Its scary when you research the little effort it takes to become a U.S citizen. Whats more scary is the fact that we still don`t know who`s in this country. Again, cause of some of our discrimination laws, there are still pending cases since 9/11 occured where states ordered people to prove their citizenship by showing up at various sites with their citizenship papers. They`ve still not shown up,thats been years ago. Unregistered, you made the comment "most people would take that" referring to life in prison over death for treason charge. Don`t agree with that statement. Alot of terrorist are raised and believe death makes them a martyr. Thats one element that makes terrorist an evil enemy. We need to study our foe. Don`t think for one minute that a terrorist group with long range goals won`t take the time to become a U.S. citizens and attempt terrorism attacks from inside the U.S. Kids in foreign countries are being raised from birth to hate and destroy the US. Some of our laws may have to be changed or maybe some of the existing laws we have enforced. We didn`t stop 9/11 with the way things were then and if we don`t make some changes we won`t stop another attack. As for the comparison you used," war on terror=war on drugs" , I for one hope that we never see them as the same and get relaxed to the war on terror. Our enemy won`t.
Is waterboarding torture?
- Thread starter Creature
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
Most domestic terrorists are not trained from birth the believe death makes them a martyr. Timothy McVeigh's accomplice did not believe he was a martyr, and sang like a bird to avoid death.
Unregistered
Moderator
Shortwave, from a legal standpoint, you do realize it would be highly illegal to waterboard a US citizen, either now or in the future.
How will you overcome this?
How will you overcome this?
Quote:
These are the threads I will post when I hear "Obama can't DO that, it isn't FAIR!!!"
You won't hear me complain about that. I might complain about him but I won't say he can't do something and how it's not fair. I pretty much take it like it comes, the good with the bad.
Quote:
When you lower yourself to your enemy's tactics, are you any better than they are?
I don't care about that. I'm not some bleedin heart. Where my enemies are concerned I'll go as low as I have to to get the upper hand. If somebody starts a fight with me there is no "fair" I'll do whatever it takes to beat the ever lovin crap outta him with the least amount of damage to me.
Bleeding Heart? I think not. I served as a Corpsman with the Marines back on that fatefull morning in Beirut, 1983. I also served 6 years in Israels Northern Command fullfilling my military obligation and then some. Torture does not bring about enough credible information to be worthwhile, most times, they will tell you what you want to hear, or what sounds good. Evil done in the name of Good, is still Evil. We have NO right to howl about the injustice of torture done to our troops, if we in turn commit such acts ourselves. In a fight, war, hand to hand combat, their is no such thing as fairplay, you do what is necessary to win, ie: in Hollywood, they sneak up behind the unsuspecting sentry, tap him on the shoulder, when he turns around they knock him out, nope, in combat, you simply cut his throat, or shoot him in the back, anything else gives him the chance to turn the tables. In a hand to hand fight on the battlefield, once he's down, their is no onus in finishing him off. If however, your accosted outside of the 7-11, you fight until the perp is down, then you stop. That is self defense. If you continue the fight after the perp is no longer able to defend himself, that becomes manslaughter if he dies, or assault and battery if he doesn't, and you both go to jail.
These are the threads I will post when I hear "Obama can't DO that, it isn't FAIR!!!"
You won't hear me complain about that. I might complain about him but I won't say he can't do something and how it's not fair. I pretty much take it like it comes, the good with the bad.
Quote:
When you lower yourself to your enemy's tactics, are you any better than they are?
I don't care about that. I'm not some bleedin heart. Where my enemies are concerned I'll go as low as I have to to get the upper hand. If somebody starts a fight with me there is no "fair" I'll do whatever it takes to beat the ever lovin crap outta him with the least amount of damage to me.
Bleeding Heart? I think not. I served as a Corpsman with the Marines back on that fatefull morning in Beirut, 1983. I also served 6 years in Israels Northern Command fullfilling my military obligation and then some. Torture does not bring about enough credible information to be worthwhile, most times, they will tell you what you want to hear, or what sounds good. Evil done in the name of Good, is still Evil. We have NO right to howl about the injustice of torture done to our troops, if we in turn commit such acts ourselves. In a fight, war, hand to hand combat, their is no such thing as fairplay, you do what is necessary to win, ie: in Hollywood, they sneak up behind the unsuspecting sentry, tap him on the shoulder, when he turns around they knock him out, nope, in combat, you simply cut his throat, or shoot him in the back, anything else gives him the chance to turn the tables. In a hand to hand fight on the battlefield, once he's down, their is no onus in finishing him off. If however, your accosted outside of the 7-11, you fight until the perp is down, then you stop. That is self defense. If you continue the fight after the perp is no longer able to defend himself, that becomes manslaughter if he dies, or assault and battery if he doesn't, and you both go to jail.
Playboypenguin said:
Here's the problem. You keep asking questions. I give you legitimate factual answers, and you jump to something else as if nothing had happened. I'm still waiting for you to address, let alone refute these points.
1) You claim that the intelligence community thinks that waterboarding is useless. However it was the CIA that went to the administration to ask to be able to use waterboarding. It is the CIA interrogators that are the stating that waterboarding is highly effective. It is the CIA that doesn't want waterboarding on the list of prohibited techniques. Now either the CIA isn't part of the intelligence community, or they know something you don't know.
2) Every suspect that was waterboarded had refused to give up any information with other interrogation techniques. Everything else failed. Once waterboarded they sang. Again, this was exactly the same for 3 different individuals. Had we not waterboarded them, there is nothing to suggest they would have divulged the information that they did.
Everyone has a different sense of morality and thats fine. If you feel that such a practice is immoral in of itself then I can't really say anything against that other than it is a luxury that those of us who want to win this war cannot afford. However the idea that it would somehow 'debase' us or make people hate us is ridiculous and has no basis in fact. We were attacked and hostages were being decapitated before anyone was waterboarded. Our reasons for waterboarding have nothing to do with 'jihad' religion or anything of the kind. We waterboard to defend ourselves and it would cease tomorrow if these criminals packed up and went home.
As far as "due process" and all of that other junk, thats simply a laughable argument. Ignoring all of the legal points as to why these folks have no rights under our constitution, there was absolutely no doubt as to the participation and guilt of the 3 people that we waterboarded. If we waterboarded every single person we detained, then you might have a point. However the fact is that out of the thousands of people that we have detained, only 3 have faced this method, and they were specifically picked because of their undeniable association and knowledge. Thats hardly 'institutionalized torture' or anything of the kind.
Finally, while I sympathize with the distrust of government, there are certian times and certian areas in which its best to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way. A prime example of this was the management of WWII. A prime example of the opposite of this was vietnam. Todays terroism is different than anything we have ever faced before. We need to find a way to take our conventional forces and apply them to this unconventional enemy. What worked in the past just ain't going to cut it for today.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No, you have hearsay. You have not presented a single fact. You have presented a "he said, she said" argument...and the people you are quoting are unwilling to go on any official record and cannot provide any factual evidence. It is all about credibility and the people you are basing your argument on have none. As I said before, that is a foundation built on sand and lies.
As for a comment earlier in the thread that stated that the CIA asked permission to waterboard, that is also incorrect. At best, a small faction of the CIA (an administration appointed official no less) asked for permission. If you take the time to do some research you will find that even that is highly contested. Multiple members of the Senate Intel Committee (Jay R. for one) have expressed the opinion that no one "asked" but where instead "instructed" by certain members of the current administration (IE: Cheney).
Unregistered
Moderator
Due process, human rights, "all men are endowed by their Creator"... its all just junk. We should scrap our laws, our morality, and our code of conduct so we can fight the War with No End.
So many of us have traded liberty and morality for a perception of safety. We are way off course as a nation, and bear little resemblence to the Republic founded by our betters.
Here's the thing. Due process is a right given us under the constitution. It is not a right for anyone that is not a U.S. citizen. You seem to keep forgetting that these people are our enemies by their own admission. Why do you want to protect them under our constitutional rights? They sure as heck aren't going to cut any of us any slack.
Unregistered
Moderator
I believe you have a basic misunderstanding about human and civil rights, and from where they are derived. Rights are not given by the Consitution. The founders believed that every man, no matter his station, had certain rights. The Constitution simply acknowledges those rights, and prevents the government from trampling on them.
Human rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from simply being human.
All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. If this statement is true then even terrorists have rights. This statement comes of course from the Declaration of Independence, but is a principle upon which our nation was founded. Our republic has survived much worse troubles than those caused by the Islamofascists. I do not think we should scrap our basic principles on account of them.
Human rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from simply being human.
All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. If this statement is true then even terrorists have rights. This statement comes of course from the Declaration of Independence, but is a principle upon which our nation was founded. Our republic has survived much worse troubles than those caused by the Islamofascists. I do not think we should scrap our basic principles on account of them.
Unregistered
Moderator
If you will read the Declaration of Indepence and Constitution you will understand that what I have said is true, or at least was believed to be true by the founders.
I still haven't heard you explain how to get around the 8th Amendment if you are going to waterboard US citizens.
I still haven't heard you explain how to get around the 8th Amendment if you are going to waterboard US citizens.
By that standard, Stage2, someone assassinating the Republican presidental candidate because they think he would bomb Iran, or bombing a medical school that teaches how to perform abortions would both be considered "good" because these actions might "save lives"; for that matter, the terrorists that claim to be acting under the "orders of god" can just claim "Hey, we're doing "god's will", so it's all cool", right?
I didn't vote but my opinion is It is torture, and we should not do it. Torture does not have to limited to PHYSICAL HARM. I would find waterboarding not something that I would forget happened twenty minutes after it is performed. Hawg haggen, You have to clarify something for me. One of your first posts you said they are our enemy whether they take up arms or not... well in that respect I and YOU are "they". Plus, Not proposing we do something, but condoning it if it is allowed, what is the difference there?
Unregistered
Moderator
Hawk, I still am not understanding what you mean with respect to the 8th amendment. You appear to be against it, and in favor of cruel and unusual punishment. Is that correct? Sorry I am just not getting what you are saying.
The 8th amendment does not include anyone that is not an American citizen. If they're American citizens and commit acts of terror they shouldn't be protected by the 8'th. Mesabi I don't see where you get I and you are "they". I'm not a terrorist or at war with the U.S. No, I'm not proposing use of waterboarding American citizens even if convicted of terrorism. The way the courts are in this country it would be too long after the fact for it to do any good. If things change I'd be all for it. As for waterboarding foreign terrorists. They're not and shouldn't be protected by our laws. I condone whatever it takes to get information from them. If waterboarding works use it. If a battery charger to the genitals works..............Black is negative, red is positive. I can't make myself any clearer. This discussion is doing nothing but going in circles. I've repeated myself all I'm going to. Good day gentlemen.
Hawg(the ruthless barbarian)Haggen
Hawg(the ruthless barbarian)Haggen
But I can say the same for you as well. For all of your academic arguments about the "intelligence community" they too are operating on hearsay as they don't have any first hand experience in waterboarding either. If they did then they would have concrete examples to point to showing where waterboarding failed, but they don't because there are none.
As far as factual evidence, even if you discount the statements of multiple CIA interrogators (as someone who was formerly in intelligence I should think it obvious why such people wouldn't rush into the public eye) you still have the information gained, and the resulting arrests.
Its very convenient for you to sit here and scream "they lied" or I don't believe them. That, however is not an argument. If you believe that these interrogators lied, then lets see some evidence. Your word simply isn't sufficient. Until then, there is absolutely no reason not to believe them, especially given the corroborating circumstances.
So if you have some actual evidence showing waterboarding isn't effective, the lets see it. Simply stating you don't believe the interrogators, or that books say waterboarding doesn't work isn't evidence.
You miss the point entirely. You said that the entire intelligence community thinks waterboarding is useless. The CIA IS the intelligence community. Even if I were to agree that it was only a small faction within the CIA, the fact that they are arguing for its use, used it successfully, and are still petitioning for it to be available tells me that there is NOT the consensus that you claim there is.
Again, are we to take the word of classroom academice with no firsthand experience, or the people who were there and actually waterboarded our enemies.