Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[Iriemon]

You're an imbecile... and most decidedly: part of the problem.

In your opinion.

And a weak one at that.

Everyone is an imbicile or moron or idiot if they don't agree with PI's view of the world.

Folks can decide for themselves who is part of the problem. I know what I'd decide.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't find anything difficult in your position to understand. You believe that sometimes torture is okay when the end justifies the means and that is should be legal.

You also seem to believe that because our torture methods are not as bad as some of those used by others that we are somehow being moral about it.

I get it and I still disagree. I think it makes us no better than our enemies.

Ahh... well sure.. You've just stated that stressing someone who is overtly enaged in mass murder, for the purposes of PREVENTING MASS MURDER is the moral equivilent OF Mass Murder...

I think using torture is sinking to their level.

You're an imbecile... and most decidedly: part of the problem.

In your opinion.

It's a demonstrable fact...

You equated inducing stress onto the detanees, who are reasonbly known to be associated with and overtly engaged in, the murder of innocent people, as their SOLE tactic... people who threaten the very FABRIC of CIVILIZATION, with MASS MURDER...

Such a conclusion is wholly devoid of reason, it strips the equation of essential context and as such represents the addle-minded notions of a prattling fool...

That sis, is not even potentially debatable... it is an immutable fact and that you find yourself humiliated by your personification of that fact, HARDLY even begins to contest it.

 

[Article 15]

Ahh... well sure.. You've just stated that stressing someone who is overtly enaged in mass murder, for the purposes of PREVENTING MASS MURDER is the moral equivilent OF Mass Murder...

I think using torture is sinking to their level.

You're an imbecile... and most decidedly: part of the problem.

In your opinion.

It's a demonstrable fact...

You equated inducing stress onto the detanees, who are reasonbly known to be associated with and overtly engaged in, the murder of innocent people, as their SOLE tactic... people who threaten the very FABRIC of CIVILIZATION, with MASS MURDER...

Such a conclusion is wholly devoid of reason, it strips the equation of essential context and as such represents the addle-minded notions of a prattling fool...

That sis, is not even potentially debatable... it is an immutable fact and that you find yourself humiliated by your personification of that fact, HARDLY even begins to contest it.

IMO, by torturing people we are stooping to our enemy's level, in that sense we are no better than they are. That's how I feel and I stand by it.

You can extrapolate whatever you want out of it because frankly, I don't give a rats what you think.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I think using torture is sinking to their level.



In your opinion.

It's a demonstrable fact...

You equated inducing stress onto the detanees, who are reasonbly known to be associated with and overtly engaged in, the murder of innocent people, as their SOLE tactic... people who threaten the very FABRIC of CIVILIZATION, with MASS MURDER...

Such a conclusion is wholly devoid of reason, it strips the equation of essential context and as such represents the addle-minded notions of a prattling fool...

That sis, is not even potentially debatable... it is an immutable fact and that you find yourself humiliated by your personification of that fact, HARDLY even begins to contest it.

IMO, by torturing people we are stooping to our enemy's level, in that sense we are no better than they are. That's how I feel and I stand by it.

You can extrapolate whatever you want out of it because frankly, I don't give a rats what you think.

Art... You can repeat that ad nauseum and its never going amount to valid argument...

And this is because your equating the word 'torture' to stress techiques which do NOT equate to the concept that you're wanting to apply through the use of that word...

I've posted numerous videos which demonstrate actual torture, of the variety to which you're eluding... and the other idiots have all returned to report that even with their limited intellectual means, they have deduced that the TORTURE being demonstrated in those videos are VASTLY more brutal, than the endlessly noted stress techniques... they just want, as do you, to equate demonstrably inequitable treatements, so as to continue to refer to them as torture...

It's absurd... and given the context in which the interrogation is being realized, it is dumbfoundingly absurd...

 

[Article 15]

It's a demonstrable fact...

You equated inducing stress onto the detanees, who are reasonbly known to be associated with and overtly engaged in, the murder of innocent people, as their SOLE tactic... people who threaten the very FABRIC of CIVILIZATION, with MASS MURDER...

Such a conclusion is wholly devoid of reason, it strips the equation of essential context and as such represents the addle-minded notions of a prattling fool...

That sis, is not even potentially debatable... it is an immutable fact and that you find yourself humiliated by your personification of that fact, HARDLY even begins to contest it.

IMO, by torturing people we are stooping to our enemy's level, in that sense we are no better than they are. That's how I feel and I stand by it.

You can extrapolate whatever you want out of it because frankly, I don't give a rats what you think.

Art... You can repeat that ad nauseum and its never going amount to valid argument...

And this is because your equating the word 'torture' to stress techiques which do NOT equate to the concept that you're wanting to apply through the use of that word...

I've posted numerous videos which demonstrate actual torture, of the variety to which you're eluding... and the other idiots have all returned to report that even with their limited intellectual means, they have deduced that the TORTURE being demonstrated in those videos are VASTLY more brutal, than the endlessly noted stress techniques... they just want, as do you, to equate demonstrably inequitable treatements, so as to continue to refer to them as torture...

It's absurd... and given the context in which the interrogation is being realized, it is dumbfoundingly absurd...

I never said that our methods and our enemy's methods were on par with each other. In fact I said that the torture methods our enemies use are worse than the torture methods that we have used. But it's the same underlying principle of state sponsored torture that makes them one and the same to me. If you commit torture on somebody IMO you should answer for it in court no matter who you are and for no matter what reason you commit it. You can try to use all the different more "PC" ways to describe the torture practices we used all you want but the bottom line is that it's torture, there is no two ways around it. It's been prosecuted as such in the past and should be continue to be prosecuted today. I will repeat what I said about this earlier in the thread as you snipped it out of my post when you tried to steer the talk to your opinion that I am some kind of a moron.

Here it is:

I am not willing to give the state that kind of authority. I think it should be illegal and if someone breaks that law then they should find themselves in court answering for their actions. Maybe they will have a "24" scenario story and the court will go lenient on them ... maybe the POTUS will commute their sentence or pardon them if they were under some extraordinary circumstances and the end did in fact justify the means.. Maybe not. Maybe there was no "24" scenario and they were just probing for information and using torture to do so. In that case there is no end to justify the means, in that case the court probably wont show leniency, and the POTUS wont make that call.

And that's it. No amount blather from you is going to make me change my position on this issue. You can holler that I'm wrong or imbecile for holding these positions all you want ... it doesn't make it true. It's merely your opinion ... and like I said, I could give a rats what your opinion is.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

IMO, by torturing people we are stooping to our enemy's level, in that sense we are no better than they are. That's how I feel and I stand by it.

You can extrapolate whatever you want out of it because frankly, I don't give a rats what you think.

Art... You can repeat that ad nauseum and its never going amount to valid argument...

And this is because your equating the word 'torture' to stress techiques which do NOT equate to the concept that you're wanting to apply through the use of that word...

I've posted numerous videos which demonstrate actual torture, of the variety to which you're eluding... and the other idiots have all returned to report that even with their limited intellectual means, they have deduced that the TORTURE being demonstrated in those videos are VASTLY more brutal, than the endlessly noted stress techniques... they just want, as do you, to equate demonstrably inequitable treatements, so as to continue to refer to them as torture...

It's absurd... and given the context in which the interrogation is being realized, it is dumbfoundingly absurd...

I never said that our methods and our enemy's methods were on par with each other. In fact I said that the torture methods our enemies use are worse than the torture methods that we have used. But it's the same underlying principle of state sponsored torture that makes them one and the same to me.

Nope Art, ya can't have your cake and eat it too...

If the two issues are not the same, ya can't admit that and then run to equate the two; 'in principle'... as the principles at issue are wholly distinct.


One serves to inflict physical destruction for the sake of physical destruction...to punish as a form of demonstrating to others what happens to people who deserve such punishment... the other serves to induce stress... for the sake of serving a moral imperative.

Nothing remote similar; apples and anvils...


Your argument faisl Arty... completely... utterly fails.

 

[Article 15]

Art... You can repeat that ad nauseum and its never going amount to valid argument...

And this is because your equating the word 'torture' to stress techiques which do NOT equate to the concept that you're wanting to apply through the use of that word...

I've posted numerous videos which demonstrate actual torture, of the variety to which you're eluding... and the other idiots have all returned to report that even with their limited intellectual means, they have deduced that the TORTURE being demonstrated in those videos are VASTLY more brutal, than the endlessly noted stress techniques... they just want, as do you, to equate demonstrably inequitable treatements, so as to continue to refer to them as torture...

It's absurd... and given the context in which the interrogation is being realized, it is dumbfoundingly absurd...

I never said that our methods and our enemy's methods were on par with each other. In fact I said that the torture methods our enemies use are worse than the torture methods that we have used. But it's the same underlying principle of state sponsored torture that makes them one and the same to me.

Nope Art, ya can't have your cake and eat it too...

If the two issues are not the same, ya can't admit that and then run to equate the two; 'in principle'... as the principles at issue are wholly distinct.


One serves to inflict physical destruction for the sake of physical destruction...to punish as a form of demonstrating to others what happens to people who deserve such punishment... the other serves to induce stress... for the sake of serving a moral imperative.

Nothing remote similar; apples and anvils...


Your argument faisl Arty... completely... utterly fails.

Yeah, I get it ... you disagree and don't see it the same way I do.

That's twice now that you have ignored my position on what our torture policy should be. I can only assume that your non response is another default concession and will be duly noted as such.

 

[JBeukema]

Moral Relativism/Pragmatism Vs. Values and Principles...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I never said that our methods and our enemy's methods were on par with each other. In fact I said that the torture methods our enemies use are worse than the torture methods that we have used. But it's the same underlying principle of state sponsored torture that makes them one and the same to me.

Nope Art, ya can't have your cake and eat it too...

If the two issues are not the same, ya can't admit that and then run to equate the two; 'in principle'... as the principles at issue are wholly distinct.


One serves to inflict physical destruction for the sake of physical destruction...to punish as a form of demonstrating to others what happens to people who deserve such punishment... the other serves to induce stress... for the sake of serving a moral imperative.

Nothing remote similar; apples and anvils...


Your argument faisl Arty... completely... utterly fails.

Yeah, I get it ... you disagree and don't see it the same way I do.

That's twice now that you have ignored my position on what our torture policy should be. I can only assume that your non response is another default concession and will be duly noted as such.

LOL... No Art, I have addressed your opinion which requires that any form of stress which is applied to those who hold key information to pending attacks on innocent people be absurdly classified as 'torture' and in so doing be irrationally equated with the breaking of bone, the decoupling of joints and digits and burning flech and muscle... where depriving those who are plotting to murder massive numbers of innocent people ,of sleep, is said to be TORTURE... so you can rest on a faux since of moral superiority, as you promote the interests of that enemy to Civilization itself...

No Art... I do not accept you equating apples to anvils so you can claim that your political opposition is guilty of TORTURE...

You claim you do not want 'to give the government the right to torture...' when such is not even on the table... when no one has so much as suggested such...

But the simple fact is that you, nor I, nor anyone else can 'give the government the right' to defend us and not give them the authority to use the power available to them to do that job... Ya see they have that right, without your permission, because they are people; they are citizens and they are all in possession of human rights, and as a result they have the responsibilities that come with those rights... and where a person is in a position to stop an attack on innocent people, and that which stands between that attack and stopping it is a person who holds information which can stop it... and there are available to them, the means to put sufficient stress on those individuals, to induce their being forthcoming with that information... it is their duty, born of their responsibility to defend innocent life, thus the human right to that life.

You simply want to equate the least injurous forms of stress to the MOST INJUROUS forms of stress... and declare it ALL: "ILLEGAL."

In effect criminalizing the responsibility inherent in valid and sustainable human rights to defend those rights...

Which requires that the other forms of such a defense be amplified... Where civilian populations must be all but destroyed, to ferret out those who wage war upon it, and whose primary defense is to hide within it... forcing exponentially GREATER LEVELS OF DESTRUCTION and exponentially GREATER LEVELS OF DEATH; which, in classic irony, using your definition of torture, would be torture on a unimaginable scale; and forced upon civilization by the secular left and their twisted, irrational notions of 'fairness.'

I agree, as all reasonable, moral human beings do, that there are many activities, which are appropriate in one circumstance but not in another; that where such is not appropriate, that there are valid grounds for making such which is inappropriate illegal; thus consequential in defined terms.

Such as that physical contact which is perfectly appropriate in sports... such is not suitable, almost anywhere else, except the field... but we do not determine that each time a defensive back throws the full mass of his 270 lb frame onto the 210 lb frame of a QB, that the DB should be arrested, the evidence of the individual circumstances tried and guilt adjudicated or innocense declared... as the contact is appropriate in the circumstances which they were applied.
Now certainly there are feminized opinions all over this world which determine that such contact is perfectly abhorant and should be illegal without exception.

But reasonable people do not lend them any more credence than I lend to the same opinion your projecting on this field... where individuals have suited up to wage war on the US, have established their offensive playbook and have executed those plays... and who you feel should be deemed untouchable when they find themselves on the defense...

US Interrogation techniques are not 'torture' Art... not in the context in which they are applied, against those they are being implemented upon. No more so than that Defensive Back smashing that QB into the ground is torture in the midst of the game; which if the DB did the SAME THING to the QB in the parking LOT, would most decidely be inappropriate and incontestably ILLEGAL...

You want to project that The Americans, are openly justifying behavior which is equitable with the worst treatment possible of human beings... You use the word which evokes sadistic punishment, inhuman treatment of the innocent, of the defenseless... and when shown graphic recordings of just that, you freely admit that what the US is doing is 'not that,' then in the same breath, you run to declare that which was JUST DECLARED DISTINCT, to be the same thing...

No one is suggesting we endorse this level of interrogation for ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON; we are simply saying that THIS LEVEL OF STRESS IS APPROPRIATEt where the individuals at issue are players who are secretly planning and executing DEVASTATING ATTACKS ON INNOCENT PEOPLE... and where such is the case, those individuals are NOT in possession of human rights, as their actions have resulted in the forfeiture of those rights... due to their failure to responsibly exercise those rights.

You further want to project that the only suitable arbirter of the appropriateness... of such circumstances is the US Judiciary... which provides for a power which is NOT within their constitutional authority and is NOT within their purvue of expertise, or within the reasonable bounds of the very circumstances themselves... as such, by logical extension, would be required in every instance of contest, from the authorization of the infantry rifle team, up to every bomb dropped and missile launched... your position projects that the only source of valid reasoning is the Judiciary; and that is a notion which is far more dangerous than depriving even the most innocent among us, of sleep...

And speaking of the most innocent among us... I find it HYSTERICAL, that you, an advocate of the wholesale slaughter of pre-born humanity are even TRYING to take a moral position which spares those engaged in MASS MURDER, the slightest discomfort... you DEMAND A RIGHT to take the life of a human being that has absolutely NO MEANS to defend itself; has not offended ANYONE... has never even drawn a breath... even while you stand on what you feel is the principle, that no man should be subjected to the slightest stress, even as THEY PLOT TO DESTROY THE POST-BORN LIFE WHICH YOU'RE PRESENTLY CONTIPLATING HOLDING UP AS SACRED ABOVE THE PRE-BORN and all else.

Which conclusively proves the dysfunctional composition of your reasoning...

So feel free Arty, to jot a two sentence denial Art... project the awesome weight of your opinion, which you feel that by your mere possession of that opinion, that such trumps all other reason... and that those with whom you come to contests, should just concede to your little opinion, because after all 'one persons opinion is just as valid as the next…'

Bad news on that one Art... one person's opinion is not just as valid as the next...as opinions are measured by the value of their depth and the soundness and validity of their reasoning; and your opinion, which rests on little more than the obtuse demand that 'torture is torture and should be illegal' is a first class example of the least of those ‘less valuable.’

 

[Iriemon]

Moral Relativism/Pragmatism Vs. Values and Principles...

And what is ironic is that the folks on the right who usually claim to be the standards of American values and principles are the one using moral relavism here.

 

[Iriemon]

...

And speaking of the most innocent among us... I find it HYSTERICAL, that you, an advocate of the wholesale slaughter of pre-born humanity are even TRYING to take a moral position which spares those engaged in MASS MURDER, the slightest discomfort... you DEMAND A RIGHT to take the life of a human being that has absolutely NO MEANS to defend itself; has not offended ANYONE... has never even drawn a breath... even while you stand on what you feel is the principle, that no man should be subjected to the slightest stress, even as THEY PLOT TO DESTROY THE POST-BORN LIFE WHICH YOU'RE PRESENTLY CONTIPLATING HOLDING UP AS SACRED ABOVE THE PRE-BORN and all else.

One could find it eqally hysterical that someone who objects to aborting a embryo on grounds of moral principle in turn justifies torturing people who have been found guilty of nothing because other groups (terrorists, IJA, Gestapo, Khmer Rouge) have done it worse.

 

[Article 15]

Nope Art, ya can't have your cake and eat it too...

If the two issues are not the same, ya can't admit that and then run to equate the two; 'in principle'... as the principles at issue are wholly distinct.


One serves to inflict physical destruction for the sake of physical destruction...to punish as a form of demonstrating to others what happens to people who deserve such punishment... the other serves to induce stress... for the sake of serving a moral imperative.

Nothing remote similar; apples and anvils...


Your argument faisl Arty... completely... utterly fails.

Yeah, I get it ... you disagree and don't see it the same way I do.

That's twice now that you have ignored my position on what our torture policy should be. I can only assume that your non response is another default concession and will be duly noted as such.

LOL... No Art, I have addressed your opinion which requires that any form of stress which is applied to those who hold key information to pending attacks on innocent people be absurdly classified as 'torture' and in so doing be irrationally equated with the breaking of bone, the decoupling of joints and digits and burning flech and muscle... where depriving those who are plotting to murder massive numbers of innocent people ,of sleep, is said to be TORTURE... so you can rest on a faux since of moral superiority, as you promote the interests of that enemy to Civilization itself...

I never said denying someone sleep was torture. I said waterboarding is torture. Let's stick to my own statements not imaginary ones, k?

No Art... I do not accept you equating apples to anvils so you can claim that your political opposition is guilty of TORTURE...

This isn't about my "political opposition" this is about torture policy. Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalists, Independents ... I don't care who it is. Did you know that you have a bad habit of making stuff up as you go along?

You claim you do not want 'to give the government the right to torture...' when such is not even on the table... when no one has so much as suggested such...

But the simple fact is that you, nor I, nor anyone else can 'give the government the right' to defend us and not give them the authority to use the power available to them to do that job... Ya see they have that right, without your permission, because they are people; they are citizens and they are all in possession of human rights, and as a result they have the responsibilities that come with those rights... and where a person is in a position to stop an attack on innocent people, and that which stands between that attack and stopping it is a person who holds information which can stop it... and there are available to them, the means to put sufficient stress on those individuals, to induce their being forthcoming with that information... it is their duty, born of their responsibility to defend innocent life, thus the human right to that life.

You keep using the word "stress" where torture is the appropriate word. Your entire argument is based on redefining something to fit your position. This is why you have to go to such great lengths to try to justify yourself.

If they find themselves in that highly unlikely "24" scenario and they torture to "prevent" it then they can explain themselves in a court of law. If what they say holds true then the POTUS can pardon them otherwise they deserve to be thrown in jail just like others have in the past.

You simply want to equate the least injurous forms of stress to the MOST INJUROUS forms of stress... and declare it ALL: "ILLEGAL."

In effect criminalizing the responsibility inherent in valid and sustainable human rights to defend those rights...

Which requires that the other forms of such a defense be amplified... Where civilian populations must be all but destroyed, to ferret out those who wage war upon it, and whose primary defense is to hide within it... forcing exponentially GREATER LEVELS OF DESTRUCTION and exponentially GREATER LEVELS OF DEATH; which, in classic irony, using your definition of torture, would be torture on a unimaginable scale; and forced upon civilization by the secular left and their twisted, irrational notions of 'fairness.'

I agree, as all reasonable, moral human beings do, that there are many activities, which are appropriate in one circumstance but not in another; that where such is not appropriate, that there are valid grounds for making such which is inappropriate illegal; thus consequential in defined terms.

No, I want us to maintain the same standards we have held others too.

Such as that physical contact which is perfectly appropriate in sports... such is not suitable, almost anywhere else, except the field... but we do not determine that each time a defensive back throws the full mass of his 270 lb frame onto the 210 lb frame of a QB, that the DB should be arrested, the evidence of the individual circumstances tried and guilt adjudicated or innocense declared... as the contact is appropriate in the circumstances which they were applied.
Now certainly there are feminized opinions all over this world which determine that such contact is perfectly abhorant and should be illegal without exception.

The QB has a means to defend himself and avoid the hit ... he's got a bunch of 300lb offensive linemen there to protect him too. A strapped down blinded prisoner does not ... they are completely defenseless.

But reasonable people do not lend them any more credence than I lend to the same opinion your projecting on this field... where individuals have suited up to wage war on the US, have established their offensive playbook and have executed those plays... and who you feel should be deemed untouchable when they find themselves on the defense...

Waterboarding is against the rules in the "game" we are playing. We established that a long time ago after WWII.

US Interrogation techniques are not 'torture' Art... not in the context in which they are applied, against those they are being implemented upon. No more so than that Defensive Back smashing that QB into the ground is torture in the midst of the game; which if the DB did the SAME THING to the QB in the parking LOT, would most decidely be inappropriate and incontestably ILLEGAL...

Again, this is all meaningless because it has already been established that waterboarding is illegal ... even during war. You keep running into this fact.

You want to project that The Americans, are openly justifying behavior which is equitable with the worst treatment possible of human beings... You use the word which evokes sadistic punishment, inhuman treatment of the innocent, of the defenseless... and when shown graphic recordings of just that, you freely admit that what the US is doing is 'not that,' then in the same breath, you run to declare that which was JUST DECLARED DISTINCT, to be the same thing...

Just because someone else's methods are "worse" doesn't make what we do right. I can't beat someone up with a bat and defend myself in court by saying "hey some other guy shot and killed someone last week." I'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

No one is suggesting we endorse this level of interrogation for ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON; we are simply saying that THIS LEVEL OF STRESS IS APPROPRIATEt where the individuals at issue are players who are secretly planning and executing DEVASTATING ATTACKS ON INNOCENT PEOPLE... and where such is the case, those individuals are NOT in possession of human rights, as their actions have resulted in the forfeiture of those rights... due to their failure to responsibly exercise those rights.

You further want to project that the only suitable arbirter of the appropriateness... of such circumstances is the US Judiciary... which provides for a power which is NOT within their constitutional authority and is NOT within their purvue of expertise, or within the reasonable bounds of the very circumstances themselves... as such, by logical extension, would be required in every instance of contest, from the authorization of the infantry rifle team, up to every bomb dropped and missile launched... your position projects that the only source of valid reasoning is the Judiciary; and that is a notion which is far more dangerous than depriving even the most innocent among us, of sleep...

I want torturers to have to explain their actions ... the place to do that is in a court of law.

 

[jreeves]

Assertion:

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Evidence:

Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

Nothing in that article supports your assertion that JFK authorized waterboarding, which we can now assume is something you made up to support your position, unless you have some evidence to support it.

A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

OK....

 

[jreeves]

Whatever, dude, I'm done dealing with you. You clearly aren't brave enough to answer two very straight forward questions.

Feel free to bump this when you have a direct answer to these questions:



If you do, I will gladly continue this converstation later on this afternoon when I wake up.

I already answered these questions based on reality not in some quasi-reality world.

He asked you a simple, straightforward hypo as part of a discussion, same as you asked him.

The fact that you refused to answer is in itself an answer that you recognize your position is indefensible.

It would only appear that way to the mentally handicapped...

 

[jreeves]

I don't find anything difficult in your position to understand. You believe that sometimes torture is okay when the end justifies the means and that is should be legal.

You also seem to believe that because our torture methods are not as bad as some of those used by others that we are somehow being moral about it.

I get it and I still disagree. I think it makes us no better than our enemies.

Ahh... well sure.. You've just stated that stressing someone who is overtly enaged in mass murder, for the purposes of PREVENTING MASS MURDER is the moral equivilent OF Mass Murder...

I think using torture is sinking to their level.

You're an imbecile... and most decidedly: part of the problem.

In your opinion.

It's not torture to pour water in someones face who is responsible for the mass murder of thousands and has plans to kill thousands more. If you are pouring water in someones face just for the sake of doing it or doing it on low level suspects who may or may not have information then no I believe that crosses the line of torture.

 

[Article 15]

*snipped*

I'm sorry, wha?

Don't you have some questions to answer first?

 

[jreeves]

...

And speaking of the most innocent among us... I find it HYSTERICAL, that you, an advocate of the wholesale slaughter of pre-born humanity are even TRYING to take a moral position which spares those engaged in MASS MURDER, the slightest discomfort... you DEMAND A RIGHT to take the life of a human being that has absolutely NO MEANS to defend itself; has not offended ANYONE... has never even drawn a breath... even while you stand on what you feel is the principle, that no man should be subjected to the slightest stress, even as THEY PLOT TO DESTROY THE POST-BORN LIFE WHICH YOU'RE PRESENTLY CONTIPLATING HOLDING UP AS SACRED ABOVE THE PRE-BORN and all else.

One could find it eqally hysterical that someone who objects to aborting a embryo on grounds of moral principle in turn justifies torturing people who have been found guilty of nothing because other groups (terrorists, IJA, Gestapo, Khmer Rouge) have done it worse.

Poor KSM he only was responsible for the murders of thousands and was planning to kill thousands more. I'm sure he is happy that a libtard is looking out for his well being. You should visit prisons you would be a popular person.

 

[jreeves]

*snipped*

I'm sorry, wha?

Don't you have some questions to answer first?

Go ahead and ask a way?

 

[Article 15]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1196726-post91.html

 

[jreeves]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1196726-post91.html

1. Yes
2. Yes