Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[Ravi]

so if you captured an enemy and that enemy had knowledge that if you tortured him for it you would save the life of your entire platoon, you would let them die....

is that right?

Your hypothetical is weak. Try again.

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

Bingo. That is how it should be...it should not be legalized. If you can make your case after the fact that you should be shown mercy then excellent. Otherwise, you don't just torture people because you MIGHT learn something.

 

[Yurt]

God, you're such a bleeding heart commie pinko liberal, Crimson. Me, too.

Also, I hate guns, the military, cops, and the American flag.

This isn't even a liberal/conservative issue. It is a moral one. Nobody seems to be asking the right question. If we prosecuted people in the past for these types of interrogation techniques, why is it that we all of a sudden feel the need to use them. Are we not hypocritical for using out of fear? Is it moral to torture out of fear? Because we sure aren't doing it out of neccesity.

It's easy to maintain our morality and laws when things are easy. It's difficult to maintain those things when there's danger and people want to be angry at the people who they perceive put them in danger.

I don't think morality is optional.

I also don't believe for a second that even if we derived some actionable intel from torture, there wasn't another way to get the same intel.

you've got to be kidding me...an enemy is in your hands and his knowledge can save thousands, why would he or she willingly give up that information if to them the deaths of americans is their goal...

tell us how you get the enemy to give information that would save thousands when his or her only goal is to kill those thousands...

 

[catzmeow]

Perhaps this is an overly personal issue for me, but I have not come to this conclusion lightly, and feel it necessary that we give our agencies the ability to save American lives - and the facts appear to show that in fact, such ability has saved lives.

At what cost?

We've allowed a federal agency to become comfortable and well-versed in torture. Who watches the watchmen?

We've lost our moral standing before the world. Thus, if our service personnel are captured in some future war, how will we protest when THEY are tortured?

Sometimes, the price for saving lives is too high. In this case, for instance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah what was the cost? Not one of the terrorists died or was physically harmed in any way.

So, you are comfortable with allowing a U.S. government entity to hold people without counsel, to incarcerate them in a hidden prison, and torture them for months?

Why not just move to Cuba? The climate is better.

They were not US citizens therefore not protected by our constitutional or laws. They were involved in or had knowledge of terrorist activities aimed at US citizens.

These people were trying to kill Americans including women and children and you want to protect them?

 

[catzmeow]

They were not US citizens therefore not protected by our constitutional or laws. They were involved in or had knowledge of terrorist activities aimed at US citizens.

These people were trying to kill Americans including women and children and you want to protect them?

NO. I want to honor the conditions of the Geneva Convention so other people will honor it with our POWs. This isn't rocket science.

I also do not want our government to be in the business of torturing ANYONE, regardless of their current justification for doing so.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

so if you captured an enemy and that enemy had knowledge that if you tortured him for it you would save the life of your entire platoon, you would let them die....

is that right?

Your hypothetical is weak. Try again.

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

Your hypothetical is weak, because you are likening what would I do in battle to what we do as a nation.

Would I beat the living shit out of guy if would save my men. Absolutely. Would I cut a guy form neck to navel to save my men. In a fucking heartbeat. However, in doing so, I could possibly face repurcussions under the UCMJ and possibly court martialed for my actions. This is entirely different than the systematic torture of hundreds by a nation. What we do in combat cannot be likened in any way to what we do as a civilized society.

 

[WillowTree]

Heed your own advice.

God, you're such a bleeding heart commie pinko liberal, Crimson. Me, too.

Also, I hate guns, the military, cops, and the American flag.

This isn't even a liberal/conservative issue. It is a moral one. Nobody seems to be asking the right question. If we prosecuted people in the past for these types of interrogation techniques, why is it that we all of a sudden feel the need to use them. Are we not hypocritical for using out of fear? Is it moral to torture out of fear? Because we sure aren't doing it out of neccesity.

Hey! I'v heard several military men say they are waterboarded as part of their survival training. Shouldn't they sure the Gov. for torture?

 

[Yurt]

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

How about we torture no one, and remain true to our national honor, bill of rights, and the geneva convention?

I value the lives of our service personnel. Thus, I do not want my government to torture enemy combatants, because it makes it more likely that OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL will be tortured if they are captured.

.

that is simply not true. again, tell that to those who tortured, beheaded all in falluja and elsewhere....you would let thousands die just to stand by your principles of not physically hurting someone....you value life less than i do....people get over torture, you never get those lives back.

 

[Iriemon]

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

How about we torture no one, and remain true to our national honor, bill of rights, and the geneva convention?

I value the lives of our service personnel. Thus, I do not want my government to torture enemy combatants, because it makes it more likely that OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL will be tortured if they are captured.

.

And regardless of whether it even makes it more likely, it legitimizes torture of US personnel.

If a US soldier is captured and waterboarded 183 times, what are we going to do with the captors when we capture them? Prosecute them and put them in jail for doing the same damn thing our government says is OK?

Jeez when I step back it is almost unbelievable to me that we are today having a debate over using a torture technique practiced by the Japs in WWI, the Gestapo, the Khmer Rouge; and that has been universally condemned, and half the folks are saying its just fine to do to captured soldiers or civilians.

 

[catzmeow]

Hey! I'v heard several military men say they are waterboarded as part of their survival training. Shouldn't they sure the Gov. for torture?

SERE is training program that helps military personnel prepare for the possibility of being a POW. Does that help you understand?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

God, you're such a bleeding heart commie pinko liberal, Crimson. Me, too.

Also, I hate guns, the military, cops, and the American flag.

This isn't even a liberal/conservative issue. It is a moral one. Nobody seems to be asking the right question. If we prosecuted people in the past for these types of interrogation techniques, why is it that we all of a sudden feel the need to use them. Are we not hypocritical for using out of fear? Is it moral to torture out of fear? Because we sure aren't doing it out of neccesity.

Hey! I'v heard several military men say they are waterboarded as part of their survival training. Shouldn't they sure the Gov. for torture?

Perhaps. Maybe you could be their lawyer.

 

[WillowTree]

I'd torture someone if I thought it would save my child from pain or death and then I'd deal with whatever consequences the law decided were due me.

This is not the same thing as legalizing torture or institutionalizing torture...which is what we did in regard to those in Gitmo.

Two different things entirely.

What we did is what the Vietnamese did when they stuck bamboo shoots up the fingernails of Americans.

from what I've heard not a sould has been tortured in Gitmo.. Do you have a source of torture at gitmo? I heard there was none in a discussion on the TV.

 

[Yurt]

Your hypothetical is weak. Try again.

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

Bingo. That is how it should be...it should not be legalized. If you can make your case after the fact that you should be shown mercy then excellent. Otherwise, you don't just torture people because you MIGHT learn something.

i never suggested it should be legalized. just as i agree that you should not drive into oncoming traffic as it is against the law and puts others at risk, however, if i knew doing so would save lives i would not hesitate.

that is why i am trying to understand the folks who just willy nilly say no torture period. what they are saying is, if torture saved one million lives they still would not commit it.

 

[catzmeow]

that is simply not true. again, tell that to those who tortured, beheaded all in falluja and elsewhere....you would let thousands die just to stand by your principles of not physically hurting someone....you value life less than i do....people get over torture, you never get those lives back.

I'm not a pacifist. You've clearly misunderstood me.

I'm opposed to state-sanctioned torture by our government for several reasons. First, it violates the core principles of our country. Secondly, I believe that it poses a serious risk to the citizens of this country to allow government agencies to engage in these acts with impunity. Thirdly, these actions jeopardize our international standing and the safety of our military personnel in time of war.

I have no problems with killing bad guys in combat. I have a huge problem with torturing a suspect that is incapacitated and in custody. Those are vastly different scenarios.

 

[Iriemon]

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

How about we torture no one, and remain true to our national honor, bill of rights, and the geneva convention?

I value the lives of our service personnel. Thus, I do not want my government to torture enemy combatants, because it makes it more likely that OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL will be tortured if they are captured.

.

that is simply not true. again, tell that to those who tortured, beheaded all in falluja and elsewhere....you would let thousands die just to stand by your principles of not physically hurting someone....you value life less than i do....people get over torture, you never get those lives back.

The same lame argument over and over. That justifies anything. Locking people away without communications or hearings or trials. Busting into people's homes without a warrant. Locking away family members. Exporting everyone with a certain racial background. Every one of these acts could be justified by your example. And it is what every dictator has used to justify doing these kinds of things.

 

[catzmeow]

So, in short:

I'm pro-violence, anti-torture. Try to wrap your pea-brain around that one. Then call me a dirty liberal and smack my ass. I like that.

 

[Article 15]

God, you're such a bleeding heart commie pinko liberal, Crimson. Me, too.

Also, I hate guns, the military, cops, and the American flag.

This isn't even a liberal/conservative issue. It is a moral one. Nobody seems to be asking the right question. If we prosecuted people in the past for these types of interrogation techniques, why is it that we all of a sudden feel the need to use them. Are we not hypocritical for using out of fear? Is it moral to torture out of fear? Because we sure aren't doing it out of neccesity.

Hey! I'v heard several military men say they are waterboarded as part of their survival training. Shouldn't they sure the Gov. for torture?

Point?

 

[catzmeow]

The same lame argument over and over. That justifies anything. Locking people away without communications or hearings or trials. Busting into people's homes without a warrant. Locking away family members. Exporting everyone with a certain racial background. Every one of these acts could be justified by your example. And it is what every dictator has used to justify doing these kinds of things.

You know what really terrifies me? Giving the CIA those powers and allowing them to exercise those tactics without control or oversight. Aka, 2004-2009.

 

[manifold]

My approach to the subject of torture can best be explained as follows:

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So, in short:

I'm pro-violence, anti-torture. Try to wrap your pea-brain around that one. Then call me a dirty liberal and smack my ass. I like that.

Down girl.