I did no such thing and demand an apology. All I said was that just because some people on this messageboard think something constitutes torture doesn’t make it so.
In other words, you were defending the torture and are now trying to weasel out of it. What we did is torture by every standard, including our OWN standards - except when WE are the ones doing the torturing.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
I don’t think torture can be dismissed as never working. It may have actually worked. But, then how would we know? We are torturing so many that the info ,both true and false keeps coming in. Instead of allowing us to connect the dots ,it just makes a huge pile of them we have to sort through. We are back in the same spot. But we have created enemies. Torture my family members and I will hate you. Torture an innocent and you create more foes.
Rush says it worked because it worked on McCain. That is a nasty thing to say. Did he give out valuable info? McCain says no. But Rush is Rush.
I have no interest whatsoever in whether torture might work sometimes. The reason it should not be done is not because it may not work but because it is immoral and abhorrent to civilized people. Even if it worked sometimes I would not allow my country to do it. I am willing to pay the price of a higher risk in exchange for not doing something which is wrong just like I would run the risk of being the victim of a common crime rather than live in a police state or give up my civil rights.
Threaten to hold your breath until somebody apologizes.
Please!
Sailor:
I agree, but unfortunately it turns to be an important point. We often find ourselves arguing with people who like to think of themselves as hard-headed, no-nonsense realists, who offer us condescending pats on the head, and assure us that they, the grown-ups, are not swayed by emotional appeals like us wussies. Better for all if we sob-sisters shut up and leave things in their stern but capable hands.
We need to counter the myth as well as the facts. We need to point out that civilized behavior is as effective as savage amorality, if not more so.
As opposed to this cowardly and uncivilized unknown:
Lift a rotting log, and his type go scurrying for cover. A proper soil fumigation may be the order of the day here.
What constitutes torture in your opinion?
It’s not just “some people on this messageboard”. I’d like you to point out one agency or institution anywhere in the world that has characterized water-boarding as “non-torture” pre-9/11. Since the practice has been around for numerous decades, there must be someone, right?
I’m not holding my breath. Until W’s lawyers came along, it was commonly accepted (often in a formal, legal sense) that water-boarding was torture, so your insistence that it simply conflates to a He Said/She Said is so intellectually dishonest, it can only be reasonably construed as support for the administration’s specious reasoning.
If waterboarding is such an effective method of getting information, why did we have to do it 183 times in one month to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Are you stupid or something Lemur866? We did it to get our kicks. That should be obvious to everyone.
Because, quite obviously, they got 182x more information than they would have, had they done it only once.
I mean by the time they were done with this guy, they knew the exact location of the Fountain Of Youth.
It isn’t torture, you guys, it is just minor annoyances theat break a person’s will and forces them to give up all sorts of vital information. Kind of like sitting next to a nose whistler at the movies or not getting enough ketchup with your fries at the McDonald’s drive-thru.
The first few times, yeah. Eventually you get the hint.
Personally, I don’t believe we’ll be stopping all forms of what some people call torture at all. In fact, I think the release of the documents and the open condemnation of torture is all about shining a light on Bush and the blatant idiocy of his practices regarding torture. It’s rather genius, I think. The point the CIA guys made about “now they know how far we’ll go” is essentially valid, but I also think the line we’ve drawn is false. We’re telling the world how “far” we’ll go, making the bad guys think we won’t still do the shit we always did, but we will, and maybe worse. Imagine the shock of the first bad guy they bring in and put in front of that microwave emitter that cooks your dermis. Imagine him being slowly boiled while tied to a plywood sheet thinking “I thought you bastards didn’t TORTURE anymore”.
Nope, the bad strategy was telling the world that we WOULD do it and actually follow through, the good strategy is telling the world we don’t, doing it anyway, and allowing for some plausable deniability.
Facts are that some of it works, some of it doesn’t and there’s no way to know what does or doesn’t until you try it on that particular guy. Threaten one guy with jail and he steels up and tells you shit, threaten another guy with jail and he wets himself and sings like a canary.
Nope. you do not understand. You might know you are not drowning but it triggers a panic attack which you cannot control. You KNOW you are drowning and you cannot control it.
But when all the civilized nations in the world have agreed that it does constitute torture then you are the one in disagreement with the majority of the world, not us.
Not to mention that if it had been done to Americans by others then America would see it as torture.
What shock ? The whole world knows we’re brutal sadists already. And what makes you assume that it’ll be a “bad guy” ?
No, that’s simply an evil and stupid strategy. Torture is both evil and bad interrogation technique. And “plausible deniability” only works with people who don’t already think you are doing what you are accused of. At this pint, NO denial we could make would be plausible.
Which isn’t torture. And the evidence, again, is that torture simply isn’t effective. We do it out of cruelty, not because it works.
Not that it matters; it’s evil, and shouldn’t be done under any circumstances. And those who do use or order such techniques should be hunted down and imprisoned or executed.
Just because you think it isn’t torture doesn’t mean it’s not. Since people far more educated on the subject than you, military and intelligence personnel, are pretty unanimous that it is torture, it does suggest that you’re wrong.
Why should anyone trust your opinion on this given that you’re reflexively partisan?