Bush was right!

firestorm

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025519
Ok seriously, Clemson kid, firestorm and sickboy, define (in YOUR opinion) what is torture and what is interrogation. And the difference between the two. Seriously think about this before you answer....
tor⋅ture   /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
in⋅ter⋅ro⋅ga⋅tion   /ɪnˌtɛrəˈgeɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-ter-uh-gey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. the act of interrogating; questioning.
2. an instance of being interrogated: He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3. a question; inquiry.
4. a written list of questions.
5. an interrogation point; question mark.
It would seem to be that the key is pain. For me, anything I would not have wanted my soldiers subjected to if they were captured is something I would not have felt comfortable doing myself. I'm not saying battlefield atrocities do not occur - and am well aware that they do. But for state-sanctioned torture?
Someone, forgive me for forgetting whom while mid-post, asked me what I thought made this country great - said that I only pointed out its faults. Unfortunately, I consider torture to be a great fault of this country, and it may have clouded my message. It is a hot button for me - I never consider it acceptable.
This country is great for many reasons, far to many to list. The fact that we have a great standard of life, the fact that we can have this debate at all, the fact that we just had a peaceful transition between rulers with obvious differences in policy, our faith (and the fact that there isn't one accepted faith).
But we also have our faults, and, imo, the ability to recognize those faults and correct them is one of our greatest strengths. We've had our dark days, our stains on the American ideal. America is more than a nation, its a set of ideals - not all of them practical to implement when written, and some more difficult to maintain than others; but that is the unattainable goal - it is in striving to meet that goal that we see America at its greatest.
Conservatism, Liberalism, right-wingers, left-wingers = as I've said before - no ideology fits anyone 100%, imo, unless they're just following the leader. Conservatism points out what we've done well in the past, Liberalism points out where we've done poorly in the past. Conservatism wants to maintain the present or turn back the clock, Liberalism wants to improve upon our faults but often is better at pointing out those faults than planning to improve/pay for them. I try to have no ideology except what works. If there is an issue I care about, I do my best to watch left, right, center, and foreign coverage of said issue, and then decide for myself. Anyone who does otherwise isn't deciding for themselves, they've just aligned themselves with an ideology and are searching for ways to defend it - that's closer to faith than politics; apologetics instead of debating.
I may have posted it here before, so I'll just paraphrase now. Tocqueville said it the best; there will always be others ready to supply you with opinions so you do not need to form them for yourself, and that there is NO PARTY of principle in America, but there are men (and now women) of principle in both parties.
Finally, I leave you with these two quotes.
The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.
Alexis de Tocqueville
I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.
Alexis de Tocqueville
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Firestorm
http:///forum/post/3025840
It would seem to be that the key is pain. For me, anything I would not have wanted my soldiers subjected to if they were captured is something I would not have felt comfortable doing myself. I'm not saying battlefield atrocities do not occur - and am well aware that they do. But for state-sanctioned torture?

I agree with most everything you stated after the paragraph of yours I quoted. But using your own definition, we are not torturing. Sleep deprivation is not painful,waterboarding is not painful, in fact I see nothing listed that caused pain.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Firestorm
http:///forum/post/3025840
If there is an issue I care about, I do my best to watch left, right, center, and foreign coverage of said issue, and then decide for myself. Anyone who does otherwise isn't deciding for themselves, they've just aligned themselves with an ideology and are searching for ways to defend it - that's closer to faith than politics; apologetics instead of debating.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025924
...waterboarding is not painful, in fact I see nothing listed that caused pain.
It is
however, defined by the Geneva Convention as torture.
So, since we signed it, lets either throw that sucker out publicly and formally for all the world to see, or stop whining that our enemies don't adhere to it.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3025515
International law that who was a major player in implementing??? ::cough, cough::
I'm for interrogation/torture on terrorist, but tell me where is the line between interrogation and torture, or who is or is not a terrorist?
I don't think anything that doesn't cause physical damage is torture. Thats just my opinion but I would place big money that a majority of people would agree with it.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025931
It is
however, defined by the Geneva Convention as torture.
So, since we signed it, lets either throw that sucker out publicly and formally for all the world to see, or stop whining that our enemies don't adhere to it.
I don't believe waterboarding was specifically listed in the conventions. I did hear Glen Beck mention that we had signed a treaty in the 90's that specified we wouldn't waterboard. If that is the case it really comes down to what that treaty was addressing. If it was regarding POW's then it's still an open question, if it was a general guide line for any interrogations then whoever said it was allowable has some splaining to do.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025931
It is
however, defined by the Geneva Convention as torture.
So, since we signed it, lets either throw that sucker out publicly and formally for all the world to see, or stop whining that our enemies don't adhere to it.
Here in lies the crux, these people weren't picked up engaging in warfare as designed by the Geneva convention. Thus, it isn't applicable...
Originally Posted by sickboy

http:///forum/post/3025515
International law that who was a major player in implementing??? ::cough, cough::
I'm for interrogation/torture on terrorist, but tell me where is the line between interrogation and torture, or who is or is not a terrorist?
That is the heart of the debate. (and one that I feel has been politicized by the left) You really don't think that democrats didn't know what was going on (or voted to approve it) before turning into nutcases when it was politically expedient for them to do so?
Who is and who is not a terrorist is a good question. And one I think we've erred on the side of safety. Judging my the amount of people released from Gitmo that have been repicked up or id'ed fighting again.
 

rslinger

Member
I DON"T CARE........as an United States citizen, I would like anybody who ok'd or ordered the torture of any person in the name of the United States to go to prison for a long time. Maybe try it out on them see how they like it.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rslinger
http:///forum/post/3026018
I DON"T CARE........as an United States citizen, I would like anybody who ok'd or ordered the torture of any person in the name of the United States to go to prison for a long time. Maybe try it out on them see how they like it.

I have been slapped, several occasions depending on which ex0girlfriend you talk to. No big deal.
I have almost drowned....not a big deal....(waterboarding covered)
I have been in the same room for 3 days (certain habits will do this to a person
I have been up for 3 days straight (sleep deprivation is fun, especially when the hallucinations start)
I am afraid of spiders, I won't touch them, thus they are left in the room with me until someone deals with them, but I ignore them. (locked in a room with a bug)
I have been questioned under bright lights. (ever been picked up by the cops suspected for anything?)
I have eaten crappy food and gone a few days without eating.
Gee.....................if this is torture....my very existance has been cruel............who do I sue?
 

firestorm

Member
Waterboarding does cause pain. It isn't something I would want my soldiers to go through. I don't believe its appropriate. Do remember, the people we're doing it to are not aware they're going to survive. Its not a training scenario.
Chinese water torture isn't "painful"...drip drip drip....its still not something that's appropriate.
At this point I consider my involvement on waterboarding finished. It appears everything that can be said is merely being repeated at this point. We can keep going around in circles forever, but I'm not in favour of that kind of exercise. We'll just have to agree to disagree, you had the 8 years of torture, hopefully the majority will continue to realize that its wrong and we won't have it again.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Firestorm
http:///forum/post/3026203
Waterboarding does cause pain. It isn't something I would want my soldiers to go through. I don't believe its appropriate. Do remember, the people we're doing it to are not aware they're going to survive. Its not a training scenario.
Chinese water torture isn't "painful"...drip drip drip....its still not something that's appropriate.
At this point I consider my involvement on waterboarding finished. It appears everything that can be said is merely being repeated at this point. We can keep going around in circles forever, but I'm not in favour of that kind of exercise. We'll just have to agree to disagree, you had the 8 years of torture, hopefully the majority will continue to realize that its wrong and we won't have it again.
You do know that many soldiers were waterboarded as part of their training don't you? There were also a few reporters past and present that went through it as well.
Like I said before it really doesn't matter how we treat prisoners, We are fighting an enemy that acts more like animals than humans, they are going to act as such.
If we did torture anyone it is more of a political issue than one as safety for our troops.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I have a quick and easy way to solve all this. Any person caught out of uniform on a battlefield can be shot as a spy. Just shoot em all, they don't have uniforms.
Problem solved, close Gitmo and save us a bundle on lawyers fees and housing expenses
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025931
It is
however, defined by the Geneva Convention as torture.
So, since we signed it, lets either throw that sucker out publicly and formally for all the world to see, or stop whining that our enemies don't adhere to it.
Have you read the Geneva cOnvention?
It does not apply to non uniformed combatants.
If you want to read about real torture read "Flyboys" by James Bradley
 

uneverno

Active Member
I have.
I would agree that the rules of engagement don't apply. Once they are prisoners of war however, we are obligated by the treaty we signed to treat them as detailed in the Convention.
One could make the argument that we are not fighting a war, per se, but we seem to be calling it one.
The 8th Ammendment also applies - if - waterboarding took place on US soil. I don't know that it didn't, although I'd venture it did not for that very reason.
The counter argument as I see it here would be that as non-citizens, Constitutional protections do not apply.
As an aside, I'm not sure I understand how reading "Flyboys" is relevant to the debate.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3026684
I have.
I would agree that the rules of engagement don't apply. Once they are prisoners of war however, we are obligated by the treaty we signed to treat them as detailed in the Convention.
One could make the argument that we are not fighting a war, per se, but we seem to be calling it one.
The 8th Ammendment also applies - if
- waterboarding took place on US soil. I don't know that it didn't, although I'd venture it did not for that very reason.
The counter argument as I see it here would be that as non-citizens, Constitutional protections do not apply.
As an aside, I'm not sure I understand how reading "Flyboys" is relevant to the debate.

Read "Flyboys" then tell me. I put it down about 1/2 through, then forced myself to read the rest.
By the Geneva Convention, we do not have to take them prisoners, we are within our rights to shoot them on the spot as nonuniformed combatants, no judge, no jury.
The fact we even bring them in speaks volumes.
BTW, have you watched the video of Nick Berg's torture and death? That is what we are up against. In a perfect world, there is no torture. This is not a perfect world, and we still avoid torture, but I sure want to know what the otherside has planned, and if this is harsh interrogation, then they are getting what they deserve, and by all rights should have been executed on the field of battle as unlawful combatants.
 

uneverno

Active Member
I have watched the video.
I am fully aware of what we're up against. I simply don't believe that a greater atrocity can be used to justify a lesser one.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3026939
I have watched the video.
I am fully aware of what we're up against. I simply don't believe that a greater atrocity can be used to justify a lesser one.
To equate sleep deprivation, bad rock and roll and even waterboarding to what they did to Nick Berg just is not right. How is waterboarding a greater atrocity than beheading a LIVE person? Please cite your sources in your answer.
Again, read "Flyboys", the history of the WWII battles in the Pacific, and Chichi Jima in particular. We defeated a similiar enemy once, do we have the fortitude to do it again?
Would you have used the nuclear bomb to end WWII, or was that another "American Atrocity" that Obama should fly to Japan and say his is sorry?
 

salty blues

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3026037
I have been slapped, several occasions depending on which ex0girlfriend you talk to. No big deal.
I have almost drowned....not a big deal....(waterboarding covered)
I have been in the same room for 3 days (certain habits will do this to a person
I have been up for 3 days straight (sleep deprivation is fun, especially when the hallucinations start)
I am afraid of spiders, I won't touch them, thus they are left in the room with me until someone deals with them, but I ignore them. (locked in a room with a bug)
I have been questioned under bright lights. (ever been picked up by the cops suspected for anything?)
I have eaten crappy food and gone a few days without eating.
Gee.....................if this is torture....my very existance has been cruel............who do I sue?
I would define torture as being forced to listen to nancy pelosi run her liberal yap. I would rather be waterboarded or have my head banged into a wall.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3027038
How is waterboarding a greater atrocity than beheading a LIVE person? Please cite your sources in your answer.
It's not. I think you've missed my point.
I'm not trying to draw moral equivalence.
Embezzlement is not murder. Both are still crimes.
 
Top