Listen classy cock. If you gave them drugs people would still bitch. Drugs have a WAY higher chance of killing someone than waterboarding. And that is what you are suggesting? Please think before speaking.klassekock wrote:
Oh for the love of christ!!
We live in the year 2007 and not the middle ages. If you yanks are so desprate to get information use truth drugs or something, not torture. if you keep this shit up the whole world is going to hate the U.S.
By the way, arent you supposed to be the good guys????
Why would I want that on a flag? I never said I liked waterboarding. I wouldn't like to be made to think I'm going to be killed. It's psychological torture for sure.CameronPoe wrote:
It doesn't look 100% psychological, strapped to a board and having your ability to breathe curtailed - it's kind of like saying 'I strangled him, but not so much that he would die'. Regardless it's wrong on the psychological front anyway. Try pinning an image of that to your flag and see how much respect your country earns.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Waterboarding is 100% psychological torture. Holding your breath under water is something little kids do for fun. The whole point of waterboarding is to make them think they are going to drown, not to actually drown them.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm pointing out the fact that waterboarding is patently obviously immoral, unjust and unrighteous. It is distinctly beyond the undefined boundary that marks where interrogation ends and torture begins. You still allude, not explicitly I grant you, that torture is somehow acceptable: you can correct me if I'm wrong. I ask you: is waterboarding, in your eyes, acceptable? For me subjecting any detainee to physical violence is wrong. Psychological is another matter and it depends on the practice. Waterboarding seems to me to be both physically and mentally degrading to an unacceptable level.
But anyways, I think the point of this was to point out that people only bitch about things when it's popular to do so and that politicians are hypocritical, both democrat and republican.
Yes thank god someone got it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
But anyways, I think the point of this was to point out that people only bitch about things when it's popular to do so and that politicians are hypocritical, both democrat and republican.
Please give examples.B.Schuss wrote:
so often the US claim the moral high ground on these issues, and call others out for human rights violations.
Double standard ftl...
CameronPoe wrote:
For me it would be irrelevant if torture gleaned useful information. Torture is wrong in the civilised world. No ifs and no buts. That's without even mentioning the potential that completely innocent people have been tortured.
I thought the socialist were for putting the collective above the individual? Of course waterboarding is torture.. and it is ineffective at getting reliable information (say anything).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I do my best to maintain consistency between what my faith teaches me and what I do and advocate. War and the actions of intelligence operations will inevitably bring about circumstances where one must choose between what is necessary in the big picture and what is morally right at the moment. The age old question, could you kill one human being to save thousands, comes to mind in relation to this. A terrorist is holding a cell phone that will trigger a bomb that will kill hundreds or even thousands. Could I pull the trigger on my sniper rifle if the bullet had to kill a little girl being used as a human shield? No, hence why I’m not a counterterrorist or in the armed forces. Should the soldier or agent pull the trigger? That’s arguable. Many would say yes and would condemn the soldier who didn’t pull the trigger. Others would oppose the death of the little girl, no matter what the consequences.
Now we move to the torture of another human being in order to save the lives of others. There are no lasting physical effects of waterboarding, from what I understand, but it is mental torture. Is that still physical torture, though it does not damage the body? Some say yes because the prisoner is restrained and under extreme mental stress by simulating the drowning sensation. Some say no, it’s just like all other interrogation because it’s only mental torture when considering the effects afterward. Which is correct? I have been mulling this over as of late and hadn’t decided what my final position would be. Since you’ve forced me to do so, here’s my two part answer. Overall, waterboarding is mental torture and should not be used. Should a CIA agent do it to save lives if they have to resort to it? In the case of the 2 known terrorist leaders whom we know were waterboarded, information was gained that stopped attacks so, on the whole, that was a necessary measure that I have a hard time condemning. If they are not certain if the person is a terrorist, it should not be used.
Since you’re advocating absolute consistency as judged by what one has been taught, let’s take a look in your direction. If you’re going to cross that line, allow me to point out how you are inconsistent on this issue and grossly inconsistent on another. Since you took the liberty to take me to task, I’ll return the favor. Don’t point at me when you support the use of psychological stress techniques, but not waterboarding, which only has psychological effects. It's all or nothing if you want absolute consistency. Second, you’ve done something else multiple times that completely contradicts a teaching of the teaching of the Catholic church. Care to address that? Or is that inconsistency a personal matter . . . your move.
Now we move to the torture of another human being in order to save the lives of others. There are no lasting physical effects of waterboarding, from what I understand, but it is mental torture. Is that still physical torture, though it does not damage the body? Some say yes because the prisoner is restrained and under extreme mental stress by simulating the drowning sensation. Some say no, it’s just like all other interrogation because it’s only mental torture when considering the effects afterward. Which is correct? I have been mulling this over as of late and hadn’t decided what my final position would be. Since you’ve forced me to do so, here’s my two part answer. Overall, waterboarding is mental torture and should not be used. Should a CIA agent do it to save lives if they have to resort to it? In the case of the 2 known terrorist leaders whom we know were waterboarded, information was gained that stopped attacks so, on the whole, that was a necessary measure that I have a hard time condemning. If they are not certain if the person is a terrorist, it should not be used.
Since you’re advocating absolute consistency as judged by what one has been taught, let’s take a look in your direction. If you’re going to cross that line, allow me to point out how you are inconsistent on this issue and grossly inconsistent on another. Since you took the liberty to take me to task, I’ll return the favor. Don’t point at me when you support the use of psychological stress techniques, but not waterboarding, which only has psychological effects. It's all or nothing if you want absolute consistency. Second, you’ve done something else multiple times that completely contradicts a teaching of the teaching of the Catholic church. Care to address that? Or is that inconsistency a personal matter . . . your move.
jeez christ i though first by looking the thread that there was actually waterboarding aka surf boarding or something.
Both.usmarine2005 wrote:
Yes thank god someone got it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
But anyways, I think the point of this was to point out that people only bitch about things when it's popular to do so and that politicians are hypocritical, both democrat and republican.
a) I have long been an atheist and I'm not bound by the teachings of any church.Stingray24 wrote:
Since you’re advocating absolute consistency as judged by what one has been taught, let’s take a look in your direction. If you’re going to cross that line, allow me to point out how you are inconsistent on this issue and grossly inconsistent on another. Since you took the liberty to take me to task, I’ll return the favor. Don’t point at me when you support the use of psychological stress techniques, but not waterboarding, which only has psychological effects. It's all or nothing if you want absolute consistency. Second, you’ve done something else multiple times that completely contradicts a teaching of the teaching of the Catholic church. Care to address that? Or is that inconsistency a personal matter . . . your move.
b) I said psychological stresses were up for debate and agreed with you on the 'wateriness' of the boundary between what is mere interrogation and what is torture.
What was the second point? You never actually mentioned what it was so I can't respond.
Here's the way I see it --
Mental stress = okay.
Making the prisoner fear for life = not okay.
Mental stress = okay.
Making the prisoner fear for life = not okay.
Guantanamo Bay,usmarine2005 wrote:
Please give examples.B.Schuss wrote:
so often the US claim the moral high ground on these issues, and call others out for human rights violations.
Double standard ftl...
Waterboarding,
Rendition,
Completely overlooking Israeli and Saudi human rights violations,
Coup on democratically elected President of Venezuela.
vs
Criticism of everything Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea do and most of what's happening inside Russia (except for the Chechen issue of course...).
Just a short few examples/synopsis.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-11 12:00:43)
Politicians are hypocritical? Hold the fucking press!!! I can't believe it! Tell me you guys are joking! I placed all my trust in those cuddly guys.usmarine2005 wrote:
Yes thank god someone got it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
But anyways, I think the point of this was to point out that people only bitch about things when it's popular to do so and that politicians are hypocritical, both democrat and republican.
Sorry but how is that claiming the moral high ground?CameronPoe wrote:
Guantanamo Bay,usmarine2005 wrote:
Please give examples.B.Schuss wrote:
so often the US claim the moral high ground on these issues, and call others out for human rights violations.
Double standard ftl...
Waterboarding,
Rendition,
Completely overlooking Israeli and Saudi human rights violations,
Coup on democratically elected President of Venezuela.
vs
Criticism of everything Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea do and most of what's happening inside Russia (except for the Chechen issue of course...).
Just a short few examples/synopsis.
No you drunk. The question is why NOW it is a talking point for the left and bleeding heart liberals like you, when at the time it was approved by lefties and bleeding heart liberals.CameronPoe wrote:
Politicians are hypocritical? Hold the fucking press!!! I can't believe it! Tell me you guys are joking! I placed all my trust in those cuddly guys.usmarine2005 wrote:
Yes thank god someone got it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
But anyways, I think the point of this was to point out that people only bitch about things when it's popular to do so and that politicians are hypocritical, both democrat and republican.
What exactly is a 'bleeding heart liberal'? Which organisation that I am affiliated to in some way, shape or form condoned this treatment only to reverse their position? Precisely none. I don't care much for politicians tortureboy.usmarine2005 wrote:
No you drunk. The question is why NOW it is a talking point for the left and bleeding heart liberals like you, when at the time it was approved by lefties and bleeding heart liberals.CameronPoe wrote:
Politicians are hypocritical? Hold the fucking press!!! I can't believe it! Tell me you guys are joking! I placed all my trust in those cuddly guys.usmarine2005 wrote:
Yes thank god someone got it.
The reason the 'bleeding heart liberals' are talking about it now is because it is fantastic political capital in the perpetual US Dem-Rep propaganda war. That's the reason Einstein.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-11 12:28:39)
The Dems are coming out against it only now because they were afraid to do so when the Iraq war had significant popular support. They think public opinion has shifted to the view that diplomacy is a better way to deal with international problems than violence. They are wrong. A pledge to torture terrorists will always be a political winner.
This thread was aimed at the Dems in the US. Keep yur nose out of it then. Go talk about some useless Irish crap.CameronPoe wrote:
That's the reason Einstein.
You hypocritically claim the moral high ground every time your leaders speak of spreading 'freedom', 'liberty', 'democracy' and criticise the human rights infringements of others like China and Iran whilst running the Guantanamo Bay gulag, practicing torture, illegally spiriting captured 'suspects' through third party countries, denying detainees due legal process and subverting democracy in other countries. Clear enough?usmarine2005 wrote:
Sorry but how is that claiming the moral high ground?
I'm sure the Dems have learned their lesson from your stirring thread. They'll just climb back into their holes now.usmarine2005 wrote:
This thread was aimed at the Dems in the US. Keep yur nose out of it then. Go talk about some useless Irish crap.CameronPoe wrote:
That's the reason Einstein.
You believe what they say? We sure don't.CameronPoe wrote:
You hypocritically claim the moral high ground every time your leaders speak of spreading 'freedom', 'liberty', 'democracy' and criticise the human rights infringements of others like China and Iran whilst running the Guantanamo Bay gulag, practicing torture, illegally spiriting captured 'suspects' through third party countries, denying detainees due legal process and subverting democracy in other countries. Clear enough?usmarine2005 wrote:
Sorry but how is that claiming the moral high ground?
We don't either. Hence the reason less and less people around the world view the US as the 'force for good' they might once have believed it to be.usmarine2005 wrote:
You believe what they say? We sure don't.CameronPoe wrote:
You hypocritically claim the moral high ground every time your leaders speak of spreading 'freedom', 'liberty', 'democracy' and criticise the human rights infringements of others like China and Iran whilst running the Guantanamo Bay gulag, practicing torture, illegally spiriting captured 'suspects' through third party countries, denying detainees due legal process and subverting democracy in other countries. Clear enough?usmarine2005 wrote:
Sorry but how is that claiming the moral high ground?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-11 12:55:48)
Again, you people are nuts when you say that. We (our leaders) said we would hunt them down, kill them, or bring them to justice. Not sure where you guys got confused.CameronPoe wrote:
We don't either. Hence the reason less and less people around the world view the US as the 'force for good' they might once have believed it to be.
We're not nuts. We just have principles and values to which we think people should adhere when carrying out what ultimatley turned out to be a rather collateral-damage-tastic poorly managed wild goose chase.usmarine2005 wrote:
Again, you people are nuts when you say that. We (our leaders) said we would hunt them down, kill them, or bring them to justice. Not sure where you guys got confused.CameronPoe wrote:
We don't either. Hence the reason less and less people around the world view the US as the 'force for good' they might once have believed it to be.
Ya... NI is an awesome example of values.CameronPoe wrote:
We're not nuts. We just have principles and values to which we think people should adhere when carrying out what ultimatley turned out to be a rather collateral-damage-tastic poorly managed wild goose chase.