Author Topic: The waterboarding controversy (Read 1041 times)

1K3 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 02, 2007, 09:56:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meatwad
Al Jizerra or whatever it is named seems to always broadcast terrorist support messages, killings, etc. Even though the address is Qatar, why cant we just drop a 500lb bomb on it and shut that station down

What does that country have, a few camels and a drunken arab?

Qatar is pretty rich country in middle east. It's no wonder Saddam tried to reclaim that *province* ~17 yrs ago.

1K3 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:00:43 PM »

Is waterboarding the dead end when it comes to humane turture?

Gotta come up with something more creative and at the same time won't damage or show bruises:)

Mr No Name · « **Reply #32 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:10:25 PM »

i say dont let the enemy know we have taken any method off the table... Have our own rules but as far as they know we might be clipping off toes with wirecutters...

Thrawn · « **Reply #33 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:46:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
wow. just...'wow'. could you explain to me the police officer/citizen comparison to that of a soldier/terrorist ?

Rip, what's the difference between a terrorist and someone you think is a terrorist?

Shamus · « **Reply #34 on:** November 02, 2007, 11:04:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Rip, what's the difference between a terrorist and someone you think is a terrorist?

We could use the same system used in the middle ages to find those witches, you know wrap them in chains and throw em in the river, if they float they aint terrorists.

shamus

LePaul · « **Reply #35 on:** November 03, 2007, 12:24:22 AM »

Boy this got construed quickly.

The terrorists in question are enemy combatants. As is from the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan and where ever they are attacking us from.

Not, Thrawn, your annoying local cub scout leader or whatever civilian-world distraction.

The terrorists have one agenda...to kill us any way they possibly can. They have no borders, they are obviously not part of any Geneva Convention.

I'm just drumming my fingers wondering why some people just dont get that. You want to afford these killers every tenant of Legal Protection.

I don't buy this "Well we shouldnt do it because its wrong" creedo that MT advocates. We're dealing with some really whacked extremists out there, raised to think we are the holy enemy they've been raised to beleive.

midnight Target · « **Reply #36 on:** November 03, 2007, 01:01:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Boy this got construed quickly.

I don't buy this "Well we shouldnt do it because its wrong" creedo that MT advocates. We're dealing with some really whacked extremists out there, raised to think we are the holy enemy they've been raised to beleive.

LOL... I wonder how many of you don't "buy this" yet think of yourselves as christian?

sad really

Fishu · « **Reply #37 on:** November 03, 2007, 01:11:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
As long as a method of interogation does no permanent physical damage to someone then it isn't torture. Waterboarding isn't torture, it just make someone very uncomfortable. Keeping them awake for 24-36-48 hours isn't torture, it just makes them real tired. Stacking naked guys on top of each other, taking pictures and laughing at them isn't toture, that's a frat prank.

"make someone very uncomfortable" by the definition of the word is torture. "makes them real tired" by the definition of the word is torture. "stacking naked guys" by the definition of the word is torture.

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

Torture isn't just about physical pain, it can be also psychological.

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
The terrorists in question are enemy combatants. As is from the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan and where ever they are attacking us from.

Last time I heard some of the gitmo detainees were revealed to the US troops for the reward money or a store owner didn't like his competition and gave up the name of his competition as a terrorist.

The problem is that we don't know if they really are terrorists. Otherwise nobody would been released from Gitmo nor would the "investigators" have to collect proof.

Are we really willing to accept that some of the tortured might be innocent?

What if someday in the future, say 20 years from now, you're arrested as a suspected terrorist due to some screw up and end up tortured because they think you are a terrorist and nobody has any problem with it? Are you willing to accept that? or some of your relative or friend ending up in the situation?

It will happen if it will become a generally accepted method. It will also spread from the terrorist interrogations to the regular crime interrogations. Just because torture has become accepted and because of the belief that of course the officials wouldn't torture innocent people.

Let's not forget that under the law you are not guilty until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.

LePaul · « **Reply #38 on:** November 03, 2007, 02:08:51 AM »

They are not afforded any legal rights. That's the point. These are terrorists. I'm sorry, did you miss the part about we DONT read them their rights?

As for MT's post...just more diversion. Now he's questioning our faith for diasagreeing with him. If that's the best you can do, thanks for playing

Hornet33 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 03, 2007, 02:13:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
"make someone very uncomfortable" by the definition of the word is torture. "makes them real tired" by the definition of the word is torture. "stacking naked guys" by the definition of the word is torture.

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

Torture isn't just about physical pain, it can be also psychological.

Last time I heard some of the gitmo detainees were revealed to the US troops for the reward money or a store owner didn't like his competition and gave up the name of his competition as a terrorist.

The problem is that we don't know if they really are terrorists. Otherwise nobody would been released from Gitmo nor would the "investigators" have to collect proof.

Are we really willing to accept that some of the tortured might be innocent?

What if someday in the future, say 20 years from now, you're arrested as a suspected terrorist due to some screw up and end up tortured because they think you are a terrorist and nobody has any problem with it? Are you willing to accept that? or some of your relative or friend ending up in the situation?

It will happen if it will become a generally accepted method. It will also spread from the terrorist interrogations to the regular crime interrogations. Just because torture has become accepted and because of the belief that of course the officials wouldn't torture innocent people.

Let's not forget that under the law you are not guilty until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.

I could care less about their mental anguish. What about my mental anguish??? I was in New York the day after the attack and witnessed for myself the destruction they inflicted on our country. I went to over 2 dozen funerlas for firefighters and police officers that were killed in that attack. Why should I worry about their mental anguish??? I don't. They deserve everything they get from our men and women in uniform and they should feel lucky that we DON'T go as far as they do on a regular basis.

Anyone who thinks the US has gone too far in our intergation methods needs to talk to someone who was DIRCETLY affected by the events of 9/11.

It's real easy to point fingers after the fact when you have no personal stake in what is going on.

For me it's personal. They attacked my county and killed my fellow citizens. I went to the funerals, I saw the bodies being dug out of the rubble, I pulled security in New York Harbor while it was being done and it has effected me for the rest of my life. I WILL NEVER FORGET!!!!

So forgive me if I have NO compasion for those sorry pieces of trash. Kill them all and I wont shed a single tear. Waterbording????: Give me a break....they deserve worse than that in my opinion. Put them on the rack as far as I'm conserned.

Fishu · « **Reply #40 on:** November 03, 2007, 03:06:09 AM »

They this they that... do you understand that not all these accused terrorists are terrorists?! What the hell is wrong with you people? You keep saying "they have no rights coz they're terrorists", but not all of them have been terrorists and some have been even released from Gitmo.

Those who have been arrested as terrorists/suspected terrorists might be innocent, just like you and me. That should be figured out first instead of torturing them first. After that I don't care what you do with them, but the current witch hunt mentality must not go on. Not every middle eastern guy is a terrorist. If they would be, why on earth would you go to free Iraq for the people of Iraq? Wouldn't it be just easier to nuke the nest of terrorists?

x0847Marine · « **Reply #41 on:** November 03, 2007, 04:08:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samiam
'cept the "field of battle" isn't defined and apparently includes every square inch of the U.S. of A. and "terrorist" isn't defined either and is soon likely to include twelve year-olds who participate in illegal file sharing.

It bears repeating even though the ears that need to hear it most are long deaf: civil liberties are meaningful because they apply to the objectionable equally as to the saintly.

Bush declared US soil a battleground in the war on terror and did away with posse comitatus. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) effectively does away with habeas corpus rights as well for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” Who exactly is an "enemy of the state", or an "enemy combatant”?.. that definition is solely at the discretion of Bush.

Bush did away with the oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization; the right to challenge governmental power, arguably the most critical part of the Magna Carta.

Section 950q of the MCA states: “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter of the MCA who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.”

Note "any person", which means US citizens.

Section 950v. “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” states “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

Section 950j states that once a person is detained, “ not withstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision) no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”

Welcome to Bushs neoclown land where US citizens cant even challenge "..the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions..".. it may be illegal & unconstitutional, but you cant challenge the word of king George... or soon to be Queen Clinton.

Thrawn · « **Reply #42 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:40:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Boy this got construed quickly.

The terrorists in question are enemy combatants. As is from the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan and where ever they are attacking us from.

Not, Thrawn, your annoying local cub scout leader or whatever civilian-world distraction.

They are attacking us from Iraq? Or are "we" being attacked in Iraq?

A very good argument can be made that the collation invasion of Iraq was the actions of an aggressor. Last statistics I saw indicated that only about 4% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreigners. Now those statistics are old but the point is that at least at one point in time the vast majority of insurgents where Iraqis fighting an occupying force.

Imagine the shoe was on the other foot. A foreign power decides to invade the US and occupy. Would you resist? Would any of your friends and family? If so, what if they were arrested and water boarded? Would you be perfectly fine with this? Would it not be torture? What if they were water boarded for hours and days on end?

What if your friends and relatives weren't resisting, but that the occupying power thought they were connected to the resistance?

Thrawn · « **Reply #43 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:41:23 AM »

A news reporter is given a water boarding demonstration.

http://current.com/pods/controversy/PD04399

midnight Target · « **Reply #44 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:42:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
They are not afforded any legal rights. That's the point. These are terrorists. I'm sorry, did you miss the part about we DONT read them their rights?

As for MT's post...just more diversion. Now he's questioning our faith for diasagreeing with him. If that's the best you can do, thanks for playing

You really don't understand, and you probably never will. Your faith has nothing to do with your agreeing with me or not. Torturing is inhuman as well as inhumane. You can't argue against that except to the point that you think we should act in the same manner as our enemy. This is morally corrupt and you should know that. You can't seem to tell the difference between diversion and cold smack in the face with the tuna of truth. Keep on trying though... maybe you'll figure it out.