Waterboarding, How to Do It.

Great Debates
81

Do you think that this isn’t done already? How do you think the Russians are going to treat a Chechen that’s high in the food chain?

What do you think Kim Jong Il would do now? Play nice?

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]

It depends on the methods employed and on whom. I think we would still have the moral high ground if we severely limit the “torture” that we use, both in frequency and method. I think that any of our captured military personnel would be thrilled to have our standards employed on them by other countries if they would be guarenteed it would go no further than that.

It wouldn’t bother me to have it employed on Tim McVeigh to prevent Oklahoma City. But try as you might to paint the picture, the local police precinct is not getting a waterboarding room anytime soon.

I admire the ideals that many of you are putting forth. It’s because of people like you that we have the society we do. But there has to be some compromise. It’s unrealistic to pretend that harsh measures aren’t required to deal with the threat. It’s also unrealistic to think that total security is possible. But the effort has to be made. We can’t depend on them to see how civilized we are and start to play nice.

I think you guys are going to find that you are in the numerical minority when the election comes…and the next 9/11 scale attack will end this debate for good, save for a few diehards.

82

You seem more scared of a violent death via terrorism than by other violent means. Any idea why?

83

Sure will if we let you frame the debate on your terms.

Let’s start with “Torture is bad, and it shouldn’t be done”. A considerable number of peope, likely even a solid majority, agree with this premise, largely because of our long-standing delusion that we have not done, nor condoned, torture.

You want to frame the question as an issue of immediate urgency, if we don’t torture Achmed Evil, the LED timer on the nuclear anthrax bomb will digit down to zero and we lose Akron! In that dramatic scenario, hardly anyone wouldn’t accept torture in such an *extreme and exceptional * circumstance, i.e., a desperate emergency. Then, of course, we have admitted that we approve of torture and thinks it entirely hunky-dory, and we repent of our hypocrisy…

Not so fast. We all pretty much accept the principle of emergency exception. If you need to get a child to the hospital at once, you might “steal” a car, for instance. Simply because we recognize that rare exceptions may exist does not mean we must abandon the rule. Far from it, the rule emphasizes the gravity of the exception, if you’re going to break a law of humanity and commit a war crime, you better be damned sure you know what you’re up to.

Besides, how likely is it that you will have so much information about a plot, enough intel to know precisely whom to torture, and yet still not know enough to thwart the plot? How is it that our adversarys, knowing we have such a person in our custody, would proceed with a plot that is likely “blown”?

Torture as a technique for routine intelligence gathering or to provoke a confession of guilt is obscene and impermissable. It is conceivable, but barely, that an extreme exception, an urgent emergency, might provoke someone to break that rule. Let him be accountable, let him answer for the crime and prove his crime justified. Otherwise, he should suffer consequences commensurate with the crime.

84

Yes, I’m sure they’d be thrilled to be raped, to see their children raped, to he torn by dogs, suffocated, beaten, and driven insane.

Prove it. An America that will do what it is doing, is an America that will do anything.

A trivial threat on a national scale, not worth sacrificing one freedom or right or legal protection. The government and people like you are far more dangerous to me than a million terrorists.

We aren’t civilized, or this discussion wouldn’t be taking place.

Of course. America is a vile place, run by psychopaths and fools for the benefit of psychopaths and fools. The American support for torture being one of my prime reasons for believing what I do about this country.

85

So, they consider their own best interest to be more important than national security. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

86

Violume.

87

Volume.

88

People desperately trying to undermine the administration at any cost for any reason can also be a national security problem.

89

I’m not scared of a violent death. I just have no concern for the well being of someone like Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

90

Again, the volume is way greater, in terms of the threat to you and yours, and numbers of those killed in your country, from criminals rather than terrorists. Yet you’re more scared of people who are less of a threat to you than people from your own community.

Or do you mean “loudness”?

91

Why not, it works for Jack Bauer every time. I don’t want to think about how many people’s views of what is realistic in The War Against Terror are defined by watching “24” - just because Rush tells them so.

92

Except for those who are desperate to play “gotcha” once the information is obtained. That’s why the rules are being spelled out.

93

Criminals in general are lowlifes who are not plotting to kill masses of innocent people because they disapprove of their religion or society.

How are you dealing with radical Islamists in the UK?

94

The ill and uninformed are not limited to those who lean to the right. One of the biggest problems that this country has is the fact that about 30 percent is well informed enough to read and understand what’s on this message board.

Some people THINK they are well informed…but they are just parroting what they hear their friends or family say. If you ask them to explain a position, it becomes clear immediately how shallow their grasp is.

The rest are cattle to be manipulated by both sides or have opted out of the process due to apathy.

95

Criminals are in general lowlifes who plot to - and do - kill masses of innocent people because they want to buy crack, want a new car, want to control incoming illegal immigration, etc. They are a far greater danger to you than any terrorists. And yet you don’t want to half-drown them and chop their fingers off. I am having problems understanding your inconsistency.

Whatever we’re doing, we’re not legalising torture, and I’m damn glad about that. YMMV.

96

And since all terrorists have “TERRORIST” tattooed on their forehead, no one innocent will ever be tortured, right ?

And of course no one would join the terrorists or help them because we torture people.

97

So you admit a willingness to take political advantage under the name of national security.

(Period, not questionmark. You have failed to leave any wiggle room on this point through which to escape.)

98

So? The information has been obtained, and will not vanish as a result.

99

Do you honestly believe that this doesn’t happen on both sides of the political spectrum?

100

Not nearly to the same degree on the left as the right. I watched what happened when the call went out for both sides to cooperate against terrorism; the Democrats tried, and were ruthlessly taken advantage of by the Republicans to ram their agenda through with no compromise. The Republicans don’t believe in compromise, and have zero concern for the country. The Party & Profit is all they care about.