You bring up (tangentially) a point that I have been wondering over. How many detainees have we released, at this point, on the presumption that they are not terrorists, but victims. I have seen many references to detainees being released, but I can’t seem to find an accumulated total or estimate thereof.
Anybody got that monkey strong Google-fu?
Where did I say that I am “for torture”? What I said was that waterboarding is not in-my-opinion torture. I also said that the people who recieved such attentions were doing so because they wanted to be a “good muslim” a true martyr wanna be. Until someone has a video with interrogators laughing it up and high-fiving each other over yet another round of waterboarding please shaddup.
Squink posted a link above…
Cite? :dubious:
Watch the hypocrisy, I find that even more disgusting. :rolleyes: As does some of the justification in this thread.
Yes, you did, and then I asked you where you got your information, how it is you know their minds so well. Now would be a good time to clear that up, that we can better appreciate the authority offered, in lieu of evidence.
Of course it would be just my opinion, so why bother?
Because your opinion doesn’t mean jack in this case.
Well, if you offered up any data to back your assertion, it would be considered, especially since this is Great Debates, not Spout Shit Baselessly.
The problem is that you consider this to be a matter of opinion. It isn’t. There are facts involved.
It means as much as anyone elses. You might have missed what I wrote above how each administration hires its own slimy crop of lawyers to write legal opinions depending on what it wants to do. As much as you all think that WBing is/was torture the fact remains that the president’s lawyers wrote some good enough to get over the whole “its illegal” roadblock.
I really think that this will just end up in the Supreme Court…their the ones whose opinions seem to matter these days.
Is everyone here backing up their posts with cross referenced citation?
Arguable, at best, and nobody tried to justify torture before. Well, apart from the internment camps in WWII, and the Indian removal under Jackson, but I’m not sure there were lawyers devoted to those.
Actually, since the memos were released, a bunch of lawyers (not involved with writing the memos) have said that the reasoning was shitty, and it was thinly veiled justification for what they knew was breaking the law.
I think that the previous forms of “torture” were easily defined…stuff like bones being broken. Nowadays with everyone wanting to rise up above all that, but with a need to still do battle against our enemies some people decided to give waterboarding a try. Hell of a lot better than peeling off someone’s fingernails imo.
And thanks for reiterating my point. OF COURSE a group of lawyers say that the reasoning was shitty, and thinly veiled justification. No kidding? Wow what a surprise there…this won’t be settled until it goes to the courts.
Woah, everyone better just lay off and admit that Bush’s torture program was OK, or else the GOP will investigate Clinton’s renditioning:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/08/gop-threatens-to-investigate-clinton-era-rendition/
If we’re not careful, they could impeach him again, or sumthin. :eek:
It is settled. What we did was torture, which is illegal. Only moral defectives still cling to rationalizations on this.
To me torture is violent, physically destructive. That’s how I define it. Go ahead and try and change my opinion by calling me morally defective.
Getting water poured on your face is I am sure unpleasant, but not torture. Having Rosie O’Donnel’s dirty underwear on your face whilst being waterboarded would, however, be torture for for obvious reasons… 
It is surely NOT settled. Supreme court opinion incomming…take cover!
Fine by me; everyone who has EVER engaged in torture deserves to be punished. Not that I believe for a moment that the Republicans wouldn’t be the loser in that, or any other comparison involving morality.
Waterboarding isn’t new, nor did we have trouble defining it as torture in the past. We didn’t use it out of some need against our enemies because it’s ineffective for actual intelligence gathering, something we knew beforehand; we used it to get false confessions, and out of cruelty.
It’s called drowning. And it’s sufficiently nasty that it can break anyone, very quickly. And the people have undergone it, including volunteers and soldiers all call it torture.
You are simply defining torture in a way convenient to you, not one that makes any sense.
It was settled many years ago; we’ve always called it torture. Until we decided to do it to other people.
Wow. The ignorance in this is stunning.
Try this:
Stand in your room and hold your arms out parallel with the floor. Within a minute or two it will become uncomfortable. Not long after it will become unbearable to hold your arms up.
Nothing “physically destructive” was done here. Now imagine having to stay in that position for hours. Try it. I double-dog dare you to hold your arms out like this for hours.
Try cuffing your hands to your ankles so you are in a fetal position and stay there for 24 hours. No getting up for the bathroom. Piss and shit yourself where you lie and get to let it cover you. No food and no water either. Add in you are naked and the temperature around you is 50-degrees.
Not physically destructive either but I guarantee you that your misery will be profound and you WILL be in agony.
As for waterboarding do yourself a favor and look up cites. It is more than unpleasant. There is a reason the Spanish Inquisition and Gestapo and Khmer Rouge (to name a few) used it. Do you really think the torturers in the Spanish Inquisition were nice people? These were people willing to shove a hot poker up your ass. Do you suppose the waterboarding was just them being nice? Seriously…why would they do it if they meant to torture you and cause you pain and suffering but really it was no big deal?
Not to mention the US prosecuted Japanese for war crimes because they waterboarded US soldiers.
Your ignorance is staggering.
This is one of the lamest defenses of torture I’ve seen. Democracies used to have slavery, so why not bring that back? Hell lets bring back drawing and quartering while we’re at it.
It truly is sad that torture has become a political issue for some, rather than a moral issue that transcends politics.
You know, what’s really sad about this statement is the detachment from reality makes it read like a child just entering puberty wrote it. Again, if you don’t think waterboarding is torture but rather just unpleasant, why the need to point out your utter moral cowardice in order to avoid it? Your hypothetical comrades wouldn’t be smart to create alternate everythings to fall back on in the event you were captured. Since you freely admit your cowardice and you’d sell out your country, your comrades and your mother with just the mere threat of a paper cut, why wouldn’t your comrades save themselves a lot of trouble and just shoot you themselves?
There is a story circulating that one Al Qaeda guy held out for almost two minutes while being waterboarded. The people doing it were impressed (so the story goes).
Two whole fucking minutes.
I don’t know if the story was true, but it was said about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If it did happen, presumably he held out for two minutes the first time they waterboarded him, and not the next 182 times.
I’m sure they got ticking time bomb, unobtainable by other means information out of him all 183 times. Otherwise it suggests the waterboarding was vindictive and unnecessary, like when the Inquisition did it, and that couldn’t possibly be the case.