Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[ABikerSailor]

There are MANY other effective means of interrogation that DOES NOT INCLUDE TORTURE!

Besides.......ask any military person, and the will tell you that the information that comes from torture is notoriously unreliable.

Yep, that's exactly how I was trained when taking POWs in the Marine Corps. We were to follow the Geneva Convention, not because it was what was thought of as moral or humane, but because it was practical. Torturing, executing, or mistreating prisoners provided the enemy with a will to fight and the information wasn't credible: the North Vietnamese and Russia (among others) used torture to obtain false confessions from prisoners.

Matter of fact, false confessions is why Pol Pot came up with the idea in the first place.

He was looking for a neat way to get people to admit to crimes they didn't commit so that he could have almost a death grip on his country.

 

[WillowTree]

so the obamalama just admitted on the tv that the enhanced interrogations bore fruitful, useful information..

 

[SpidermanTuba]

so the obamalama just admitted on the tv that the enhanced interrogations bore fruitful, useful information..

bs

 

[CrimsonWhite]

so the obamalama just admitted on the tv that the enhanced interrogations bore fruitful, useful information..

Seriously. That is President Obama. Not "obamalama." Show a little respect for the office at least.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So saving lives isn't a function of your equation... or the opinion of those you've elected to make such decisions... thus you don't understand the function of a representative republic...

You take what I say out of context. No where did I say saving lives was not important. Nor did I say we should not do everything possible to save American lives.

When ya said this...

I happen to attempt to stand by my principles. One of those principles is that torturing prisoners is wrong. I do not casually disregard those principles simply because the man I voted for thinks he might save some lives in the process.

You stand by your principles and apparently your principles do NOT including inducing cooperation out of inviduals who are plotting to murder innocent people; that there's a line you WILL NEVER CROSS, EVEN WHEN THOSE YOU ELECTED TELL YOU THAT THIS LINE NEEDS TO BE CROSSED TO SAVE LIVES... thus you are NOT willing to do 'everything possible to save Americans lives.'

Immie, that's you saying that you aren't going to make mass murderers uncomfortable, if that is what it takes to spare innocent life and defend sound, sustainable, sacred human rights.

So RIGHT off the bat, you're disembling; as I was sure ya would.

Well there ya go... then you are advocating for the protection of the rights of mass murderers, thus relegating the defense from such, to criminal sanctions... POST MASS MURDER.

Thus there is no means, as you see it, to prosecute anyone for anything, until after the trial...

No doubt you feel strongly that the use of the US military to prosecute a war against them, where it is legal to kill them with prejudice, en mass... is a function served absent sound principle...

Well there ya have it kids... The terrorists have all the rights and we the sheep can't do much about it, until they murder people by the thousands and if they die in the process, well we're just gonna have to recognize that they paid for their crime, in advance; which gives them the discount of no court fees.

Well, I am thrilled to know that you don't give a Fudge about innocent human lives. All your pandering in the above posts was nothing more than pandering. You don't care about the innocent.

Convicted terrorists have no rights... except maybe three squares and a 6X10 cell and maybe someday a firing squad, but at least they have been tried and convicted rather than tortured without any due process.

Again... you run to a standard which is not in play... This is a war... and we are NOT TRYING TO PROSECUTE THESE PEOPLE, IMMIE!

For them to be CONVICTED of mass murder, what has to happen? Do they NOT HAVE TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

We're trying to STOP THEM FROM SUCCESSFULLY CARRYING OUT THEIR OVERT, INTENTIONAL, MOST SINCERE INTENTIONS OF MURDERING MASSIVE NUMBERS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... For which they are guilty, THE MOMENT THEY COMMENCE THE PROCESS. All a conviction does is adjudicate that guilt; to note it for the record that THEY DID SO... Guilt is not purely a legal term, it is a moral term... it is established as upon initiation.

Criminal sanctions are a DEFENSIVE MEANS OF PUNISHMENT... We are not interrogating these people to punish them... and I think that you believe that this is what is happening... that Special Operators are delivering a little 'what for...' above and beyond what the Justice System has set up for them...

Not the case at all; these detainees are not in the custody of the justice department; they're not conventional troops of a foreign sovereign being held as Prisoners of War; they are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who are associated with other illegal combatants who have joined together for only one purpose: TO MURDER AS MANY INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS AS IS WITHIN THEIR MEANS...

We're not seeking to convict them of anything; as vociferously noted above, we're debreifing them to garner information to PROACTIVELY PREVENT THEIR ASSOCIATES WHICH ARE NOT IN US CUSTODY FROM CARRYING OUT THEIR PLANS TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE; and if making them most uncomfortable is necessary to induce their cooperation; that is THEIR PROBLEM... Don't want to be made most uncomfortable: DON'T GO TO WAR WITH US... DON'T JOIN ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IS TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE...

These people have never been found guilty. Many of them are guilty of nothing more than crossing paths with the U.S. Military or pissing off a neighbor that turned them in for some cold hard cash.

Wrong... While this is not a criminal prosecution, it is a prosecution and guilt has been established... thus is the nature of PROSECUTING A WAR.

If what you say it true and there is a moral imperative that such individuals can only be guilty in the wake of a full trial of fact, where a jury of their peers finds them guilty; where's the moral authority to drop tons of hardened-steel wrapped high explosive on them... vaporizing or tearing them to shreads? Where do we get the moral authority to do this?>>>

http://www.navlog.org/iraqinight.wmv

Now that is video of a AC130 Gunship smoking terrorists without a criminal conviction by a US court...


Gray shadows standing next to their vehicle, chatting it up... dropping items suspected of being weapons on the ground; GUILTY... Blown to bits...

Now using the SAME SPECIES OF REASONING YOU'RE USING TO PREVENT INTERROGATIONS TO CULL TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATON TO SPARE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE... where's the moral authority derived to execute those gray human beings in that field?

 

[catzmeow]

Now that is video of a AC130 Gunship smoking terrorists without a criminal conviction by a US court...


Gray shadows standing next to their vehicle, chatting it up... dropping items suspected of being weapons on the ground; GUILTY... Blown to bits...

Now using the SAME SPECIES OF REASONING YOU'RE USING TO PREVENT INTERROGATIONS TO CULL TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATON TO SPARE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE... where's the moral authority derived to execute those gray human beings in that field?

If you'd actually served time in combat (versus just playing a former marine on the internets), you would realize that there are entirely different protocols IN THE MILITARY and in every other related field to deal with people who are actively fighting you, and people who have surrendered and/or are in captivity. That's why there are conventions on the treatment of POWs. Once a person is in captivity, his or her power to harm you is minimal as long as you adhere to common sense safety protocols. And, this is also why a member of the armed forces can be subject to court martial and imprisonment for abusing a prisoner or POW.


That's why officers who beat a man who is handcuffed are (and should be) charged with aggravated assault, but an officer using reasonable force to subdue a suspect who is fighting them will generally be cleared of any wrong-doing.

This isn't hard stuff. For someone who prides himself on being the smartest person on this board, it's amazing how often you make yourself look like a fucking imbecile.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What? No snappy comebacks? No faux righteous moral indignation?

LOL... Leftists...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Now that is video of a AC130 Gunship smoking terrorists without a criminal conviction by a US court...


Gray shadows standing next to their vehicle, chatting it up... dropping items suspected of being weapons on the ground; GUILTY... Blown to bits...

Now using the SAME SPECIES OF REASONING YOU'RE USING TO PREVENT INTERROGATIONS TO CULL TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATON TO SPARE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE... where's the moral authority derived to execute those gray human beings in that field?

If you'd actually served time in combat, you would realize that there are entirely different protocols IN THE MILITARY and in every other related field to deal with people who are actively fighting you, and people who have surrendered and/or are in captivity. That's why there are conventions on the treatment of POWs. Once a person is in captivity, his or her power to harm you is minimal as long as you adhere to common sense safety protocols.

Puhlease... I didn't see anyone actively fighting anyone... did you? What threat did you see from these vague gray images repesent to that gunship? I saw the vague, gray images standing next to a couple of trucks on a road... one of which grabbed something, which could have been anything... and toss it onto the ground...

Now you may argue that 'we were at war;' that those vague gray images were declared combatants and during war, combatants are prosecutable through the use of lethal force... and you'd be right. Except the images didn't show any overt signs of insignia, there were no discernable means to identify those vague gray figures as combatants... yet... we prosecuted them into shreaded meet...

The only thing which convicted those individuals of anything, was their presence in the field of operations, during a time of war...

Which is PRECISELY what the detainees at Gitmo are convicted of...

ROFLMNAO... So what we have here is the individuals which were in that field, under the supervision of the US military, were treated rather harshly; torn to bits... absent a trial and conviction... And those individuals at Gitmo who were declared by US, to be Combatants on the field, but who instead of tearing them to BITS... were placed under US supervision in GITMO for the purposes of interrogation; are being treated to substantially LESS harsh treatment, absent a trial and conviction...

Hmm... Let's see... BOTH ARE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE US MILITARY... BOTH HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED BY A US COURT OF ANYTHING... and the circumstance where the individuals declared by US to be combatants are torn to shreds is PERFECTLY FINE... but the circumstance where the individuals declared by us to be combatants are slapped in the face during interrogation... WHOLLY UNACCPETABLE!

We must be talking about two different things here... I get the impression that you're speaking of individuals who are under the supervision of the US Justice Department, wherein they are being tried for a violation of a criminal statute... who are being 'tortured.'

Which of course would be just AWFUL... and we can surely agree upon that.

So who are these people that the US Justice Department is torturing as a function of their pre-trial procedures, Catz? And please, be specific... and again to CLARIFY... NAME THOSE WHICH YOU KNOW TO BE UNDER THE CUSTODIAL SUPERVISION OF THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT ARE BEING TORTURED AS A FUNCTION OF THEIR PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES?

The simple fact is that NO ONE has been so treated... that the detainees are being detained FOR THE PURPOSES OF CULLING FROM THEM, INFORMATION WHICH CAN BE USED TO PREVENT THEIR ASSOCIATES WHO ARE NOT IN BEING DETAINED, FROM MURDERING MASSIVE NUMBERS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS...

Further, that these detainees are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS WHOSE STATUS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT... NON-UNIFORMED COMBATANTS WHO DO NOT DECLARE THEMSELVES AS SUCH, who operate within the civilian population and whose very presence, is a very real threat to civilization itself; to civilization ON THE WHOLE...

 

[sealybobo]

What? No snappy comebacks? No faux righteous moral indignation?

LOL... Leftists...

OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.

OK?

 

[sealybobo]

What? No snappy comebacks? No faux righteous moral indignation?

LOL... Leftists...

You either say nothing or too much. Its hard to reply to you. That doesn't make you right or smart.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What? No snappy comebacks? No faux righteous moral indignation?

LOL... Leftists...

OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.

OK?

ROFLMNAO... So, The Lord of the Idiots concludes that water-boarding is TORTURE... but of course she also concludes that there is a RIGHT by the poor, which entitles them to the product of the labor of others, to subsidize them....

And like her conclusion regarding water-boarding being torture, she is unable to provide a sound intellectual basis for such...

Just as the British who were being bombed in WW2 were holding 200 prisoners and didn't torture them... which would be an excellent point, if those prisoners were high value officers of the Nazi Party, where there might have been some similarity to the current circumstances... but they weren't...

Anyone who thinks that the British would not have used coersive methods to induce cooperation from a flag officer of the Nazi Military is simply suffering from a level of ignorance which borders on delusion.

The US isn't TORTURING ANYONE... and that The Lord of the Idiots, King Hussein of the US, has advanced her baseless feelings to the contrary is irrelevant... she doesn't get to change the meaning of words for political purposes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What? No snappy comebacks? No faux righteous moral indignation?

LOL... Leftists...

You either say nothing or too much. Its hard to reply to you. That doesn't make you right or smart.

Yes... Mother Irony can be a real bitch, can't she?

 

[Iriemon]

What? No snappy comebacks? No faux righteous moral indignation?

LOL... Leftists...

OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.

OK?

ROFLMNAO... So, The Lord of the Idiots concludes that water-boarding is TORTURE... but of course she also concludes that there is a RIGHT by the poor, which entitles them to the product of the labor of others, to subsidize them....

And like her conclusion regarding water-boarding being torture, she is unable to provide a sound intellectual basis for such...

Just as the British who were being bombed in WW2 were holding 200 prisoners and didn't torture them... which would be an excellent point, if those prisoners were high value officers of the Nazi Party, where there might have been some similarity to the current circumstances... but they weren't...

Anyone who thinks that the British would not have used coersive methods to induce cooperation from a flag officer of the Nazi Military is simply suffering from a level of ignorance which borders on delusion.

The US isn't TORTURING ANYONE... and that The Lord of the Idiots, King Hussein of the US, has advanced her baseless feelings to the contrary is irrelevant... she doesn't get to change the meaning of words for political purposes.

If it is not torture, it can be legitimately used by law enforcement for interrogations against US citizens.

"Didn't pay your taxes, eh? Say you have no money, eh? We'll see about that!

Where'd you hide that bonus money??!?!?"

Gurgle gurgle gurgle.

 

[catzmeow]

And like her conclusion regarding water-boarding being torture, she is unable to provide a sound intellectual basis for such...

Sorry you apparently missed this, Sis.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...legal-precedents-regarding-waterboarding.html

If waterboarding isn't torture, why did the Reagan-era justice department prosecute 4 officers from a Texas Sheriff's Department for the practice? They were charged with felonies and served time in federal prison.

 

[DamnYankee]

Andrew Sullivan lays it out in such a way that (hopefully), even the diehard partisans can get it:

Manzi asks the question. I approach this from the just war tradition in which war, however vile, is sometimes defensible against a greater evil. Torture, however, is never moral or defensible under any circumstances. Why? It has to do, I believe, with autonomy. An enemy soldier that you are battling in combat remains autonomous (and potentially dangerous) until the moment of capture or surrender. At that point, his autonomy ends, as he is in captivity, unable to cause you further harm. And the infliction of severe pain or violence on someone who is thereby defenseless carries a much deeper moral weight than a fair or even unfair fight.

We all know this intuitively. It is the difference between two boys duking it out on a playground and a gang of boys restraining one while another beats the crap out of him. Torture is a form of cowardice and a form of cruelty, which is inherently different than the sometimes necessary evil of just warfare. My best attempt at expaining the relationship between torture and freedom, and why torture can only endure in unfree societies, is from 2005:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Why is this so difficult to understand that we have a couple of dozen threads attempting to justify this practice?

For the record: I'm not a liberal. I voted for W - TWICE. I'm not a pacifist. I work in a law enforcement field. So, spare me the prejudgements.

Considering the number of self-described conservatives who are anti the practice, there are no such pre-judgments here.

Please allow an equally dispassionate rebuttal however.

"...It is true that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was detained in February 2002. According press accounts, his name was Marsan bin Arshad. What is also demonstrably true is that the captured terrorist did not lead us to the members of the cell tasked with carrying out the West Coast plot. Indeed, when KSM was captured 13 months later in March of 2003 almost all of the key operatives in the plot were still at large and operating with impunity.
This is what happened next:
(President's Speech on the Global War on Terror)

. * In March of 2003, the CIA captured another key operative in the West Coast plot a terrorist named Majid Khan.

. * When KSM was captured later that same month, he knew that Khan was in CIA custody and assumed that Khan had given us the details of the West Coast plot.

. * KSM refused to provide any information about active plots, telling his interrogators: Soon you will find out.

. * After undergoing enhanced-interrogation techniques, KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a terrorist named Hambali the leader of al-Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate Jemmah Islamiyah and KSMs partner in developing the West Coast plot.

. * CIA officers then confronted Khan with this information from KSM. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair. He provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative which led to the capture of Zubair in June 2003.

. * Zubair then provided information that led to the capture of Hambali in August 2003, along with another key operative, a JI terrorist named Bashir bin Lep (aka Lillie).

. * Told of Hambali's capture, KSM then identified Hambali's younger brother Rusman Gunawan (aka "Gun Gun") as Hambali's conduit for communications with al-Qaeda, and the leader of the JI cell that was to carry out the West Coast plot. This information led to the capture of Gun Gun in September 2003 in Pakistan.

. * Hambali's brother then gave us information that led to a cell of 17 JI operatives the Guraba Cell that was going to carry out the West Coast plot.

All of these operatives were captured because of information gained from the interrogation of KSM using enhanced interrogation techniques.

To buy Noahs argument that the plot was over before KSMs capture, you would have to accept that premise that if Zubair and Hambali and Lillie and Gun Gun and the 17-member Guraba cell were all left at large and unmolested, they would not have eventually carried out the West Coast plot.

 

[catzmeow]

All of these operatives were captured because of information gained from the interrogation of KSM using enhanced interrogation techniques.

Not according to other sources, such as the FBI. You are relying upon an already discredited CIA source, dude.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie -- you express yourself very well and of course I respect your opinion. Would you be willing to answer my simple questions?

If Ben Laden had been captured and waterboarding him prevented the 9-11 attacks would you be for waterboarding?

So you are saying that OBL was captured before 9/11/01 and that if we had captured him and waterboarded him for information about his plans would I be for the practice?

OBL was accused of prior crimes against the U.S. If he had been captured, I would have been for him being prosecuted and imprisoned until Hell froze over. I would not have been for torturing him simply to see if he had any future plans.

If your answer is "No" then if waterboarding a prisoner prevented the death of your spouse or child would you be for it? If that answer is "No" then you are truly against waterboarding.

I would like to know how waterboarding a prisoner would save the life of my child. Do you mean that it would prevent a terrorist attack in which my child might be a victim? What if questions like that are almost impossible to answer. Of course, I would want to protect the life of my child, but, no where in this thread have I ever stated that I would not want to protect the lives of my fellow citizens either.

Torturing individuals simply because they might know something is completely unacceptable.

If you answered "Yes" to either question, then you are for waterboarding.

Just be truthful to yourself

As for whether or not I am for waterboarding, I would not say that I am against it as much as I am against the torture of people who may not be guilty of any crime. For instance, on sites such as this, I have discussed the death penalty with people too. At one time, I was a staunch supporter of the death penalty, but then as I determined that too many men have been found to be innocent years after a conviction, I began to have second thoughts. I'm still for the death penalty when there is absolutely no doubt at all that the convicted murderer is guilty, but when it comes to evidence that might later be proven to be innocent, I've got a big problem with that. To put it bluntly, if there is the possibility that one innocent man is executed, I'm going to be opposed to the death penalty.

Having been falsely accused of a crime (minor one, but still a crime) I for one am hesitant to let the accuser be judge, jury and executioner as is the case in the torture of these prisoners.

So saving lives isn't a function of your equation... or the opinion of those you've elected to make such decisions... thus you don't understand the function of a representative republic...

You take what I say out of context. No where did I say saving lives was not important. Nor did I say we should not do everything possible to save American lives.

When ya said this...


You stand by your principles and apparently your principles do NOT including inducing cooperation out of inviduals who are plotting to murder innocent people; that there's a line you WILL NEVER CROSS, EVEN WHEN THOSE YOU ELECTED TELL YOU THAT THIS LINE NEEDS TO BE CROSSED TO SAVE LIVES... thus you are NOT willing to do 'everything possible to save Americans lives.'

And just how do you know that these individuals are plotting to murder innocent people? Do you have a crystal ball?

Also, I never said there was a line I would never cross. I can be opposed to something, but realize that there are exceptions to every rule. Abortion is one of those cases. I'm staunchly pro-life, but if it comes to the truthful point that it is either the mother's life or the child's life, I'm all for Mom making the choice and if a 13 year old girl is raped and ends up pregnant? Well, sometimes rules need to be held to reasonable accountability.

I've been around long enough that you should know my now that I don't believe a damned thing an elected official tells me, not a damned thing unless I see it for myself.

You might trust everything people like Richard Clarke, George Bush, Dick Cheney and the likes tell you. They have lost my trust. They could tell me that the sky was blue and that the sun was very hot and I would question those facts.

Immie, that's you saying that you aren't going to make mass murderers uncomfortable, if that is what it takes to spare innocent life and defend sound, sustainable, sacred human rights.

So RIGHT off the bat, you're disembling; as I was sure ya would.

disembling? Spelled wrong. Not trying to correct your spelling, But I'm not sure what you are saying there.

No, you are wrong. And the first place that you are wrong is in your statement about "mass murderers". These people that are being tortured are prisoners. They have not been convicted, nor have they been accused of mass murder. Simply because they are Muslim does not mean they are terrorists or murderers.

They are suspected of being enemy combatants against the U.S. Suspected does not mean guilty. So, yes, I have a problem with torturing every Muslim simply because he is a Muslim and fell into the hands of the U.S. Military.

Again... you run to a standard which is not in play... This is a war... and we are NOT TRYING TO PROSECUTE THESE PEOPLE, IMMIE!

For them to be CONVICTED of mass murder, what has to happen? Do they NOT HAVE TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

We're trying to STOP THEM FROM SUCCESSFULLY CARRYING OUT THEIR OVERT, INTENTIONAL, MOST SINCERE INTENTIONS OF MURDERING MASSIVE NUMBERS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... For which they are guilty, THE MOMENT THEY COMMENCE THE PROCESS. All a conviction does is adjudicate that guilt; to note it for the record that THEY DID SO... Guilt is not purely a legal term, it is a moral term... it is established as upon initiation.

So, let me get this straight. In the quote two above this one, you state emphatically that they are mass murderers and in this quote you state that they are not mass murders... at least not yet. But they might be someday? And since they might be someday, that justifies torturing them to see if they might be?

That goes back to my question, do you torture the middle school student who's father owns guns and who's girlfriend just dumped him simply because he might go to school tomorrow with guns and murder 30 students and a couple of teachers?

Criminal sanctions are a DEFENSIVE MEANS OF PUNISHMENT... We are not interrogating these people to punish them... and I think that you believe that this is what is happening... that Special Operators are delivering a little 'what for...' above and beyond what the Justice System has set up for them...

No, you would be wrong with what you believe. I believe that the interrogators are attempting to find information that they believe will stop the next 9/11 attack. As I said before when I mentioned the death penalty, if they could guarantee that the person whom they are torturing had some knowledge about future plans, I would not have so much problem with it. Unfortunately, choosing detainees Willy Nilly to damned near drown doesn't fit that bill.

Crime Rate Comparison: New York Vs. Los Angeles

According to the above link, the murder rate in L.A. is 12.4 murders per 1,000 population. Would you propose torturing every citizen in L.A. knowing that you will stop 12.4 murders/1,000 people?

Are you willing to save those lives by torturing everyone in L.A.?

Not the case at all; these detainees are not in the custody of the justice department; they're not conventional troops of a foreign sovereign being held as Prisoners of War; they are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS who are associated with other illegal combatants who have joined together for only one purpose: TO MURDER AS MANY INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS AS IS WITHIN THEIR MEANS...

Wrong, they are people who have been captured as potential illegal combatants. In many of their cases, there is not a damned bit of evidence to state that they are even opposed to the U.S. There is not a damned bit of evidence to state that they even spit in the direction of a U.S. Soldier, yet they are being held as prisoners and some are being tortured.

We're not seeking to convict them of anything; as vociferously noted above, we're debreifing them to garner information to PROACTIVELY PREVENT THEIR ASSOCIATES WHICH ARE NOT IN US CUSTODY FROM CARRYING OUT THEIR PLANS TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE; and if making them most uncomfortable is necessary to induce their cooperation; that is THEIR PROBLEM... Don't want to be made most uncomfortable: DON'T GO TO WAR WITH US... DON'T JOIN ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IS TO MURDER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE...

You are assuming that they have gone to war with us as opposed to having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wrong... While this is not a criminal prosecution, it is a prosecution and guilt has been established... thus is the nature of PROSECUTING A WAR.

Right... guilt by association!

What happens when President Obama starts waging war against the Pro-life movement? You are guilty because you gave money to Operation Rescue back in 1993! Time to put you one the back board and poor massive amounts of water down your throat hoping that you might just tell us something we don't already know.

If what you say it true and there is a moral imperative that such individuals can only be guilty in the wake of a full trial of fact, where a jury of their peers finds them guilty; where's the moral authority to drop tons of hardened-steel wrapped high explosive on them... vaporizing or tearing them to shreads? Where do we get the moral authority to do this?>>>

Well, where did I say we had that moral authority?

First, I think the Bush Administration screwed up terribly. This is not a war that can be won by dropping bombs on Baghdad and corralling our soldiers in the middle of the city of Baghdad, painting targets on their backs and waiting for the terrorists to come to us. This is a war that can only be won by weeding out the terrorists and killing them on site. Now, I realize you are going to say that the only way this can be done is by torturing innocent people until we find the right ones, but that is unacceptable. If that is the only way this war can be won, then we should never have begun waging it.

http://www.navlog.org/iraqinight.wmv

Now that is video of a AC130 Gunship smoking terrorists without a criminal conviction by a US court...


Gray shadows standing next to their vehicle, chatting it up... dropping items suspected of being weapons on the ground; GUILTY... Blown to bits...

Haven't watched the video yet, so can't comment yet.

But, I've never been to Iraq. My understanding is that if you want to survive anywhere in the Middle East these days, you damned well had better be carrying a very big gun whenever you walk through your front door. Carrying a gun is not evidence of being an enemy combatant.

Now using the SAME SPECIES OF REASONING YOU'RE USING TO PREVENT INTERROGATIONS TO CULL TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATON TO SPARE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE... where's the moral authority derived to execute those gray human beings in that field?

I don't know, you tell me. You are the one that believes it exists. Not me.

Immie

PS I'm enjoying the conversation and the pleasant tones you took in this post. We may disagree on this... and I may be wrong (but I don't think so)... but we can at least discuss it like two adults without all the name calling.

 

[Old Rocks]

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts." Bottom line: Sen. McCain was right in 2007 and National Review Online is wrong today. America did execute Japanese war criminals

Paul Begala: Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I believe the left wing lunatics will happily let millions die.. and not blink an eye,, feeling all sanctimonious and shit..

What are babbling about? Why does the pro-violence right always spew nonsense?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

As for whether or not I am for waterboarding, I would not say that I am against it as much as I am against the torture of people who may not be guilty of any crime. For instance, on sites such as this, I have discussed the death penalty with people too. At one time, I was a staunch supporter of the death penalty, but then as I determined that too many men have been found to be innocent years after a conviction, I began to have second thoughts. I'm still for the death penalty when there is absolutely no doubt at all that the convicted murderer is guilty, but when it comes to evidence that might later be proven to be innocent, I've got a big problem with that. To put it bluntly, if there is the possibility that one innocent man is executed, I'm going to be opposed to the death penalty.

Having been falsely accused of a crime (minor one, but still a crime) I for one am hesitant to let the accuser be judge, jury and executioner as is the case in the torture of these prisoners.

You persists in this ruse, that Detainees are being held for trial... that they're being charged with a violation of a criminal statute... that they enjoy the presumption of innocence...

In reality the detainees are none of the above...

Detainees are being detained for two purposes... first is to be interrogated to cull information from them towards preventing their associates from carrying out their plots to murder massive numbers of innocent human beings... Second is to prevent them from participating and thus further enabling those plots.

Detainees are presumed guilty... and are NOT being interrogated to determine their guilt or to gather evidence which will be used to try them.

Detainees are irregular prisoners of war; who are being treated at levels well above the levels which they richly deserve... and while you erroneously 'feel' that stress inducing interrogations techniques are a form of punishment, it is not... it is a means to induce them to be forthcoming with the timesensitive, critical information which is being sought...

And just how do you know that these individuals are plotting to murder innocent people? Do you have a crystal ball?

By their history, their actions and their associations... all a function of the information which supports that assertion, which lead to their detainment...

Also, I never said there was a line I would never cross. I can be opposed to something, but realize that there are exceptions to every rule. Abortion is one of those cases. I'm staunchly pro-life, but if it comes to the truthful point that it is either the mother's life or the child's life, I'm all for Mom making the choice and if a 13 year old girl is raped and ends up pregnant? Well, sometimes rules need to be held to reasonable accountability.

I completely agree... and the reason for such exceptions are founded in immutable principle. There is only one valid moral justification for the taking of a human life... and that is in the defense of one's own life... or the life of another, from the clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury...

Where the pre-born child threatens the life of the mother... or where the mother is raped... the mother's life is threatened... thus, despite the fetus not being responsible for the threat, the Mother is justified under such conditions...

The list of rules which come with interrogating these people are endless...

And if there is no means to recognize the exception to the general rule which otherwise precludes 'torture,' where circumstances require such to SAVE INNOCENT LIFE WHICH IS AT RISK; AND WHERE THE INFORMATION WHICH THE DETAINEE IS REASONABLY BELIEVED TO POSSESS WHICH IS TIME SENSITIVE TO SPARE THOSE LIVES... then there's no means to ever recognize an exception due to the context of the extenuating circumstances of a given situation.

IF it is justifiable to take the life of an COMPLETELY INNOCENT HUMAN BEING who threatens the life of its own MOTHER... HOW IN THE HELL CAN IT NOT BE JUSTIFIABLE TO INDUCE STRESS ONTO SOMEONE WHO IS OVERTLY PARTICIPATING IN ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE ACTIVELY PLANNING AND EXECUTING ATTACKS ON PEOPLE WHO, WHILE INNOCENT, ARE NO WHERE NEAR AS INNOCENT AS THOSE PRE-BORN CHILDREN WE'RE PREPARED TO KILL TO SPARE THE MOTHER'S LIFE?

I've been around long enough that you should know my now that I don't believe a damned thing an elected official tells me, not a damned thing unless I see it for myself.

Well sportsfan, that's fine, but since you're not in a position to judge every situation for yourself, through your own investigation, then this debate is moot... we're debating the principles... and the viability of the policies... not one detainee is going to be spared interrogation or be subject to stress inducement by what's said here...

And the first place that you are wrong is in your statement about "mass murderers". These people that are being tortured are prisoners. They have not been convicted, nor have they been accused of mass murder. Simply because they are Muslim does not mean they are terrorists or murderers.

Wrong... You're applying the standards of criminal trial... the detainees are not being held for trial; the interrogations are not designed to gather information which will be used against them at trial... and they most definitely do not enjoy the presumption of innocence...

They are suspected of being enemy combatants against the U.S. Suspected does not mean guilty. So, yes, I have a problem with torturing every Muslim simply because he is a Muslim and fell into the hands of the U.S. Military.

Sweet strawman... No one here has advanced the notion that everymuslim should be tortured... no one has even advanced the notion that the detainees should be tortured... stress induced coercive interrogation is not torture... it is stress being induced to encourage compliance...

That goes back to my question, do you torture the middle school student who's father owns guns and who's girlfriend just dumped him simply because he might go to school tomorrow with guns and murder 30 students and a couple of teachers?

The issue here is context... A middle school student who father owns guns is not a threat to the very fabric of civilization... they are not a member of an association whose only tactic is the mass murder of innocent human beings...

The Detainees are exactly that... and those who are subject to stress induced coercive interrogation are believed to possess information which will spare the lives of innocent people...

It's a morally justifiable action and this is without regard to your feelings on the issue.

If you can show where it's NOT morally justified, fine, I'll consider such an argument... but I will not accept any argument which is framed within the context of those detainees being held for criminal trial, or which provides for them, the necessarily high standards common to such.