Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 314

Thread: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,359

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Torturing someone to get info from them will only get you one thing, bad information. They'll say anything to make it stop. Torturing is immoral, and ineffective, we shouldn't do it, and we have better ways to get good info from people.

  2. #92
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Torturing someone to get info from them will only get you one thing, bad information. They'll say anything to make it stop. Torturing is immoral, and ineffective, we shouldn't do it, and we have better ways to get good info from people.
    Think we may need to go after this one at a time.

    The word is sort of a nebulous term. What is your definition of torture.....??



    .

  3. #93
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    Last Seen
    06-20-11 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    107

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by RyrineaHaruno View Post
    Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and I'd 'do it again'

    So doing the same acts as our enemy will not set us apart. The man even defended his action disgusting.
    How disgusting would it be to give Bush a bit of his own medicine... A little waterboarding for the 8 YEARS OF FAILURE in the Oval Office and the Economic melt-down, leaving the USA IN DEBT with two WARS in the Middle East to win or lose.
    This is surely a good enough reason to let him have a few drowning session on the waterboard... Considering all the innocent lives he has disrupted and destroyed ...

  4. #94
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    Last Seen
    06-20-11 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    107

    Caution Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by your star View Post
    torturing someone to get info from them will only get you one thing, bad information. They'll say anything to make it stop. Torturing is immoral, and ineffective, we shouldn't do it, and we have better ways to get good info from people.
    bravo, bravo !!! I do agree . This is an uncivilized act !!!

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,359

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Think we may need to go after this one at a time.

    The word is sort of a nebulous term. What is your definition of torture.....??

    torture- the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure- From the Webster dictionary.

    Waterboarding is torture, and torture is not an effective means to get information out of somebody. It's just a fact, they will say anything to make the pain go away.

  6. #96
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,449
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I might have been more sympathetic about the whole waterboarding thing, if I hadn't seen that video of Pearl slowly, agonizingly being tortured to death by having his head sawn off with a serrated knife, screaming in pain and terror, FIRST before I ever heard about waterboarding.
    The Taliban are terrorists, so it's not shocking what they do, especially since 9/11. The American military are not, and should not be. While I admit that sawing off someone's head is much more barbaric than waterboarding, they are both disgusting acts of cruelty. Just because something is not as cruel as the other doesn't make it okay.

    I might have been more sympathetic about it if it wasn't something we do to our own soldiers, including a number of men I know well, who have told me about the experience. They said it was very scary and they hated it but that they suffered no real harm.
    Never heard of this. Got a link?

    World of difference between something that does no lasting harm that we do to our own to toughen them up (waterboarding), and slowly sawing off a journalists' head while he screams in horror (until he was no longer able to do anything but make inhuman croaking sounds).
    I love how you downplay waterboarding like it's a stroll in the park.

    Now let me ask you this. Say the Taliban captured a bunch of US military personnel, and waterboarded them all to "extract information," how would you feel about it?

    PS. How in the hell can you watch that video???
    “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

  7. #97
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,449
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If someone were to rape and murder my child, me torturing him in retaliation would be the morally correct action. It would still be illegal (as it should be, for the same reasons I feel it should be illegal for the government to do it), but it would abso-friggin-lutely be morally correct for me to torture the bastard.

    Illegal =/= immoral, moral =/= legal.

    Thanks.

    I will admit that I would have the same feelings, though I don't think I'd have it in me to go through with it.
    “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

  8. #98
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    torture- the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure- From the Webster dictionary.

    Waterboarding is torture, and torture is not an effective means to get information out of somebody. It's just a fact, they will say anything to make the pain go away.
    Thanks. Good answer. If we are going to discuss the issue of torture there has to be some common definition to work from. And I don't disagree with your definition. Burning, crushing, wounding would be on most people's list as genuine torture. Personally think waterboarding would qualify as a "maybe" for that broad description but it would certainly be a valid debate.

    But at least as a starting point, we should be able to remove Guantanamo Bay from the torture accusations topic. Never heard burning, crushing, or wounding being viably claimed at that site. (more of the sleep, loud music, and Koran catagories...)


    .

  9. #99
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,850

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Is your objection to "torture" based on the argument that its not useful or that it's morally wrong? Or both?
    Both. They are not mutually exclusive positions.


    Again, it's not so much an actual scenario as it is a thought exercise used to help people examine the logic behind their support for or opposition to torture in some or all circumstances.
    Isn’t better to use a realistic scenario to exercise thought? Further, as the “ticking time bomb”, has been used as “THEE excuse” for torture, (thank you ADK), it’s disingenuous. It reminds me of children going to the outer reaches of logic in order to wring something from their parents.

    Sorry to repeat myself, but the lines are drawn before the question is asked. Those of us against torture are against it. We don’t want our government acting illegally for any reason. Period. And those who think it’s ok to torture under the ticking time bomb want to punish the person and the scenario makes little or no difference.

    What baffles me is that if Conservatives are so afraid of government power, one would think they’d be afraid of a President who overrides the law to approves torture.


    That's exactly what our interrogators did. They found the detainees weaknesses (whether it was female interrogators, insects, or embarrassment) and exploited it. I seem to remember a bit of an uproar when that information was released.
    Comparing cookies, insects or embarrassment to the simulation of drowning, which is completely believable by the person experiencing it so it is not a simulation to them, is a false equivalency. Fear of death is everyone’s weakness and as an interrogation policy it’s lazy and worse, ineffective.


    Quote Originally Posted by alms View Post
    Gina,

    As I said, a hypothetical involving nineteen AQ operatives hijacking four jetliners and flying them into the WTC and Pentagon would have been laughed at prior to 9/11. Such a hypothetical would've failed to meet your subjective criteria of "likelihood" but it happened nonetheless. Reality does not always conform to our subjective expectations of what is likely to occur.
    In fact, I did read an article a while back wherein it was discovered that NORAD ran drills based on a hypothetical scenarios regarding the use of hijacked aircraft as a threat to national defense, 2 years before 9/11/01. So a 9/11 style attack was not outside the realm of consideration of at least NORAD, though not as specifically as you outline.

    WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

    One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.
    USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

    And the point of this particular hypothetical is to subject our moral presuppositions to scrutiny. If torture is morally justifiable under a certain circumstance, then it is morally justifiable under similar circumstances.
    As I said before:

    Given the nature of most responses from either side, a firm moral belief one way or another about torture, is the determining factor, not the scenario.

    Yet you would approve of killing the enemy? Why do you arbitrarily distinguish between killing and torture? If a soldier can send a lead projectile through the enemy's head, then why it is morally reprehensible to subject that same enemy to simulated drowning?
    You are using a false equivalency. Making justifiable war against a country or group responsible for killing Americans (and killing the aggressor in the process) is not the same as the treatment of detained captured soldiers or combatants. Those are two separate circumstances. Without discussing the details surrounding the start of the war in Iraq, we have no law against attacking those who attack us; congress and the president grant the authority.

    In the other case, there are our own laws making torture illegal and those of international agreements the U.S. has signed with regard to the treatment of captured personnel, outlawing waterboarding specifically as torture. We do not torture and I’m not a pacifist.
    And what about collateral damage? President Obama has ordered predator drone strikes on high level AQ operatives, causing the deaths of innocent non-combatants in the process. Do you also condemn these acts?
    What does collateral damage have to do with torture? You really are bringing the kitchen sink to bear in this discussion. I’m not going to wander astray with a further discussion of that topic other than to say, yes, I abhor the “collateral” deaths of non-combatant in the pursuit of AQ and you are again using a false equivalency. Those deaths are unintentional. Torture is a completely intentional act. Now, if you go down that road again, you go alone.


    No one has made an appeal to law thus far (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems their primary concern has been the moral valuation being made in regards to torture, which is why I chose to address that valuation.
    I’m addressing the law and I do so because it is morally wrong to break it. We are a nation of laws. I don’t want my President or government breaking the law on their own, for any reason. As I stated to NYC, for people who mistrust government as much as libertarians and conservatives do, why would they approve of the government breaking the law at will? I’m flummoxed that it is acceptable.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We can’t get lost in discrimination. We can’t get lost in B.S. We can’t get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  10. #100
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    What a ridiculous rant, Zyph.

    I have never equated waterboarding vs beheading. One is torture, the other is outright murder. I hold the US to a higher standard than the Taliban, and would never imagine beheading to become US policy in a time of war. Then again, I never expected torture to be acceptable either. But that has happened, and the pedistal that the US sat high on when it came to world view on humane treatment came falling down. C'mon... you're better than that.
    You've equated waterboarding to everything the terrorists due in regards to "torture".

    You've essentially equated waterboarding to shoving sharp objects up someones fingernails.

    You've equated it to flaying skin from peoples bodies.

    You've equated it to castration.

    You've equated it to rape.

    You've equated it to breaking bones, potentially to the point of paralysis.

    And on and on.

    And where exactly does it stop?

    Is sleep deprivation exactly the same as cutting off body parts?

    Is tearing up a holy book exactly the same level of wrongness as killing someones family member in front of them while they're bound?

    Is screaming at someone and threatening to beat them exactly the same level of wrongness as physically beating them to the point that they'd be dead if not getting some basic medical attention?

    No, sorry, there is no other generalized "bad thing" in this world that I believe the worst actions that fall under its umbrella is exactly the same as far as how "bad" it is as every other action under that umbrella no matter how much more benign or lighter they are. I don't hold that standard to lying. Our law doesn't hold that standard to breaking of the law. Yet magically its supposed to apply to torture.

    Yes, I absolutely have an issue with these milder forms of torture being used as part of common every, generalized, SOP for our military and intelligence forces. No, I have absolutely no issue with using these kind of "torture" techniques on a small number of individuals with a high probability of having actionable or valuable knowledge and have a clearly evident connection with the entities we are at war with if it is kept specifically as an exception rather than a rule defined solely to this encounter.

    I do not hold my government to some kind of higher standard than the common sense I hold myself too.

    If someone attacks me with fists I'm probably going to just use my fists.
    If that person decides to pull out a knife I'm not going to keep using my fists to keep the "moral high ground" of not attacking someone with a deadly weapon if I have a knife near by.
    If that person decides to pull out a gun on me I'm not gong to keep using my fists to keep the "moral high ground" of not attacking someone with a deadly weapon if I have a knife near by.

    Likewise

    I am not in favor of my government attacking unless its been attacked/has clear and decisive reason to believe they're about to be attacked (the government equivalent of getting the first punch on a guy whose walking toward you angrily with his fist ready to punch)
    I am fine with my government entering into conventional warfare if its been attacked.
    I am actually fine with my government entering into NON-conventional warfare if its been attacked unconventionally (I would have zero issue with the government if it had authorized the assassination of key Taliban figures after a terrorist attack, or if it authorized assassination against a country who utilized one against us).
    I am fine with us using nuclear weapons if another country used it against use we have clear an decisive reason to believe they're about to use it and that is our best or only option.
    And I am fine with using more strenuous methods of interrogation or "Torture" if the other side of the conflicts begins to do it to our side.

    I do think its possible to do most of those things and still adhere to the idea of staing on the higher ground than those on the other side. While the other sides conventional warfare may not care about hitting citizens (like indiscriminate rocket fire), I agree with the notion of attempting to keep civilian causalities as low as possible. While the other side may use unconventional warfare to target civilians (like terrorism), I think ours should be far more pinpointed and targeted towards the problem rather than citizens when possible. While I would be open to the use of Nuke's in the above situation, I would want us looking at every other option for one that could be just as successful without using nuclear weapons to potentially avoid such devastation. And in the last I would not want us going to the most brutal, violent, and physically permanently damaging types or it being indiscriminately done to one and all simply for the primary reason being for punishment or a random chance to get info.

    However I think the entire notion of "Rules of War" only works when both sides are playing by the rules. When one side routinely and continually disregards and breaks those rules while you try and maintain them then you are essentially fighting with one arm behind your back or more. Now can you win that way? Sure, you can. But likely at far more expense than otherwise. And frankly I find it amazingly hypocritical and frankly a big insulting to watch people bitch about how long the war goes on, how horrible the troop deaths are, how expensive it is, and then get up in arms at every single tiny little thing that happens that's somewhat questionable and makes it out to be the greatest atrocity ever known to man when there are likely 100 acts that are worse for every 1 of those that come up, if not more.

    In any fight...from on the school yard all the way up to a world war..."rules" and "Honor" only are useful and worth while if both sides are following it when the defense of another or your life is at stake.

Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •