People who believe torture works only believe so because they are weak and are drawing conclusions based on their own weakness. They think torture would work because they know it wouldn't take much to get them to give up their mother. They then project that weakness on everyone one else.
Hows that you pansy ass torture advocates?
The problem here is you. You are too stupid to recognize that stating a simple fact is not an endorsement. I have stated that as well as zimmer.
So wtf is your problem? Are you just ignorant or are you deliberately ignoring what we're actually presenting?
Yeah, I know alternative methods exist and are effective. As you plainly can see I am not advocating torture, so act dumb and pretend otherwise.
For example, this Gitmo judge who recently said a detainee had been tortured, the standard she advanced would logically have a detainee stubbing his tow resulting in triggering a cardiac attack constituting torture. It's an idiotic standard and measure.
Maybe, but irrelevant.I would imagine that I have a much firmer grasp on the true meaning of suffering than most people do.
Fool, waterboarding a single person one time in no way lowers the US to that of AQ or Pol Pot or Hitler or any other evil. You're engaging in disgusting moral equivalencies.There is a difference in motive. At the most elementary level, though, the terrorist is an individual himself. Lowering yourself to the level of barbarism perpetuated by your enemies undermines all of the hard work that America has accomplished in setting itself up as a leader of the free world.
Using physcially coercive methods doesn't remove the US as the leader of the free world. Hell, even engaging in isolated instances of torture wouldn't manage that.
Are you people seriously going to argue that the US's moral standing relative to North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, China, et al is going to suffer because it waterboards actual terrorists?
I guess you could get there if you want argue that waterboarding one actual terrorist is the equivalent of jailing tens of thousands of citizens (China), intentionally targetting civilians (Syria, Hezbollah), murdering via state policies hundreds of thousands of citizens (North Korea), violently cracks down on political dissidents, arming/funding terror groups (Iran).
You're dealing in disgusting moral equivalencies.
They way I see it is can torture yield correct answers? Yes, it can result in accurate information. Will torture always 100% result in accurate information? Obviously no it won't. So what is the % of information you get which is accurate and usable? That's the real question, the one that seemingly is always avoided by the pro-torture side. Because the use of torture is abhorred, and can lead to negative consequence. It can lead to the torture of innocents, misinformation, etc. So you have to ask yourself, is it worth it. And in asking that question, it's not here's one time it worked evidence anymore. Now you need statistical evidence. If you can't prove that torture statistically yields correct answers more than incorrect answers; than I see little point in employing it as an option.
I think personally that this is much like the death penalty. One the whole, it is endorsed by those seeking revenge over anything else.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville