• 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.....

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.

Who ever said that? To me it has more to do with setting ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies and thereby separating ourselves from them.
 
I heard a LOT of stories from Viet Nam returnees about what was done to Charlie. Zippers, castration, bridge scrapings. Makes waterboarding sound like a summer sport. And the torture the NVA put on our boys was just as bad, if not worse.

That's why I think we are all naive to think that we haven't been using "enhanced interrogation methods" all along.

I could care less if they ran bamboo shoots under their fingernails. It matters NOT which path we take, Civil or insane barbaric, the jihadist will cut our heads off, if given the chance, regardless. It's kind of hard for me to muster any sympathy for these vermin.

Is waterboarding torture? You bet it is. Do I care? Uhhh..... no.
 
Last edited:
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.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy terrorist non-uniformed combatants and/or nations NOT a party to the conventions. You may want to brush up on your legalese.

Secondly, the United Nations own description of torture requires the acts to be severe mental or physical methods.

Again, suggesting that Waterboarding is severe using the Liberals arguments and the New York Liberal Times own story that one detainee was subjected to the technique 187 times suggest anything BUT.
 
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.

Iraq general swayed Obama on detainee photos | csmonitor.com

Gen. Ray Odierno, along with other top defense officials, argued that releasing the images of alleged detainee abuse would endanger US troops abroad.



Washington

In a reversal of his previous position, President Obama will now oppose the release of more than 40 photos allegedly showing detainees being mistreated after deciding that releasing them could put American troops in danger and inflame anti-US sentiments abroad.

The change of heart apparently came after Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, made a personal plea to the White House against releasing the images because they would endanger US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The images are thought to show US troops mistreating detainees overseas in ways reminiscent of the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal.


Do you support the troops TD?

Well this is the MAIN troops saying this and it's not just some "assine liberal assertion" as you lamely claim over and over again.

Why ignore reality?
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

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.
So we all gather 'round, nod our heads sagaciously, and say "Yup, waterboarding is torture".

Then what? What does that change? Not the legal reasoning behind the authorizations for the technique. Not the information gained using the technique.

Your's a fatuous argument, because if you're making the argument that we're bad silly people for waterboarding detainees, we're bad silly people regardless of whether everyone agrees that it is or is not "torture". All you're doing is taking one predicate of the following hypothetical and ignoring the second predicate:

Waterboarding is torture
Torture is immoral
Therefore waterboarding is immoral

Feel free to substitute "wrong" or "illegal" for "immoral" to match up with your precise pontification.

The flaw in your argument, however, is that you've completely ignored the second predicate--the first only matters if the second also holds true, and even Dear Leader himself hedges on that (remember, he's only outraged about Gitmo; he's quite ok with transferring the outrageous activities to Bagram Air Base). Nancy Pelosi, before it was politically convenient to pretend outrage, hedged on either one or both predicates. AG Holder declined to pursue prosecutions over the matter. Everyone wishes to pretend the second predicate is conclusively and absolutely proven when it has not.

You carp about people parroting talking head points when all you're doing is exactly that.
 
It's kind of hard for me to muster any sympathy for these vermin.

I think you would be surprised at the complete lack of sympathy that terrorist actually get from those of us against using torture. I think that we should be better than to use torture. I could care less how badly terrorists feel. I have not lost any sleep thinking about what terrorists have been put through.
 
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.

Then I would put it to you that the cannibal is just as moral in his society as the church goer is in ours.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

The flaw in your argument, however, is that you've completely ignored the second predicate--the first only matters if the second also holds true, and even Dear Leader himself hedges on that (remember, he's only outraged about Gitmo; he's quite ok with transferring the outrageous activities to Bagram Air Base). Nancy Pelosi, before it was politically convenient to pretend outrage, hedged on either one or both predicates. AG Holder declined to pursue prosecutions over the matter. Everyone wishes to pretend the second predicate is conclusively and absolutely proven when it has not.

What the hell does what politicians think have to do with whether we feel that the use of waterboarding is justified or not? That is a huge red herring. I do not care what President Obama calls waterboarding. I call it torture, and immoral.

By the way, how do you prove something is moral or not?
 
Who ever said that? To me it has more to do with setting ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies and thereby separating ourselves from them.

The notion that we are not already at a MUCH higher standard than our enemies requires willful denial don't you think?

It is the same with the equally asinine notion that waterboarding puts us down at their level when considering the REALITY of how their victims are treated.

I submit that it takes an incredible level of willful denial to suggest that this is nothing more than a political witch-hunt to impugn the previous administration for purely political purposes.

Now, back to the REALITY; these methods were briefed to the Congress and they were justified legally and debated with great and thoughtful deliberation before the decision was made to use these "enhanced" methods on a select FEW terrorists who were resisting other methods.

This debate is without any substantive merit in that these actions occurred shortly after the events of 9-11 when our Government was struggling to grapple with unprecedented terrorist attacks and the idea of possible equally or greater devastating attacks.
 
I think you would be surprised at the complete lack of sympathy that terrorist actually get from those of us against using torture. I think that we should be better than to use torture. I could care less how badly terrorists feel. I have not lost any sleep thinking about what terrorists have been put through.
I think people need to drop the bloviations about being "better". America isn't "better" than anyone. We're loved by some, hated by some, tolerated by the rest, and that is all.

We've had a century of this Wilsonian nonsense about being "better"; that's more than enough for any nation.
 
Then I would put it to you that the cannibal is just as moral in his society as the church goer is in ours.
And I agree with that wholeheartedly.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

By the way, how do you prove something is moral or not?
You don't. The most anyone can do is sell their perspective to someone else.
 
I think people need to drop the bloviations about being "better". America isn't "better" than anyone. We're loved by some, hated by some, tolerated by the rest, and that is all.

We've had a century of this Wilsonian nonsense about being "better"; that's more than enough for any nation.

I have not mentioned any other country that I am making a comparison to. That is because I am not comparing us to other countries. I think we as a nation are a better nation if we do not torture, than if we do. It is strictly an internal comparison.
 
The notion that we are not already at a MUCH higher standard than our enemies requires willful denial don't you think?

When we start engaging in similar activity and use their doing it as justification for doing it the lines start to blur and that shouldn't happen.

It is the same with the equally asinine notion that waterboarding puts us down at their level when considering the REALITY of how their victims are treated.

I don't think it puts us down to their level, but not far off.

I submit that it takes an incredible level of willful denial to suggest that this is nothing more than a political witch-hunt to impugn the previous administration for purely political purposes.

Then where is the evidence? I asked you this before too. Where in this thread is the evidence that this has anything to do with the Bush Administration?

Now, back to the REALITY; these methods were briefed to the Congress and they were justified legally and debated with great and thoughtful deliberation before the decision was made to use these "enhanced" methods on a select FEW terrorists who were resisting other methods.

Good for Congress. I don't agree with their decision and still consider it to be "torture".

This debate is without any substantive merit in that these actions occurred shortly after the events of 9-11 when our Government was struggling to grapple with unprecedented terrorist attacks and the idea of possible equally or greater devastating attacks.

Well, I think that horrible events like 9/11 put our core values to the test and when we are willing to go to such extremes and use these events as justification it says to me that we have in many ways failed that test.
 
And I agree with that wholeheartedly.



So would I.

But waterboarding is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. We should chop heads like our enemy does. That would give our squirmish, touchy-feely, dreamy-kum-ba-ya-pacifists something a LOT more interesting to talk about. :rofl

When we start giving them acid baths, maybe then, I might get concerned.
 
Re: Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

You don't. The most anyone can do is sell their perspective to someone else.

Which is what this thread is all about.
 
Iraq general swayed Obama on detainee photos | csmonitor.com

Gen. Ray Odierno, along with other top defense officials, argued that releasing the images of alleged detainee abuse would endanger US troops abroad.

Washington

In a reversal of his previous position, President Obama will now oppose the release of more than 40 photos allegedly showing detainees being mistreated after deciding that releasing them could put American troops in danger and inflame anti-US sentiments abroad.

The change of heart apparently came after Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, made a personal plea to the White House against releasing the images because they would endanger US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The images are thought to show US troops mistreating detainees overseas in ways reminiscent of the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Do you support the troops TD?

Well this is the MAIN troops saying this and it's not just some "assine liberal assertion" as you lamely claim over and over again.

Why ignore reality?

Apparently reality is NOT your forte'; the debate on the asinine public assertion that our nation acted illegally by water boarding its prisoners is causing just as much harm as these pictures did; that is the WHOLE premise of my argument.

But again, it is asinine to argue that we condone "torture" as defined in the Geneva Conventions and UN Conventions.

They require the "severe" mental and physical condition test which is non-existent in these cases.

What part of these FACTS do you seriously not get? What has this selective public release of the secret memos regarding water boarding done to make our nation safer other then serve notice on our enemies that we will treat them as if they were US citizens? What have they done excerpt serve our enemies notice that the US will now NOT conduct any level of "enhanced" methods to extract critical information that will save the lives of our citizens?

Our enemies are now certain of TWO things when it comes to American policy; (1) we will not intervene or invade any future nations regardless of their acts; and (2) if we capture non-uniformed enemy combatants, they will be subject to Geneva Conventions that used to be reserved to nations uniformed combatants, be tried in civilian courts and given habeas corpus rights.

How does this save lives of US and our allies’ citizens?
 
So would I.

But waterboarding is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. We should chop heads like our enemy does. That would give our squirmish, touchy-feely, dreamy-kum-ba-ya-pacifists something a LOT more interesting to talk about. :rofl
Slight problem with that. Hard for a guy whose head is getting sawed off to talk much. A bit of screaming followed by some gurgling noises is about all you're going to get.

Remember, the point of the exercise is to turn recalcitrant terrorists into charming conversationalists. That rather requires leaving the head attached to the neck.

When we start giving them acid baths, maybe then, I might get concerned.
So would I....disposing of all the acid would require the mother of all environmental impact statements. Just what we don't need...more bureaucratic red tape.
 
Yeah, I suppose you got a point. How about this? Hook 'em up to a polygraph test. First lie, 110 vac @ 20 amps. Second lie, 220 vac. If they are still willing to lie or not talk after that, they probably will never talk. THEN cut off their melon. At this point, they are just wasting oxygen anyways.

:rofl
 
So would I.

But waterboarding is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

The guy who's the topic thread starter did say the same if not for those 6 loooooong seconds. You know how some things look so damn easy, like watching Tiger Wood strike a golf ball? You then try it, and you look like a big dummy. Well based-on what I have read, and the testimony from those who've been subjected to it, I wouldn't say it's any fun.

I find it interest how waterboarding seems to have become a *****fied version of torture to some here. Don't knock it until you try it, is all I have to say. ;)
 
Yeah, I suppose you got a point. How about this? Hook 'em up to a polygraph test. First lie, 110 vac @ 20 amps. Second lie, 220 vac. If they are still willing to lie or not talk after that, they probably will never talk. THEN cut off their melon. At this point, they are just wasting oxygen anyways.

:rofl
I like it....need to tone down the voltage and up the amperage. A car battery at 12 volts what you want. The starter motor pulls around 250amps. That's where I would start.

Once done....hell, if someone wants to take the melon....let 'em.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The notion that we are not already at a MUCH higher standard than our enemies requires willful denial don't you think?

When we start engaging in similar activity and use their doing it as justification for doing it the lines start to blur and that shouldn't happen.

Once again, it is an absurd and desperate assertion that we are anything remotely close to our enemies given the FACTS and REALITIES.

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
It is the same with the equally asinine notion that waterboarding puts us down at their level when considering the REALITY of how their victims are treated.

I don't think it puts us down to their level, but not far off.

This is again absurdity for the sake of an absurd argument not based in the REALITY or the FACTS.

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
I submit that it takes an incredible level of willful denial to suggest that this is nothing more than a political witch-hunt to impugn the previous administration for purely political purposes.

Then where is the evidence? I asked you this before too. Where in this thread is the evidence that this has anything to do with the Bush Administration?

I saw your absurd question; but then, the notion that you willfully avoid REALITY does not suggest that my assertion is false. Are you seriously asking me to provide you with article after article from Liberals and Democrats in the House in their committee investigations on this issue suggesting that the Bush Administration was guilty or war crimes?

Good lord dude, just because you CHOOSE to not acknowledge OBVIOUS facts doesn’t make my assertions less valid.

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Now, back to the REALITY; these methods were briefed to the Congress and they were justified legally and debated with great and thoughtful deliberation before the decision was made to use these "enhanced" methods on a select FEW terrorists who were resisting other methods.

Good for Congress. I don't agree with their decision and still consider it to be "torture".

You are entitled to your opinion.


Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
This debate is without any substantive merit in that these actions occurred shortly after the events of 9-11 when our Government was struggling to grapple with unprecedented terrorist attacks and the idea of possible equally or greater devastating attacks.

Well, I think that horrible events like 9/11 put our core values to the test and when we are willing to go to such extremes and use these events as justification it says to me that we have in many ways failed that test.

How convenient for you to preach such moral high ground; but unlike you, the President of the United States does not have it so conveniently easy. You see, he/she has to decide how to best protect the citizens of this nation from FURTHER attacks and it weighs heavily on their conscience to have another heinous event re-occur and know they didn’t do everything in their power to protect the lives of US citizens here and abroad which is the single most important duty of the President of the United States.

It’s easy for pompous assholes like Pelosi to play partisan politics with this issue and not have to deal with this REALITY. It’s easy for people like us who are not confronted with this REALITY every day for their entire Presidency against a foe where WE have to be right 100% of the time, whereas they only have to succeed but ONE time.

The notion that this asinine debate about moral high ground is anything more than hyper partisan political hackery of the highest degree from Democrats wishing to impugn their political opponents in the court of public opinion requires a level of willful denial I just cannot prescribe to.
 
Once again, it is an absurd and desperate assertion that we are anything remotely close to our enemies given the FACTS and REALITIES.

How so? Would you care to elaborate?

This is again absurdity for the sake of an absurd argument not based in the REALITY or the FACTS.

Again, would you care to elaborate? You can say that until you are blue in the face, but it really addresses nothing specific.

I saw your absurd question; but then, the notion that you willfully avoid REALITY does not suggest that my assertion is false. Are you seriously asking me to provide you with article after article from Liberals and Democrats in the House in their committee investigations on this issue suggesting that the Bush Administration was guilty or war crimes?

No, I"m asking you what this topic specifically has to do with the Bush Administration. You implied earlier that this was merely an underhanded attempt to attack the Bush Administration and I'm asking for evidence of this considering that you were the first one to even bring up the Bush Administration in the first place.

Good lord dude, just because you CHOOSE to not acknowledge OBVIOUS facts doesn’t make my assertions less valid.

What obvious facts would those be?

You are entitled to your opinion.

As are you.

How convenient for you to preach such moral high ground; but unlike you, the President of the United States does not have it so conveniently easy. You see, he/she has to decide how to best protect the citizens of this nation from FURTHER attacks and it weighs heavily on their conscience to have another heinous event re-occur and know they didn’t do everything in their power to protect the lives of US citizens here and abroad which is the single most important duty of the President of the United States.

Are you seriously suggesting that patriotic people in this country don't think that we are better than other countries and that we have the moral high ground?

It’s easy for pompous assholes like Pelosi to play partisan politics with this issue and not have to deal with this REALITY. It’s easy for people like us who are not confronted with this REALITY every day for their entire Presidency against a foe where WE have to be right 100% of the time, whereas they only have to succeed but ONE time.

What does Pelosi have to do with this? You are not going to find any defense of Pelosi from me. If she was aware of these methods before then she is just as guilty.

The notion that this asinine debate about moral high ground is anything more than hyper partisan political hackery of the highest degree from Democrats wishing to impugn their political opponents in the court of public opinion requires a level of willful denial I just cannot prescribe to.

Thus far you are the only person I've seen bring partisan views into this. Just saying.
 
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?

Quite simple: my personal comfort level is higher than yours.

Now, I do not mean "higher" as in "superior", I mean "higher" as in "more tolerant"; smiler to pain tolerance, ironically.

Waterboarding is what waterboarding is, and no dictionary literally, physically changes the actual procedure. Since I am ok with the procedure, then if you come along and call it "torture", it follows that I am ok with "torture".

I may or may not be ok with other forms of "torture", it all depends on the actual procedure.

As to the various international treaties: I do not claim to be a scholar by any respect, but I do believe I have a basic understanding of the principals and rules of the Geneva Conventions (for example).

Terrorists disregard all such international law except when it suits them.

In order for self defense to be effective, you have to be willing to go further than your opponent is. Therefore, since they disregard international law, so must we.

We don't have to be so upfront about it, which is where the issue of image and reputation come in. We can put enough spit and polish on our image to give plausible denyability and secure general public support. However, the bottom line is we need to do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves and further assert American dominance.

If that means taking "torture" underground so we can keep doing it, then so be it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom