Torture

Oh, that is so perfect, it can be used in many cases on this forum!
 
true torture is reading this thread and listening to conservatives :clink:
 
This is an interesting comment!
reagan-torture.jpg
 
funny how libs hated reagan, but now quote him

politics, i am learning is a bullshit endeavor...if you believe a politician for a particular belief that is "conservative" or "liberal", that politician is off limits to the other side for quotes or successes, unless that politician quotes something you like.

have to say, i've been interested in politics for about 4 years and i'm already tired of the bullshit.
 
Yurt said:
funny how libs hated reagan, but now quote him

politics, i am learning is a bullshit endeavor...if you believe a politician for a particular belief that is "conservative" or "liberal", that politician is off limits to the other side for quotes or successes, unless that politician quotes something you like.

have to say, i've been interested in politics for about 4 years and i'm already tired of the bullshit.
Click to expand...

I would view quoting Reagan as legitimate if self-avowed followers were violating his principles. For example, I found quotes from Reagan, Friedman, Jeanne Kilpatrick, and the WSJ all praising Ron Paul during the 1980s and 1990s, and made a small flyer with them and hung it up on the College Republicans board alongside the McCain, Romney, and Huckabee stuff during the primaries.

Granted, I'm a conservative who likes Reagan, not one of the liberals you spoke of...
 
Funny how people that Idolize RR seem now to distance themselves from him once someone found a quote from the consummate American conservative.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. The enhanced interrogation techniques used against the terrorists weren't torture.
Click to expand...

You see, that is where the fundamental disconnect rests in this issue. The word "torture" is ambiguous, it simply means different things to different people. I guarantee you, we could do a poll, and probably 99% of Americans would be opposed to torture, for any reason, under any circumstance. But what IS torture?

To Paris Hilton, torture might be breaking a nail giving her little dog a bath! To the ACLU, torture could be not having a color TV in your cell! To Saddam Hussein, torture wasn't being fed into a wood chipper head first, it was being fed into a wood chipper feet first! So we all have a differing definition of torture, and therein lies the problem with this debate.

To me, there is a difference between coercive interrogation and shoving bamboo shoots under the fingernails. There is a difference between playing loud annoying music and locking someone in a metal box without food or water for months on end. There is just this big huge gaping difference between actual TORTURE and using coercive techniques to obtain vital and crucial intelligence information.
 
Dixie said:
You see, that is where the fundamental disconnect rests in this issue. The word "torture" is ambiguous, it simply means different things to different people. I guarantee you, we could do a poll, and probably 99% of Americans would be opposed to torture, for any reason, under any circumstance. But what IS torture?

To Paris Hilton, torture might be breaking a nail giving her little dog a bath! To the ACLU, torture could be not having a color TV in your cell! To Saddam Hussein, torture wasn't being fed into a wood chipper head first, it was being fed into a wood chipper feet first! So we all have a differing definition of torture, and therein lies the problem with this debate.

To me, there is a difference between coercive interrogation and shoving bamboo shoots under the fingernails. There is a difference between playing loud annoying music and locking someone in a metal box without food or water for months on end. There is just this big huge gaping difference between actual TORTURE and using coercive techniques to obtain vital and crucial intelligence information.
Click to expand...

The Bush-haters here have brought up the UN definition of torture and I've brought up Websters, and what we did to those terrorists doesn't meet the definition under any reasonable interpretation, yet they still whine "torture". It's torture dealing with these idiots!
 
Dixie said:
You see, that is where the fundamental disconnect rests in this issue. The word "torture" is ambiguous, it simply means different things to different people. I guarantee you, we could do a poll, and probably 99% of Americans would be opposed to torture, for any reason, under any circumstance. But what IS torture?

To Paris Hilton, torture might be breaking a nail giving her little dog a bath! To the ACLU, torture could be not having a color TV in your cell! To Saddam Hussein, torture wasn't being fed into a wood chipper head first, it was being fed into a wood chipper feet first! So we all have a differing definition of torture, and therein lies the problem with this debate.

To me, there is a difference between coercive interrogation and shoving bamboo shoots under the fingernails. There is a difference between playing loud annoying music and locking someone in a metal box without food or water for months on end. There is just this big huge gaping difference between actual TORTURE and using coercive techniques to obtain vital and crucial intelligence information.
Click to expand...

ask yourself the question as to whether or not waterboarding meets the definition of torture that is contained in the UN Convention against torture.
 
maineman said:
ask yourself the question as to whether or not waterboarding meets the definition of torture that is contained in the UN Convention against torture.
Click to expand...

Even something like waterboarding, has degrees and levels. Not ALL waderboardings are the same. If the potential for death is real, then perhaps waterboarding could be considered torture, but from what I have read of the US technique, death was not at risk. It was/is uncomfortable, and not something you would want to have done, but it wasn't torture.

Let's keep in perspective, this technique was used on several key high-level alQaeda operatives, not every prisoner we captured. It was not done for thrills or to punish people, it was done to gain vital intelligence to save American lives, and it indeed worked. When you are dealing with hardened alQaeda fanatics, who have vowed to their God to kill you, and are willing to die for their cause, it simply takes more than warm milk and cookies to derive intelligence information.
 
Dixie said:
Even something like waterboarding, has degrees and levels. Not ALL waderboardings are the same. If the potential for death is real, then perhaps waterboarding could be considered torture, but from what I have read of the US technique, death was not at risk. It was/is uncomfortable, and not something you would want to have done, but it wasn't torture.

Let's keep in perspective, this technique was used on several key high-level alQaeda operatives, not every prisoner we captured. It was not done for thrills or to punish people, it was done to gain vital intelligence to save American lives, and it indeed worked. When you are dealing with hardened alQaeda fanatics, who have vowed to their God to kill you, and are willing to die for their cause, it simply takes more than warm milk and cookies to derive intelligence information.
Click to expand...


why can't you just man up and answer a simple question?

If you were strapped on a board, and water were poured down your mouth and nose and you then felt that you were about to drown, would that constitute torture IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UN DEFINITION???? YES OR NO???
 
maineman said:
why can't you just man up and answer a simple question?

If you were strapped on a board, and water were poured down your mouth and nose and you then felt that you were about to drown, would that constitute torture IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UN DEFINITION???? YES OR NO???
Click to expand...

How the UN defines something, or more importantly, how you personally interpret how the UN defines something, is not relevant to me in any way. Unless what we are doing is putting someone at grave risk of death, it doesn't constitute torture.

You, and your pinhead cronies, want to establish some liberal policy of appeasing terrorists, kissing their asses, in hopes they will change how they feel about us. You are about as stupid as they come. While alQaeda is out there sawing off people's heads, violating just about every law of decency established by the civilized world, you want to hamstring our side, and make them conform to the Boy Scout Handbook, and appoint the terrorists ACLU lawyers. In essence, you want to set up a scenario in which we simply can not win, we can't defeat the enemy.... Then, you can proudly march around saying "I told you so!"

That's what you are all about, so why don't you "man up" and admit the truth?
 
Dixie said:
How the UN defines something, or more importantly, how you personally interpret how the UN defines something, is not relevant to me in any way. Unless what we are doing is putting someone at grave risk of death, it doesn't constitute torture.
Click to expand...


Great! While total horseshit for the ultimate conclusions reached, the memoranda prepared by the Bush Administration Department of Justice conceded at least that waterboarding involved the threat of imminent death. Or as you put it, torture.

Glad we could get this one resolved!
 
Dixie said:
How the UN defines something, or more importantly, how you personally interpret how the UN defines something, is not relevant to me in any way. Unless what we are doing is putting someone at grave risk of death, it doesn't constitute torture.

You, and your pinhead cronies, want to establish some liberal policy of appeasing terrorists, kissing their asses, in hopes they will change how they feel about us. You are about as stupid as they come. While alQaeda is out there sawing off people's heads, violating just about every law of decency established by the civilized world, you want to hamstring our side, and make them conform to the Boy Scout Handbook, and appoint the terrorists ACLU lawyers. In essence, you want to set up a scenario in which we simply can not win, we can't defeat the enemy.... Then, you can proudly march around saying "I told you so!"

That's what you are all about, so why don't you "man up" and admit the truth?
Click to expand...

how the UN defines torture in a treaty that we are signatories of matters a great deal. Aren't you the guy who is an "originalist" when it comes to the constitution??? Go read article VI...and then go read the UN Convention against torture which, according to Article VI is the SUPREME LAW OF THE FREAKING LAND and then man up and answer the freaking question.
 
Dungheap said:
Great! While total horseshit for the ultimate conclusions reached, the memoranda prepared by the Bush Administration Department of Justice conceded at least that waterboarding involved the threat of imminent death. Or as you put it, torture.

Glad we could get this one resolved!
Click to expand...

Is that the same memorandum the Obama Administration's Justice Department is arguing in favor of now?

Just to be completely clear on this, I don't trust what you have interpreted the memorandum to say, you have demonstrated incompetence in your ability to read and comprehend the English language. But thanks for interjecting your totally worthless opinion.
 
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

again...DIXIE...

if someone strapped you upside down on a board and poured water down your mouth and nose and made you believe that you were about to drown, would that fit that definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top