Waterboarding- the real deal
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 01:12
VIEWED: 11112
PAGE 9 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
RAPQuote:Which brings me back to... Oh, really?
there are few on this board who recognize the real and actual threat that these Islamo-Jihadist pose
Think back to May 2001 and be honest: Were you expecting 9-11? Were you expecting a mjaor terrorist attack on American soil? 'Cause if not you were not recognizing the threat of Islamic extremists.
Say, were you for the Carter Admin arming the Taliban with shoulder-fired missiles? At the time, we were all told they were mujahideen which meant- in the American propagandist lexicon- freedom fighters.Did you recognize the danger in that?
I'm gonna make a prior claim to your so-called knowledge, Rap. You obviously feel you're one of the few who "really" knows what's going on. But you mistake panic for understanding, and you also mistake panic for effectiveness. But based on your posts, I peg you as a confused ignorant tool who hasn't a frigging clue about what's going on because you won't look past your comfort zone and THINK about .... well, pretty much anything. So you continue as perhaps the most gullible person on the board.
How many shoulder rocket attacks have we had here in the US the past 28 yrs ? Oh, none? Ok. You clearly forget the REASON why we helped the actual freedom fighters in Afghanistan, don't you ? The Soviet Union's quest for a warm water port, a well as being one step closer to the Mid East oil fields.
So, ignoring your inane comments about " panic " and " the most gullible " , I'll simply write you off as just another one of those clueless myrmidons who thinks every culture is equally nice, until provoked. And then there's nothing under the sun they can do wrong to avenge what ever supposed wrong has fallen upon them. You continue to come up w/ what ever excuse you want to make for the Islamo-fascist. Whether it's that we created them, ( we didn't ) or that if only we'd leave Iraq, they'd be nice to us ( an absurd notion ) or what ever else your vapid little mind can come up w/, so long as you don't have to face the facts.
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
Quote:Did you read my post? I said (and gosh, I apologize for repeating myself for people who can't read, but it appears necessary:
It seems to me that the "Jack Bauer scenario" is exactly what we are talking about here. You act as if the use of torture by our government is widespread. The Feds have used waterboarding three times while Amnesty Int. has used it once. This hardly amounts to the indiscriminate use of torture you suggest. When terrorists with info of a future attack are in custody it's always a "Jack Bauer scenario" for someones family, just not yours, because the odds are on your side.
Quote:That doesn't mean re-defining torture as non-torture, or making torture legal. It means breaking the law and taking the consequences. What the Bush Administration wanted was to have their cake and eat it too.
[But perhaps the Jack Bauer scenario comes up on very rare occasion: Somebody knows something important and in order to prevent an occurrence you have to get the information out of them right away. At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may. As President of the USA, Commander in Chief, and ultimate world diplomat, the responsibility for breaking the Geneva Convention (which we signed and ratified, making it "the law of our land") should fall on his shoulders.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, what did we have against the Soviets in Afghanistan? They built roads and hospitals and airports. They built schools, and educated women to the point where half of the doctors were women. Meanwhile, the so-called "freedom fighters" included Osama bin Laden and similar religious fanatics whose main ambition- one that we helped them realize- was to turn Afghanistan into a concentration camp for women, in which millions of people starved. So now we have a failed state controlled by warlords and religious fanatics with opium as its major export.
You clearly forget the REASON why we helped the actual freedom fighters in Afghanistan, don't you
Great.
Just what we wanted.
And what interest did we have in Afghanistan anyway? Sometimes you have to judge who your greater enemy is. Now, IMHO ANY government that advances the causes of stability, prosperity, and human rights within its borders, and which does not have imperial designs on its neighbors, is a plus. And I use that as a rule of thumb to define our real national interest, and we should be promoting that instead of stumbling from one crisis du jour to another. We should have been HELPING the Soviet Union bring Afghanistan into the modern world, instead of dragging it back into the stone age.
Quote:So WTF do we care if they had a warm-water port or not? It's not as if they're taking one of ours, is it? I mean, we'd still have plenty of our own, wouldn't we? And what the hell would they want with the Mideast oil fields? They've got plenty of their own.
The Soviet Union's quest for a warm water port, a well as being one step closer to the Mid East oil fields.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...there are few on this board who recognize the real and actual threat that these Islamo-Jihadist pose and how committed they are to forcing everyone to accept their brand of Islam, or die.
These are very, VERY evil people, and thankfully there are some still left who are willing to do what it takes to keep them at bay.
The questions of their vicious intent, and the actual threat they pose, are very different concerns. You can't seem to separate the two, but they're aren't remotely the same thing. The fact of the matter is, they are no significant threat to our nation - except in their ability to inspire fear and panic. And even then, the fear and panic aren't a significant danger to our national survival, unless people use it as an excuse to undermine our national values. Which is what YOU are doing.
The terrorists are very dangerous as a criminal threat, but they aren't an army and have no real ability to challenge our existence as a sovereign nation.
Regardless, this is all a smokescreen. The real issue isn't whether serious action should be taken to counter the terrorist's efforts. Despite your claims, we all agree on that. The issue is that you and others are eager to toss aside fundamental freedoms and protection in favor of fascist, police-state tactics. What you can't seem to understand is that doing that actually caters to the terrorists' goals, and maximizes the effect of their fleeting attacks.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is how Signym rationalizes her position. On one hand she attacks people who even suggest that such measures should ever be used, then on another she confesses that there are situations in which they should be used. The difference is that Signym wants the law to be broken. It makes her feel more comfortable if we torture people against the law and the President is the one who takes sole responsibility for it. That way she can have her cake and eat it too. She supports the use of torture, while not having to take responsibility for that position. Very brave of you signym.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Ah yes, the Jack Bauer scenario. It's so disheartening sometimes to see how many people confuse a frigging TV show with real life!
It's easy to be outraged by the use of torture by the evil monsters in the government, but if you put it on a personal level like Riverlove does it gets easier to see how it might be required in some situations. If the Kirkules family and the Chrisisall family were being held by terrorists and were going to be beheaded in one hour...
If that were the case then yes, real agents would prolly use torture. But there's no reason to make it "legal" across the board because then it would be applied to all kinds of situations that- amazingly
Some of you are strict "law and order' types. You believe that law and punishment deters crime, and if laws are removed crime will flourish. If that's the case, then by your own logic making torture "legal" simply allows torture when it's not warranted.
But perhaps the Jack Bauer scenario comes up on very rare occasion: Somebody knows something important and in order to prevent an occurrence you have to get the information out of them right away. At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may. As President of the USA, Commander in Chief, and ultimate world diplomat, the responsibility for breaking the Geneva Convention (which we signed and ratified, making it "the law of our land") should fall on his shoulders.
On a side-note, in the case of violent civilian criminals who generally aren't calculating their actions, laws and punishment aren't a good deterrent. Civilian violent crime is mostly unpremeditated, and consequences aren't part of the equation. OTOH laws on torture are one of the instances where laws WOULD work, because the people who apply torture... people for whom this is "a job"... will think about what happens afterwards.
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:So now that we all know that Signym supports the use of torture, would you like to extend this accusation of evilness to Signym, or change your point of view too?
Originally posted by rue:
God, you're evil.
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
"That doesn't mean re-defining torture as non-torture, or making torture legal. It means breaking the law and taking the consequences. What the Bush Administration wanted was to have their cake and eat it too."
I thought SignyM's position was clear - torture is against the law and should always be against the law. And a person who takes it uopn themself to break the law - even a president - has to face the consequences - in this case being put on trial for war crimes.
Do you have a problem with that ?
***************************************************************
And, dude, it doesn't add up to support.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it is quite clear. Signym has no problem leaving the President out to dry for acting on what she claims to support. It’s intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by rue:
"That doesn't mean re-defining torture as non-torture, or making torture legal. It means breaking the law and taking the consequences. What the Bush Administration wanted was to have their cake and eat it too."
I thought SignyM's position was clear - torture is against the law and should always be against the law. And a person who takes it uopn themself to break the law - even a president - has to face the consequences - in this case being put on trial for war crimes.
So I ask you again, Signym supports the use of torture by her own admission. Is Signym evil?
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
"At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may."
AH - I suspect the use of the word 'should' is confusing to you. In the context of the entire argument (context is something I know you have trouble with) it means is this - IF you support the use of torture it needs to be kept consequential for the person who orders it -ie the president.
Is that better ?
***************************************************************
And no, SignyM does NOT support the use of torture - as do you; and is not evil - as you ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So basically neither of you have the intellectual fortitude to face this very serious issue. Perhaps you both need to do some research and soul searching. In the mean time, I think people who have taken the time to honestly evaluate the difficult issues to come to an opinion, like Auraptor, Kirkuls and myself would appreciate it if you would keep your hate for those you disagree with to yourself, at least until you can come to some sort of honest grasp of the issue.
Originally posted by rue:
"At that point, use of torture should be authorized by the President - and let the chips fall where they may."
AH - I suspect the use of the word 'should' is confusing to you. In the context of the entire argument (context is something I know you have trouble with) it means is this - IF you support the use of torture it needs to be kept consequential for the person who orders it -ie the president.
Is that better ?
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