What are your thoughts on torture?

[dasb00T]

Gee.....where did you hear that argument? And who told you to read the ACTUAL Memos? :cool

That's the interesting part, 99.9% of the people offering up opinions don't know the type of waterboarding that was advocated as legal and haven't read the Memos. What they have done is read the yellow newspaper reports that laughingly pass as journalism and THINK they know what they are talking about.

I will ask this group of learned scholars....can anyone show me a quote from Obama in which he declares waterboarding as outlined in the CIA Memos as illegal.

Obama has stated repeatedly that he classifies waterboarding as torture. Torture = illegal.

President Obama: What I've said - and I will repeat - is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices

To ask whether or not he declares it to be illegal is to ask whether or not he considers it torture. Clearly from the statement above he believes it to be immoral, inhumane, unethical, and yes...illegal.

 

[dt3]

There are damn good reasons we follow rules of engagement

War is NOT a win at all cost undertaking.

Funny, I don't remember Truman being tried for war crimes when he dropped atomic weapons on 2 civilian population centers in order to bring the Japanese to their knees. Of course his actions were directly responsible for saving tens of thousands of lives on both sides that would have been lost in an attack on the Japanese mainland. What's changed since then? Has the American public lost the will required to see a war through to the finish?

War is SUPPOSED to be a win at all cost undertaking. A war should not be started unless the price of losing is completely unacceptable. At no point should our all-volunteer military be put in harm's way and then have their hands tied by beauraucratic red tape in a war that doesn't absolutely need to be won.

 

[dasb00T]

Has the American public lost the will required to see a war through to the finish? .

What is the "finish" here? When the terrorists are "defeated?" You do realize we are fighting a war that cannot be won, and in fact our resources should be in Afghanistan...where the true threat lies.

For someone who views our soldiers lives as precious, you sure do advocate the loss of thousands and continuation of a war that has absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel.

My advice is to print out and laminate Dubya in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. That is as close to victory as we will ever come in Iraq.

 

[Tim]

Funny, I don't remember Truman being tried for war crimes when he dropped atomic weapons on 2 civilian population centers in order to bring the Japanese to their knees. Of course his actions were directly responsible for saving tens of thousands of lives on both sides that would have been lost in an attack on the Japanese mainland. What's changed since then? Has the American public lost the will required to see a war through to the finish?

Times change and so do laws. 1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

War is SUPPOSED to be a win at all cost undertaking.

It's not... there are very specific laws of war that we must follow. War is NOT a win at all cost undertaking. If it were, we could use chemical weapons, biological weapons, white phosphorous bombs, fragmenting bullets, flame throwers, land mines, or any of the other hundreds of proven techniques that would greatly shorten any conflict. We would be able to take hostages to lure out the bad guys, we would be able to set up fake hospitals to lure them in.
If war was a win at all cost undertaking, we would level entire area's from the sky and be done in less than a week. We could gas them all and not have ANY collateral damage... but there are MANY rules and laws we must follow in warfare. as there should be.

A war should not be started unless the price of losing is completely unacceptable. At no point should our all-volunteer military be put in harm's way and then have their hands tied by bureaucratic red tape in a war that doesn't absolutely need to be won.

I agree with this 100% this is why I was so against going into Iraq. We didn't need to be there in the first place.

 

[dt3]

What is the "finish" here? When the terrorists are "defeated?" You do realize we are fighting a war that cannot be won, and in fact our resources should be in Afghanistan...where the true threat lies.

For someone who views our soldiers lives as precious, you sure do advocate the loss of thousands and continuation of a war that has absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel.

My advice is to print out and laminate Dubya in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. That is as close to victory as we will ever come in Iraq.

If terrorism is a fight that can't be won, then why would you advocate being in Afghanistan fighting terrorism? Your statement contradicts itself. And don't lecture me on how precious the lives of our military are, I understand more than you know.

Times change and so do laws. 1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

It's not... there are very specific laws of war that we must follow. War is NOT a win at all cost undertaking. If it were, we could use chemical weapons, biological weapons, white phosphorous bombs, fragmenting bullets, flame throwers, land mines, or any of the other hundreds of proven techniques that would greatly shorten any conflict. We would be able to take hostages to lure out the bad guys, we would be able to set up fake hospitals to lure them in.
If war was a win at all cost undertaking, we would level entire area's from the sky and be done in less than a week. We could gas them all and not have ANY collateral damage... but there are MANY rules and laws we must follow in warfare. as there should be.

I agree with this 100% this is why I was so against going into Iraq. We didn't need to be there in the first place.

I see what you're trying to get at Tim, and you know I agree to an extent. But like I already said, there are plenty of circumstances where I'm perfectly fine with throwing the rule book out the window. Rules and laws are great, but so is winning. Maybe that makes me a callous bastard, but I would have paid to be the one waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

There are shades of gray in everything in life, nothing is clear-cut black and white. Laws and rules, however, are designed for the black and white. Very seldom are there laws that cover every angle of every possible scenario.

 

[Tim]

I see what you're trying to get at Tim, and you know I agree to an extent. But like I already said, there are plenty of circumstances where I'm perfectly fine with throwing the rule book out the window. Rules and laws are great, but so is winning. Maybe that makes me a callous bastard, but I would have paid to be the one waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

There are shades of gray in everything in life, nothing is clear-cut black and white. Laws and rules, however, are designed for the black and white. Very seldom are there laws that cover every angle of every possible scenario.

Like I said before, I am not naive enough to think that there aren't times when the book is thrown out the window. I don't condone it, but understand that sometimes it's necessary. But since we ARE a nation of laws it is very important that we follow them as a matter of policy and it is completely idiotic when our leadership changes the policy to contradict our/international laws...

I believe in the rule of law, I don't believe that the ends justify the means.

 

[dasb00T]

If terrorism is a fight that can't be won, then why would you advocate being in Afghanistan fighting terrorism? Your statement contradicts itself. And don't lecture me on how precious the lives of our military are, I understand more than you know.

Afghanistan is an isolated area and with enough support, resources the Taliban can be defeated. My statement addressed the broader notion of the general "war on terror." That war will not be won. Iraq is a lost cause. It will not be won, and to criticize pulling out/the people in support of said withdrawal is to confuse reality with pride.

If you served, bravo. Thank you for your service. That doesn't mean I have to agree with your points.

 

[Strauss]

Obama has stated repeatedly that he classifies waterboarding as torture. Torture = illegal.

President Obama: What I've said - and I will repeat - is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices

To ask whether or not he declares it to be illegal is to ask whether or not he considers it torture. Clearly from the statement above he believes it to be immoral, inhumane, unethical, and yes...illegal.

But he didn't, he has never declared waterboarding as illegal. The reason he hasn't is at some point in the future he may be put in the position of having to authorize its use. The man is many things, stupid isn't one of them; when a nation looks to you for protection you don't close out options.

 

[NoRetuRn]

I say torture is a no go unless it is like a life and death situation with like bein nuked... other than that I think it is way wrong.

Also I think people who go to church say yes to torture because of the religious feud between religions, and the need to end it.

 

[Minor Axis]

I paraphrased...Shuddup

Bottom line is this, we are the only country that pays any attention to the Geneva Convention, and for you to think that we don't use coercive tactics to get information is naive.

I never said, implied, or think that we don't use coercive tactics. I think the Bush Administration left no room for doubt that we do/did.

The issue is what is torture and if it is torture, is it a good means of obtaining accurate intel and is it moral? The Geneva conventions are an ideal. You either believe they are a good standard or you don't. The U.S. and most of Western Europe have believed in them forever. Whether you are attacked or not is besides the point. Unfortunately, apparently there are many in this country who either are not smart enough to think for themselves and will approve of whatever those in power, (especially if those in power are of their political ideals) tells them it's necessary for their security. Security over liberty is a terrible standard and should be avoided if at all possible.

As far as the Geneva conventions, 194 countries have signed on. And again I must repeat if you give a damn about U.S. soldiers, ignoring the Geneva conventions is a terrible idea because they, future POWs are the ones who will suffer or may suffer worse in the next future conflict.

 

[Minor Axis]

That would be correct. If waterboarding is done as outlined in those memos.

You did not say if you ever read them. It is pretty tedious long read but is well thought out.

Now who's being naive?

 

[Accountable]

I never said, implied, or think that we don't use coercive tactics. I think the Bush Administration left no room for doubt that we do/did.

The issue is what is torture and if it is torture, is it a good means of obtaining accurate intel and is it moral? The Geneva conventions are an ideal. You either believe they are a good standard or you don't. The U.S. and most of Western Europe have believed in them forever. Whether you are attacked or not is besides the point. Unfortunately, apparently there are many in this country who either are not smart enough to think for themselves and will approve of whatever those in power, (especially if those in power are of their political ideals) tells them it's necessary for their security. Security over liberty is a terrible standard and should be avoided if at all possible.

As far as the Geneva conventions, 194 countries have signed on. And again I must repeat if you give a damn about U.S. soldiers, ignoring the Geneva conventions is a terrible idea because they, future POWs are the ones who will suffer or may suffer worse in the next future conflict.

So far as I can tell, we haven't violated the Geneva conventions in any way. We're not fighting a declared war against a uniformed army.

 

[Alien Allen]

Now who's being naive?

How is that being naive??

It would have been so if I had put assume in place of If.

So then are you saying that all waterboarding was done in a manner not like in the memos??

If so do you have any evidence to support that?

Not sure if you indicated if you read those memos by the way.

 

[sophie]

Never never never never never justified. Basic human rights say no.

 

[Alien Allen]

Never never never never never justified. Basic human rights say no.

Never is a really strong word.

So tell me if your daughter was kidnapped by a couple of thugs and one was caught you would not use any available means to find your child before harm could be done to her??

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

It's this kind of reckless arrogance that has led us to ignoring all of the signs leading up to 9/11, plus the aftermath that was birthed from the attack.

Yeah....9/11 was our fault:unsure:

Get a grip

 

[Floyd]

Never is a really strong word.

So tell me if your daughter was kidnapped by a couple of thugs and one was caught you would not use any available means to find your child before harm could be done to her??

Any. And I'd be the one holding the pliers.

 

[dt3]

Any. And I'd be the one holding the pliers.

Fucking rookies If you need pliers to waterboard, you're fucking up bad!

 

[siasl]

We Could Have Done This The Right Way, a Newsweek article on where we went wrong with torture.

this is a remarkable article :thumbup

noteworthy that Ali Soufan was among the few that understood the dignity of American values , and was willing to translate it into the dignity of interrogation.

having said that, torture should never be legal, and the definition that suits me is from the geneva convention -which is limited to its assocation with with the words "cruelty" and "inhumane".

this "definition" is a litmus test, imo....and waterboarding, regardless of all the carefully written procedures that seek something that is not cruel nor inhumane, fails that test.....how can giving someone the feeling that they're drowning be anything but cruel and inhumane?

but the use of cruel or inhumane interrogation techniques is clearly situational ethics....i know i'm capable of "doing what it takes" to protect the life of my family/loved ones, and would accept the legal consequences of my actions if their survival was at stake.

by extension, then, there are similar situations at larger scales where torture could be an ethicalyl justified solution to a difficult problem.....

just don't for a minute believe that makes it a legal act......that, imo, is just us, wanting to feel better about our actions.

 

[dasb00T]

Yeah....9/11 was our fault:unsure:

Get a grip

Ignoring intelligence and all reports indicating that a massive attack was set to occur is, on some level, allowing something catastrophic to happen.