• 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!

Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

Agent Ferris said:
Providing cake&icecream to the prisoner can be considered torture under the current legislation.



As noted I have repeatedly requested the case summary, the case name, or the name of the U.S. soldier from the Vietnam war who was successfully prosecuted for waterboarding. I have been requesting this since that article started circling its way around the net a couple of years ago and to this day not a single person has met the challenge and provided the information.



I read the ****ing article it does not in any way change the fact that the international and domestic definitions of torture are completely subjective.
Click to expand...

No, you're just being silly. And rather insulting to compare cake and ice cream to waterboarding torture.

And as I have said, there is no case study on the internet. It was after all sometime ago and not something moved on to the internet, but there is more than enough reference to it to accept that it happened. And there is no meaningful or credible objection to the claim. I see no reason not to accept it. If you have some credible source questioning it, please provide it. But until then, we have plenty of evidence that waterboarding was illegal during WWII, in the VN war, and in the states. It is also forbidden in the army field manual.

And there is no honest way to make waterboarding questionable and not illegal. Like I said, you're argument is weak. Simply not wanting to see something is not considered valid argument.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you're just being silly. And rather insulting to compare cake and ice cream to waterboarding torture.
Click to expand...

But what about those poor vegans? Of course feeding them cake and ice cream will cause them severe mental harm as they use products stolen from those poor animals trapped in bondage to make them. Don't you care about the chickens and the cows? In fact I think I'm having an episode just thinking about it, STOP TORTURING ME!!!

And as I have said, there is no case study on the internet. It was after all sometime ago and not something moved on to the internet, but there is more than enough reference to it to accept that it happened.
Click to expand...

Bull****, I requested a case summary, the name of the case, or the name of the soldier allegedly succesfully prosecuted in the case. You have refused to provide anyone of those and if you think that counts as "enough reference" for anyone to accept your claim then you need a serious education on proper research techniques.

And there is no meaningful or credible objection to the claim.
Click to expand...

Except the fact that no one seems to know where to find a case summary, the name of the case, or the name of the person allegedly prosecuted.

Nope, no reason whatsoever to object to the credibility of the claim. :roll:

Hay there once was this guy, a soldier in Vietnam who was prosecuted for waterboarding but he got off because the judge determined that water boarding wasn't torture. But sorry I can't provide a case summary, the name of the case, or the name of the soldier involved.


I see no reason not to accept it.
Click to expand...

Then you see no reason to object to the claim that I just made. They both have equal credibility.

If you have some credible source questioning it, please provide it.
Click to expand...

I'm questioning it. I would like to see a scrap of evidence that such a case ever took place.

But until then, we have plenty of evidence that waterboarding was illegal during WWII,
Click to expand...

Not the same type of waterboarding.

in the VN war,
Click to expand...

Then give me case summary, the name of the case, or the name of the ****ing soldier.

and in the states.
Click to expand...

Once again IIRC the Sheriff was prosecuted for corruption not for waterboarding specifically.

It is also forbidden in the army field manual.
Click to expand...

The army field manual =/= law. The CIA is allowed to do a lot of things that regular soldiers aren't; such as, not wearing a uniform and infiltrating behind enemy lines.

And there is no honest way to make waterboarding questionable and not illegal. Like I said, you're argument is weak. Simply not wanting to see something is not considered valid argument.
Click to expand...

You have in no way proven that waterboarding is illegal nor have you even proved that it qualifies as torture, because you can't, because the definition of torture as it currently stands is entirely subjective.
 
Last edited:
I heard a guy say the it was raining outside. It was raining heavily, but someone said he questioned that. He was told to look out the window, but the fellow said it was subjective. It was clearly raining, but that didn't seem to sway the fellow. So we got our rain coats on and let him get soaked.

There's more than enough evidence:

US official admits waterboarding presently illegal | World news | guardian.co.uk

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

Torture by Any Other Name

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debate on waterboarding is artificial; it is clearly torture - International Center for Transitional Justice
 
Your Star said:
The odds of torture giving you good, and accurate information, is quite low. Like I said, they are more likely to admit to things they didn't do, or lie to make the pain stop than give you solid information. Not to mention you know that its illegal. Interrogation is different than torture, I'm fine with interrogation, I'm not okay with torture. I'm not willing to risk human lives on bad information because of the ineffective policy of torture.
Click to expand...

However the line between what's interrogation and what's torture is an absolutely artificial one with what consistutes each being relatively arbitrary in nature.

And I'm sorry that you said it ONLY gives bad information. I'm sorry you over exaggerated the case and got called on it. Yes, its an inefficient means of getting information. That does not mean it does not have its uses or benefits. A truck is an inefficient means of moving from one place to another in regards to gas, however when you know you're going to be transporting a number of large things that inefficiency is worth it due to the benefits. Torturing every random person that we capture in the field or arrest would be extremely inefficient with little tangible gain, there's no reason to do it...as I said earlier. However with a target who is clearly and obviously connected and has an extremely high probability of having useful or actionable intelligence the likelihood that legitimate, useful information will be extracted along with the bad goes up.

Also we are preparing them for torture, because well it happens. If they get captured we want our soldiers to be prepared for the worst.
Click to expand...

Prepared for the worst to do what? We want to torture our soldiers so they're prepared to be tortured? Prepared for what? When you prepare someone for something its do to a certain thing. You prepare for a football game to learn how to defend the other team. You prepare for a test to be able to correctly answer questions. You prepare for an interview to give the best impression. You prepare for a date to make sure you look good to attract the woman.

What are we preparing them FOR in regards to waterboarding them, etc?
 
digsbe said:
I am implying interrogation, he deserves to be interrogated by the harshest methods available.

And yes, I do want to get reliable and true evidence in order to save Americans. Non American citizens who have committed war crimes and the most atrocious acts of terrorism deserve absolutely no rights.

I can have both goals, I want justice and security. Not justice through torture, but security through harsh interrogation and justice through making the remainder of his existence a living hell.
Click to expand...

All your words show your #1 priority is to hurt the prisoner, giving you permission to torture him. Getting any info from him is secondary.

You have it assbackwards.
 
Boo Radley said:
I heard a guy say the it was raining outside. It was raining heavily, but someone said he questioned that. He was told to look out the window, but the fellow said it was subjective. It was clearly raining, but that didn't seem to sway the fellow. So we got our rain coats on and let him get soaked.

There's more than enough evidence:

US official admits waterboarding presently illegal | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

An unnamed official giving his opinion without saying what exactly makes it illegal does not constitute a legal argument. In fact your article clearly states that there was not yet signed legislation making waterboarding illegal, that a bill passed congress, but did not have the necessary votes to override the President's certain veto. Furthermore; even if that legislation was not vetoed we have this little thing in this country about the unconstitutonality of ex-post facto prosecution.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

Again the waterboarding used by the Japanese was not the same type of waterboarding that we use and the Sheriff was not convicted of torture he was convicted of violating defendants civil rights by coercing confessions from them.

Torture by Any Other Name
Click to expand...

Lists the two irrelevant cases involving Japanese war criminals and Sheriiff Parker.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

In the legality section it lists the same two useless subjective definitions of torture.

Debate on waterboarding is artificial; it is clearly torture - International Center for Transitional Justice
Click to expand...

Cites the subjective U.N. definition of torture, and the irrelevant opinions of the U.N. Committee Against Torture and the Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, neither of whose opinions have the force of international law let alone U.S. domestic law.
 
Boo Radley said:
According to the US government, waterboarding is torture. W ehave prosecuted civilians and people in our military for using waterboarding in the past.
Click to expand...

Calling waterboarding or anything for that matter torture does not equate to illegal. Smacking you on the hand with a ruler while I make you sit in an elementary school desk that was way too small for you would be torture too. In affect what the various laws do is ruled on what actions are acceptable. Waterboarding falls into a bit of a gray area. Sure there may be some international law which calls it illegal but it maybe not something we are a signatory too. Geneva I do not think addresses waterboarding specifically just torture in a general sense for the most part. I don't have a problem with selective use of the technique in war. Call me crazy but I can think of a lot worse things.
 
jambalaya said:
Calling waterboarding or anything for that matter torture does not equate to illegal. Smacking you on the hand with a ruler while I make you sit in an elementary school desk that was way too small for you would be torture too. In affect what the various laws do is ruled on what actions are acceptable. Waterboarding falls into a bit of a gray area. Sure there may be some international law which calls it illegal but it maybe not something we are a signatory too. Geneva I do not think addresses waterboarding specifically just torture in a general sense for the most part. I don't have a problem with selective use of the technique in war. Call me crazy but I can think of a lot worse things.
Click to expand...

No, it really deosn't fall into any gray area. We've denounced it when others have done it, and we have prosecuted people for doing it. There is nothing gray about it. And you personally having a problem with it or not doesn't change that. There are people who don't have a problem with beheading, but that would make any less illegal and wrong.
 
Agent Ferris said:
An unnamed official giving his opinion without saying what exactly makes it illegal does not constitute a legal argument. In fact your article clearly states that there was not yet signed legislation making waterboarding illegal, that a bill passed congress, but did not have the necessary votes to override the President's certain veto. Furthermore; even if that legislation was not vetoed we have this little thing in this country about the unconstitutonality of ex-post facto prosecution.



Again the waterboarding used by the Japanese was not the same type of waterboarding that we use and the Sheriff was not convicted of torture he was convicted of violating defendants civil rights by coercing confessions from them.



Lists the two irrelevant cases involving Japanese war criminals and Sheriiff Parker.



In the legality section it lists the same two useless subjective definitions of torture.



Cites the subjective U.N. definition of torture, and the irrelevant opinions of the U.N. Committee Against Torture and the Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, neither of whose opinions have the force of international law let alone U.S. domestic law.
Click to expand...

You're actually wrong about a couple of things. The water boarding by the Japanese was the same. The minor differences don't amount to anything that would make them not the same. This is not as subjective as you like to think. Waterboarding has always been considered part of the definition.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're actually wrong about a couple of things. The water boarding by the Japanese was the same. The minor differences don't amount to anything that would make them not the same.
Click to expand...

lol the Japanese forced the victim to drink the water until their stomach descended and then beat on the descended stomachs.

This is not as subjective as you like to think. Waterboarding has always been considered part of the definition.
Click to expand...

:roll: The international and domestic definitions of torture are completely subjective because "severe" is a subjective term, learn the definition of the word subjective and then get back to me.
 
Agent Ferris said:
lol the Japanese forced the victim to drink the water until their stomach descended and then beat on the descended stomachs.



:roll: The international and domestic definitions of torture are completely subjective because "severe" is a subjective term, learn the definition of the word subjective and then get back to me.
Click to expand...

Not true. I have a first hand account:

my face was covered by a cloth and a tap feeding a hose-pipe was turned on.

Waterboarding: the most horrific experience of my life

From that article:

In case anyone is still in doubt whether the water torture is, or is not, torture I shall refer to a Japanese Army document, which is authoritative. I have an extract from the Japanese Secret War Service Guide, headed '”Fundamental Rules for Interrogating War Prisoners”. This was probably issued in the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in 1938. In the list of “official” tortures item No 3 reads: “Putting the person interrogated on his back (it is advisable to raise the feet a little) and dripping water into the nose and mouth simultaneously.” A later section draws attention to the importance of minimising the disturbance caused by victims' screams.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I agree with Aunt Spiker. If my family was in danger I would not waterboard anyone. I would find another way to save them. This is because I love my country and I am not willing to torture some one in order get information from them and ruin what I believe are important values to this country.
Click to expand...

What a crock. It's a hypothetical situation. The only options are 1.) You waterboard to save your family 2.) Your family dies.

Don't try to escape between the horns and come up with some "I would come up with some super clever way to save them"

You would be waterboarding away.

I don't think you can honestly say that you would refuse to waterboard a terrorist, not just some random guy off the street, and instead sit there and watch your wife/mother/daughter etc.. get killed or tortured
 
Well okay, he admitted what we already knew. Sweet.

W. deserved the criticism he got, Obama does as well.

/story
 
Polynikes said:
What a crock. It's a hypothetical situation. The only options are 1.) You waterboard to save your family 2.) Your family dies.

Don't try to escape between the horns and come up with some "I would come up with some super clever way to save them"

You would be waterboarding away.

I don't think you can honestly say that you would refuse to waterboard a terrorist, not just some random guy off the street, and instead sit there and watch your wife/mother/daughter etc.. get killed or tortured
Click to expand...

The entire hypothetical argument has no merit whatsoever. Appeals to emotion, throwing rationality out the window, "oh my god but what if" scenarios are cheap ways to manufacture justification for unjustifiable acts.
 
Originally Posted by ADK_Forever
If you're looking to play ball.... It's been established that torture orders came down from Rummy, maybe even higher, thru Gen Sanchez. CIA spooks were in there directing those National Guardsmen in what to do. Those convicted were scapegoats for the likes of neo-cons Rummy, Cheeney and Bush's warped ideas of American honor.
Click to expand...

Agent Ferris said:
According to who? Common Dreams or Prison Planet?
Click to expand...

Is the Senate Armed Services Committee good enough for you?
On Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a report called "Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody" that traces the genesis of the Bush administration's torture program to late 2001. You can download the entire report here, but below Salon has reproduced pages 41 and 42, which (despite redactions) describe pressure from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as well as pressure from Washington to produce intelligence linking al-Qaida to Iraq.

(You can also read about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's role in promoting harsh interrogation techniques here, and read about how the Bush administration began planning for torture here.)
Click to expand...
"Wolfowitz said GTMO should use more aggressive interrogation techniques" - Torture - Salon.com

As explained in Chapter 1, "Standard Operating Procedure," some of the 279 photos and 19 videos in the archive depict controversial interrogation tactics employed in cellblock 1A. Among the examples of abuse on display in the photos were techniques sanctioned by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for use on "unlawful enemy combatants" in the "war on terror." These include forced nudity, the use of dogs to terrorize prisoners, keeping prisoners in stress positions -- physically uncomfortable poses of various types -- for many hours, and varieties of sleep deprivation. Some of these techniques migrated from Guantánamo and Afghanistan to Iraq in 2003. (The abuse depicted in the Abu Ghraib photos did not occur during interrogation sessions, but in some cases military guards allege they were encouraged to "soften up" detainees for interrogation by higher-ranking military intelligence officers.)
Click to expand...

This article is a very nice detailed summary of what led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
The Abu Ghraib files - Torture - Salon.com

This is all very old news. And one of the many nails in the Bush and Cheeney coffin labeled The Worst President in History.

This latest admission of Bush that he did indeed order illegal torture could be used to prosecute him for War Crimes and treason... if only Obama had the balls to go after him.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it really deosn't fall into any gray area. We've denounced it when others have done it, and we have prosecuted people for doing it. There is nothing gray about it. And you personally having a problem with it or not doesn't change that. There are people who don't have a problem with beheading, but that would make any less illegal and wrong.
Click to expand...

I've beent through this discussion before including the Japanese incidents I see you citing below. The Japanese soldiers involved were prosecuted for a number of different torture activities one of which included water boarding. They did far worse things to the American soldiers they had captured including beating the hell out of them. The Japenese soldiers were prosecuted for torture not simply waterboarding.
 
Boo Radley said:
BTw, any evidence Bush saved lives with torture?
Click to expand...

No none, and when will BUSH and CHENEY be waterboaded for War Crimes ????
This is what I would like to know, because he only showed his Cowboy swagger and bad examples to the whole World and most Nations have lost respect fand trust for the U.S.A. and what it stand for because of his barbaric actions.

I only hope Obama will be able to restore a little bit of Credibility and Respect for America as a whole among all the other chores he must do to get the Country back on track after the Bush Administration dumped it in the ditch and got out of town before sundown !!! Cowboy Style .....
 
It is wishful thinking to believe that the Obama administration will do anything to add credibility to and respect to America at this point. I voted for the man, I had certainly hoped for the same, but it's been a down hill slide in my opinion from day one. At least in the "credibility and respect" department. He's a politician, just like W, just like those before him. The system changes for no administration...and no administration can or really wants to change it in the first place.
 
Minnie T. Mouse said:
No none, and when will BUSH and CHENEY be waterboaded for War Crimes ????
This is what I would like to know, because he only showed his Cowboy swagger and bad examples to the whole World and most Nations have lost respect fand trust for the U.S.A. and what it stand for because of his barbaric actions.

I only hope Obama will be able to restore a little bit of Credibility and Respect for America as a whole among all the other chores he must do to get the Country back on track after the Bush Administration dumped it in the ditch and got out of town before sundown !!! Cowboy Style .....
Click to expand...

Never, Bush and Cheney never committed war crimes.

Are you being serious? The ones setting bad examples for the world are the UN and the EU. Just look at how they treat Israel and how they treat other conflicts. Look at how they treat Iran and the course of action they are taking with North Korea. Obama is dishonoring this country and acting exceedingly foolish when it comes to foreign policy. The world has become such a weak place where the wicked can rise up and the good only yell for "crippling sanctions" that never get put in place.
 
Minnie T. Mouse said:
No none, and when will BUSH and CHENEY be waterboaded for War Crimes ????
This is what I would like to know, because he only showed his Cowboy swagger and bad examples to the whole World and most Nations have lost respect fand trust for the U.S.A. and what it stand for because of his barbaric actions.

I only hope Obama will be able to restore a little bit of Credibility and Respect for America as a whole among all the other chores he must do to get the Country back on track after the Bush Administration dumped it in the ditch and got out of town before sundown !!! Cowboy Style .....
Click to expand...

And where is the evidence that serving tea and crumpets and giving your enemies back rubs ever saved a life? Truth is even if it did save a life or gave some information to kill a couple of bad guys nobody is going to hear about it. These things are kept secret. Waterboarding doesn't have to work each an every time you try it but you can bet some valuable information is obtained at times.
 
Polynikes said:
What a crock. It's a hypothetical situation. The only options are 1.) You waterboard to save your family 2.) Your family dies.

Don't try to escape between the horns and come up with some "I would come up with some super clever way to save them"

You would be waterboarding away.

I don't think you can honestly say that you would refuse to waterboard a terrorist, not just some random guy off the street, and instead sit there and watch your wife/mother/daughter etc.. get killed or tortured
Click to expand...

Well as I explained later on in the thread I can honestly say I could never waterboard/torture another human being.
 
Caine said:
Any evidence Bush did not save lives with torture?
Click to expand...

How about some proof that torture actually caused the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including thousands of American servicemen and women?

From Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who is former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just "committed suicide" in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi....)

Less important but still busting my chops as a Republican, is the damage that the Sith Lord Cheney is doing to my political party.

He and Rush Limbaugh seem to be its leaders now. Lindsay Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and all other Republicans of note seem to be either so enamored of Cheney-Limbaugh (or fearful of them?) or, on the other hand, so appalled by them, that the cat has their tongues. And meanwhile fewer Americans identify as Republicans than at any time since WWII. We're at 21% and falling--right in line with the number of cranks, reprobates, and loonies in the country.

When will we hear from those in my party who give a damn about their country and about the party of Lincoln?

When will someone of stature tell Dick Cheney that enough is enough? Go home. Spend your 70 million. Luxuriate in your Eastern Shore mansion. Shoot quail with your friends--and your friends.

Stay out of our way as we try to repair the extensive damage you've done--to the country and to its Republican Party.

-- Lawrence Wilkerson
Click to expand...
The Truth About Richard Bruce Cheney - The Washington Note

So, for all you torture supporters... it was actually the results of torture, that as most military and CIA experts tell us was not factual, that was used by Bush and Cheeney to convince (as in lie!) the American people, to allow them to invade a country that did not do anything to us.

This too, is very old news.

How many Americans have now been killed in Bush and Cheeney's illegal War of Choice?
 
Yes, al Libi, who I've mentioned before, is an example of using misinformation gained from torture. Torture is good for this because the person being tortured will say anything. But it is not so good at getting real intel. And so far, the examples the adminsitration presented proved much less than credible.
 
jambalaya said:
I've beent through this discussion before including the Japanese incidents I see you citing below. The Japanese soldiers involved were prosecuted for a number of different torture activities one of which included water boarding. They did far worse things to the American soldiers they had captured including beating the hell out of them. The Japenese soldiers were prosecuted for torture not simply waterboarding.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were. And believe it or not, you can do more than one wrong thing. But they were also tried for waterboarding, which was defined as torture. Because they did other things also defined as torture doesn't change that.
 
ADK_Forever said:
I thought I looked at your profile awhile ago. I don't recall seeing "comedien" as your occupation. But, my eyes are starting to fail me. :mrgreen:

If you're looking to play ball.... It's been established that torture orders came down from Rummy, maybe even higher, thru Gen Sanchez. CIA spooks were in there directing those National Guardsmen in what to do. Those convicted were scapegoats for the likes of neo-cons Rummy, Cheeney and Bush's warped ideas of American honor.
Click to expand...


Uh....what? Cheney ordered the people at Abu Ghraib to leash the prisoners, treat them like dogs, take pictures, etc.?

Interesting theory.

Guantanamo was a disaster. Perhaps you read about all the admin Republican attorneys and judges resigning over it?
Click to expand...

I've also read about all the Democrats keeping it open. I've also read about someplace called Bagram AFB, which is "worse" than Gitmo in every way that matters. Somewhat surprisingly, most people who excoriated Bush for Gitmo neither know nor give a **** about Bagram. First among those is President Obama, whose DoJ is fighting as hard as it can to deny those detained in Bagram the ability to challenge their detention in court.

In fact, Obama won a big victory there just two weeks ago. Thanks to that, detainees who have sat there for seven years without access to counsel or a courtroom will continue to be detained indefinitely.

Somewhat surprisingly, I don't see a single mention of that anywhere on the forum, nor do I hear calls from people like you for Obama to be impeached over this. I wonder why?


Gina said:
Both. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

Isn’t better to use a realistic scenario to exercise thought? Further, as the “ticking time bomb”, has been used as “THEE excuse” for torture, (thank you ADK), it’s disingenuous. It reminds me of children going to the outer reaches of logic in order to wring something from their parents.
Click to expand...

How is it disingenuous? It's the "outer reach" of logic because that's the point. If you think that torture is acceptable in the ticking time bomb scenario but not in day to day use, then that forces you to examine where you draw your boundaries.

Sorry to repeat myself, but the lines are drawn before the question is asked. Those of us against torture are against it. We don’t want our government acting illegally for any reason. Period. And those who think it’s ok to torture under the ticking time bomb want to punish the person and the scenario makes little or no difference.

What baffles me is that if Conservatives are so afraid of government power, one would think they’d be afraid of a President who overrides the law to approves torture.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that recognition that torture is sometimes acceptable is exclusively (or even mostly) a conservative thing? The number of people who are opposed to torture in all scenarios is much smaller than you might think. Just 25% of people believe that torture is never acceptable. 58% of Democrats agree that it's justifiable in at least some situations.

Public Remains Divided Over Use of Torture: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

You might be someone who has sat down and examined the logic behind your opposition to torture from various angles, concluding that it's never justifiable. That's absolutely fine. The point of thought exercises like the ticking time bomb scenario is to encourage that same level of introspection among the majority of people who have not examined the rationale behind their stance on torture.

Comparing cookies, insects or embarrassment to the simulation of drowning, which is completely believable by the person experiencing it so it is not a simulation to them, is a false equivalency. Fear of death is everyone’s weakness and as an interrogation policy it’s lazy and worse, ineffective.
Click to expand...

Are you're saying that you don't have a problem with the use of things like insects and embarrassment, which were the subject of that recent report on interrogation practices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom