• 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!

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

Do you think water boarding is torture?


  • Total voters
    128
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

So they have more rights than people out of uniform who have not committed war crimes?

More rights? Do you have more rights than a solider? Let's just not pretend they are the same. Now, we can follow a couple of rules of laws, one that governs soliders, though the uniform thing wouldn't apply. Or, one that governs civilians. Neither allows for torture on killing.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

More rights? Do you have more rights than a solider? Let's just not pretend they are the same. Now, we can follow a couple of rules of laws, one that governs soliders, though the uniform thing wouldn't apply. Or, one that governs civilians. Neither allows for torture on killing.

Then what is the purpose for Geneva defining the REQUIREMENTS for POW status?
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

And I think that is wrong. Only on proven war criminals caught on the battlefield, reviewed by an interrogation expert who thinks the technique will produce needed answers. For example, the court said in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, that Hamdan (UBL's driver) could not be classified as an illegal combatant through his association with UBL alone. He was just a driver.

That's simply not true. We mistakenly took a fellow off an ariplane because he had a simplar name and tortured him. Returned him a couple of years later. We killed a taxi-driver in Afghanistan with torture (at least people faced charges for that one), and there is every indication he was innocent. These are two of the few we KNOW about. I know we like to belive we don't make mistakes, but humans do. That is the reasons we have these protections.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Woudl be true if there were state soldiers and part of an army. When you declare war on civilian groups, that's really a different animal.

Al-Qaeda went to war with us. And yes, the Geneva Conventions declare that A) all combatants must wear immediately identifiable uniforms and B) that failure to do so puts civilians at risk and that is the fault of the combatants who do not wear identifiable uniforms.

That is why they can be summarily shot without trial.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Then what is the purpose for Geneva defining the REQUIREMENTS for POW status?

It was for wars between nations. We are not at war with any nation. The enemy we face is not fighting for any nation or country.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Al-Qaeda went to war with us. And yes, the Geneva Conventions declare that A) all combatants must wear immediately identifiable uniforms and B) that failure to do so puts civilians at risk and that is the fault of the combatants who do not wear identifiable uniforms.

That is why they can be summarily shot without trial.

Year, so the did the mafia. I'm sorry CP, but there is a real difference. Pretending you can't see it doesn't make it any less real.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

No, the Mafia was about making money. They engaged in violence when they had to, and were a criminal element. Al Qaeda is a paramilitary organization dedicated to mass-murder.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

No, the Mafia was about making money. They engaged in violence when they had to, and were a criminal element. Al Qaeda is a paramilitary organization dedicated to mass-murder.

It doesn't matter at all what it is about. Our enemy does not believe it can beat us militarily. They do not believe we will cease to exist. They have goals they want. Serious criminals to be sure. But not nations. Not armies. They have no uniform.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

It doesn't matter at all what it is about. Our enemy does not believe it can beat us militarily. They do not believe we will cease to exist.

Actually they do.

They have goals they want. Serious criminals to be sure. But not nations. Not armies. They have no uniform.

And that is part of why they do not fall under Geneva protections.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Actually they do.



And that is part of why they do not fall under Geneva protections.

No they don't. That's a fanasty we've pushed to excuse our actions. But whether they believe it or not is less important as to whether they ever could. It was never possible that they could.

And I gave two choices. There are also civilian laws and rules we could follow. The point is, we don't throw out rule of law becasue or enemy, especially such a weak enemy, doesn't neatly fit a category.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

No they don't.

Yes, they do. They think they are the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed, and they believe we will be no different or more difficult. They truly honestly believe that Islam will conquer the world.

That's a fanasty we've pushed to excuse our actions

No. It is a fantasy to believe that Islamists share Western assumptions or beliefs such as the non-interferance of God in international affairs, the natural primacy of the nation-state, the preference for peace and material wealth over moral order, the importance of tolerance, the sovereignty of the individual/people, etc. etc. etc.

But whether they believe it or not is less important as to whether they ever could. It was never possible that they could.

:shrug: that depends on what you are trying to do.

And I gave two choices. There are also civilian laws and rules we could follow.

Yeah, we tried that in the 90's and it was a disaster.

The point is, we don't throw out rule of law because or enemy, especially such a weak enemy, doesn't neatly fit a category.

Our enemy does fit into a category - that category is "terrorist".
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Yes, they do. They think they are the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed, and they believe we will be no different or more difficult. They truly honestly believe that Islam will conquer the world.

They also believe they have the right to set the price of oil. Because of that we have no choice but to carry a big stick when dealing with those nations.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

Yes, they do. They think they are the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed, and they believe we will be no different or more difficult. They truly honestly believe that Islam will conquer the world.

No, they don't. Sure, you can find someone who will say something stupid, but no, they don't. They hurt the SU< in Afghanistan, and with our help, got Afghanistan back. But they did not defeat the Soviets and did not beleive they could.

No. It is a fantasy to believe that Islamists share Western assumptions or beliefs such as the non-interferance of God in international affairs, the natural primacy of the nation-state, the preference for peace and material wealth over moral order, the importance of tolerance, the sovereignty of the individual/people, etc. etc. etc.

You're making a leap. Stay with what I actually said.


:shrug: that depends on what you are trying to do.

I didn't give a list of possible goals. I said defeat us. They can't.

Yeah, we tried that in the 90's and it was a disaster.

No, we didn't. That's another mispresentation of what we were before 9/11. We largely did nothing before then, or very little. But we neither treated it like a law enforcement issue (which is what you're trying to switch the argument to) or treated all terrorist like civilians. The few we did bring to court and try was quite successful, as we tied them, convicted them, imprisoned them, and those still alive sit there to this day.

Our enemy does fit into a category - that category is "terrorist".

No ****. Of course, that's not the type of category we're talking. We're talking about the legal category to place them in terms of rule of law.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

No, they don't. Sure, you can find someone who will say something stupid, but no, they don't. They hurt the SU< in Afghanistan, and with our help, got Afghanistan back. But they did not defeat the Soviets and did not beleive they could.

:lamo

oh man. I wish I could take this stuff in to work and use you as an example of the mirror-imaging bias :p


Suffice to say, yes. In the Muslim world at large and the Islamist worldview in particular, the collapse of the Soviet Union was seen as the result of Islamist victory in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was seen as the worse of the two enemies, and the US is seen as "the weaker horse".

:lol: And this is not exactly uncommon knowledge among those who actually study these people. It's sort of up there with "they speak Arabic". :)

You're making a leap. Stay with what I actually said.

your fantasy is built upon a number of implicit assumptions that flow from your 21st Century Western worldview.

I didn't give a list of possible goals. I said defeat us. They can't.

They can defeat us. That is the nature of asymmetrical 4Gen warfare. They will probably not cause us to cease to exist - we are more likely to do that to ourselves; though they would claim victory in such an instance, as they did with the Soviet Union.

No, we didn't. That's another mispresentation of what we were before 9/11.

That is not correct. That, after all, is why Clinton did not take OBL when he had the chance - because they were unsure if the evidence they had would be enough to ensure a conviction in a civilian court of law.

We largely did nothing before then, or very little.

Yes. And the reason for that is because we were hampered by a series of rules of engagement built around the domestic law enforcement model that are not a good fit for a global counter-terror fight.

But we neither treated it like a law enforcement issue (which is what you're trying to switch the argument to) or treated all terrorist like civilians.

we did indeed treat it explicitly like a law enforcement issue, as that was the explicit policy of the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration prior to 9/11.

The few we did bring to court and try was quite successful, as we tied them, convicted them, imprisoned them, and those still alive sit there to this day.

Some of the ones we caught in this country. Other terrorists have been pardoned or released.

No ****. Of course, that's not the type of category we're talking. We're talking about the legal category to place them in terms of rule of law.

yes. non-applicable to the Geneva Conventions due to the fact that they are terrorist assholes who don't wear uniforms and who hide behind non-combatants.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

didn't say that many words or have that many points CP for you to break it up that much. You do this most often when you want to misrepresent what is being said.

And no, Clinton did not take OBL because he was unsure. It if he'd get the right target, and how the international repsonse would be. We did not go after Al Qaeda with a full fledged law enforcement effort. It is simply false to say we did.

Nothing in law enforcement says Clinton couldn't have acted, any more than police can't act against a known criminal. You miss represent the history.

No, we caught, tried and convicted actual terrorist. If someone was pardoned or released, how do you know they were a terroist? Do you know how just is determined? Hint: not by your personal opinion of what they were.


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Courts.pdf

And that doesn't include those before 9/11. But we can look at those as well:

But the apocalyptic rhetoric rarely addresses this: Thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo., with little public notice.

Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold International Terrorists

Now as to your continued bounching around the category issue. Again, I give your two choices. Neither is a do whatever you feel like choice. No dancing on your part changes that. So kindly address the point or move on.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

If water boarding could save one life I say go for it.......
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I wonder how you 83 people who said water boarding was torture would feel if water boarding might save a loved one's life........I personaaly think you would feel very different........
 
I wonder how you 83 people who said water boarding was torture would feel if water boarding might save a loved one's life........I personaaly think you would feel very different........

I said it was torture because it is commonly identified as torture. Where I believe I differ from some of the others on that list is that I am not opposed to using it in certain instances.

If a regular interrogator water boarded someone in the field it would pretty much end their career. Only certain people can/ or are authorized to do this.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I said it was torture because it is commonly identified as torture. Where I believe I differ from some of the others on that list is that I am not opposed to using it in certain instances.

If a regular interrogator water boarded someone in the field it would pretty much end their career. Only certain people can/ or are authorized to do this.

I respect your opinion but I still say if waterboarding a terrorist wouls save a loved one of mine life I say go for it......
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

If water boarding cured cancer I'd say go for it.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I think you should give it a try on yourself and tell us if it feel's like torture. What better way to know than experience?

I have given it a try, as have thousands of other US servicemembers.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I wonder how you 83 people who said water boarding was torture would feel if water boarding might save a loved one's life........I personaaly think you would feel very different........

The same, I am aware that torture is not the best way to get accurate information. I think the development of chemical interrogation techniques and drugs is the better way to go.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I have given it a try, as have thousands of other US servicemembers.

No offense, but you haven't. Those who run the program have stated clearly before congress they only give a taste and not the real thing. Sorry.
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I wonder how you 83 people who said water boarding was torture would feel if water boarding might save a loved one's life........I personaaly think you would feel very different........

How about if you had sex with another man might save a life, would you do? I've asked others, to which I haven't seen an answer yet, but where is your line? Forget that you're not likely to ever get any good information with torture, but if we go that far, where will you not go?
 
Re: Do you think water boarding is torture?

I wonder how you 83 people who said water boarding was torture would feel if water boarding might save a loved one's life........I personaaly think you would feel very different........

Do you think it's wrong to kill an innocent child? What if you had to kill an innocent to save a loved one's life? Would you feel differently about it?
 
Back
Top Bottom