Waterboarding- the real deal
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 01:12
VIEWED: 11112
PAGE 7 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In its humane zeal to protect the world from terrorist killers the US kills by the hundreds of thousands. But it's different b/c the US uses bombs and the terrorists use ...... uh, ............
Yeah, that makes sense.
Both those killed by terrorist bombs and those killed accidentally by US bombs are the victims of the terrorists. If we did nothing thousands more would die in the future because we failed to act now. I suppose your solution is for us to lay down arms and sing kumbaya with the terrorists. Our failure to follow through in Vietnam is one of the reasons the Khmer Rouge were free to kill millions. But of course you think the the US and the Khmer Rouge are morally equivalent, so I can see how seeing the distinction between collateral damage and intentional killing of innocents would escape you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because he made me! He started it!
Both those killed by terrorist bombs and those killed accidentally by US bombs are the victims of the terrorists
Typical playground response. Are you saying that the only way to fight terrorism is to become terrorists? That there is no other effective way of dealing with an ideology other than killing a lot of people, including innocent bystanders? I thought we were wiser than that, smarter than that. I guess not. Or at least you're not.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And we have, but there is no such thing as a perfect interrogation technique and what works on some will not work on others and visa versa. Although there is a line I’m not willing to cross, methods of interrogation that might save lives should not be simply tossed out without consideration. If a person commits a crime, maybe he is tortured by the presence of a stable government with a legal system and a law enforcement force. And although there are people who seem to believe that we should get rid of government for this reason or something similar to it, most people would be in favor of this kind of torture. However, the anti-torture point of view often seems to take pretty extreme views. I remember on this board discussion in which people tried to argue that sleep deprivation was torture or tearing up a Koran was torture. The point being that torture is not some big black obelisk with distinct boundaries. There is a continuum, and the question is not about principle, because my guess is that everyone would be opposed to torture at some level - the question is where is the line drawn. Although people like rue and signym like to frame it as if the delineation is so clear that if you don’t agree with them you’re an idiot or evil, the truth is that it has been nearly impossible to draw that line. I’m not willing to simply eliminate from the military arsenal a tool that could be of some use in certain extreme circumstances if that tool proves to save lives. That’s the principle we should be keeping our eye on - how effectively are we protecting the people and how many lives are we saving, because when it finally comes right down to it, there are no good and bad tactics, only tactics that best serve to protect the people and save lives and those that don't or those that do the opposite.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Hummm, Can't we just decide not to do stuff like this as a matter of principle? I mean we're smart, we're tech savvy and we're not religious nutballs (well, most of us.) I'm pretty sure we could come up with far more effective techniques than this?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess it depends a lot on who’s doing it. Certainly you can poor water down someone’s lungs as a form of torture, which is something that I would be against, but that’s not what waterboarding is or supposed to be. Waterboarding simulates drowning, it’s not supposed to cause it.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sorry, I understood it to be drowning someone, but not really- I thought water entered the lungs, do I understand incorrectly?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Storymark wrote:
Friday, May 02, 2008 07:09
You fuckin' rightie wingnuts and your moral relativism make me sick.
Your being sick is a tiny price to pay for the safety of this country.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, waterboarding IS torture. It is partial drowning. Saying that waterboarding is not torture because the person didn't drown is like saying that electric shock is not torture because the victim wasn't electrocuted.
Who says that it's torture? OUR GOVERNMENT DID when we prosecuted the Japanese for it. People who've experienced it say it is. International conventions say so. The Catholic Church says so. Even John McCain, who knows something about torture, said it's torture. And here is a detailed description from a JAG officer:
Quote:It was used in the Spanish Inqusition and by Pol Pot. Now, I know this is difficult for you to accept... that WE would, in fact, torture people to get information. But facts are facts. We did, and we do.
That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted....
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it. ... After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
Either suck it up and say "Tough times call for even tougher measures" or say we should stop torturing people, but stop hiding your head up your butt because you can't abide uncomfortable facts.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was a Pol Pot Cambodian torture survivor who said waterboarding is severe torture. And who, of his own volition, and from his own experience, rendered it in his torture gallery - to memorialize what tortures were done.
The US has done exactly the same thing to its prisoners.
***************************************************************
Maybe you're just having a hard time wrapping your head around that. Give it time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You know, I don't agree with Rap on practically anything. But I'll have to say this for him, he is at least honest about what he really stands for.
Either suck it up and say "Tough times call for even tougher measures" or say we should stop torturing people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
You keep ignoring that our government considered it torture when they were convicting the Japanese for it.
I guess it's just not torture when we do it.
Do you study history? I mean, really study it? Hypocrisy has always been at least as big a part of traditional American government as popular elections. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Centuries of saying one thing, then doing the other has gotten us where we are today, the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world.
Have no illusions, the United States has never been the pure, completely moral society that we would like to believe, and it never will be, because acting solely on the vaguely judeo-christian ethical system most Americans subscribe to is not how nations get ahead. When you base national policy on unrealistic ideals, you inevitably fail. Just look at the old Communist governments. The ones that struggled to stay true to Marx's vision failed, because it was a flawed vision. The ones that sold out, did the pragmatic thing and instituted reform, and relaxed their rigid restrictions, are still around, and, if China and North Korea are any indication, are still going strong. Look at all these petty revolutions that happen around the world every year. Look at what happens when the victors try to apply their vision of a utopian society to reality. Ever wonder why there are so many failed states out there?
Realistically, torture of any sort is iffy. Too little, and it can be resisted, too much and the subject will spout any lie to relieve the pain. What's more effective is the fear of torture. What we should be doing is telling the world that we ruthlessly torture our prisoners, regardless of whether we actually do. When this "War on Terror" began, enemy operatives were blatantly overconfident about being captured, because they "knew" that Americans were too soft to use really harsh measures on them. Tell them they're wrong. Better yet, show them they're wrong. Watch how much easier it becomes to break them without resorting to torture.
Just be realistic. Morality is irrelevant to the dead. If a greater end is achieved, the means are justified.
----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, we've always been assholes, so why stop?
At least you'll admit to the hypocricy. I can give that a level of respect, even if I don't agree that makes it okay.
But it's better than Finn is capable of, he who keeps ignoring the points that don't support him.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME