Nope. Not Torture.

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054305
Then, as uninformed citizens, how can we vote?
Just think of it this way,what you dont know wont hurt you. You can know later after the threat has been eliminated
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054305
The secrets are not relegated to issues of "National Defence", nor do I trust those who decide what "State Security" is.
I really cant argue with you there.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054305
Sounds just a touch on the Fascist side - no?
No
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054305
As a concerned voter, whom am I supposed to trust?
No one,trust your gut.All politicians are lairs. So your going to have to take a closer look at their records.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054307
Look we had the horse, who have seen the results ask for those results to be released. Claiming that it did prevent future terrorism. Assuming Obama acts in his own best interest, (and there is no evidence that he has not to this point) by refusing to release those memo's he is all but admitting that Cheney is correct.
You know the logic I see behind that.
I feel very safe reaching that conclusion.
i, unfortunately, feel the same about this topic... although i find it hard to believe that he would engage in such a debate over the topic if these papers did prove Cheney correct... it just seems strange to me that if there was nothing to hide that he wouldnt release the documents (to me its the logic of "$h!t or get off the pot")
with that said, i still feel it comes back to the "do the ends justify the means" debate, in which case, i dont think they do..

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054307
If it isn't an answerable question, then how can it be one of the corner stones of the argument against water boarding?
Two separate arguments. Can you, in turn, prove waterboarding is effective?
So far all I'm getting is that it isn't torture, it's just a little scary. Well oogabooga. I'm spilling all I've got. Sheesh - just don't put a cockroach in my cell - esp. one of those Madagascar Hissing ones - I hate those.
Seriously - it's either a little creepy or it's torture. If it's the former, why bother?

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3054311
Just think of it this way,what you dont know wont hurt you. You can know later after the threat has been eliminated
I really cant argue with you there.
No
No one,trust your gut.All politicians are lairs. So your going to have to take a closer look at their records.
i think very other one of your responses here contradict each other... first you shouldnt worry about what the govt tells you is none or your business, but your dont trust the people that make those arguments... some how allowing the govt to control the media isnt fascist (again implying trust that they will tell you what you should know) but then, they are all liars and you should trust them???
how can you support sanctions on the press (and what is considered ok for the american people to know) which demands that the people releasing the info be trustworthy AND say that you, nor anyone else, should trust any of these people

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054320
Two separate arguments. Can you, in turn, prove waterboarding is effective?
So far all I'm getting is that it isn't torture, it's just a little scary. Well oogabooga. I'm spilling all I've got. Sheesh - just don't put a cockroach in my cell.
Seriously - it's either a little creepy or it's torture. If it's the former, why bother?
i believe why a lot of people, including myself, believe that this is torture (because you are right, a lot worse can happen) is the way in which the Bush admin went about justifying it as legal...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054324
i believe why a lot of people, including myself, believe that this is torture (because you are right, a lot worse can happen) is the way in which the Bush admin went about justifying it as legal...
Precisely.
As I stated upthread w/ regard to the Geneva Convention vis a vis the Constitution.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054321
i think very other one of your responses here contradict each other... first you shouldnt worry about what the govt tells you is none or your business, but your dont trust the people that make those arguments... some how allowing the govt to control the media isnt fascist (again implying trust that they will tell you what you should know) but then, they are all liars and you should trust them???
how can you support sanctions on the press (and what is considered ok for the american people to know) which demands that the people releasing the info be trustworthy AND say that you, nor anyone else, should trust any of these people

Game over.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3054311
Just think of it this way,what you dont know wont hurt you.
Wow, you're a seriously more trusting individual than I am. You know what's insidious about cancer? For the first 10-15 years, you don't know you have it.
You can know later after the threat has been eliminated
Or after they screwed up.
No one,trust your gut.All politicians are lairs. So your going to have to take a closer look at their records.
What makes you think I don't look - no - scrutinize - their records?
As they say in the computer industry - Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054310
my argument regarding the recruiting idea isnt that the people in gitmo return and become terrorists (which my be true), i feel (and have heard a few different times) that terrorist groups use gitmo the same way as our country has used "the war on terror" and the idea of speading freedom... come join us and fight for x, y, and z...

Close down Gitmo and the terrorist recruiting agent will find another reason to give to sway support. This is another example of allowing the "enemy" or even other countries dictate to us what is best for our country. The gitmo argument started overseas and then came here. Not the other way around. So the closure of this base would not change the terrorists recruitment at all and would show the rest of the world that if they whine and scream loud enough we will do what THEY want.
Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054324
i believe why a lot of people, including myself, believe that this is torture (because you are right, a lot worse can happen) is the way in which the Bush admin went about justifying it as legal...

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054332
Precisely.
As I stated upthread w/ regard to the Geneva Convention vis a vis the Constitution.

So you guys are saying, because you disagree with the way the procedure was presented as legal and not torture you think it must be torture? I look at this as a case of not thinking for yourself. Because you disagree with the argument on the subject you come to the conclusion that the subject must be the opposite.
I ask either of you, have you ever pushed someone into a pool, thus creating the potential for the individual to drown or experience the sensation of drowning? The intent was to scare and humilate them.....does this make you guilty of torture?
Forget the argument presented before regarding the Legality of it and BUSH, as the explanation given should in no way affect how YOU view it and what validation you give the action.

 

[reefraff]

The way I look at it the Hobama administration released the most damaging side of the interrogation story and is represing the positive side, the results. Comes darn close to treason as far as I am concerned. Obama himself disobeyed a court order to release pictures saying it would be damaging to national security. Those photos were really nothing new yet suddenly they would be more damaging than releasing the memos which contained new information.
I say at this point release absolutely everything genuinely not a current national security issue and let the people decide. I bet better than 60% of folks would want to pat Bush/Cheney on the back for a job well done.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3054337
Close down Gitmo and the terrorist recruiting agent will find another reason to give to sway support. This is another example of allowing the "enemy" or even other countries dictate to us what is best for our country. The gitmo argument started overseas and then came here. Not the other way around. So the closure of this base would not change the terrorists recruitment at all and would show the rest of the world that if they whine and scream loud enough we will do what THEY want.
Perhaps. US banks should then also not have been allowed to fund Lenin or Hitler.
So you guys are saying, because you disagree with the way the procedure was presented as legal and not torture you think it must be torture? I look at this as a case of not thinking for yourself. Because you disagree with the argument on the subject you come to the conclusion that the subject must be the opposite.
I can't speak for Taz, but my argument is more inclusive than that. (It was I, after all, who threw the subject out for debate.) What I'm saying is that if waterboarding is no more than an uncomfortable frat prank, then what do we expect to gain from it?
Forget the argument presented before regarding the Legality of it and BUSH, as the explanation given should in no way affect how YOU view it and what validation you give the action.
My argument has nothing to do with the (cult of) personality in office or his political affiliation. (I'm skeptical, at best, of Obama's explanation as well.)
What affects how I view it is not the explanation given. What affects my view is the the Constitution we are supposed to be governed by and the treaties to which we are signatories. Both define waterboarding as cruel and unusual (metaphorically in terms of the Convention, but you see my point?)
As I said to V³, and it apparently bears repeating, if we cannot trust those whom we've entrusted to guard the Constitution, who can we trust?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3054347
The way I look at it the Hobama administration released the most damaging side of the interrogation story and is represing the positive side, the results.
Admirable sentiment.
I was listening to Glenn Beck today, and he raises an extremely valid point: Until we remove R and D from the equation, we will never realize that BOTH parties are branches of the "Liberal Fascist" party.
The idea is not new to him or his guest, however:
"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system."
"You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it."
Noam Chomsky on both counts.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054352
Perhaps. US banks should then also not have been allowed to fund Lenin or Hitler.
The two are not similar as one was meant to provide direct funding and the other is only a potential support method. But that said, I don't support shutting anything down that they might use as a recruitment tool. Otherwise we would be with out a lot of things. Would you pull play-boy from the shelves since they use our open display of woman as a tool? Would you prevent women from working and holding equal rights as the use this as a recruiting tool. The argument that it is used as a recruitment tool is ridiculous, because if this is a reason for closing it, then we have to give up a lot of our basic human rights as well.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054352
I can't speak for Taz, but my argument is more inclusive than that. (It was I, after all, who threw the subject out for debate.) What I'm saying is that if waterboarding is no more than an uncomfortable frat prank, then what do we expect to gain from it?
How many students don't make it through rush week and skip joining a frat. Is it because they are tortured, or because they do not have the mental stamina to put up with certain actions. The same holds true for terrorists, those that wouldn't make it through rush week, will divulge information.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054352
My argument has nothing to do with the (cult of) personality in office or his political affiliation. (I'm skeptical, at best, of Obama's explanation as well.)
What affects how I view it is not the explanation given. What affects my view is the the Constitution we are supposed to be governed by and the treaties to which we are signatories. Both define waterboarding as cruel and unusual (metaphorically in terms of the Convention, but you see my point?)
And I have asked repeatedly, how is it any different than what we do to each other in a pool?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3054369
And I have asked repeatedly, how is it any different than what we do to each other in a pool?
And I will say again, as I have repeatedly, if that's all that's going on, then there is nothing to be gained from the practice is there? It's just a joke HAHAHAHAH.
Just kidding! Enjoy your pork.
How can you seriously defend the extraction of valuable information coming from a kids game?
We're now no longer on the question of whether or not it's torture, but why are we wasting taxpayer dollars boring them?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054324
i believe why a lot of people, including myself, believe that this is torture (because you are right, a lot worse can happen) is the way in which the Bush admin went about justifying it as legal...
you do realize that they never tossed that terrorist ( I can't remember his name) in the confined space with the caterpillar. They just thought about it. Then decided not to do it.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054320
Two separate arguments. Can you, in turn, prove waterboarding is effective?
So far all I'm getting is that it isn't torture, it's just a little scary. Well oogabooga. I'm spilling all I've got. Sheesh - just don't put a cockroach in my cell - esp. one of those Madagascar Hissing ones - I hate those.
Seriously - it's either a little creepy or it's torture. If it's the former, why bother?
I'm still not sure why training is acceptable intent, but gathering information with the possibility of preventing future attacks is not.
It doesn't even need to have actually produced information. But judging from Cheney's statement's and Obama's actions did in fact reveal actionable information about planned terrorist activity. Heck if we applied the same burden of proof that man made global warming enjoys, we'd have had a "scientific consensus" that it worked, by interviewing one psychologist before 9/11 happened...
And still how can the recruitment argument be a cornerstone for the left when it is as you've said unanswerable?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054396
I'm still not sure why training is acceptable intent, but gathering information with the possibility of preventing future attacks is not.
Forewarned is forearmed?
It doesn't even need to have actually produced information. But judging from Cheney's statement's and Obama's actions did in fact reveal actionable information about planned terrorist activity. Heck if we applied the same burden of proof that man made global warming enjoys, we'd have had a "scientific consensus" that it worked, by interviewing one psychologist before 9/11 happened...
Too many unrelated arguments here, and there is no logic train. No need for producing information? Uhhh - then what are we doing? Perhaps we should be waterboarding climatologists? I'm not sure where you're going here.
And still how can the recruitment argument be a cornerstone for the left when it is as you've said unanswerable?
The question is unanswerable because we don't have enough evidence to discuss it. I don't know what that has to do with Right or Left.
I think you're making the mistake that I'm interested in defending the "left" over the "right". I'm not. Left and Right are fictions foisted upon us by the elite.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054406
Forewarned is forearmed?
Too many unrelated arguments here, and there is no logic train. No need for producing information? Uhhh - then what are we doing? Perhaps we should be waterboarding climatologists? I'm not sure where you're going here.
The question is unanswerable because we don't have enough evidence to discuss it. I don't know what that has to do with Right or Left.
I'm just pointing out what most from the left have accepted with a much lower burden of proof...
As far as right and left, the right isn't the one who made it a political issue. I"m just accepting what is a political reality. I'm not saying it is right or wrong.
BTW what are these "american ideals" we've abandoned by subjecting these terrorists to temporary discomfort with no physical damage? In the name of protecting american lives.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054410
I'm just pointing out what most from the left have accepted with a much lower burden of proof...
Agreed. That's a matter of appealing to the lowest common denominator though. That is not a trait of left or right, it is attributable to the obfuscation on the part of the "Government/Media Complex." (term coined by Michael Savage, to my knowledge.)
As far as right and left, the right isn't the one who made it a political issue.
I wouldn't count on that. "It takes two to tango."
BTW what are these "american ideals" we've abandoned by subjecting these terrorists to temporary discomfort with no physical damage? In the name of protecting american lives.
To the former, the 8th Ammendment.
To the latter, I am in possession of no evidence that the protection of American Lives was either the objective or the result. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm absolutely willing to listen.
As for "no physical damage" no-one has yet addressed my upthread question regarding spousal and/or child abuse. Perhaps you'd care to: Is it abuse if no bones are broken or marks are left?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054396
I'm still not sure why training is acceptable intent, but gathering information with the possibility of preventing future attacks is not.

Trainees can quit at any time. That makes it voluntary.
I have seen no proof that torture prevents future attacks. I have seen that it discloses false information more often than not.
And torture, as policy, endangers our troops in the field.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054410
BTW what are these "american ideals" we've abandoned by subjecting these terrorists to temporary discomfort with no physical damage? In the name of protecting american lives.
The Bill of Rights.