• 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!

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

So far three posters have resorted to childish name-calling.

Bush is a piece of trash (ADK).

Bush is an arrogant dick (NextEra).

Bush is an ignorant dick (liblady).

This kind of behavior adds nothing to the discussion. It's also indicative of a double standard since these folks would probably rush to condemn similar name-calling if it were directed at President Obama.

This kind of behavior should stop. It's childish and inflammatory.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I don't know, but all I do know is I am not willing nor can I ever torture some one.
Click to expand...

soccerboy,

You wouldn't subject someone to waterboarding in order to save your family? I find that extremely hard to believe.
 
The problem with Bush is not his personality, but his policy. Always best to focus on the policy, which was lacking on a lot of fronts. The issue of torture is just one wrong sided effort his administration made.
 
Last edited:
alms said:
So far three posters have resorted to childish name-calling.

Bush is a piece of trash (ADK).

Bush is an arrogant dick (NextEra).

Bush is an ignorant dick (liblady).

This kind of behavior adds nothing to the discussion. It's also indicative of a double standard since these folks would probably rush to condemn similar name-calling if it were directed at President Obama.

This kind of behavior should stop. It's childish and inflammatory.
Click to expand...

you know what? you're right. i'll try to remember this.
 
alms said:
soccerboy,

You wouldn't subject someone to waterboarding in order to save your family? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Nope I could not physically or mentally bring myself to waterboard some one. It just is not part of me.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I don't support methods like water boarding, either. It never really made sense to me.

A common argument *for* it is (I'll paraphrase Bill O'Reilly): "If your family was in danger wouldn't you do anything in your power, including water boarding someone, to get more information so you can protect them?"

Well - if my family was in danger and I went vigilante and attempted to torture information out of someone it's possible I could be brought up on charges and accused of torture, at the least. If it's unacceptable for me then it should be unacceptable for the government as well.
Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:
Ah, yeah, that's right - I, a petit 4'11" woman will not be trying to waterboard anyone no matter what - nor will I be slinging a gun or other some such.
What good is it to try to 'save my family' - in this fictitious situation - if I'm only going to get my ass handed to me in the process?
I would expect law enforcement to step in and handle it without resorting to taking time torturing someone.

Besides, torture leads to people dilvulging information which might not be accurate - I don't know how 'accurate' such information is, now, but back in the days of the salem witch trials and the spanish enquisition torture was used and false confessions came pouring out.

I'd rather have limited *real* information than overabundent *bull***** lies.
Click to expand...

Well said, both posts. They will say anything to make it stop and what better way to do that than to lie their butts off, causing misdirection of resources and wasting of valuable time.


alms said:
soccerboy,

Find another way? Like what?

Suppose there was no other way, what would you do?
Click to expand...

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is ridiculous. The likelihood of snagging a bad guy with "only hours" in which to act to prevent an attack, is very far fetched.

There are other ways to get information. There are many other stories like this from interrogators, but I find this one the most poignant.
Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."

It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."
Click to expand...

Read more: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? - TIME

Lest anyone start laughing that I propose to give all terrorists cookies, that isn't the point, that was the bait this terrorist took. Smart interrogators know how to find a weakness and exploit it. Sugar free cookies was this guy's, so the joke was on him.
 
Goshin said:
I watched a video of that journalist, Pearl, having his head slowly sawed off by terrorists. He was terrified, and before his head ever came off he went from screaming to making inhuman-sounding croaking noises.


Seeing that video put an upper limit on how much sympathy I have for poor widdle terrorists who got waterboarded, especially considering we waterboard our own soldiers to toughen them up against interrogation in SERE training.
Click to expand...

The point that you, and all the Bush & Cheeney lovers, seem to miss is that the people who defend the use of water boarding "claim" its purpose is to extract information. Experts across the globe will tell you that is not the case. People being tortured will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop the torture. And they all say so afterwards.

The REAL reason Bush & Cheeney lovers like the idea of torture is because they think it punishes our enemies, gets even for hideous actions like the way they murdered Daniel Pearl. I would have no problem water boarding, and worse, to Daniel Pearl's murderers. But, if I want information from our enemy I want him to be cooperative so I can depend on his info. Like the way we got actionable info from the Christmas Day bomber, etc. "You get more flies with honey" kinda analogy.

That stupid defense that we put our soldiers thru the same thing is just that... stupid. We're not trying to get info from them. They know it will stop. Its sole purpose is to show our soldiers what they might be in for if they get captured. That's why it's called "training". :roll:
 
Goshin said:
I watched a video of that journalist, Pearl, having his head slowly sawed off by terrorists. He was terrified, and before his head ever came off he went from screaming to making inhuman-sounding croaking noises.


Seeing that video put an upper limit on how much sympathy I have for poor widdle terrorists who got waterboarded, especially considering we waterboard our own soldiers to toughen them up against interrogation in SERE training.
Click to expand...

If you condone torture, then you shouldn't complain about your own getting the same treatment.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I don't know, but all I do know is I am not willing nor can I ever torture some one.
Click to expand...
I respect when people give this type of opinion to be honest. I don't feel that our values extend to people who would attack us......this is a personal belief as is the argument that our values do extend outside of our borders. This being said I don't personally know you but you are my countryman and this being said if my humanitarian values got in the way of protecting you or any other U.S. citizen I will defer to my country's well being. It might make me personally sick to torture another human being.......but if it saved a single civilian or allied soldier's life I'd do it with a clear conscience.
 
Middleground said:
If you condone torture, then you shouldn't complain about your own getting the same treatment.
Click to expand...
There is quite a big difference between waterboarding and sawing someone's head off.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Nope I could not physically or mentally bring myself to waterboard some one. It just is not part of me.
Click to expand...

soccerboy,

A moral abstraction is more important to you than the lives of your loved ones?
 
Middleground said:
If you condone torture, then you shouldn't complain about your own getting the same treatment.
Click to expand...

I support our guys killing the enemy, so according to your logic, I shouldn't complain when our guys are killed by the enemy. Do I have that right?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I respect when people give this type of opinion to be honest. I don't feel that our values extend to people who would attack us......this is a personal belief as is the argument that our values do extend outside of our borders. This being said I don't personally know you but you are my countryman and this being said if my humanitarian values got in the way of protecting you or any other U.S. citizen I will defer to my country's well being. It might make me personally sick to torture another human being.......but if it saved a single civilian or allied soldier's life I'd do it with a clear conscience.
Click to expand...

I completely understand where you are coming from, but it is just something that would haunt me for the rest of my life if I did. For me I wouldn't torture some one to save a loved one, but I would without a doubt or hesitation give my life to save a loved one. But I still realize that while we may disagree on waterboarding as a means of saving some one, our hearts are probably in the same place of wanting to save a loved one.
 
Gina said:
The "ticking time bomb" scenario is ridiculous. The likelihood of snagging a bad guy with "only hours" in which to act to prevent an attack, is very far fetched.

There are other ways to get information. There are many other stories like this from interrogators, but I find this one the most poignant.


Read more: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? - TIME

Lest anyone start laughing that I propose to give all terrorists cookies, that isn't the point, that was the bait this terrorist took. Smart interrogators know how to find a weakness and exploit it. Sugar free cookies was this guy's, so the joke was on him.
Click to expand...

Gina,

The ticking time bomb scenario is a hypothetical that is meant to examine the moral basis of so-called torture. The chances of it occurring is immaterial to the nature of the discussion.

Also, the likelihood of nineteen AQ operatives hijacking four airliners and flying them into the WTC and Pentagon seemed very far-fetched as well, but reality does not always conform to our expectations about what is likely.

I think our intelligence and military apparatuses should have as many options, tactics, and tools at their disposal, to be used at their discretion in the defense of this nation and its people. Arbitrarily denying them a tool because of some nebulous moral sentiment seems like folly to me.
 
alms said:
soccerboy,

A moral abstraction is more important to you than the lives of your loved ones?
Click to expand...

Well for me it isn't a moral abstraction, it is literally part of my personality. But yes I am not willing to torture some one to save a loved one. I am willing to give my own life to take their place, but I am not willing to torture.
 
I think this is great, I support water boarding and KSM certainly deserved it. He is a non US citizen terrorist that most definitely has vital and secret information about our enemies. I'd rather make that animals uncomfortable than have more innocent Americans die.
 
Gina said:
Well said, both posts. They will say anything to make it stop and what better way to do that than to lie their butts off, causing misdirection of resources and wasting of valuable time.




The "ticking time bomb" scenario is ridiculous. The likelihood of snagging a bad guy with "only hours" in which to act to prevent an attack, is very far fetched.

There are other ways to get information. There are many other stories like this from interrogators, but I find this one the most poignant.


Read more: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? - TIME

Lest anyone start laughing that I propose to give all terrorists cookies, that isn't the point, that was the bait this terrorist took. Smart interrogators know how to find a weakness and exploit it. Sugar free cookies was this guy's, so the joke was on him.
Click to expand...

Quite right. There are more effective ways than torture. The point is to get the information. We should seek themost effective way, and almost across the board the experts agree torture isn't the most effective way.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I completely understand where you are coming from, but it is just something that would haunt me for the rest of my life if I did. For me I wouldn't torture some one to save a loved one, but I would without a doubt or hesitation give my life to save a loved one. But I still realize that while we may disagree on waterboarding as a means of saving some one, our hearts are probably in the same place of wanting to save a loved one.
Click to expand...
Can't argue that. It is the right of those who cannot bring themselves to do the job to hold that morality and it is commendable. I will say this and I hope it doesn't get taken the wrong way, I am glad that we have those who will do the unthinkable on our behalf to spare us the dirty job.
 
Boo Radley said:
Quite right. There are more effective ways than torture. The point is to get the information.
Click to expand...

Boo,

No one thinks torture is the best and only option is every circumstance. Sometimes there will be no need to employ it while other times there might be. It shouldn't be our decision, though. We should leave that up to the discretion of the experts.

We should seek themost effective way, and almost across the board the experts agree torture isn't the most effective way.
Click to expand...

The "most effective way" is situational. There is no singular method or tactic that will be "the most effective way" in every situation, which is why limiting our options is "the least effective way".

And could you provide proof that "almost across the board the experts agree torture isn't the most effective way"? If that's true, then why did our intelligence and military apparatuses resort to waterboarding so frequently? Seems the experts actions speak louder than their alleged words.
 
alms said:
Gina,

The ticking time bomb scenario is a hypothetical that is meant to examine the moral basis of so-called torture. The chances of it occurring is immaterial to the nature of the discussion.

Also, the likelihood of nineteen AQ operatives hijacking four airliners and flying them into the WTC and Pentagon seemed very far-fetched as well, but reality does not always conform to our expectations about what is likely.

I think our intelligence and military apparatuses should have as many options, tactics, and tools at their disposal, to be used at their discretion in the defense of this nation and its people. Arbitrarily denying them a tool because of some nebulous moral sentiment seems like folly to me.
Click to expand...

Even if presented as unlikely and as a basis for discussion, I don't believe "the ticking time bomb" a reasonable hypothetical. Hypothetical arguments are most useful when there is some possibility of the situation in question actually being played out.

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.

Those of us who see torture as morally reprehensible would not under any circumstances approve of it.

Many of those who would waterboard, don't believe it's torture, hence they have no problem with it. Even if they agree, it is torture, the nature of the person to be tortured is the justification, not the situation rendering the ticking time bomb is immaterial.

"Nebulous moral sentiment"? It's the law. We don't torture. As has been said in this thread already, our country has prosecuted people for waterboarding. The law is not a "nebulous moral sentiment", though morality is basis of it. As it is with all laws.
 
digsbe said:
I think this is great, I support water boarding and KSM certainly deserved it. He is a non US citizen terrorist that most definitely has vital and secret information about our enemies. I'd rather make that animals uncomfortable than have more innocent Americans die.
Click to expand...

Here, you prove my point. On one hand you say "KSM certainly deserved it", implying punishment.

Then you say he "has vital and secret information about our enemies", implying you want to get actionable and reliable info from him to save "innocent Americans".

You can't have both goals, use the same actions and expect to get both results.
 
alms said:
Gina,

The ticking time bomb scenario is a hypothetical that is meant to examine the moral basis of so-called torture. The chances of it occurring is immaterial to the nature of the discussion.
Click to expand...

The ticking time bomb was more than a hypothetical! It was THEE last ditch excuse put forth by Cheeney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush to excuse torture and invading Iraq! (And all when they all knew Iraq had no WMDs!)
 
ADK_Forever said:
Of course he defended his actions. Has he ever admitted making any mistakes? His character is too weak to be so honorable. He's too stupid to even be aware of how the misinfo they got from those water boarding sessions vastly outweighed any valuable info. He's too intellectually lazy to even contemplate how many lives their show of bravado put in danger. He's too dishonest to admit that all that misinfo cost them (the CIA, FBI, British intel services, etc.) millions of dollars in time and manpower tracking down wild goose chases.

Who gives a **** what this piece of trash says?

We can tell he's lying. His lips are moving. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
BTw, any evidence Bush saved lives with torture?
Click to expand...

Any evidence Bush did not save lives with torture?
 
liblady said:
he's not evil, just a dick. and pretty damned ignorant.
Click to expand...

what?? No thanks for that lame crack?? Oh wait, that lame useful crack. Well, I'll do the honors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom