• 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!

U.S. Soldier Waterboards 6 Year Old Foster Child For Wetting His Bed!

Winston Smith said:
I don't have any more time for red herrings. I'd rather talk about the more significant issue of our government's policy of torture, assuming anyone cares to deny it.
Click to expand...
Well then, start a thread about it and stop derailing this one.
 
Winston Smith said:
I don't have any more time for red herrings. I'd rather talk about the more significant issue of our government's policy of torture, assuming anyone cares to deny it.
Click to expand...

The irony is that the second sentence contradicts the first, since what you'd prefer to discuss is truly a red herring in this thread.
 
Tucker Case said:
Our government taught us to "waterboard" c hildren who wet the bed? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't know that we've waterboarded them, though judging from Mr. Yoo's words we may have done that and worse. We do have evidence of various kinds of abuse of minors at Abu Ghraib, including rape.
 
Tucker Case said:
The irony is that the second sentence contradicts the first, since what you'd prefer to discuss is truly a red herring in this thread.
Click to expand...

Others raised the issue by saying Abu Ghraib and similar incidents were the work of rogue soldiers and not acts of policy. Those claims are misleading and need to be addressed where they appear.
 
Winston Smith said:
Others raised the issue by saying Abu Ghraib and similar incidents were the work of rogue soldiers and not acts of policy. Those claims are misleading and need to be addressed where they appear.
Click to expand...

Actually, the issue was raised by people who tried to make this about his occupation.
 
Tucker Case said:
Did they wet the bed?
Click to expand...

According to our policies, it wasn't necessary for them to have committed any offense, even one as minor as that. Just being related to someone we suspected of resisting us would have been enough.
 
Winston Smith said:
According to our policies, it wasn't necessary for them to have committed any offense, even one as minor as that. Just being related to someone we suspected of resisting us would have been enough.
Click to expand...

Do you think this soldier suspected this child of being a terrorist?
 
Winston Smith said:
According to our policies, it wasn't necessary for them to have committed any offense, even one as minor as that. Just being related to someone we suspected of resisting us would have been enough.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
The OP is about a domestic/criminal incident, not about the executive branch or CIA interrogation techniques and their merits/demerits. If you wish to discuss such an agenda, start a dedicated thread on it.
 
Tucker Case said:
Then I guess we don't have to worry about the Government's involvment in this particular case.
Click to expand...

You're assuming it makes a difference, which means you've fallen into the same error. Legally and morally, it doesn't. It's equally wrong whether the victim is related to a suspect or not.
 
Winston Smith said:
Most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were not terrorists. Even if they had been, that wouldn't justify torture. But the Bush administration did try to justify it nonetheless.
Click to expand...

You appear to be operating under the misconception that we waterboarded "most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo."

Winston Smith said:
Breaking the law = breaking the law. If it's okay to do it in some cases, one could argue that it's okay in others.
Click to expand...

This is pretty flawed logic. Let's say my boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss gets in trouble for running a ponzi scheme. Years later, let's say I go home and beat my kid with a lead pipe. Is that corrupt CEO to blame?

Winston Smith said:
I've never said or implied that soldiers or government employees = torturers. What I have said, which you persistently avoid addressing, is that this particular soldier's behavior is nothing but what our own government taught by example and sanctioned by its words. There is no way around that.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that you're indisputably wrong, as has been pointed out to you over and over again.

That soldier's employer also ordered the military to bomb terrorist training camps. If that guy comes home and blows up his local Kinko's, is that the government's fault?
 
RightinNYC said:
You appear to be operating under the misconception that we waterboarded "most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo."



This is pretty flawed logic. Let's say my boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss gets in trouble for running a ponzi scheme. Years later, let's say I go home and beat my kid with a lead pipe. Is that corrupt CEO to blame?



Except for the fact that you're indisputably wrong, as has been pointed out to you over and over again.

That soldier's employer also ordered the military to bomb terrorist training camps. If that guy comes home and blows up his local Kinko's, is that the government's fault?
Click to expand...

If your CEO employs people to beat others with lead pipes in the regular course of business, then yes, he is to blame. That's the equivalent of what the US government did. No one has refuted or in fact even responded to my cited evidence for that.
 
Winston Smith said:
If your CEO employs people to beat others with lead pipes in the regular course of business, then yes, he is to blame.
Click to expand...

Even if the person who goes home and beats their kid with a lead pipe wasn't employed by the CEO to beat people with lead pipes? :confused:


Using your logic, if I was employed by a football team as a stadium hot dog vendor and I went home and tackled my kid, it would be because my employer employs other people who have the job of tackling people.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Even if the person who goes home and beats their kid with a lead pipe wasn't employed by the CEO to bear people with lead pipes? :confused:
Click to expand...

If the culprit bought into his superiors' rationalizations or was influenced by the immoral environment they created, yes.

Tucker Case said:
Using your logic, if I was employed by a football team as a stadium hot dog vendor and I went home and tackled my kid, it would be because my employer employs other people who have the job of tackling people.
Click to expand...

No, because there is a moral difference between assaulting someone and tackling them in a football game. If you think there's a similar difference between assaulting an innocent American child and assaulting an innocent Iraqi, it only shows that your moral sense is clouded in a similar way. You're not military by any chance, are you? ;)
 
Last edited:
Winston Smith said:
If the culprit bought into his superiors' rationalizations or was influenced by the immoral environment they created, yes.
Click to expand...

If the culprit actually bought into his superiors rationalizations and such, he wouldn't have waterboarded a 6 year old child for wetting the bed, thus proving that your logic is deeply flawed and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The key is that you've admitted this guy didn't think the 6-year old was a terrorist. That is why your argument isn't really an argument.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
If the culprit actually bought into his superiors rationalizations and such, he wouldn't have waterboarded a 6 year old child for wetting the bed, thus proving that your logic is deeply flawed and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The key is that you've admitted this guy didn't think the 6-year old was a terrorist. That is why your argument isn't really an argument.
Click to expand...

They didn't necessarily think the people they tortured in Iraq were terrorists, either. In some cases they tortured women and children just for purposes of intimidation and humiliation. That's all torture is usually about, actually.
 
Winston Smith said:
No one has refuted or in fact even responded to my cited evidence for that.
Click to expand...

Because there's not really a point. You're not offering anything new or groundbreaking; everyone in this thread is completely aware of the things you're talking about. We just happen to believe that your interpretation of those events and rationalization of this incident is flawed.

Winston Smith said:
If the culprit bought into his superiors' rationalizations or was influenced by the immoral environment they created, yes.
Click to expand...

And that seems absolutely absurd, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

No, because there is a moral difference between assaulting someone and tackling them in a football game.
Click to expand...

And there's a moral difference between waterboarding a terrorist in order to gain information and waterboarding a 6 year old kid who pissed the bed.
 
RightinNYC said:
Because there's not really a point. You're not offering anything new or groundbreaking; everyone in this thread is completely aware of the things you're talking about. We just happen to believe that your interpretation of those events and rationalization of this incident is flawed.



And that seems absolutely absurd, but you're entitled to your own opinion.



And there's a moral difference between waterboarding a terrorist in order to gain information and waterboarding a 6 year old kid who pissed the bed.
Click to expand...

Assuming it really is a terrorist, the difference is only a matter of degree. Both are torture and both degrade the ethics of the person who does them...or supports them.

And of course there's no reason to assume that. If as you say "everyone is aware" that we tortured innocent people for reasons other than gathering information, then the guy in this case must have been aware of it as well (actually two guys in two separate incidents, according to the video).
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Probably from his own twisted mind. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, I feel bad about the impression my first post left. I was more angry at what happened to those children than I was concerned about the soldiers.
 
Winston Smith said:
Exactly. Because it's not like we've ever heard of his employer doing it, or defending it, or anything like that.
Click to expand...

Winston, the fact that civilians know about waterboarding and it has been discussed quite heavily via the media and on the internet suggests that anyone could have learned about waterboarding and I would not be surprised if there are some out there who wanted to see for themselves if was really torture by experimenting on themselves or their friends. Case in point, Christopher Hitchens.

The fact that 2 children were waterboarded by 2 soldiers suggests that the soldiers themselves may have been abused as children, because it is a known fact that abused children grow up to be child abusers. So I think these unfortunate incidents of abuse probably has more to do with the sickness in our society than it does the military because those two soldiers were civilians long before they were soldiers and we really don't know enough about them to make any kind of judgement.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Winston, the fact that civilians know about waterboarding and it has been discussed quite heavily via the media and on the internet suggests that anyone could have learned about waterboarding and I would not be surprised if there are some out there who wanted to see for themselves if was really torture by experimenting on themselves or their friends. Case in point, Christopher Hitchens.

The fact that 2 children were waterboarded by 2 soldiers suggests that the soldiers themselves may have been abused as children, because it is a known fact that abused children grow up to be child abusers. So I think these unfortunate incidents of abuse probably has more to do with the sickness in our society than it does the military because those two soldiers were civilians long before they were soldiers and we really don't know enough about them to make any kind of judgement.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does have to do with their upbringing, but for whatever reason, domestic violence rates are significantly higher in the military. For that reason alone, even if public officials weren't specifically condoning torture, it would still be a military problem.
 
Last edited:
Winston Smith said:
Maybe it does have to do with their upbringing, but for whatever reason, domestic violence rates are significantly higher in the military. For that reason alone, even if public officials weren't specifically condoning torture, it would still be a military problem.
Click to expand...
But isn't that kind of understandable considering the soldiers go from the battlefield and in matter of hours back to civilian domestic life with little time to readjust? Not to mention the wives having been on their own for a year or more and were used to doing things their own way and some of the children are strangers to their dads when they return? But I think the military is aware of the transition problem and is trying to help the best they can considering that isn't what the military was designed to do.
 
Winston Smith said:
Maybe it does have to do with their upbringing, but for whatever reason, domestic violence rates are significantly higher in the military. For that reason alone, even if public officials weren't specifically condoning torture, it would still be a military problem.
Click to expand...



This is just anecdotal, just guesses, really, but from what I've seen, it seems like military folks get married younger and have kids younger than the gen pop.
Many of them aren't college-educated; they're from working class backgrounds.
To their youth and background, add the unique stresses of military family life, with its frequent moves and deployments... and it starts to make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom