• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Rules Out Charging C.I.A. Agents in Interrogations

Big whup. DEA arrests people and gathers evidence for use in prosecutions. The CIA isn't gathering evidence, but actionable intelligence, and gathering it from folks whose motives are not dollar denominated. Cop rules do not apply.

The CIA should be empowered to get whatever information they can from them by whatever means produce results.

It's not true anyway. First off he couldn't even spell the job he held and secondly I find it hard to believe a bonafide DEA agent would be on here talking like he does. Calling our troops Nazis, monsters, etc.
 
Big whup. DEA arrests people and gathers evidence for use in prosecutions. The CIA isn't gathering evidence, but actionable intelligence, and gathering it from folks whose motives are not dollar denominated. Cop rules do not apply.

The CIA should be empowered to get whatever information they can from them by whatever means produce results.

So.......The end justifies the means? The Nazis had it right? We Americans are not the good guys anymore?
 
So.......The end justifies the means?

And when Dear Leader's newly moralized CIA fails to stop the next major terrorist attack, what comfort will you give the widows and orphans? "Hey, we kept our principles."

When failure is no longer an option, the end is all that matters.
 
And when Dear Leader's newly moralized CIA fails to stop the next major terrorist attack, what comfort will you give the widows and orphans? "Hey, we kept our principles."
Are you suggesting that honour and some principles aren't worth such a danger?

I'd certainly take the "risk", accepting the 24-like situation being posited and the ignoring the often controversial info gathered from torture, of Brits involved for not participating in torture which would damage the honour of my nation and set upo a dangerous precedent(what happens when it is a Brit who is suspected next time!).

There are some things a gentleman will not do or support for almost any end.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. However something that causes no physical damage when you're talking war and terrorists isn't one of them. :mrgreen:

Waterboarding certainly is, the rest I don't know. A gentlemen, or Tory one at least, would not be involved or support waterboarding because he knows that once you shed honour and chivalry and you sink to the level of such a low enemy you taint even the sweetest victory.
 
Last edited:
There are some things a gentleman will not do or support for almost any end.

Manners might get you a special dessert at the dinner table, or prehaps a little something extra in the bedroom from a lovely lady you might be courting. In a war manners are of little use with the enemy.

Since when has war ever been gentlemanly(excepting Hollywood and romance novel renditions).
 
Agreed. However something that causes no physical damage when you're talking war and terrorists isn't one of them. :mrgreen:

& if, when the facts come out, they prove that physical damage & even murder did take place....Will you still defend them?
 
Manners might get you a special dessert at the dinner table, or prehaps a little something extra in the bedroom from a lovely lady you might be courting. In a war manners are of little use with the enemy.

Since when has war ever been gentlemanly(excepting Hollywood and romance novel renditions).

Even war has accepted limits under international law. Does Nuremberg ring a bell? ....the Geneva Conventions?....They are the law of the land in our country.
 
& if, when the facts come out, they prove that physical damage & even murder did take place....Will you still defend them?

You got proof of murder and physical damage inflicted from waterboarding as used by our troops?

If not perhaps you should hold off yourself on calling them nazis and monsters.

At such time that any such evidence does come out we can both look at it then.
 
Even war has accepted limits under international law. Does Nuremberg ring a bell? ....the Geneva Conventions?....They are the law of the land in our country.

Geneva conventions don't apply in this topic.
 
& if, when the facts come out, they prove that physical damage & even murder did take place....Will you still defend them?




You got proof of murder and physical damage inflicted from waterboarding as used by our troops?

If not perhaps you should hold off yourself on calling them nazis and monsters.

At such time that any such evidence does come out we can both look at it then.


So you refuse to answer my question? (note the word IF)
 
So you refuse to answer my question? (note the word IF)

I don't see the point in engaging in your hypothetical. If such evidence came out I'd certainly read it and see if my position needed to be re-evaluated.

However I have a gut feeling that if the military killed anyone via waterboarding the news would be all over the place such is the hysteria of the anti-waterboarding crowd.

I do know our troops supposedly killed a guy doing the cold cell thing in Afghanistan. They left him naked, wet, and cold and he died of hypothermia. I don't support that. I don't think they intended on killing the guy but at the same time they should be schooled enough on the techniques they're using to see to it they don't accidentally off people.
 
Manners might get you a special dessert at the dinner table, or prehaps a little something extra in the bedroom from a lovely lady you might be courting. In a war manners are of little use with the enemy.

Since when has war ever been gentlemanly(excepting Hollywood and romance novel renditions).
Well before the modern era it had some of the qualities of honour and gentlemanlyness. Gentlemanlyness is not anything soft, Henry V instilled honour in his men by hanging those who did any looting, even his prized archers. It can be firm and even brutal but it is not dishonourable, that is the key.

But the point is yes sure war is dirty and nasty but there are still honourable ways of doing it and they don't include torture in almost all circumstances. I very much doubt you believe that everything is acceptable in war.
 
Last edited:
However I have a gut feeling that if the military killed anyone via waterboarding the news would be all over the place such is the hysteria of the anti-waterboarding crowd.

I do know our troops supposedly killed a guy doing the cold cell thing in Afghanistan. They left him naked, wet, and cold and he died of hypothermia. I don't support that. I don't think they intended on killing the guy but at the same time they should be schooled enough on the techniques they're using to see to it they don't accidentally off people.
I don't really think that is the point, it is an extremely distressing method, one that few can put up with for more than afew seconds it seems, and is certainly torture.

It is dishonourable.
 
I don't see the point in engaging in your hypothetical. If such evidence came out I'd certainly read it and see if my position needed to be re-evaluated.

However I have a gut feeling that if the military killed anyone via waterboarding the news would be all over the place such is the hysteria of the anti-waterboarding crowd.

I do know our troops supposedly killed a guy doing the cold cell thing in Afghanistan. They left him naked, wet, and cold and he died of hypothermia. I don't support that. I don't think they intended on killing the guy but at the same time they should be schooled enough on the techniques they're using to see to it they don't accidentally off people.

This had nothing to do with "Our Troops."....The torture was carried out by CIA contractors, operating in secret under White House authorization. That's the allegation & will undoubtedly come out as fact under Congressional & Special Prosecutor investigation.
(Like Al Capone once said..."Two people can keep a secret very well........as long as one of them is dead!) :eek:

If these allegations prove true........You will "certainly read it and see if my position needed to be re-evaluated. "......How very American of you!:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Well before the modern era it had some of the qualities of honour and gentlemanlyness. Gentlemanlyness is not anything soft, Henry V instilled honour in his men by hanging those who did any looting, even his prized archers. It can be firm and even brutal but it is not dishonourable, that is the key.

But the point is yes sure war is dirty and nasty but there are still honourable ways of doing it and they don't include torture in almost all circumstances. I very much doubt you believe that everything is acceptable in war.

Henry V slaughtered all prisoners taken when he defeated the French. I sincerely doubt he'd have had a problem with waterboarding unless we're talking about 2 different people. Henry V of England???
 
Henry V slaughtered all prisoners taken when he defeated the French. I sincerely doubt he'd have had a problem with waterboarding unless we're talking about 2 different people. Henry V of England???

But they had accents, and shiny armour so it was most likely carried out in a gentlemanley fashion. :2razz:
 
Henry V slaughtered all prisoners taken when he defeated the French. I sincerely doubt he'd have had a problem with waterboarding unless we're talking about 2 different people. Henry V of England???
He did so because he had absolutely no choice, or considered that to be the case, the French third line was making an attack and he had 6000 prisoners milling about and who could have easily scavenged for weapons. What he did was considered a war crime even at the time, or the same sort of thing, and was not something he did lightly or bore lightly upon him.

24-like situations aside that is nothing like the situation here. To be honest I think I could turn a blind eye in genuine situation like that but we are talking about routine applications on those who are considered high value. It is dishonourable and sets an dangerous precedent in an age where the state's power and technical abilities are growing exponentially.
 
Re: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

You're splitting hairs. How are you defining "physical harm"? Cuts, bruises, and broken limbs? You're reduced to arguing the legalese of the term torture because you know perfectly well that it's an abuse of human rights. Civilized people don't do things like this.

I am hardly splitting hairs here. Do you accept the UN definition then?

[edit] Definition of torture
Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture]United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Well I am not against waterboarding but I have an idea. Lock these guys up in a room with a 2 year old. When the two year old wants some juice, the terrorist will be required to give the child the juice. But then the two year old will naturally not want the juice in that particular cup. So the terrorist will have to figure out which juice cup it is the two year old wants. When he gets to the last cup and the two year old doesn't want that cup either, he will become frustrated and not offer the child any juice. But the child will be persistent that he/she wants juice, just not in any of the juice cups that they have there. After about 1 week, the terrorist will gladly give up any information needed, in order to escape the clutches of a two year old with an illogical desire for a specific juice cup that does not exist.

LMAO....although damned true, having undergone this form of torture TWICE, I think this constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment.

:rofl
 
He did so because he had absolutely no choice, or considered that to be the case, the French third line was making an attack and he had 6000 prisoners milling about and who could have easily scavenged for weapons. What he did was considered a war crime even at the time, or the same sort of thing, and was not something he did lightly or bore lightly upon him.

He ordered tons of unarmed prisoners killed and you're citing him as an example of honor in comparison to our horribly dishonorable government pouring water on peoples heads!!!!!!!!!!!!

bwahahahaha
 
Last edited:
He ordered tons of unarmed prisoners killed and you're citing him as an example of honor in comparison to our horribly dishonorable government pouring water on peoples heads!!!!!!!!!!!!

bwahahahaha

1-there is no point trying to compare CIA torture techniques with an ancient British monarch

2-the water is not poured on people's heads, it is poured into their lungs
 
He ordered tons of unarmed prisoners killed and you're citing him as an example of honor in comparison to our government pouring water on peoples heads!!!!!!!!!!!!

bwahahahaha

I was citing him as someone willing to be firm and even brutal to maintain honour.

You seemed to have totally missed everything else I said. He was still fighting the French third line, he had 6000 men and about 6000 prisoners. There were a lot of weapons lying around, if the french prisoners had got hold of them and attacked at the same time as the french third line he would have been defeated. What he did was considered a war crime even at the time, and I'm not sure I condone it.

But anyway that is unimportant, I wasn't citing him necessarily as paradigm of honour, I was simply showing that honour and gentlemanlyness does not require softness. Sometimes it requires discipline, firmness and even ruthlessness but it certainly rarely includes torture.

Do try and pay attention.
 
Back
Top Bottom