Waterboarding: sometimes it's necessary

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

How in the holy hell is this not considered a presonal attack? Jesus shit, I've gotten warning PM's for much less then this.

Why am I not suprised....... isgust;

Maybe the mods subscribe to the legal theory of truth being a defense to libel.

See, that's cool and all, but then you have to take into account the fact that some people have different thoughts on what "the truth" is... Anyway, I agree with Moonbeam.

 

[GoPackGo]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

For some...being forced to sleep on bear skin rug would be torture.

For some...being forced to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast would be torture.

For some...watching Survivor China would be torture.

For some...spending 30 years in a federal prison would be torture.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

For some...being forced to sleep on bear skin rug would be torture.

For some...being forced to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast would be torture.

For some...watching Survivor China would be torture.

For some...spending 30 years in a federal prison would be torture.

You left out having to read a post by Harvey.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

For some...being forced to sleep on bear skin rug would be torture.

For some...being forced to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast would be torture.

For some...watching Survivor China would be torture.

For some...spending 30 years in a federal prison would be torture.

You left out having to read a post by Harvey.

Hey...cut me some slack...those were just examples

 

[palehorse]

I think that extremely loud hardcore rap music is torture...

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I think that extremely loud hardcore rap music is torture...

Then you're a little baby...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

For some...being forced to sleep on bear skin rug would be torture.

For some...being forced to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast would be torture.

For some...watching Survivor China would be torture.

For some...spending 30 years in a federal prison would be torture.

While I agree there is some wiggle room in defining torture, it doesn't mean we can't draw a line somewhere because of semantics. I think 99% of the populace could agree that taking a power drill to someone's knee is torture.

Rudy's claim that voluntarily working really long hours on the campaign trail is equivalent to sleep deprivation techniques is pretty proposterous and demeaning to those who have been subjected to it.

Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister from 1977-83 described his experience of sleep deprivation when a prisoner of the KGB in Russia as follows, "In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it."

You can go and call him a pussy if you want, I don't think you'd have much credibility after that.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You left out having to read a post by Harvey.

:lips: my (_!_).

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

How in the holy hell is this not considered a presonal attack? Jesus shit, I've gotten warning PM's for much less then this.

Why am I not suprised....... isgust;

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to torture your immature spirit. You are really a god in hiding behind a devils mask. You have allowed everything coarse and anamalistic to the fore of your person and left undeveloped everything that makes man great. You aren't a piece of garbage or a piece of shit. You just act like you are. I know that you can't be any different than you are. I know other pieces of shit made you one too. But you need to know and to see that you have the same philosophy as all other losers. You are fearful and vindictive and vicious and all you need to manifest those traits is some object of scorn. You are a monster waiting to explode of a victim and you victimize other monsters like yourself. You are why the world goes around in endless pain. You won't die on the cross with your grief. You are weak and need to victimize others. You are the source of all real evil, the monster who who justifies more evil to himself because he was tortured. You want to do unto others exactly what was done to you because you don't have the courage and fortitude to be better.

 

[Moonbeam]

And furthermore, you come into a public place and dump your shit ideas where then infect and comfort other sick minds. I think there should be a price. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing about it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure why so many people think these groups are capable of compromise.

You know the term bleeding heart liberal. They hate us and sympathize with our enemy, whomever it may be. A generality yes, but oh so very common is it not? They want us in jail for war crimes, and want flowers and roses for our killers.

Maybe I take that too personally, but they keep making their hatred of us over this issue sound as personal as it can get.

What you should take more personally and be really offended by than "bleeding heart liberals" is your delusionally-warped idea of what one truly believes.

What you see as "hating us and sympathizing with our enemy" is in reality respecting the rule of law and human rights. No one is claiming that American actions that are undertaken in a manner consistent with the principals that our nation was founded on or are in line with internationally accepted standards are wrong.

With that said, starting a war without informing those that are able to deny you that authority all of the information required to make an informed decision is wrong. Torturing another human being is wrong.

If things are done that are consistent with the presently agreed upon definition of war crimes....THOSE THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If an innocent person is killed....THEY DESERVE FLOWERS AND ROSES.

These standards apply to both sides of any conflict...not just countries that aren't spelled United States of America.

Your major problem is that you are too small minded to realize that not all of them are our enemies and that not all of us are perfectly justified in our actions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

Of course it's always a waste of time to argue with your air headed comments and your absence of moral insight, but what the hay..........., it don't really matter if you see.

Your buddy knocked a guy unconscious who was beating up a woman. That is not at all the same as doing what the guy he punched did. He ended an assault in a way that he could. It is totally appropriate to stop a crime in progress with violence if the violence ends the moment the criminal is stopped. You have a right to defend yourself and other defenseless people. You don't have a right to initiate violence otherwise. Once a criminal is stopped and confined so he can't harm others as long as he has that intent you have done justice. Once you establish control you job is to act in the manner you want everybody else to act. You can't allow yourself to go for revenge. No evil ever done can be paid for in more blood. Violence in the world ends at you. Only you can stop your own violence and doing that is doing everything that can be done to change the world. All people everywhere are created in the image of God and it is the God in them that you need to reach. Only love can change the world and the only love you can control is your own.

You are simply too small to contain the truth if you think otherwise. You don't have what it takes.

 

[Moonbeam]

The term bleeding heart liberal is a slur for people that have more moral character than you.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

:thumbsup:

Trust me. We wont get an intelligent reply to this point. Ever.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And furthermore, you come into a public place and dump your shit ideas where then infect and comfort other sick minds. I think there should be a price. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing about it.

Present company included :laugh:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

:thumbsup:

Trust me. We wont get an intelligent reply to this point. Ever.

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

In your example, "should he continue to pound on him?" No. Is he assumed to be in the right if he does? No.

edit: scratch my what-if scenario these can go on for days. I gave you my general answer to your general question.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

In your example, "should he continue to pound on him?" No. Is he assumed to be in the right if he does? No.

edit: scratch my what-if scenario these can go on for days. I gave you my general answer to your general question.

Why do you feel that it isn't justified for a cop to do it to someone but that it is for the government?

The government has the suspect subdued and he is no longer a threat. As has been pointed out by many experts on AQ, they do NOT know any more than they are in need of. They don't know of other "missions" and they are resourceful enough to know when someone is compromised/captured to change the plans.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

:thumbsup:

Trust me. We wont get an intelligent reply to this point. Ever.

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

Think a bit more about the anology. This guy is pounding on his girlfriend and my friend takes him out with a single blow. Abu Zubaydah was involved in crashing airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people so we waterboard him. Which is the worse offense in your opinion, waterboarding or crashing airplanes into buildings?

Sorry, but the argument that "We are just as bad as them." just doesn't fly. It's nothing more than poor reasoning meant to impart guilt because if you think even the least bit about that claim even a kindergartener can understand that we are not anywhere close to being as bad as they are. There's no contest in that regard. Ultimately that makes that claim nothing more than hyperbole and appears to be almost a method of aplogizing for those who would gladly do vile and sinister things to any of us if they had the chance.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Think a bit more about the anology. This guy is pounding on his girlfriend and my friend takes him out with a single blow. Abu Zubaydah was involved in crashing airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people so we waterboard him. Which is the worse offense in your opinion, waterboarding or crashing airplanes into buildings?

Sorry, but the argument that "We are just as bad as them." just doesn't fly. It's nothing more than poor reasoning meant to impart guilt because if you think even the least bit about that claim even a kindergartener can understand that we are not anywhere close to being as bad as they are. There's no contest in that regard. Ultimately that makes that claim nothing more than hyperbole and appears to be almost a method of aplogizing for those who would gladly do vile and sinister things to any of us if they had the chance.

Guys in case you were wondering, it appears that two wrongs DO in fact make a right.

Saying you shouldn't torture people has literally NOTHING to do with who you are torturing or why. It has everything to do with if you are the type of person or society that thinks torturing people is okay. Maybe you do... but I don't and I don't think any decent person should either.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

:thumbsup:

Trust me. We wont get an intelligent reply to this point. Ever.

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

Think a bit more about the anology. This guy is pounding on his girlfriend and my friend takes him out with a single blow. Abu Zubaydah was involved in crashing airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people so we waterboard him. Which is the worse offense in your opinion, waterboarding or crashing airplanes into buildings?

Sorry, but the argument that "We are just as bad as them." just doesn't fly. It's nothing more than poor reasoning meant to impart guilt because if you think even the least bit about that claim even a kindergartener can understand that we are not anywhere close to being as bad as they are. There's no contest in that regard. Ultimately that makes that claim nothing more than hyperbole and appears to be almost a method of aplogizing for those who would gladly do vile and sinister things to any of us if they had the chance.

Think about your logic.....

You are trying to compare degrees of criminal behavior and make the declaration or case that because one is lesser than the other that it is no longer illegal or morally repugnant.

I'm still waiting for your documented proof that the waterboarding provided any information that DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED to the capture of a high ranking AQ member or stopped an eminent threat to our country.

Edit: The "we're no better than them" argument isn't meant to be taken as "our actions are equal to theirs" in degrees of pain/suffering/death. This is the part that you and the others that defend these deplorable acts just can't grasp.

"We're better than them" because we were founded on the principle that justice and the rule of law are the most important tenants of our society under the premise that "All men are created equal" and should be treated as such. Once we abandon that....we are no better than they are because they have no respect for those principals either.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Waterboarding: sometimes it's just plain fun

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Waterboarding: sometimes it's just plain fun

That is the intrinsic problem with any type of mild structured interrogation techniques. There are people that enjoy it a bit to much....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

In your example, "should he continue to pound on him?" No. Is he assumed to be in the right if he does? No.

edit: scratch my what-if scenario these can go on for days. I gave you my general answer to your general question.

Why do you feel that it isn't justified for a cop to do it to someone but that it is for the government?

The government has the suspect subdued and he is no longer a threat. As has been pointed out by many experts on AQ, they do NOT know any more than they are in need of. They don't know of other "missions" and they are resourceful enough to know when someone is compromised/captured to change the plans.

Certainly you can see the difference between someone like Abu Zubaydah and his ilk and a common criminal...come on man....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

:thumbsup:

Trust me. We wont get an intelligent reply to this point. Ever.

Here is an intelligent reply.

Your buddy did the right thing by subduing the situation without escalating it.

Here is a two part question for you (TLC) and for Blackangst....

Once a cop has a suspect subdued, should he continue to pound on him? If he does, is he automatically assumed to be in the right or does he still face disciplinary, criminal and/or civil charges?

Edit: TLC....you are using some incredibly stupid reasoning skills. No one would equate your friend's hitting the guy one time to stop the actions of the other guy to the actions of the other guy. They would say that your friend was just as bad however if he (the guy) fell to the ground unconscious and your friend continued to punch or kick him however. That was Moonie's point. That us going after people that are considered terrorists is perfectly acceptable. But by us doing so in a manner that is more consistent with the terrorist behavior than a defensive one is wrong.

Think a bit more about the anology. This guy is pounding on his girlfriend and my friend takes him out with a single blow. Abu Zubaydah was involved in crashing airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people so we waterboard him. Which is the worse offense in your opinion, waterboarding or crashing airplanes into buildings?

Sorry, but the argument that "We are just as bad as them." just doesn't fly. It's nothing more than poor reasoning meant to impart guilt because if you think even the least bit about that claim even a kindergartener can understand that we are not anywhere close to being as bad as they are. There's no contest in that regard. Ultimately that makes that claim nothing more than hyperbole and appears to be almost a method of aplogizing for those who would gladly do vile and sinister things to any of us if they had the chance.

Think about your logic.....

You are trying to compare degrees of criminal behavior and make the declaration or case that because one is lesser than the other that it is no longer illegal or morally repugnant.

I'm still waiting for your documented proof that the waterboarding provided any information that DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED to the capture of a high ranking AQ member or stopped an eminent threat to our country.

Edit: The "we're no better than them" argument isn't meant to be taken as "our actions are equal to theirs" in degrees of pain/suffering/death. This is the part that you and the others that defend these deplorable acts just can't grasp.

"We're better than them" because we were founded on the principle that justice and the rule of law are the most important tenants of our society under the premise that "All men are created equal" and should be treated as such. Once we abandon that....we are no better than they are because they have no respect for those principals either.

Perhaps you didnt read the article. It *DID* yiled results.

And you are right. Everyone is CREATED equal, but we dont all evolve that way. Certainly someone like OBL or Abu Zubaydah doesnt deserve the same treatment nor priveledges as you.