• 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 - U.S. will not torture

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Its a new day in America...and what a refreshing change of pace:

Yahoo!



Finally a President who will return integrity to the Country.
 
Its a new day in America...and what a refreshing change of pace:

Yahoo!



Finally a President who will return integrity to the Country.
INTRODUCING...
The Department of Feathers and Bubbles.
Dept. Motto: curia advisari vult (The court wishes to be advised)

And what happens when we catch Osama?
Or another individual who may have info about a terrorist attack that will kill thousands?

I guess we can fall back on the Clinton created tool... Rendition.

Or we'll just send Obama and Biden in their to talk their ears off.
Maybe we could send Hillary in a Phyllis Diller outfit with bubbles and feathers... then again that's probably too harsh and would fall under torture.
 
INTRODUCING...
The Department of Feathers and Bubbles.
Dept. Motto: curia advisari vult (The court wishes to be advised)

And what happens when we catch Osama?
Or another individual who may have info about a terrorist attack that will kill thousands?

I guess we can fall back on the Clinton created tool... Rendition.

Or we'll just send Obama and Biden in their to talk their ears off.
Maybe we could send Hillary in a Phyllis Diller outfit with bubbles and feathers... then again that's probably too harsh and would fall under torture.

Torture does nothing but force the torturee to tell the torturer what they want to hear. Even if it is false.
 
Torture does nothing but force the torturee to tell the torturer what they want to hear. Even if it is false.

Not true.
And absurd to say torture does not produce results.

One captain fired a round near the ear of a captured terrorist in Iraq a few years ago, and what did the terrorist do? Gave info that saved American GI's lives.

Remember that?
Then they sought to charge the Captain with criminal conduct.
The result: American GI's will die because they cannot extract critical info in the field... on the spot that will save lives for fear of prosecution... in our courts.

I wouldn't call waterboarding torture, but I'm certain you would.
Waterboarding works.

ROSS: That has happened in some cases where the material that's been given has not been accurate, has been essentially to stop the torture. In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe. And in one particular plot, which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles, known as the Library Tower.
Waterboarding Success Stories: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Library Tower | waterboarding.org
 
Zimmer, may I respectfully suggest that you simulate water boarding on yourself and then see if you agree with your ridiculous statement.
 
Zimmer, may I respectfully suggest that you simulate water boarding on yourself and then see if you agree with your ridiculous statement.
And what will this accomplish?

What is ridiculous is the belief torture does not work. It's actually bizarre. It's denying reality, which is what much of the left does on a consistent basis, and what makes you people dangerous.

It's the same ridiculousness that is embraced in the notion that the death penalty is not a deterrent, or taking guns from law abiding citizens will make society safer.
 
Last edited:
Not true.
And absurd to say torture does not produce results.

One captain fired a round near the ear of a captured terrorist in Iraq a few years ago, and what did the terrorist do? Gave info that saved American GI's lives.

Remember that?
Then they sought to charge the Captain with criminal conduct.
The result: American GI's will die because they cannot extract critical info in the field... on the spot that will save lives for fear of prosecution... in our courts.

I wouldn't call waterboarding torture, but I'm certain you would.
Waterboarding works.


Waterboarding Success Stories: Khalid Shaikh Mohammedhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1057896242 and Library Tower | waterboarding.org

Waterboarding.org as proof that Waterboarding works.

Up next.

Marlboro.com as proof that smoking does not cause cancer.

And after that...

NAMBLA.com as proof that touching children sexually is not pedophilia.

Oh man thought of a really good one ..

Revisionist.com as proof that the Holocaust did not happen.
 
Last edited:
Waterboarding.org as proof that Waterboarding works.

Up next.

Marlboro.com as proof that smoking does not cause cancer.

And after that...

NAMBLA.com as proof that touching children sexually is NOT pedophilia.
This is the typical Lib response too.

If you had noticed the opening paragraph, it cites an ABC reporter. Not good enough for you?

My guess is you didn't get that far.

TILT!

Try again.
 
And what will this accomplish?

What is ridiculous is the belief torture does not work. It's actually bizarre. It's denying reality, which is what much of the left does on a consistent basis, and what makes you people dangerous.

It's the same ridiculousness that is embraced in the notion that the death penalty is not a deterrent, or taking guns from law abiding citizens will make society safer.


There is almost infinite examples in all of human history that torture does not work.

What about all those people in the Dark ages who were tortured and confessed that they were witches? Do you believe in witches. What about all those Jews to confess that they started the Black Death that wiped out most of Europe? Do you believe that Jews caused the bubonic plague??

What a dishonest person you are or at least ignorant of history.
 
I don't think torture works or doesn't work. Clearly it can make people admit things that are true and not true. The problem is knowing the difference.

I welcome this development. I believe that one should always fight with chivalry and as a Gentlemen and torture violates that in my mind.
 
I don't think torture works or doesn't work. Clearly it can make people admit things that are true and not true. The problem is knowing the difference.

I welcome this development. I believe that one should always fight with chivalry and as a Gentlemen and torture violates that in my mind.
Sorting through the revelations is all part of the job. There are trained professionals sifting it.

In a pinch, when it could cost scores of lives, I'll take an American Patriot shoving bamboo under someone's finger nails to get some info... quick like. That would be the Primo, as Secondo they could go a little more medieval, and carry on from there.

Of course they'd end up in court having to explain why they wanted to save American lives so badly. It just might happen to some unfortunate patriot one day.
 
Last edited:
Sorting through the revelations is all part of the job. There are trained professionals sifting it.

In a pinch, when it could cost scores of lives, I'll take an American Patriot shoving bamboo under someone's finger nails to get some info... quick like. That would be the Primo, as Secondo they could go a little more medieval, and carry on from there.

Of course they'd end up in court having to explain why they wanted to save American lives so badly. It just might happen to some unfortunate patriot one day.
By doing that you have surrendered dignity and already lost. Chivalry has a nobility that no defeat can take away.
 
By doing that you have surrendered dignity and already lost. Chivalry has a nobility that no defeat can take away.

You see, my rationale is simple. I believe it is immoral for thousands to die because you have a terrorist in you hands that may hold the key to saving their lives.

If professional coercion is required, so be it. His choice.

You prefer to protect the temporary health of the terrorist.
I prefer to protect the lives of thousands or more of innocent citizens.

I think your choice is nothing short of immoral.
 
Last edited:
You see, my rationale is simple. I believe it is immoral for thousands to die because you have a terrorist in you hands that may hold the key to saving their lives.

If professional coercion is required, so be it. His choice.

You prefer to protect the temporary health of the terrorist.
I prefer to protect the lives of thousands or more of innocent citizens.

I think your choice is nothing short of immoral.
I choose to do what is right and to lead by example. You are advocating the removal of civil rights and the retreat to barbarism. Your will turn victory itself into defeat by destroying what needs to be preserved. Perhaps it is too Stoic a way of looking at thing but I'm an old fashioned Gentlemen.
 
I choose to do what is right and to lead by example. You are advocating the removal of civil rights and the retreat to barbarism. Your will turn victory itself into defeat by destroying what needs to be preserved. Perhaps it is too Stoic a way of looking at thing but I'm an old fashioned Gentlemen.

You believe hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands should die because the short term health of a terrorist should not be compromised to get required information to save said lives.

Because it is the "civil" thing to do?

Again, I find that immoral, not civil.
 
You believe hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands should die because the short term health of a terrorist should not be compromised to get required information to save said lives.

Because it is the "civil" thing to do?

Again, I find that immoral, not civil.
Well the fact is that the situations you are talking about are extremely rare, this isn't 24 or Die Hard it is real life.

Two wrongs don't make a right as the ancient wisdom says and there seems little more important now than that Western civilisation retains something of its former chivalry and does not degenerate into barbarism. You position is immoral and foolish because you would speed up such a degeneration and make any victory a defeat. That is immoral, the means shape the ends and that must always be remember.

The health of the terrorist in this case is not paramount.
 
Wow, you guys aren't even saying it isn't torture anymore. You've already accepted within your heart that torture is OK and you are now trying to convince others. Your mothers must be so proud.
 
Its a new day in America...and what a refreshing change of pace:

Yahoo!
Finally a President who will return integrity to the Country.

He's only been in office 2 days and I don't feel safe. This isn't refreshing it's stupid. You never put your hands on the table.

I personally don't care what Europe thinks about us, it's what our enemies think, and he's acting like a pansy. Good for him if you like this sort of thing. He's playing to his voting pool the victims and the super elite. As they said on FOX let the prisoners from Gitmo get moved to Malibu to where Barbra Streisand lives.
 
This is hilarious and it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

From zimmer's link in post #4 from waterboarding.org:
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 — after the plot was discovered, after the plot was "derailed", after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have "provided valuable information and saved lives" when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture.

Coercive interrogation is extremely effective at obtaining confessions. Evidence obtained from coercive interrogation is highly dubious and must be corroborated with reliable sources. The claims of interrogators who coerce their prisoners should be treated with as much skepticism as the claims of the prisoners themselves.
 
Hey, since 9/11/01 the USA has not suffered an attack on US Soil.

Let's see if the "new and nicer way" of Obama has similar results. Should AQ or another ITG hit the USA, it's not a ding on Obama, two hits and well... Bush was right.
 
Well the fact is that the situations you are talking about are extremely rare, this isn't 24 or Die Hard it is real life.

Two wrongs don't make a right as the ancient wisdom says and there seems little more important now than that Western civilisation retains something of its former chivalry and does not degenerate into barbarism. You position is immoral and foolish because you would speed up such a degeneration and make any victory a defeat. That is immoral, the means shape the ends and that must always be remember.

The health of the terrorist in this case is not paramount.

If you make it illegal, you make it illegal for all situations. And then you have the scenario I illustrated and got vilified for. Primo, Secondo...

Some Patriot will have to answer to the courts for protecting innocent civilians.

There was nothing wrong with the way things were. We don't torture, but the option should be left open.

It seems the Obama pacifists are writing the operating procedures.

Marylin:
When some bit of polite society gets taken out, and we had a man that could have delivered the goods, but instead was sitting in a cell with his lawyer laughing his ass off... I don't want to hear about "connecting-the-dots" or any other such nonsense. But we know the pacifists will be the first pointing fingers of blame to cover their asses, just as they did post 9-11.

Isn't that why the Democrats voted to authorize Bush with force to go into Iraq? Because they were in the political slaughter house with their backs against the wall for previous sins and did not have the courage of their convictions to vote "No"?
 
Last edited:
There is almost infinite examples in all of human history that torture does not work.

Except when it does work. :roll:

What a dishonest person you are or at least ignorant of history.

Uh, you're the only one dealing in dishonesty.

I mean, you could argue that there are sub-torture techniques that are as effective but not nearly as ethically, morally, and legally problemmatic as torture. You could argue that torture can ellicit unreliable information. You could argue that torture is not always an effective interrogative technique.

But you cannot argue that torture does not work.
 
Sorting through the revelations is all part of the job. There are trained professionals sifting it.

In a pinch, when it could cost scores of lives, I'll take an American Patriot shoving bamboo under someone's finger nails to get some info... quick like. That would be the Primo, as Secondo they could go a little more medieval, and carry on from there.

Of course they'd end up in court having to explain why they wanted to save American lives so badly. It just might happen to some unfortunate patriot one day.

That's the John McCain amendment in a nutshell. Direct interrogators not to torture but do so with a wink and a nod with the understanding that at that critical ticking bomb moment they can torture and rely on the good will of Americans not to judge the interrogator guilty. Absurd, ain't it... :roll:
 
One captain fired a round near the ear of a captured terrorist in Iraq a few years ago, and what did the terrorist do? Gave info that saved American GI's lives.

Remember that?

So what's the ration to true information vs. false information that you get from torture? And does the possibility of getting one piece of true information justify the use of torture; of which there will be occasion of innocent people being tortured if you make it a common policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom