Nope. Not Torture.

[bang guy]

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?
We typically don't do that for an extended period of time several times a day for months.
If I slapped you in the face with an open hand it would be simple assault but you'd be pretty whimpy to make a case of it. If I slapped you every 5 minutes for a week you would be dead.
There's a subtle difference.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3054439
And torture, as policy, endangers our troops in the field.
Bang I respect every point you have brought forth. But for the life of me this is the one I hear so often that I just can not grasp. Explain please .
From what I see, if an enemy combatant wants to kill our troops, how does torture endanger them further. Does the enemy combatant want to make them more dead? I hear this single arguement issued from both sides. Our troops are in a war zone. How can the be placed into more danger than that?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3054417
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?
If you broke your kids arm pulling him out of the way of a truck? Is that abuse? It all has to do with intent.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3054443
We typically don't do that for an extended period of time several times a day for months.
If I slapped you in the face with an open hand it would be simple assault but you'd be pretty whimpy to make a case of it. If I slapped you every 5 minutes for a week you would be dead.
There's a subtle difference.
True, but the standard argument I am getting is just once is torture....
My child is scared of beetles, if my step daughter chases him with a beetle once a day does this constitute torture?
Everytime we go in my father in laws pool It is guaranteed I will throw my wife in atleast once (she can't swim) is this torture? Should I face criminal charges? Should I face 20 to life for this action? Have Iviolated her civil rights somehow?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3054440
The Bill of Rights.

Our gov't is better at taking our rights than the terrorists. Incase you didn't notice, the gov't now owns banks, car companies, and other private businesses. They've taken our property to improve the tax base. They fleece the "rich", hard working Americans to redistribute wealth in the name of fairness. They are trying to limit free speech with the likes of the fairness doctrine and other forms of limits on talk radio. The 2nd Amenendment is under constant attack, and Judge Sotomayor does not think citizens have the right to bear arms.
Interrogation does not prevent planning attacks, it allows us to stop them.

 

[oscardeuce]

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. 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.

Weakening defense for political gain. Now that its leaked, release both sides, and let the people decide.
I agree, we'd thank Bush/Cheney. If anything, they did not hit them hard enough.

 

[oscardeuce]

How many of you have watched the beheading videos? The whole thing, the prayers, the begging, the pleading for life, the disregard for life.
We don't live in a perfect world folks, sometimes to win you get a little dirty.
At the least the winners write the history books. Stalin is thankful we won.
Why did we not have Congress investigate those videos?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3054439
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.
Can the trainees quit. I thought I read they volunteered to go through it but once it started that was it. The reporters and others that went through it had a out.
And some of those very same "experts" who say torture doesn't work promoted waterboarding. According to Chenney waterboard, which some call torture did prevent further attacks and he called for releasing the memos to prove his point. If it was a bluff it was a bold one.
Do you really think people who fly planes into buildings need an excuse to mistreat our troops? I don't think we would have torture as a policy for political reasons but I think any president (Hobama included) should have the option of personally ordering any technique available to get information if the situation warrants it.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3054337
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.
i DO believe it is torture regardless of how it was justified as legal... i dont think you can ignore the fact that the "legalization" of it is in question; this is what the supreme court is for, to overturn bad/unconstitutional decisions made by lower courts/judges but in this case they got around that by having it outside the US... so what i am saying with this argument is that we should look closer at it and not just accept the "it was legal" argument...
as for the pushing someone into the pool... have you ever caused physical pain to someone (make caused them to bleed or broke a bone)??? whether it be intentional or not, under this argument, that would be considered torture... intent needs to be considered, the conditions the person is being kept under, etc... i dont see how you can equate joking around with an interrogation technique...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054614
If you broke your kids arm pulling him out of the way of a truck? Is that abuse? It all has to do with intent.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU... INTENT has everything to do with it... all these off the wall arguments of pushing people into a pool, training of our troops and frat pranks fall with this... just like murder, if i shoot someone for the fun of it it is murder, if they are shooting at me it is self defense... when you are joking, even if distasteful, it is a joke, but when you are controlling every aspect of a person's life and doing these things on top of it to gain information then it is TORTURE...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3054616
Everytime we go in my father in laws pool It is guaranteed I will throw my wife in atleast once (she can't swim) is this torture? Should I face criminal charges? Should I face 20 to life for this action? Have Iviolated her civil rights somehow?
not torture but i bet you dont get any for awhile...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054882
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU... INTENT has everything to do with it... all these off the wall arguments of pushing people into a pool, training of our troops and frat pranks fall with this... just like murder, if i shoot someone for the fun of it it is murder, if they are shooting at me it is self defense... when you are joking, even if distasteful, it is a joke, but when you are controlling every aspect of a person's life and doing these things on top of it to gain information then it is TORTURE...
you do realise that is the Bush position? That is what those "evil lawyers" that they wanted to prosecute and now disbar wrote?

Why is waterboarding with the intent of saving American's lives not valid intent?

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3054651
Our gov't is better at taking our rights than the terrorists. Incase you didn't notice, the gov't now owns banks, car companies, and other private businesses. They've taken our property to improve the tax base. They fleece the "rich", hard working Americans to redistribute wealth in the name of fairness. They are trying to limit free speech with the likes of the fairness doctrine and other forms of limits on talk radio. The 2nd Amenendment is under constant attack, and Judge Sotomayor does not think citizens have the right to bear arms.
Interrogation does not prevent planning attacks, it allows us to stop them.
too many issues to get into for this thread and dont want to side track because i think this debate is going well... i will say i, for the most part, agree with how the govt is handling the above cases and dont believe the 2nd amendment is in trouble (most of the bans are on military weapons that would do more harm than good if legal [gangs and terrorists alike would cause more harm than justifies me or you being allowed to have fun with them])

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054891
you do realise that is the Bush position? That is what those "evil lawyers" that they wanted to prosecute and now disbar wrote?

Why is waterboarding with the intent of saving American's lives not valid intent?
i do realize this, i am going pushing the intent thing because of all the random arguments...
3 reasons...
1. IT IS TORTURE and against our beliefs...
2. there is no proof that it works (even if info was gained there is no way of telling that they couldnt have gotten it a legal way)
3. IMO, it originally started to establish a link between alquida and Iraq which didnt exist (Cheney even confirmed this yesterday) and this has nothing to do with saving American lives....
to all those using the "ends justify the means argument" (they were tortured to save Americans) would you still support this if point #3 was proven???
put another way, would IITs be okay to use to gain information that alquida was linked to Iraq???

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054907
i do realize this, i am going pushing the intent thing because of all the random arguments...
3 reasons...
1. IT IS TORTURE and against our beliefs...
2. there is no proof that it works (even if info was gained there is no way of telling that they couldnt have gotten it a legal way)
3. IMO, it originally started to establish a link between alquida and Iraq which didnt exist (Cheney even confirmed this yesterday) and this has nothing to do with saving American lives....
to all those using the "ends justify the means argument" (they were tortured to save Americans) would you still support this if point #3 was proven???
put another way, would IITs be okay to use to gain information that alquida was linked to Iraq???
1. How is it torture? We both agree intent. But information gathering imo is acceptable intent.
How is it against our beliefs? There is long been precident for suspending certain constitution rights in a time of war. Lincoln suspending Haebus Corpus. The "greatest president ever" FDR interned americans with Japanese heritage. So even taking your faulty assumption that these terrorists, who were fighting outside the geneva convention, who are not on U.S. soil, and have real time information that lead to preventing more american deaths, it wouldn't be the first time constitutional liberties were suspending in a time of war. And some of them were done by democrats...
2. How are american lives less important than a terrorist's comfort?
3. Absolutely we aren't even talking temporary harm to a person. We aren't even talking a bruise, internal injury, nothing. You stop pouring water, he gets up, and the side effect is he got wet.
This isn't a john mccain I no longer have full range of motion in my body. I received no medical care.
This is for a few seconds I thought I was drowning even though intellectually I knew I wasn't.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054914
1. How is it torture? We both agree intent. But information gathering imo is acceptable intent.
How is it against our beliefs? There is long been precident for suspending certain constitution rights in a time of war. Lincoln suspending Haebus Corpus. The "greatest president ever" FDR interned americans with Japanese heritage. So even taking your faulty assumption that these terrorists, who were fighting outside the geneva convention, who are not on U.S. soil, and have real time information that lead to preventing more american deaths, it wouldn't be the first time constitutional liberties were suspending in a time of war. And some of them were done by democrats...
2. How are american lives less important than a terrorist's comfort?
3. Absolutely we aren't even talking temporary harm to a person. We aren't even talking a bruise, internal injury, nothing. You stop pouring water, he gets up, and the side effect is he got wet.
This isn't a john mccain I no longer have full range of motion in my body. I received no medical care.
This is for a few seconds I thought I was drowning even though intellectually I knew I wasn't.
1. Look back on the FDR thing... what that right??? and there was a lot of controversy even at that time..
2. it has nothing to do with the comfort of the terrorist, it is the principle of the situation... do i believe our ideals and principles are more important than American life (including mine)? yes i do... this country was founded on certain principles and i believe we should uphold those...
and still with the argument you are assuming that we got something out of torturing these people that we wouldnt have gotten else where...
3. and i dont think you can say that it doesnt leave a lasting effect... i have inhaled water before when swimming and my chest hurt until the next day... a friend of mine did the same in a pool and had a chest infection that took over a week to get rid of... Mancow (although a pretty lame source) did this for a charity and said his lungs hurt for 2 days... and these are only the physical effects... there are also many psychological effects that can come from this (although im not sure psych distress is sufficient to show torture)...
i know this is taking a step back but the whole idea of getting truthful information from IIT doesn't make since to me... using your arguments, these techniques are not as bad as what McCain went through, and, as stated earlier, the only reason McCain and his fellow service members talked was because the torture was so bad... so it seems that we are doing too much to be legal and not enough to really justify going against our ideals..

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3054907
i do realize this, i am going pushing the intent thing because of all the random arguments...
3 reasons...
1. IT IS TORTURE and against our beliefs...
2. there is no proof that it works (even if info was gained there is no way of telling that they couldnt have gotten it a legal way)
3. IMO, it originally started to establish a link between alquida and Iraq which didnt exist (Cheney even confirmed this yesterday) and this has nothing to do with saving American lives....
to all those using the "ends justify the means argument" (they were tortured to save Americans) would you still support this if point #3 was proven???
put another way, would IITs be okay to use to gain information that alquida was linked to Iraq???
I'll match you expert for expert with people who say it isn't torture
You just haven't seen the proof that it (waterboarding) can work because the current administration refuses to release the information about what was learned as a result of waterboarding. .
Cheney actually said there was a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. He says Iraq was not involved in 9-11. The link between Al Queada and Iraq was first identified during the Clinton Administration.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3054614
If you broke your kids arm pulling him out of the way of a truck? Is that abuse? It all has to do with intent.
Clearly.
Sorry, not a good analogy. Who are we waterboarding in order to save them?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3055023
You just haven't seen the proof that it (waterboarding) can work because the current administration refuses to release the information about what was learned as a result of waterboarding.
I don't buy that. The practice has been around for a lot longer than the US has. If it were effective, there ought to be evidence to support it which also doesn't violate "National Security."

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3055046
I don't buy that. The practice has been around for a lot longer than the US has. If it were effective, there ought to be evidence to support it which also doesn't violate "National Security."
Then why wont Obama release the results? If nothing was learned then how can it possibly be an issue of national security? They came up with the lame excuse that the memos are part of on going litigation but so was the previous memos released