jerryzflies 0 #26 May 17, 2009 Quote If you relied upon someone who was an academic doing a research paper on this topic, without actual experience in the field, you would simply fall short of providing a true expert. If only we could bring back those nice folks we executed after WWII, they could be your true experts.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 May 17, 2009 QuoteYou sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. I was actually thinking the same thing, along with "and if this was about Clinton's sexual relations we'd have exactly opposite answers from 80% of the posters." This is obviously a topic where people have different answers, and equally, one where most people aren't going to be convinced of the opposite side QuoteBush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing ... You mean Republicans like John McCain, the latest Republican presidential nominee? It's silly to try to tar a whole group with that claim, especially when their most recently selected national leader was one of the most vocal opponents of the practice, and especially, especially when it's clear that leaders of the other party (like Nancy Pelosi) knew, and said nothing, while John McCain was vocal in his public opposition.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 May 17, 2009 Dang, Tom. You nailed it right there. The difference between the actions, reactions and rhetoric of McCain (who has himself been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques") and Pelosi (who has herself subjected the public to enhanced denial techniques) is quite stunning. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #29 May 17, 2009 Quote Furthermore I know men who have suffered far more in order for you and those like you to live free and be able to piss and moan about how bad we are. I wish you could live in their shoes and feel what they have or what they have gone through for just one day. You would probably hang yourself. What a nice person you must be ..... Unfortunately, incapable to stop yourself - man, your posts simply are absurd. just realized you only will read it in 2 weeks - I'm a little late dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #30 May 17, 2009 it's not a partisan question. "Is waterboarding torture" shouldn't be answered as a dem or repub, but as a HUMAN BEING. What i find hilarious is the people who say things like this: QuoteFurthermore I know men who have suffered far more in order for you and those like you to live free and be able to piss and moan about how bad we are. Like John McCain? Like the countless surviving soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have been POWs and say with NO uncertainty that waterboarding IS torture? They would rather listen to Dick Cheney (who has never been tortured in his life, other than maybe being denied another ice cream by the white house kitchen) than these heroes who they supposedly adore and admire so much? Oh here's another great deflection of the argument: QuoteWhile these SOB's electricute[sic] their POW (Our Soldiers) you guys have the nerve to call waterboarding torture. Good thing you don't know the rest of the story or you'd really be raising hell. Put your Big Boy & Big girl panties on, and try not to be so emotional. Your[sic] talking about a country that still utilizes public hangings, beheadings, stockades and the like. What about our soldiers they killed, drug through the streets being pulled by an SUV, then hung them from a bridge, is that torture? Well, if it is it would seem to me there sure is a lot of jaded views here, think about it. All those things you listed are actually executions, to be precise. what the fuck do they have to do with waterboarding? You clearly demonstrate that our enemies are horrible, despicable people...so why do we feel it necessary to sink to their level? nerdgirl has posted article after article, testimony after testimony, from experts, former soldiers, leaders in the field, FBI interrogators, etc and they all say in no uncertain terms that waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (I did not have sexual relations with that woman!) DO NOT WORK, damage our international image, and make us a target for MORE terrorism. I am firmly convinced that most people on this board don't really read any of the links or evidence or sources provided. Or actually listen to people who have actually been through SERE, or waterboarded. Get over yourselves, read the evidence, and open your minds. The court of public opinion, moral decency, and human kindness is against you on this one. It's truly OK to admit you're wrong and change your mind. I won't laugh or rub it in...i'll admire you for having the balls to do it.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 May 17, 2009 I agree with you. As a former officer in the Army torture was repugnant. It was like the old legend about how Germans could survive WWII. "Be a good German. Join the infantry. Volunteer for front line duty. Then surrender to the first American you can find." Nothing in the world makes an enemy fight to the death like the thought that death would be better than the hell that being captured would cause. And if the enemy perceives that he or she WILL be tortured, increased friendly attrition is the necessary result. If you are gonna take care of your troops (in my opinion the PRIMARY responsibility of a leader) you will lessen the danger to them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #32 May 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. I was actually thinking the same thing, along with "and if this was about Clinton's sexual relations we'd have exactly opposite answers from 80% of the posters." This is obviously a topic where people have different answers, and equally, one where most people aren't going to be convinced of the opposite side QuoteBush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing ... You mean Republicans like John McCain, the latest Republican presidential nominee? It's silly to try to tar a whole group with that claim, especially when their most recently selected national leader was one of the most vocal opponents of the practice, and especially, especially when it's clear that leaders of the other party (like Nancy Pelosi) knew, and said nothing, while John McCain was vocal in his public opposition. But he didn't put his vote where his mouth is. On Feb 13 2008 he voted NO on the bill to ban torture in CIA interrogations. PS On the whole I'm more concerned with the issue of torture being official US policy than I am with Clinton's sex life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #33 May 18, 2009 Yes. Reason being: if anyone were to waterboard our troops, that would constitute torture and we should be able to address it as such. Anyone who votes No is effectively giving the go ahead to our enemies to waterboard us. Why not? It's not torture, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #34 May 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. I was actually thinking the same thing, along with "and if this was about Clinton's sexual relations we'd have exactly opposite answers from 80% of the posters." This is obviously a topic where people have different answers, and equally, one where most people aren't going to be convinced of the opposite side QuoteBush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing ... You mean Republicans like John McCain, the latest Republican presidential nominee? It's silly to try to tar a whole group with that claim, especially when their most recently selected national leader was one of the most vocal opponents of the practice, and especially, especially when it's clear that leaders of the other party (like Nancy Pelosi) knew, and said nothing, while John McCain was vocal in his public opposition. True, I was being unfair to republicans to tar them as a whole, the whole party is not behind this, its just some of the neo-cons loyal to the previous administration and some of their supporters (some on this website). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gary73 10 #35 May 18, 2009 I'm constantly amazed and saddened by the lack of objectivity demonstrated by members of our species. If you had to watch helplessly as a loved one was being waterboarded, there would be no doubt in your mind that it's torture. And if it's torture when done to a loved one, then it's torture when done to a stranger, or even an enemy. As for the allegation that opposing torture is unpatriotic and disrespectful to those who have died supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, that Constitution clearly prohibits torture, even for convicted criminals (Eighth Amendment). And that brings up another point that's often overlooked in these discussions: interrogation subjects are almost always suspects - not convicted criminals. The authorities don't know for sure what, if any, information they have. But one thing is for sure: if they weren't enemies of the United States before they were tortured, they most certainly will be afterward. And so will all of their loved ones. So no matter how you look at it, morally, legally, or practically, torture is wrong. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #36 May 18, 2009 QuoteYes. Reason being: if anyone were to waterboard our troops, that would constitute torture and we should be able to address it as such. reply] Some of our troops have had this done to them in training. I doubt if they do much of that anymore, because it is brutal, and yes, it is torture as far as I'm concerned. I think you could easily have someone die while having this perpetrated on them. I mentioned earlier that I watched this done in Special Forces training in the early 70's. How anyone can believe that this isn't torture is more than I can understand..... Why do it if most of the intelligence gathered from it is probably bull shit! I imagine there probably are psychos in the world who would enjoy this sort of thing. But what good comes out of it. Haven't other methods proven more effective? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #37 May 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteDepends on which version you speak of You sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. Clinton was full of shit when he said this and was trying to weasel out of admitting he was doing wrong by arguing the meaning of sex. Bush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing with regards to waterboarding and like a good republican follower you believe it and defend them to the same degree that devout democrats defend Clinton. Your party must be proud of you. Funny how the right wing scumbags pull the CDIF crap. For those that don't have a clear grasp of the FACTS, at the time Clinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth (a consensual act between adults, by the way), "sexual relations", in terms of the law, was defined as intercourse, as in. penis to vagina action. However annoying it may be to the ignorant, the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a legally true statement. Morally, not so much. Given that Clinton was constantly being hounded by the scumbags, his legal parsing is completely understandable. Given that y'all have supported the most heinous presidency of all time, AKA ShrubCo, IMO, it is time to STFU. Waterboarding is torture. No amount of weaseling, waffling, bullshit legal justifications, etc, change that simple fact. Marc, if it was done to you, you would consider it torture. Yes or no? No weasel words, a simple yes or no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 1 #38 May 19, 2009 QuoteClinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth Do you have an agent? You should publish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,334 #39 May 19, 2009 QuoteIf you had to watch helplessly as a loved one was being waterboarded, there would be no doubt in your mind that it's torture. And if it's torture when done to a loved one, then it's torture when done to a stranger, or even an enemy.What he said. People are people. If someone really, really thinks that torture is necessary, then they should also be willing to take the punishment for its infliction. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #40 May 19, 2009 QuoteYou sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. I feel like choosing sides today. Hmmmm, married POTUS who lied about extra-marital sex, or POTUS that condones repeated drowning of people that were suspected of terrorism. Hmmm, still thinking. Lied about sex. Or: Beats up and drowns arab people. Hmmm. I realize that this is a difficult decision for some people.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #41 May 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDepends on which version you speak of You sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. Clinton was full of shit when he said this and was trying to weasel out of admitting he was doing wrong by arguing the meaning of sex. Bush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing with regards to waterboarding and like a good republican follower you believe it and defend them to the same degree that devout democrats defend Clinton. Your party must be proud of you. Funny how the right wing scumbags pull the CDIF crap. For those that don't have a clear grasp of the FACTS, at the time Clinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth (a consensual act between adults, by the way), "sexual relations", in terms of the law, was defined as intercourse, as in. penis to vagina action. However annoying it may be to the ignorant, the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a legally true statement. Morally, not so much. Given that Clinton was constantly being hounded by the scumbags, his legal parsing is completely understandable. Given that y'all have supported the most heinous presidency of all time, AKA ShrubCo, IMO, it is time to STFU. Waterboarding is torture. No amount of weaseling, waffling, bullshit legal justifications, etc, change that simple fact. Marc, if it was done to you, you would consider it torture. Yes or no? No weasel words, a simple yes or no."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BikerBabe 0 #42 May 19, 2009 unfortunately, the words "yes" and "no" do not appear to be included in many folks' vocabularies. You can ask them if the Pope is Catholic and they will find some way to equivocate and dance around an answer.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #43 May 19, 2009 Quote unfortunately, the words "yes" and "no" do not appear to be included in many folks' vocabularies. You can ask them if the Pope is Catholic and they will find some way to equivocate and dance around an answer. I think the Pope is actually Roman Catholic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #44 May 19, 2009 Is it torture? Yes. Would I conduct it if it could save lives? Yes...and so would all of you. It's really that simple.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,772 #45 May 19, 2009 >Would I conduct it if it could save lives? Yes...and so would all of you. >It's really that simple. Although watching enough episodes of 24 might lead you to believe that it's that simple, in the real world torture does not save lives, per the people we entrust with gathering such information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #46 May 19, 2009 Quote>Would I conduct it if it could save lives? Yes...and so would all of you. >It's really that simple. Although watching enough episodes of 24 might lead you to believe that it's that simple, in the real world torture does not save lives, per the people we entrust with gathering such information. Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do. EDIT: Eventually the goalposts will shift and we'll be discussing whether doing anything more than asking "pretty please" to a criminal/terrorist constitutes torture. Waterboarding is just the next technique to be knocked off the list...officially. Unofficially, the government will continue to use whatever techniques work; whether that's waterboarding or sleep deprivation. It would be foolish not to--as long as word doesn't get out and offend our delicate sensibilities.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,772 #47 May 19, 2009 >Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do. Actually, I'd hope to have the wisdom to do what's right and not what satisfies my desire for vengeance. It's much harder to the right thing than to give in to your rage, but in the long run saves lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #48 May 19, 2009 Quote>Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do. Actually, I'd hope to have the wisdom to do what's right and not what satisfies my desire for vengeance. It's much harder to the right thing than to give in to your rage, but in the long run saves lives. Where did vengeance come into all of this?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #49 May 19, 2009 QuoteWhere did vengeance come into all of this? Vengeance might not be the exact right word, but the implication is bill would be under stress to get the information and not simply doing it to be a dick.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #50 May 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhere did vengeance come into all of this? Vengeance might not be the exact right word, but the implication is bill would be under stress to get the information and not simply doing it to be a dick. Indeed, when lives are on the line stress does occur. I doubt most Americans, while sitting in their comfortable chairs, can appreciate the threats that are out there. That is why the public can condemn the actions of the interrogators so easily--it doesn't cost them a thing to do so and it makes them feel good.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
funjumper101 15 #37 May 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteDepends on which version you speak of You sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. Clinton was full of shit when he said this and was trying to weasel out of admitting he was doing wrong by arguing the meaning of sex. Bush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing with regards to waterboarding and like a good republican follower you believe it and defend them to the same degree that devout democrats defend Clinton. Your party must be proud of you. Funny how the right wing scumbags pull the CDIF crap. For those that don't have a clear grasp of the FACTS, at the time Clinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth (a consensual act between adults, by the way), "sexual relations", in terms of the law, was defined as intercourse, as in. penis to vagina action. However annoying it may be to the ignorant, the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a legally true statement. Morally, not so much. Given that Clinton was constantly being hounded by the scumbags, his legal parsing is completely understandable. Given that y'all have supported the most heinous presidency of all time, AKA ShrubCo, IMO, it is time to STFU. Waterboarding is torture. No amount of weaseling, waffling, bullshit legal justifications, etc, change that simple fact. Marc, if it was done to you, you would consider it torture. Yes or no? No weasel words, a simple yes or no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #38 May 19, 2009 QuoteClinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth Do you have an agent? You should publish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,334 #39 May 19, 2009 QuoteIf you had to watch helplessly as a loved one was being waterboarded, there would be no doubt in your mind that it's torture. And if it's torture when done to a loved one, then it's torture when done to a stranger, or even an enemy.What he said. People are people. If someone really, really thinks that torture is necessary, then they should also be willing to take the punishment for its infliction. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #40 May 19, 2009 QuoteYou sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. I feel like choosing sides today. Hmmmm, married POTUS who lied about extra-marital sex, or POTUS that condones repeated drowning of people that were suspected of terrorism. Hmmm, still thinking. Lied about sex. Or: Beats up and drowns arab people. Hmmm. I realize that this is a difficult decision for some people.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #41 May 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDepends on which version you speak of You sound just like Clinton except he was referring to not have "sexual relations" with his intern. Clinton was full of shit when he said this and was trying to weasel out of admitting he was doing wrong by arguing the meaning of sex. Bush/Chaney/republicans are doing exactly the same thing with regards to waterboarding and like a good republican follower you believe it and defend them to the same degree that devout democrats defend Clinton. Your party must be proud of you. Funny how the right wing scumbags pull the CDIF crap. For those that don't have a clear grasp of the FACTS, at the time Clinton received a blow job and ejaculated into Monica's willing mouth (a consensual act between adults, by the way), "sexual relations", in terms of the law, was defined as intercourse, as in. penis to vagina action. However annoying it may be to the ignorant, the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a legally true statement. Morally, not so much. Given that Clinton was constantly being hounded by the scumbags, his legal parsing is completely understandable. Given that y'all have supported the most heinous presidency of all time, AKA ShrubCo, IMO, it is time to STFU. Waterboarding is torture. No amount of weaseling, waffling, bullshit legal justifications, etc, change that simple fact. Marc, if it was done to you, you would consider it torture. Yes or no? No weasel words, a simple yes or no."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #42 May 19, 2009 unfortunately, the words "yes" and "no" do not appear to be included in many folks' vocabularies. You can ask them if the Pope is Catholic and they will find some way to equivocate and dance around an answer.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #43 May 19, 2009 Quote unfortunately, the words "yes" and "no" do not appear to be included in many folks' vocabularies. You can ask them if the Pope is Catholic and they will find some way to equivocate and dance around an answer. I think the Pope is actually Roman Catholic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #44 May 19, 2009 Is it torture? Yes. Would I conduct it if it could save lives? Yes...and so would all of you. It's really that simple.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #45 May 19, 2009 >Would I conduct it if it could save lives? Yes...and so would all of you. >It's really that simple. Although watching enough episodes of 24 might lead you to believe that it's that simple, in the real world torture does not save lives, per the people we entrust with gathering such information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #46 May 19, 2009 Quote>Would I conduct it if it could save lives? Yes...and so would all of you. >It's really that simple. Although watching enough episodes of 24 might lead you to believe that it's that simple, in the real world torture does not save lives, per the people we entrust with gathering such information. Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do. EDIT: Eventually the goalposts will shift and we'll be discussing whether doing anything more than asking "pretty please" to a criminal/terrorist constitutes torture. Waterboarding is just the next technique to be knocked off the list...officially. Unofficially, the government will continue to use whatever techniques work; whether that's waterboarding or sleep deprivation. It would be foolish not to--as long as word doesn't get out and offend our delicate sensibilities.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #47 May 19, 2009 >Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do. Actually, I'd hope to have the wisdom to do what's right and not what satisfies my desire for vengeance. It's much harder to the right thing than to give in to your rage, but in the long run saves lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #48 May 19, 2009 Quote>Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do. Actually, I'd hope to have the wisdom to do what's right and not what satisfies my desire for vengeance. It's much harder to the right thing than to give in to your rage, but in the long run saves lives. Where did vengeance come into all of this?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #49 May 19, 2009 QuoteWhere did vengeance come into all of this? Vengeance might not be the exact right word, but the implication is bill would be under stress to get the information and not simply doing it to be a dick.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #50 May 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhere did vengeance come into all of this? Vengeance might not be the exact right word, but the implication is bill would be under stress to get the information and not simply doing it to be a dick. Indeed, when lives are on the line stress does occur. I doubt most Americans, while sitting in their comfortable chairs, can appreciate the threats that are out there. That is why the public can condemn the actions of the interrogators so easily--it doesn't cost them a thing to do so and it makes them feel good.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites