Torture impairs ability to tell the truth

Southern Man said:
The Constitution allows the government broad powers against foreigners intent on doing us harm.
Click to expand...

it's a simple yes or no question.

Is the federal government constrained by the limits outlined in the US Constitution in regards to actions performed outside the contiguous boundaries of the united states?
 
fail_20at_20failing.jpg
 
Yurt said:
your belief the specific waterboarding done is torture is just that.....opinion
Click to expand...

wrong... waterboarding is torture according to how the US and the rest of the world have treated it in the past. Pretending that it isn't torture in 'this case' is simply an excuse.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, I suck at failing. Absolutely terrible at it. I've tried to fail but wound up succeeding in almost every opportunity.
Click to expand...

Ahh but you deserve to succeed Damo.
A nice guy in spite of your rightist leanings.
Nice guys do not always have to finish last. :clink:
 
Southern Man said:
That's been proven to work at Gitmo, real world, not some university in Dublin.
Click to expand...

Like hell it has. How many times did they have to waterboard SKM? 183 times? That tells me it doesn't work for shit. If it was proven to work, they shouldn't have had to do it more than once or twice. the fact is that the FBI got all the actionable intel from SKM in a mattter of hours, and once the waterboarding started, they got nothing from him but false confessions.

In the "real world," going back to the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding has been considered torture. Was Torquemada looking for intel? No, he was looking for confession of sins, after which the sinner would be burned at the stake. but the copmfssion hadf to be "pure" and not the ramblings of a mortally wounded prisoner, so he preferred the "water cure" as he referrred to it, because it left no wounds, mandated that no more than 8 quarts be used, and that a physician be present to ensure the confession was "pure." Tomas de Torquemada was a mass murderer considered by historians to be on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. Do you really want to defend the use of a torture technique favored by one of the most heartless and cruel religious fanatics in history as an "enhanced interrogation technique" when all the evidence and history says otherwise?

Here's some more history, but a lot more current and involving the US of A: after WWII, the US government prosecuted, convicted and HANGED two Japanese officers as war criminals for waterboarding American and Australian prisoners, and no defense of "we were only interrogating them" was accepted. We gave them "a nice, fair trial and a damn fine hangin'," to paraphrase Judge Roy Bean, in a somewhat different set of circumstances (that's what he told some accused cattle rustlers before their trial. Oopsie. Unfortunately for the rustlers, there was no time for appeal. Bummer, dudes.)

The attermpted defense of torture as interrogation techniques is not only morally abhorrent, but ignorant, showing several things about the would-be defender: not the least of which is the "moral relativism" so often decried by the right when they think they perceive it in the left, just one more example of the ethical hypocrisy inherent in the right, whose favorite worldview is that their end justifies their means, because their hearts are "pure" (where did we just hear that?). but their adversaries are evil, so their means are criminal, but it's okay to use their means on them, and they're not criminal when we use them, becsause we are God's chosen (excerpt that's exactly what every other fanatic slimeball says, including Islamic terrorists and Hitler and Torquemada. But guess what? In th eresl; world, you are judged by your actions, and you don't get credit for being less of an asshole than the other guy. If you do something assholish and barbaric to your dversary, you're swtill a barbaric asshole,and it doesn't matter that he did it to you first and/or worse. If you perform the act of a mass-murdering barbarian, you are no better than as mass murdering barbarian, regardless of what he did to you.
 
DNC said:
The Southern Man may be unable to tell the truth if The Southern Man was tortured.
Click to expand...
How dare you!!!!!!

The SM would not be captured, he would fight for his freedom or go down trying!!!!
 
froggie said:
How dare you!!!!!!

The SM would not be captured, he would fight for his freedom or go down trying!!!!
Click to expand...

We need one of those indian movies of Charvers with the little kid whooping butt.

SM could whip the entire 101st airborne with a wet noodle.
 
Superfreak said:
wrong... waterboarding is torture according to how the US and the rest of the world have treated it in the past. Pretending that it isn't torture in 'this case' is simply an excuse.
Click to expand...

The waterboarding techniques that were condemned as torure by the US and other nations was dynamically different than the techniques used on the 3 terrorist's at Gitmo.
 
Southern Man said:
As stated earlier, I am comfortable with making terrorists uncomfortable in order to save the lives of US soldiers and innocent people.
Click to expand...
No laws? Just do what you have to do.

This of course means that others have the same right to do it to our soldiers and citizens, as some already do, but the law has stopped others, so what do we do here?

Play by our own rules. I think that just leads to chaos.
 
zoombwaz said:
Like hell it has. How many times did they have to waterboard SKM? 183 times? That tells me it doesn't work for shit. If it was proven to work, they shouldn't have had to do it more than once or twice. the fact is that the FBI got all the actionable intel from SKM in a mattter of hours, and once the waterboarding started, they got nothing from him but false confessions.

In the "real world," going back to the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding has been considered torture. Was Torquemada looking for intel? No, he was looking for confession of sins, after which the sinner would be burned at the stake. but the copmfssion hadf to be "pure" and not the ramblings of a mortally wounded prisoner, so he preferred the "water cure" as he referrred to it, because it left no wounds, mandated that no more than 8 quarts be used, and that a physician be present to ensure the confession was "pure." Tomas de Torquemada was a mass murderer considered by historians to be on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. Do you really want to defend the use of a torture technique favored by one of the most heartless and cruel religious fanatics in history as an "enhanced interrogation technique" when all the evidence and history says otherwise?

Here's some more history, but a lot more current and involving the US of A: after WWII, the US government prosecuted, convicted and HANGED two Japanese officers as war criminals for waterboarding American and Australian prisoners, and no defense of "we were only interrogating them" was accepted. We gave them "a nice, fair trial and a damn fine hangin'," to paraphrase Judge Roy Bean, in a somewhat different set of circumstances (that's what he told some accused cattle rustlers before their trial. Oopsie. Unfortunately for the rustlers, there was no time for appeal. Bummer, dudes.)

The attermpted defense of torture as interrogation techniques is not only morally abhorrent, but ignorant, showing several things about the would-be defender: not the least of which is the "moral relativism" so often decried by the right when they think they perceive it in the left, just one more example of the ethical hypocrisy inherent in the right, whose favorite worldview is that their end justifies their means, because their hearts are "pure" (where did we just hear that?). but their adversaries are evil, so their means are criminal, but it's okay to use their means on them, and they're not criminal when we use them, becsause we are God's chosen (excerpt that's exactly what every other fanatic slimeball says, including Islamic terrorists and Hitler and Torquemada. But guess what? In th eresl; world, you are judged by your actions, and you don't get credit for being less of an asshole than the other guy. If you do something assholish and barbaric to your dversary, you're swtill a barbaric asshole,and it doesn't matter that he did it to you first and/or worse. If you perform the act of a mass-murdering barbarian, you are no better than as mass murdering barbarian, regardless of what he did to you.
Click to expand...
Well, you know how I feel about ya! Brilliant, amigo, as always.
 
Superfreak said:
wrong... waterboarding is torture according to how the US and the rest of the world have treated it in the past. Pretending that it isn't torture in 'this case' is simply an excuse.
Click to expand...

please cite the US code or law that specifically says this type of waterboarding or any waterboarding is illegal....

and your case law about the japenese won't fly here....that is non binding and non authoritative case law specific only to that case....

i'll await your code or law....and i'm not pretending it is not torture, i am of the opinion that no one has ruled this torture, there is no law that says what specifically was done is torture....all it is is armchair justice at this point

i guess you forgot about that whole innocent until proven guilty bit......
 
Yurt said:
please cite the US code or law that specifically says this type of waterboarding or any waterboarding is illegal....

and your case law about the japenese won't fly here....that is non binding and non authoritative case law specific only to that case....

i'll await your code or law....and i'm not pretending it is not torture, i am of the opinion that no one has ruled this torture, there is no law that says what specifically was done is torture....all it is is armchair justice at this point

i guess you forgot about that whole innocent until proven guilty bit......
Click to expand...
War crimes Act of 1966 won't fly, huh...well, damn, why make the agreements if we aren't going to comply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top