View Poll Results: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Voters
147. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    114 77.55%
  • No

    33 22.45%
Page 57 of 57 FirstFirst ... 747555657
Results 561 to 564 of 564

Thread: Do you think water boarding is torture?[W:453]

  1. #561
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

    Wow, are we still discussing this topic? Didn't we have a handful of threads on this already?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #562
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,363

    Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    From Uniform Code of Military Justice

    ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
    Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    It says nothing about "private" conversations. Military members are always subject to the UCMJ while on active duty. Even if they make the comment at a Tuesday night poker game, an Obama loving moron could still turn them in and they could still face charges. At least if they are not on duty or present in a particular state they can call a Governor of other states an idiot, but not National Officials. So no, they do not have "pretty free rights when it comes to talking about their Commander in Chief".
    And if that is the case, I am sure that you should be able to provide lots of proof that this has happened.

    The UCMJ is very interesting, and I love threatening people with Article 114. But you have to remember that a lot of the Punitive Articles have rarely if ever been used. The Military is not the Gestapo. I have heard many times Commanding Officers and other senior officers speak out publicly against Presidents, and not one was ever brought up on charges. In fact, even Generals who have spoken publicly against Presidents have not been charged under this.

    Nice try, but since Article 88 is almost unheard of being used, I think this can be discounted. In fact, I have only been able to find 2 individuals ever charged with Article 88. And both instances involved individuals who participated in protests against the President (Lieutenant Howe in 1966 who held a sign calling President Johnson a Fascist, and Lieutenant Watada in 2006 for making statements publicly as a speaker at a rally).

    I could find exactly 2 cases in the over 60 years that the UCMJ has been in effect.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  3. #563
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    Actually military officers (and everybody else) has some pretty free rights when it comes to talking about their Commander in Chief. They still have a 1st Ammendment Right, just like everybody else.
    No, actually they don't except in that the can say whatever they want, but they can also be fired and or imprisoned for it.

    However, several Presidents (Clinton comes to mind here) have limited our rights when it comes to making public statements against the President. However, in private and between each other, pretty much anything goes.
    Yeah, that's why I caveated with "publicly".

    And if you question this, here is something to consider. Lately, a lot of people who were "former Special Operations forces" have come forward to speak out against many things in the Obama Administration. Wonder why none of them are currently in uniform? Why, a Presidential Gag Order put in place by President Clinton after Somalia and a few other titsup operations which some in the military spoke out against very publicly. I know many do not seem to remember that, but I clearly do. And that is still in effect to this day.
    no presidential gag order was required, it's part of the UCMJ and pertains more to officers then enlisted.

    Which has created a great demand for retired officers to work as Talking Heads on TV News shows.
    Well, once retired they can say what they like.

  4. #564
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratrooper View Post
    The military is notorious for being full of yesmen (and I'm talking general grade officers here).
    When their Commander in Chief comes out and says something like:

    “Waterboarding is torture. It’s contrary to America’s traditions, it’s contrary to our ideals, it’s not who we are, it’s not how we operate,”
    “We did the right thing by ending that practice.”

    They are not going to come out and say "yeah its a great program and it works" even if they may think that.

    So the fact that you can point out a bunch of people saying it isn't effective doesn't mean much to me.

    It also doesn't mean much that they were given bad information, the same thing could happen for any other interrogation technique down to simple questioning. If you already knew the answers to the questions you were asking there would be no point in the interrogation. You don't know everything he knows so there is no way to know if what he is telling you is the truth with 100% certainty.

    That is why when you do an interrogation you have to factor in what kind of placement and access to such information the guy might have, you can even cross check it with other sources to verify its accuracy. You can ask him simple questions (like on a polygraph) that you can verify to see if he is lying his face off. If he did know the information lying on purpose simply would not make sense, because as soon as your interrogators find out you lied your going to get interrogated again.

    If the guy has the information you seek he will eventually talk. If you made a mistake and he doesn't have the information hes not going to die. There will always be a doctor of medic or some type there throughout the interrogation.
    Also this is not something that would be done by a low level interrogator.

    I did say yes it was torture in the poll simply because I think people generally consider it torture. I don't however thing it is anywhere in the same ball park as the things Hussein's regime was doing prior to OIF, things like pouring acid on people, hanging them on meat hooks, beating them with cables, electric shock, hacking and slashing and etc.

    Unlike the previous mentioned methods you can walk away after being water boarded. Supposedly Khalid Sheik Mohammed has been water boarded more than 100 times and hes still around.
    The only trouble with that is that isn't how it happened. When Bush was saying it wasn't torture, that is when the military blew the whistle and complained. PBS did a pretty good job of documenting this. I linked that over the years a half dozen times.

    And whether or not someone is still around or not, the fact is it has long term effects for most (nothing is universal). Our own manuels say this (I can no longer find the CIA handbook I used to link on this).

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 57 of 57 FirstFirst ... 747555657

Posting Permissions

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