He said we were morally inferior and deserved to be killed.
And what does that have to do with what you said?
Not destroying everything is not the same thing as being discriminating. We used cluster bombs on Baghdad.
You ignore that people died or went insane under our torture. Yes, I’d prefer death over being driven mad by American torture. Or sixty or so years of trauma.
It’s worse than mass murder. And being a slave owner is more like being the head of a concentration camp than it is like being a generic Nazi.
Certainly. I’d happily execute every single person in history who owned slaves.
If he had the power he would do it out of sheer malice. Because malice is what the “pro-life” movement is about. They have no concern about “murder”; they are concerned with being as cruel to women as they can get away with.
If you accept some crazy made up scenario, you have OKed torture. Then your job is decide what the proper threshold is. Bush set one pretty damn low. So you have to assuage your guilt by setting a higher one. But the act of torture is wrong.
Doing those acts to another human being is an act of evil that diminishes you. You are not the same person once you have done it. America can never go back to who we were and what we strived for. Thanks BUsh.
The London Times is the paper of record for the British Open.
I don’t quite see the difference; to my mind, stoning someone IS torture. If you qualify it by saying that torture is designed to elicit information and stoning is designed to elicit death, you are drawing a distinction that is too fine for me to follow.
I hadn’t realized you would be willing to execute everyone who ever ‘owned’ a slave, without exception and throughout history. I had thought you better than that.
So?
There’s absolutely no impact whatsoever to you or anyone else concluding that any action “is torture” in the abstract. It either violates a law to which the US or Bush is subject or it doesn’t. If you can’t show that any such law was violated, then there’s nothing to talk about.
I didn’t know that. All that more reason to be careful to differentiate, then.
Most people do not go insane from torture and many live productive lives afterwards-look at Holocaust survivors for instance.
So would you rather be a slave in an antebellum plantation as a slave or in Auschwitz? In slavery you have a chance of freedom-in death you don’t. Also most slave owners in the South owned only one or two and worked alongside them in fields.
Which shows you’re extremely unrealistic and ridiculous at best. Most slave owners in history did not know that slavery was wrong. Seriously if you were a farmer in Asia Minor or Shandong Province in 200 AD how would you know any better? What about slave owners who were going to free their slaves later on or couldn’t free their slaves due to debt? How could you trust the state to execute so many people considering you do not trust them to execute murderers? What if the slave owners felt sorry afterwards? In fact I consider it quite funny you would impose your morality via mass killings when you complain about Christians trying to establish some moral laws (abolition was at any rate advocated by evangelical Christians in the first place) Heck by your morality George Washington was eviller than Charles Manson, Thomas Jefferson more evil than Jack the Ripper. And you idea that you find joy in killing people is disturbing-I would be doing it as duty not out happiness.
Also the abolition movement was out of love and justice not revenge and punishment. I think most abolitionists including William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and others would be horrified at what you say except for John Brown and then you’d probably end up fighting over religion…
So most pro-lifers are moustache-twirling villains doing it for the “evulz”? Have you even talked to a pro-lifer or do you get your caricatures from MoveOn.org and Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s ghost?
I don’t think it’s necessarily “torture” (as that word is defined in US statutes). That’s the big cruz of why Bush is saying he did not torture anyone. So I disagree that "we can all agree that waterboarding is “torture.” I guarantee that’s the whole crux of why he believes what he believes and is being somewhat cavalier in saying what he says. It’s not cavalier if it’s legal.
Is waterboarding evil and should not be politically tolerated? Lord Yes.
(underlined your “firstly” and “secondly” to go with my 1st and 2nd)
1st - To be clear, you’re asking if we can rely on the information obtained from people who have given the info only after being waterboarded (or as you say, tortured). Answer = Dubious. Generally, no. But you can get intelligence from people using legal and/or illegal methods of interrogation. You never should use illegal methods because they are not worth the method used to gain it. YOU ARE NOW THE BAD GUY. If you don’t care about that, then yea, you can get actionable intelligence. And a lot of crap with it because you’re really not going to know/trust the point where the victim has run out of information and is just saying what you want to hear. It will depend on how quickly you can respond to the what he’s telling you and verify or disqualify it.
2nd - No. We shouldn’t.
Even if he’s telling the truth, there’s other (less severe) methods that can save the same lives he claims to have saved.
I can’t, obviously, tell you whether those methods did work on KSM. They were used; nothing has happend since they were used; but Lisa sold Homer a bear detector in Springfield and it kept the bears away. It’s really a matter of who do you trust.
Its a bad deal all the way around.
Suppose you catch somebody who actually knows something, a big guy. Of course, they notice the big guy isn’t going to church any more. They figure it out. Do they say “Don’t worry, Achmed will never talk!” No, what they do is neutralize everything Achmed knew. Whatever codes he knew, whatever safe houses he knew, whatever plots he knew are assumed to be compromised.
But of course thats what you do. You also make sure that nobody knows more than they need to, because you have to throw away anything that has been burned, or even may be burned. If you are a clandestine, revolutionary, or terrorist group, that’s what you assume if your guy is gone, and you don’t know where.
In which case, what you get out of Achmed has a shelf-life of about ten minutes. As soon they find out you’ve got him, your intelligence will consist of what was going on yesterday, but no more.
And then there’s the other scenario, that you think you’ve got a major guy, but you don’t. And of course, sooner or later, he starts making shit up so you stop hurting him. Duh. And then you spend valuable time and assets on a snipe hunt. While the real bad guys make their moves without those assets in play.
Of course, what you do then is blush, stammer, and lie. You tell everybody that this guy spilled all kinds of beans, a goldmine, you foiled fifty deadly plots and captured all 14 of the #3 ranked AlQ operatives, but you can’t give out details of your wonderful, wonderful success. Darn shame, national security.
Of course, it might work briefly if the other guy thinks you are too decent and civilized to resort to such repulsive means. But for the US, that ship has pretty much sailed.
My Lai wasn’t, I hope, a matter of policy. There were Yank servicemen who tried to stop it. Rendition & torture was policy from the very top. Don’t treat those as equivalent unless you mean to say that Bush went rogue as the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre went rogue.
I think you will find that the conservative position is that it is not torture, when we do it to others. When it is done to US military, sure then it is torture.
Now, it may be an exercise to appreciate this distinction, as it calls for a standard of moral cowardice few can hope to attain, even in a disciplined and long life. Happily for our comprehension, one need only bring the past administration fleetingly to mind and a list of examples is there.
And in fact as has been pointed out in past discussions about this, we DID call it torture when the Japanese did it to our people in WWII. And prosecuted them for it. We’ve always called these same exact techniques torture when other people did it.
British deny George Bush's claims that torture helped foil terror plots | George Bush | The Guardian Bush claims the evidence through torture save Heathrow Airport from an attack. The Brits say bull. Bush probably believes torture helped. He has to. Otherwise he authorized terrible acts that did no good.
So, your saying our men and women in the armed forces deserve to die?
Clarification: Waterboarding is not “simulated drowning.” It is drowning, except that it takes place on dry land and can be done repeatedly.
This is news to you? Der Trihs once said in a super powers thread that he would use his super powers to kill every U.S. soldier and support person in Iraq. And he is apparently okay as well with the murder of innocent Americans simply because they happen to have been born in what he considers an immoral country. The U.S. waterboards 3 people and has a presence in the Middle East, therefore from a morals standpoint in Der Trihs’ mind, it’s better that hundreds or thousands of innocent U.S. citizens die in terrorist attacks than it is to torture a terrorist in order to prevent it.
And there is not a doubt in my mind that if torture would provide the information needed to save a beloved family member (or themselves), most of the people on this board who whinge about our being rough with terrorists who indiscriminately murder innocent people would eagerly apply whatever torture was necessary themselves. And they’d be right to do so. You don’t wanna get your ass tortured? Then don’t be a terrorist. It’s just that simple.
It’s like that scene in Dirty Harry where the 14-year-old girl has been abducted, had a tooth ripped out (to send to the authorites as proof he has her) and buried underground in a box with enough air supposedly to last 24 hours or whatever. Dirty Harry grinds his boot into a knife wound in the abductor’s leg to get him to talk (the knife wound had previously been inflicted by Dirty Harry as he was being beaten by ths guy. Prefectly appropriate. And just like here, he had to contend with liberal whingebags who can’t make a distinction between the time when something like that is called for and justified and when it isn’t. They would have preferred that the girl die rather than inflict a little pain on the kidnapper.
What a Bizarro world we live in.
The problem comes if I think that torture would provide the information needed, but wouldn’t. Or if I am torturing the wrong person. And as much as a government has the ability to find out that information is flawed, even massively greater so is my ability to know these things flawed.
You don’t wanna get your ass tortured? It’s not enough to just not be a terrorist. You have to somehow ensure that the torturers have no reason to suspect your guilt. And, shockingly enough, I tend to imagine that in a situation where a beloved family member is at deadly risk, my decision-making process is going to be rather affected. How many innocent people will I be torturing and probably either maiming or killing thanks to my inexperience at torture?
I’d like your approval of my position, SA, which I think you’d agree with. Keeping torture illegal would mean that it would only be used in situations where people were incredibly certain of its usefulness, and were willing to accept the punishment for their acts. If Dirty Harry had been sure that he would be locked up for his acts, would he have weighed the life of a little girl as less than his own freedom for some years? Because that’s what you’re asking; that people who are convinced of the need for torture but who are unwilling to save however many lives at the risk of their own personal freedom have that risk removed. Why exactly would you want to aid such despicable people?
Clearly, we would alll benefit enormously if our policies relfected the clear truths of *Dirty Harry *movies. Kind of like to update that one scene.
“This is a 357 microgram window pane of Owsley acid, the most powerful LSD in the world, blow your mind right out your ears. Now, the quesiton you gotta ask yourself is ‘Do I feel hippy?’. Well, do ya, punk? Do ya?”