The DUmmies are waterboarding each other to "prove" it is torture

[AK-74me]

Yes, it was. Too bad it had to be removed for obscenities.

Yup, I knew that was coming.

 

[itsbob]

if I had a choice, I still think I'd pick "water-boarding" over beheading.. but that's just me.

 

[Novus Collectus]

So people give false information---the first time---- you check it out, then you come back and board them again. Sooner or later they get the message and you get good information.

Wasted resources do not save American lives.
If they are innocent, the only information they will give that implicates them will be false and will not save an American life.
We will have tortured for nothing. If we save one American life torturing people, then we will have lost a part of our humanity in their place.

 

[beerlover]

Yes, it was. Too bad it had to be removed for obscenities.

I thought I **'ed out all the obscenities... can't it be edited?

 

[itsbob]

If we save one American life torturing people, then we will have lost a part of our humanity in their place.

What if we save 3,000 American lives.. or 10,000..

How about One MILLION!???

Would one million American lives be worthy of torturing a single terrorist?

 

[Novus Collectus]

That's not the problem. The problem is defining what is torture. Liberals have a such a loose definition of torture that yelling at someone could be construed as torture because it made the captive cry and is marred for life.

Getting Waterboarded // Current

This is part of the law in America because it is the treaty Congress ratified:

Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions....



....Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

If you don't like the way the law is in America, then get Congress to pull out of the treaty.

 

[beerlover]

...We will have tortured for nothing. If we save one American life torturing people, then we will have lost a part of our humanity in their place.

I haven't seen any evidence of what I would consider torture. How do you define torture? Have you watched the videos of the beheadings? You are not going to talk these animals into repenting. When they come for your family, will you be so concerned with their hurt feelings and discomfort?

 

[Novus Collectus]

What if we save 3,000 American lives.. or 10,000..

How about One MILLION!???

Would one million American lives be worthy of torturing a single terrorist?

As I said before in another thread, if it is obvious a terrorist is guilty and has information which will save American lives, then I am sure the agent will torture him for the info. By doing so he or she will be breaking the law and go to prison for a long time. That is a true sacrifice and I would applaud them for making the sacfrifice for our country and society.
But to have the government, which is a representation of our society to order the torture or to have it legal is unconscionable.

 

[itsbob]

Getting Waterboarded // Current

This is part of the law in America because it is the treaty Congress ratified: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

If you don't like the way the law is in America, then get Congress to pull out of the treaty.

Again, how many American lives is it worth to follow this treaty word for word??

If you knew there was a nuke planted somewhere in Manhattan and you had the person who planted it.. You'd just let the nuke pop while he was eating his Lobster Bisque and broiled Mussels in his cell?

 

[itsbob]

As I said before in another thread, if it is obvious a terrorist is guilty and has information which will save American lives, then I am sure the agent will torture him for the info. By doing so he or she will be breaking the law and go to prison for a long time. That is a true sacrifice and I would applaud them for making the sacfrifice for our country and society.
But to have the government, which is a representation of our society to order the torture or to have it legal is unconscionable.

So it's OK and admirable for a battlefield commander to determine the importance and deem it necessary, but it's unconscionable for a president to do the same? To protect American citizens?

granted we'll never know how many Americans were saved, but what if it could be proven that the "signed off" torture actually saved 50,000 American lives.. I'd say our President would deserve a medal and a statue of his own for standing up for what was right.

What if he didn't OK that had to be done, and the 50,000 did die? Than what.. He could be proud of the fact.. "Yes, my fellow Amercans, 50,000 of us died today, but you can sleep sound tonight knowing that we did not torture anyone to prevent it!!"

I don't follow your reasoning.

 

[PsyOps]

Getting Waterboarded // Current

This is part of the law in America because it is the treaty Congress ratified: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

If you don't like the way the law is in America, then get Congress to pull out of the treaty.

Perhaps you’d like to give me your definition of pain and suffering. Define to me what is cruel, inhumane or degrading. Me calling JPC an idiot could easily fall under these guidelines. My kid claims that me yelling at him causes mental distress and pain and suffering. Should I be arrested for violating this law? You think I’m being petty about this but who gets to decide Novus? All it takes is a savvy terrorist with a lawyer to say anything our interrogators do can be construed as torture. So please, specifically tell me what interrogation tactics fall under the definition of torture? Where is the line drawn? Otherwise throwing a bunch of vague legal verbiage does not clear this up.

I have to tell you, unless it’s someone that is close to you (like a child or other relative) that is in trouble or their life is threatened will you truly understand the real purpose behind harsh interrogation tactics. Until then, it only serves you as a political tool to castigate this administration and undermine the war. These tactics have been used for decades without a peep. Suddenly, now that we have a GOP president executing a war, and requires these tools to save American lives, you liberals have a problem with it. I tell you, have Chelsea Clinton kidnapped by terrorists and see how fast President Hillary signs into law the legalization of waterboarding and other harsh tactics. And every liberal will be right on that train with her.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I haven't seen any evidence of what I would consider torture. How do you define torture? Have you watched the videos of the beheadings? You are not going to talk these animals into repenting. When they come for your family, will you be so concerned with their hurt feelings and discomfort?

Stooping to their level is not the American way, so please spare us the beheading references unless you are suggesting we become like the monsters.

This approximately 27 year old male civilian, presumed Iraqi national, died in US custody approximately 72 hours after being apprehended. By report, physical force was required during his initial apprehension during a raid. During his confinement, he was hooded, sleep deprived, and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/13279.pdf

 

[PsyOps]

Stooping to their level is not the American way, so please spare us the beheading references unless you are suggesting we become like the monsters.



http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/13279.pdf

How lame. You compare us using waterboarding to extract intelligence information to their torturous tactics (like beheadings), all to be broadcast across the globe, to inflict global fear is nothing less than ignorant.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Perhaps you’d like to give me your definition of pain and suffering. Define to me what is cruel, inhumane or degrading. Me calling JPC an idiot could easily fall under these guidelines. My kid claims that me yelling at him causes mental distress and pain and suffering. Should I be arrested for violating this law? You think I’m being petty about this but who gets to decide Novus? All it takes is a savvy terrorist with a lawyer to say anything our interrogators do can be construed as torture. So please, specifically tell me what interrogation tactics fall under the definition of torture? Where is the line drawn? Otherwise throwing a bunch of vague legal verbiage does not clear this up.

This is not at the low level of yelling at someone or calling them names. Getting Waterboarded // Current

I have to tell you, unless it’s someone that is close to you (like a child or other relative) that is in trouble or their life is threatened will you truly understand the real purpose behind harsh interrogation tactics.

I already said if there is a need for torture to save a life, then I am sure the agent willing to save a life by breaking that law will willingily sacrifice their freedom in order to do so. I have faith in our agents will do so if called.

Making torture legal, sanctioned or even ordered leads to abuse and innocent people can die, innocent people's lives can be demolished,and our humanity falls to a lower level approaching thiers. I always thought we were supposed to be better than the terrorist scum.

Until then, it only serves you as a political tool to castigate this administration and undermine the war. These tactics have been used for decades without a peep.

The treaty I cited making it illegal I believe is only ten years old. You don't like the law, get Congress to pull out of the treaty.

Suddenly, now that we have a GOP president executing a war, and requires these tools to save American lives, you liberals have a problem with it.

Get this straight!! If it was Clinton, Carter or Kennedy I would be just as appalled. Get that through your biased, partisan, Bush apologist head.

 

[Novus Collectus]

How lame. You compare us using waterboarding to extract intelligence information to their torturous tactics (like beheadings), all to be broadcast across the globe, to inflict global fear is nothing less than ignorant.

Using the behaeding video to excuse torture on ANY level is bringing us closer to their barbarity. If that is what you want, then that is what is lame.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Again, how many American lives is it worth to follow this treaty word for word??

The process for ratifying treaties and the declaration that a ratified treaty is American law is a part of the Constitution. You may as well ask how many American lives is it worth to follow the Constitution word for word.

If you knew there was a nuke planted somewhere in Manhattan and you had the person who planted it.. You'd just let the nuke pop while he was eating his Lobster Bisque and broiled Mussels in his cell?

Oh no, I would torture his sorry ass with the worst possible methods known to man....and I would also expect to go to prison for it because it is against the law to do so. I would gladly sacrifice my personal freedom to save lives and I would gladly go to prison for doing so to preserve the sanctity of our society that says torture is barbaric.

 

[Novus Collectus]

So it's OK and admirable for a battlefield commander to determine the importance and deem it necessary, but it's unconscionable for a president to do the same? To protect American citizens?

It is unconsionable for the government to order it, especially against its own laws. The battlefield commander would be surrendering his freedom as a sacrifice in order to get the information and if the president did so then he too is breaking the law of our country.

granted we'll never know how many Americans were saved, but what if it could be proven that the "signed off" torture actually saved 50,000 American lives.. I'd say our President would deserve a medal and a statue of his own for standing up for what was right.

What if he didn't OK that had to be done, and the 50,000 did die? Than what.. He could be proud of the fact.. "Yes, my fellow Amercans, 50,000 of us died today, but you can sleep sound tonight knowing that we did not torture anyone to prevent it!!"

I don't follow your reasoning.

Would it be ok to torture 50,000 people just to save one American life? What if some of them were innocent, or what if some of them died?

 

[vraiblonde]

Would it be ok to torture 50,000 people just to save one American life?
Yes!
What if some of them were innocent, or what if some of them died?
Too bad!

So far, though, I haven't heard of them doing anything I would consider "torture", at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or anywhere else. Panties on the head isn't really the same as paring off skin bit by bit with a potato peeler.

 

[vraiblonde]

Chopping off fingers, one knuckle at a time, would be a great torture. Even plucking chest/pubic/armpit hairs would be better than that "standing on a box" thing they did at Abu Ghraib.

 

[Novus Collectus]

So far, though, I haven't heard of them doing anything I would consider "torture", at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or anywhere else. Panties on the head isn't really the same as paring off skin bit by bit with a potato peeler.

Bararous practices leads to proliferation of abuse and barberous society.

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.

The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?pagewanted=print

Imagine if another country had the attitude you had and tortured 50,000 Americans among which were innocents. YOu would be calling them beasts and monsters while calling for war.
Now you said that some innocents being tortured is ok to save on American life, but what if some of those innocents tortured to death are Americans? What if it you were one of the American innocents tortured? Still think it is ok? Where are you willing to draw the line with innocent's blood burtally shed in our name to save a few more American lives than were lost to torture?