• 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

Wessexman said:
Umm that definitions suggests it is torture.
Click to expand...

I see you have difficulty distinguishing between "perceived" physical and mental harm, and actually having it inflicted on you. We inflict the same "torture" on our own troops and CIA. Do you think they were under serious physical harm?

It is obvious that no amount of facts and logic can help you comprehend the issue; carry on.
 
talloulou said:
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
Click to expand...

People do seem to be missing the point that we are pouring water on heads, and not executing people. So despite the protests to the contrary, I think they should applaud our progress. Especially since many of our critics in the global arena are gun shy about even participating in the WoT in a meaningful way.

BTW Tall, Has anybody, other than me, answered your question about what kind of interrogation techniques they think we should be using?
 
Truth Detector said:
I see you have difficulty distinguishing between "perceived" physical and mental harm, and actually having it inflicted on you. We inflict the same "torture" on our own troops and CIA. Do you think they were under serious physical harm?

It is obvious that no amount of facts and logic can help you comprehend the issue; carry on.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Except of course appealing to your usual insults and rudeness.

The definition includes this.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

That seems to include waterboarding to me. It simulates drowning and is extremely distressing.
 
Wessexman said:
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.
Click to expand...

So we should have just killed them rather than sent them to Gitmo?
 
WI Crippler said:
People do seem to be missing the point that we are pouring water on heads, and not executing people. So despite the protests to the contrary, I think they should applaud our progress. Especially since many of our critics in the global arena are gun shy about even participating in the WoT in a meaningful way.

BTW Tall, Has anybody, other than me, answered your question about what kind of interrogation techniques they think we should be using?
Click to expand...

Nope. None except our resident DEA guy who claims he charmed the answers he needed from thousands. :rofl
 
Wessexman said:
Nor mine. I was simply responding to the insinuation I got that being honourable in war means you have be soft or romantic and ignore the realities of it. It does not.
Click to expand...

But you did in fact assert that Henry V was honorable while our CIA is not which is funny since he killed unarmed prisoners while we got them all wet.
 
talloulou said:
But you did in fact assert that Henry V was honorable while our CIA is not which is funny since he killed unarmed prisoners while we got them all wet.
Click to expand...
Aside from your continued ignoring of the context of his crime compared with the American's and the obvious silliness of saying you got them wet, I did not say he was honourable, I said he instilled honour in his men or tried to, I was simply trying to remind WI he was incorrect to imply gentlemanlyness or honour requires softness or avoiding the realities of war.

To be honest I just chose that example because I watched something on him on TV last night.
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
BTW Tall, Has anybody, other than me, answered your question about what kind of interrogation techniques they think we should be using?
Click to expand...

I missed the original question but if it was .." what kind of interrogation techniques they think we should be using?"......

I would say.....How about LAWFUL ones?
 
Wessexman said:
Are you suggesting that honour and some principles aren't worth such a danger?
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting, but stating that the highest principle is protecting home, hearth, family, and, by extension, nation.

I am not suggesting, but stating that as we should be equally generous with our enmity as with our friendship.

I am not suggesting, but stating that, regarding friends and family, there is little I will not do for them.

I am not suggesting, but stating that, regarding enemies, there is little I will not do to them.
 
celticlord said:
I am not suggesting, but stating that the highest principle is protecting home, hearth, family, and, by extension, nation.
Click to expand...
I disagree to some degree. I don't think that protecting them from terrorist attacks is worth any price in dishonour or precedent and power given to the state. I balk at such utilitarian calculations.


I am not suggesting, but stating that, regarding friends and family, there is little I will not do for them.
Click to expand...
Me neither but I know I serve them better by maintaing my honour, their honour and the honour of our nation.

I am not suggesting, but stating that, regarding enemies, there is little I will not do to them.
Click to expand...
And it will turn victory itself to ashes in your mouth. Means shape ends, means shape ends.
 
Devil505 said:
I missed the original question but if it was .." what kind of interrogation techniques they think we should be using?"......

I would say.....How about LAWFUL ones?
Click to expand...

How about "effective" ones? Ones that yield actionable intelligence and produce results.
 
celticlord said:
So his ends (survival and victory) justified his means?
Click to expand...

To him perhaps, I'm not sure I agree with his actions, although he was in totally different situation. He was on the battlefield and ignoring these wildly inaccurate 24-like scenarios this is not what is going on here.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Me neither but I know I serve them better by maintaing my honour, their honour and the honour of our nation.
Click to expand...

I preserve and protect those close to me. That is sufficient honor for any man.

Wessexman said:
And it will turn victory itself to ashes in your mouth. Means shape ends, means shape ends.
Click to expand...

In your mouth, maybe. Not in mine.
 
None of this is torture and even if it was it wouldn't matter. All options must be on the table in order to obtain actionable intelligence from known terrorists.
 
celticlord said:
I preserve and protect those close to me. That is sufficient honor for any man.
Click to expand...
And to do so a man must do what is right. To do what is dishonourable and dangerous harms them.To give in to any means empowers the enemy and weakens the your principles. It also grants the state the precedent and the powers that can all to easily be extended. If it was worked so well on non-citizens, then why not citizens? It is not automatic of course but the precdent is there, the reasoning. Men who will do anything for victory loose all ideas of constraint and boundaries soon enough, every problem is to be solved in the most quickest and easiest way possible. Power always corrupts.

Stalin was right when he said death solves all problems.


In your mouth, maybe. Not in mine.
Click to expand...
Means shape ends.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
None of this is torture and even if it was it wouldn't matter. All options must be on the table in order to obtain actionable intelligence from known terrorists.
Click to expand...

Weren't those exact words spoken by Adolf Hitler....Or was it Joseph Stalin???.........Saddam Hussein?? (I know it was one of them):confused:
 
Wessexman said:
And to do so a man must do what is right. To do what is dishonourable and dangerous harms them.To give in to any means empowers the enemy and weakens the your principles. It also grants the state the precedent and the powers that can all to easily be extended. If it was worked so well on non-citizens, then why not citizens? It is not automatic of course but the precdent is there, the reasoning. Men who will do anything for victory loose all ideas of constraint a and boundaries soon enough, every problem is to be solved in the most quickest and easiest way possible. Power always corrupts.
Click to expand...

You fail to grasp the signature distinction between friend and foe. You do not harm your friends. You do nothing but harm your enemies. That is what is right. That is what is honorable. Anything less on either side is a disgrace.

That is also the bar to protect against the slippery slope you contrive in your argument.

Wessexman said:
Stalin was right when he said death solves all problems.
Click to expand...

Of course he was. Anyone who thinks death and violence don't resolve issues has never had a taste of either.

Wessexman said:
Means shape ends.
Click to expand...

That's the second time you used that line. It's just as wrong as the first time.
 
Wessexman said:
To do what is dishonourable and dangerous harms them.
Click to expand...

There is nothing dishonorable about inflicting pain or serious harm upon a known terrorist in order to obtain actionable intelligence from them. Anyway, this is all moot. None of this is torture.
 
Devil505 said:
Weren't those exact words spoken by Adolf Hitler....Or was it Joseph Stalin???.........Saddam Hussein?? (I know it was one of them):confused:
Click to expand...

No. It was said by me just recently. Anyway, none of this constitutes torture so your argument is baseless.
 
celticlord said:
You fail to grasp the signature distinction between friend and foe. You do not harm your friends. You do nothing but harm your enemies. That is what is right. That is what is honorable. Anything less on either side is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
You do not seem to recnogise that harm is a broad term, you relegate it to the most base of areas which is why you have the most base of views of what is acceptable behaviour to defend you own.

That is also the bar to protect against the slippery slope you contrive in your argument.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Are criminals with citizenship your friends? Are those who stand in the way of your plans to be your friends for long?
Of course he was. Anyone who thinks death and violence don't resolve issues has never had a taste of either.
Click to expand...
:lol:

They resolve some issues, but can never resolve all in a satisfactory way.

That's the second time you used that line. It's just as wrong as the first time.
Click to expand...
So means don't shape ends?(and this is coming from one who recently so attacked judicial activism.:roll:)

So there is not connection between the means you pursue and the outcomes that will arise from the? I think not, I think that in general there is always a very important relationship because it is the means the bring about the very conditions that are the ends. They feed into the very factors that produce the ongoing, dynamic outcomes. If brutality and ruthless utilitarian calculations are your means then they will be a large part of the outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
There is nothing dishonorable about inflicting pain or serious harm upon a known terrorist in order to obtain actionable intelligence from them.
Click to expand...
It certainly is because it is the use of brutal and questionable means that you would certainly not want used on your troops. A terrorist is a broad term, one man's terrorist is the next's freedom fighter to a degree. It is saying that if you associate with these we consider our enemies we will use any means we feel necessary on you. They're enmies of the state after all, they are no longer human and we can do with them as we wish. It is dishonourable and it is dangerous.

Anyway, this is all moot. None of this is torture.
Click to expand...
Waterboarding certainly is according to the UN's definition. It causes extreme distress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom