's really stepping over the line.
Well, then, for the love of Mike, for being a person that makes a living using the precise meaning of words that have strict definitions, just how the hell do you mean to just 'declare' that the accepted, common, plain meaning of a word is simply not any use to YOU?As for legal standing, well, I am a lawyer if that means anything to you so I would have a better idea of what I am talking about. But then again, it may not go in my favor because as well as you know, all lawyers are crap unless they happen to support your stance and opinions.
'Extreme' pain? 'Severe' pain? NO; panic, YES. Damage? NO; desire to avoid repetition? HELL yes, and that's why it works. Not because you've crippled them; not because you've maimed them; you've SCARED them, and that ain't torture, no matter what you may think.Waterboarding is torture because it produce this fear of being drowned and causing a gag reflex. As a result, it does produce pain. And why do we waterboard people? To get confessions or information. Well that very much fit the definition of torture.
Idiot; clueless guy.If you wanna call me an idiot or a clueless guy, fine go ahead but it does reveal your true character when somebody has the temerity to disagree with you.
My true character will remain a mystery to you, if you believe it comes through in my response to your silliness on a message board. I rather believe there's a fuller dimension to me that you're not ever likely to appreciate.
Come on down to my office, badge in, produce your need-to-know credentials, and I'll brief you up. I'm conversant with the material, because as it happens, TWO of those guys were caught by a former subordinate of mine, one of the most creative minds in the entire US Order-of-Battle in the War on Terror. Newguy, if you're reading this, jump in here and back me up.As for backing up your claims, ok well I want to see it right now. Produce it.
In the meantime, go ahead and read all the open-source that's been gathered through the six years since Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah and Abu Faraj al-Libi and a whole bunch o' their pals went into the bag, and that since then have given us so much valuable information and, by doing so, have failed to kill uncounted hundreds - probably thousands - of innocent human beings.
And because waterboarding troubles your exquisite conscience, you'd let 'em die, so that you may feel pure and oh-so-virtuous?
Sit in the bleachers, but get off the field; we're trying to win this deadly game, and you're in the way.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Blues man lighten up, we're all friends here and this is just a debate.
We have not attacked you nor have we called your opinions worthless. We just disagree on the matter so this is not needed.
I don't have a girlish sqeamishness, to me it's like kicking a man when he's down. I'm from a bad neigborhood and have had guys on the ground that I hate with good reason but I did not cross the line to keep beating on him once he's out. These men are now out of the fight and in custody, while I don't want them in a holiday home what can they do now? Keep them isolated from the outside would and be done with them, do your best to get info out of them as well but within limits.
I do not disagree that these are horrible people and I would really love to be left in a room with them tied up. I can picture it with a smile actually, it does not mean if I do it that it is right just because he's an evil person. I don't need to act the way they would treat and do treat us because I am better than them.
If I was to shoot and wound one of these people on a battlefield and they where well and truely out of the fight I would administer first aid and try to save their life (once I know it's safe to do so I don't want to get shot too) so they can remain in prison forever. I will do it because it's right and I will shoot at them not because I want to kill people but because in this case I have to. War is barbaric, it doesn't get any more so as you pointed out but I do not choose to go to war. I go to war because it was forced upon me, I am not a barbarian even if I at times must act like one. Out of the combat zone I am no longer a barbarian but a civilised human being.
Edit//
In regards to character, I find that ones hidden self comes out in the internet when everyone is faceless.
Edit///
Blues, maybe you are right and this is a necessary evil but it's still an evil.
Last edited by Repatriated Canuck; 16 Jan 08, at 08:13.
That's true but don't forget the adage "Power flows from bullets or ballots" When enough people vote that waterboarding is torture, that automatically takes on LEGAL weight.
Ha! If I had a dime for every time somebody saying they are just presenting objective truth, I'd be a millionaire. Sorry, that just don't jive. Objective does not come from your personal viewpoint. It comes from an agreed standard that people can measure by. And that is what we are debating. We are debating whether by that standard is waterboarding torture.No, it's absolutely true, and except when I'm trying to make a good impression on the person I'm conversing with, there is no 'line', just objective truth. It's just too bad if you're having a problem with that.
Well, then, for the love of Mike, for being a person that makes a living using the precise meaning of words that have strict definitions, just how the hell do you mean to just 'declare' that the accepted, common, plain meaning of a word is simply not any use to YOU?
If that's the standard you are gonna use, then why is the act of slapping across the cheeks consider torture when it causes no damage or severe or extreme pain? Or better yet, the Chinese water technique which causes no damage or extreme or severe damage but is generally agreed all over the world as torture.'Extreme' pain? 'Severe' pain? NO; panic, YES. Damage? NO; desire to avoid repetition? HELL yes, and that's why it works. Not because you've crippled them; not because you've maimed them; you've SCARED them, and that ain't torture, no matter what you may think.
Torture doesn't trouble my consicience. It is the double standard that is troubling my consicience. If you want to use torture, then go ahead and do it but don't bullsh!t us by saying that what you are doing is not torture and therefore is legal.Come on down to my office, badge in, produce your need-to-know credentials, and I'll brief you up. I'm conversant with the material, because as it happens, TWO of those guys were caught by a former subordinate of mine, one of the most creative minds in the entire US Order-of-Battle in the War on Terror. Newguy, if you're reading this, jump in here and back me up.
In the meantime, go ahead and read all the open-source that's been gathered through the six years since Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah and Abu Faraj al-Libi and a whole bunch o' their pals went into the bag, and that since then have given us so much valuable information and, by doing so, have failed to kill uncounted hundreds - probably thousands - of innocent human beings.
And because waterboarding troubles your exquisite conscience, you'd let 'em die, so that you may feel pure and oh-so-virtuous?
Sit in the bleachers, but get off the field; we're trying to win this deadly game, and you're in the way.
I am all for a legalization of torture in extreme conditions where the information required is necessary to save lives. But at least call a spade a spade, not something else. As calling a spade a spade, waterboarding is torture. It is just a new form of torture.
Ha Blade, the way you put it at the end there made me laugh and I guess I have to agree with the extreme cases but then what would be classified as extreme. It kind of sucks when everything appears to be left so wide open that anything goes.....
Whether waterboarding is torture or NOT torture, what is your stance? Should we or should we NOT waterboard em?
By any chance, out of curiousity, do you symphasize with ones we water board?
Last edited by Mobbme; 16 Jan 08, at 12:55.
I just have questions to your post, if you don't mind
They are in custody so it means they are out of the fight? Don't you think they will try to attack a guard at any chance given? You have to remember, these people are responsible for killing innocents: Road bombs, public blasts, car blasts in crowded places, attacks on our allied forces, etc. So how can we even give them the benefit of the doubt? Just because they are in our custody, lets just let them do whatever they want now, they are NOT in the fight!
I know you've said that we're not barbarics like them, and we're good people compared to them. But I just wonder if you were shot and captured, what woud they do or hope to do with you? I don't think they would kill you with another bullet, but only so they could have their way with you. THey will kill you, but by slowly torturing you; I don't mean by water boarding. I don't agree with you helping the enemy whos been wounded by your fire. I think thats the enemy's responsibility to take care of themselves.
My final question is, if you were captured by these SCUM BAGS and tortured to almost death and then you were rescued, would your view on all this change? Because heck, i'd choose waterboarding 100 times out of a 100 then even stand next to the enemy.
Last edited by Mobbme; 16 Jan 08, at 13:02.
Waterboard them, hell yes. Do I sympathize with them? Hell no. But I don't support this double standard mucky mucky. I prefer to call a spade a spade and follow the rules that we gave our word that we would follow.
We're all on the same page. I don't support the double standard either. When the terrorists and insurgents kidnap our soldiers and the media people, they are tortured severely and then beheaded. But US troops cannot do the same. Thats double standard, but those guys are not human beings. Ah well
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: