• 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!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

Yes Kinda make one wonder why the Bush Administration chose to torture many innocent people.

For what reason? To save hundereds of thousands of lives as Dick put it?

Or to desperately gain support for is WMD Saddam/9-11 lies?

Wow I have no idea how this post explains what I didn't understand of the last post, so now I'm really lost.
 
Then I support torturing high-value enemy combatants.

I may not agree with you, but I respect your honesty and consistency on this matter.
 
Oh gee, another desperate attempt to impugn the Bush Administration with the asinine assertion that; (1) waterbaording is "torture" and; (2) that these methods will lead to our troops being tortured.

Personally, I didn't see the Bush Administration or Bush for that matter mentioned anywhere in the OP or in any post thus far. Could you please clarify what he has to do with this?

Let's address asinine assertion number TWO first; when our troops are captured, they REALLY are subject to despicable torture methods. I am POSITIVE that our men and women of the military only WISHED they would be treated the way we treat our prisoners.

That may be so, but shouldn't we set ourselves to a higher standard? We shouldn't be so willing to blur the lines that separate us from them.

As for number ONE; what part of severe mental and physical punishment does anyone NOT get in this asinine debate which is nothing more than a hyper partisan political attempt to impugn the previous administration for purely hyper partisan political purposes?

Actually it isn't. The thread is specifically addressing Conservative radio host Mancow getting waterboarded. It has nothing to do with bashing the Bush administration.

The New York Times, Liberal rag for the ultra left claimed that on one enemy combatant they performed this technique over 185 times; I submit to you that if that is the case and the technique were truly "SEVERE," this terrorist would be DEAD by now.

How so? It is deemed as non-lethal. Just because it's non-lethal doesn't mean that it can't be considered torture.

What is the most asinine about this entire desperate and despicable attempt to impugn previous administrations is the FACT that the political cretins like Pelosi who are attempting to try and prosecute their political opponents in the public arena were privy to the techniques and said NOTHING...NADA....ZILCH.

That may be so and if it is true they deserve to be critcized as well. And again, this has nothing to do with being partisan or attacking the previous administration.

Carry on; I am sure this is not the last of the asinine attempts to raise this issue as if it had even the slightest merit. Of course the usual cabal of hand wringing forum Liberals will blather the thread with their typical feigned outrage about issues they no ZERO about and claim these are terrible times.

Personally I think it is a worthwhile and interesting discussion. If you are so disgusted by it why are you contributing?

But if you want to REALLY understand torture; it is having to read the never ending Bush Bashing threads Dan puts up on this forum; now THAT is REAL torture. :rofl

Again, if you could please point out the Bush bashing I would love to see it.
 
Then I support torturing high-value enemy combatants.

If US wishes to torture, no one can stop them.
But can they do the rest of the world the courtesy and stop describing itself as some form of beacon for human rights and quit preaching and whining about what other countries do
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

Ok, you say it's torture. Ummm.....so what?

A talking head gets water poured up his nose and he says its torture. Ummm.....so what?

Three terrorists who got water poured up their nose said stuff a great deal more interesting--actionable intelligence. It accomplished what it was meant to accomplish. Every interrogation technique ever devised has as its motivation getting people to reveal things; the caliber of the technique is gauged by the quality of the information revealed. Call it torture all day long if that's what it takes to build up your self-esteem; it worked, and because it worked, CIA interrogators successfully accomplished their mission. All the pissing and pontificating about "oh, no, the dreaded T-word" won't alter the reality that the interrogators did what they needed to do to complete their mission.

This has absolutely zero to do with what you quoted. Some people do in fact say that waterboarding is not torture. This is what she was commenting on, not whether it worked or not, which is questionable and unprovable(ie, we do not have any way of knowing if other methods would have been as effective or more effective).
 
Moderator's Warning:
A previous thread on this topic was ruined. This is not to happen again...and I already see it starting...TD. Knock it off or a thread ban will be imminent.
 
In Vietnam, the same assholes that want to brand the Bush Administration as War Criminals defended the Communist Vietcong for their treatment of our prisoners by claiming the claims were fabricated. You can't get more asinine than that can you?

I was about 10 when Vietnam ended. Most of the people commenting on this subject where younger. Vietnam has nothing to do with this, though I can see why you would want to deflect attention away from the now, and onto Vietnam.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

This has absolutely zero to do with what you quoted. Some people do in fact say that waterboarding is not torture. This is what she was commenting on, not whether it worked or not, which is questionable and unprovable(ie, we do not have any way of knowing if other methods would have been as effective or more effective).

"some people" also say that Bush was a good and honorable president but that certainy does not make it true.

Fact is that under American law and under international treaties waterboarding is infact torture.

Can't change fact...now all we have to do is bring the criminals to justice so we can learn and move on from this stain on our country.
 
If US wishes to torture, no one can stop them.
But can they do the rest of the world the courtesy and stop describing itself as some form of beacon for human rights and quit preaching and whining about what other countries do

What we need to do is bury it in black-prisons again to restore our image.

Image, reputation, 'moral standing in the world'...those are all superficial man-made social constructs. Real world necessity should never be sacrificed to protect them, so when the two conflict, bury what needs to be don so we can have both.
 
I may not agree with you, but I respect your honesty and consistency on this matter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not satisfied that waterboarding is in fact torture, but if it is, then I support torture when it proves effective.
 
What we need to do is bury it in black-prisons again to restore our image.

Image, reputation, 'moral standing in the world'...those are all superficial man-made social constructs. Real world necessity should never be sacrificed to protect them, so when the two conflict, bury what needs to be don so we can have both.

Holy crap, this is the same kind of rationalization that drove Josef Stalin. To him, image, reputation, and moral standing, were superficial too. Moral standing may be just a social construct, but it is what separates humans from animals. I will take a man-made social construct any day of the week over barbarianism. It is through man-made social constructs that we rise above it.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

This has absolutely zero to do with what you quoted. Some people do in fact say that waterboarding is not torture. This is what she was commenting on, not whether it worked or not, which is questionable and unprovable(ie, we do not have any way of knowing if other methods would have been as effective or more effective).
You're dissembling.

My point was clear and obvious. This constant debate over whether waterboarding is or is not "torture" is meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant.

Waterboarding was a technique used by CIA interrogators to extract actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees. President Bush, having sought opinions from counsel in the Department of Justice, authorized the technique. Dear Leader, wisely or unwisely, has rescinded the authorization for the technique (for now).

I'll happily defend the technique and its use in Gitmo interrogations all day long. As I have stated in other threads, I'll defend it even if it can be shown categorically to be "torture". Calling it "torture" does not alter the ethic of its use one iota.

Thus when people go on about how they can't fathom people not calling waterboarding "torture", my response is a firm and decided "so what?"
 
Holy crap, this is the same kind of rationalization that drove Josef Stalin. To him, image, reputation, and moral standing, were superficial too. Moral standing may be just a social construct, but it is what separates humans from animals. I will take a man-made social construct any day of the week over barbarianism. It is through man-made social constructs that we rise above it.
Me personally, I prefer the barbarians. They're more honest, more ethical, and generally more civilized.
 
Holy crap, this is the same kind of rationalization that drove Josef Stalin. To him, image, reputation, and moral standing, were superficial too. Moral standing may be just a social construct, but it is what separates humans from animals. I will take a man-made social construct any day of the week over barbarianism. It is through man-made social constructs that we rise above it.

I thought 'the left' would be more open to Stalin as they passionately seek his economics.

I do not hear any support of 'moral standing' from anyone who supports abortion or gay-marriage, as every such person, without exception, has abandoned such notions long ago.

Morality is relative now, we can do what we want.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

You're dissembling.

My point was clear and obvious. This constant debate over whether waterboarding is or is not "torture" is meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant.

Waterboarding was a technique used by CIA interrogators to extract actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees. President Bush, having sought opinions from counsel in the Department of Justice, authorized the technique. Dear Leader, wisely or unwisely, has rescinded the authorization for the technique (for now).

I'll happily defend the technique and its use in Gitmo interrogations all day long. As I have stated in other threads, I'll defend it even if it can be shown categorically to be "torture". Calling it "torture" does not alter the ethic of its use one iota.

Thus when people go on about how they can't fathom people not calling waterboarding "torture", my response is a firm and decided "so what?"

Do you support torturing innocent people? People that could not provide the link between Saddam and 9-11 even if they wanted to?

Provide a link that validates torturing anybody provided "actionable intelligence" that did indeed save any lives what so ever?
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not satisfied that waterboarding is in fact torture, but if it is, then I support torture when it proves effective.

At least you identify that you are OK with it even if it is torture. This is the point of debate that I have been trying to bring out of people here for a year in countless threads on the issue. The debate about whether it is torture or not is moot. The real debate is whether you would support it regardless of how it is identified. At least you addressed this issue. Most are afraid to.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not satisfied that waterboarding is in fact torture, but if it is, then I support torture when it proves effective.

How can you not be satisfied that waterboarding is in FACT not torture?

All you have to do is read the Rule of law and understand international treaties to clearly understand it is in fact by law torture.

Have you read the Laws pertaining to waterboarding?

Have you read the international treaties our country signed in reguards to waterboarding being torture and warcrime?
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

You're dissembling.

My point was clear and obvious. This constant debate over whether waterboarding is or is not "torture" is meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant.

Waterboarding was a technique used by CIA interrogators to extract actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees. President Bush, having sought opinions from counsel in the Department of Justice, authorized the technique. Dear Leader, wisely or unwisely, has rescinded the authorization for the technique (for now).

I'll happily defend the technique and its use in Gitmo interrogations all day long. As I have stated in other threads, I'll defend it even if it can be shown categorically to be "torture". Calling it "torture" does not alter the ethic of its use one iota.

Thus when people go on about how they can't fathom people not calling waterboarding "torture", my response is a firm and decided "so what?"

From your viewpoint, it is "meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant". Since the argument of some is that it is not torture, therefore it is ok, this suggests that for at least some, this is a germane issue.
 
At least you identify that you are OK with it even if it is torture. This is the point of debate that I have been trying to bring out of people here for a year in countless threads on the issue. The debate about whether it is torture or not is moot. The real debate is whether you would support it regardless of how it is identified. At least you addressed this issue. Most are afraid to.
Hmmm....I'm agreeing with you and disagreeing with Redress....

Either I've had too much beer or not enough.
 
Hmmm....I'm agreeing with you and disagreeing with Redress....

Either I've had too much beer or not enough.

You get a thanks for making me laugh.
 
Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]

The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”

[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

Twenty years seems like a fair deal I think Cheney should take it before somebody proves he approved of somebody being tortured to death.

Which we all know happened.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

This has absolutely zero to do with what you quoted. Some people do in fact say that waterboarding is not torture. This is what she was commenting on, not whether it worked or not, which is questionable and unprovable(ie, we do not have any way of knowing if other methods would have been as effective or more effective).

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I think it important for all that justify waterboarding to first admit that it's torture. That way, it will in some way help me feel that they are more aware, and not regurgitating talking head points.

Waterboarding = torture... there's no other way to describe it. If you don't think it is, you're not getting your information from good sources. Whether it's justified or not is a whole other issue.
 
I think the main reason the Right is so determined to deny the reality of things is that they know if one goes down they all go down.

Quite the motivator if you ask me.
 
I was about 10 when Vietnam ended. Most of the people commenting on this subject where younger. Vietnam has nothing to do with this, though I can see why you would want to deflect attention away from the now, and onto Vietnam.

It has everything to do with the asinine Liberal assertion that our troops will be at greater risk because of the use of these methods.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

You're dissembling.

My point was clear and obvious. This constant debate over whether waterboarding is or is not "torture" is meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant.

Waterboarding was a technique used by CIA interrogators to extract actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees. President Bush, having sought opinions from counsel in the Department of Justice, authorized the technique. Dear Leader, wisely or unwisely, has rescinded the authorization for the technique (for now).

I'll happily defend the technique and its use in Gitmo interrogations all day long. As I have stated in other threads, I'll defend it even if it can be shown categorically to be "torture". Calling it "torture" does not alter the ethic of its use one iota.

Thus when people go on about how they can't fathom people not calling waterboarding "torture", my response is a firm and decided "so what?"

I have a slight correction to the above CORRECT assertions; these methods were conducted on a VERY select FEW detainees, some say it was THREE, because they were resisting other less intrusive methods.

It is not like we wantonly submitted every detainee to these methods which is the impression one gets when reading the Liberal media reports on the topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom