^ Yeah, I noticed that.

Quote :

"Ahahahaha. I'm the naive one? Do you think radical Islam spontaneously arises in a vaccum? While there are dozens of factors that could lead to a young man (or woman) to 'join the cause' I don't think that we need to add to the list."

You've admitted that there's a list of reasons Islamofascists want to attack us other than--possibly--waterboarding. (1) If we remove the one, what difference will it make since they already have attacked us and want to attack us again? I don't think waterboarding was SOP before 9-11. And (2) what are some of these "dozens of factors" that cause Islamofascists to want to attack us?

11/6/2007 2:20:02 AM

Quote :

" Who did Bill Clinton order tortured that started jihad?"

I don't know if Bill Clinton actually ordered anyone to be tortured, but the CIA started the extraordinary rendition program under Clinton in '98 or so.

Also, your question is disingenuous, at best. It's like if I asked you "did you use lube when you beat it to Bush's pic before posting on The Soap Box today?" The question is not really a question, since it presupposes its own conclusion. It's question-begging.

Quote :

"I don't think waterboarding was SOP before 9-11."

Torture wasn't, and has never been, SOP for the US (by SOP I mean officially recognized procedure, it's likely always gone on though).

It's only recently, with the Bush admin's publicly beating around the bush (no pun intended), that it's a gray area. Do you understand what theDuke meant by "moral high ground?" Do you know what that phrase means?

If we find out any other country, including places like China, NK, Pakistan, Russia, etc., is torturing our people, we really can't say shit to them. We have to grin while we figure out some other backhanded way to get back at them. It's a very slippery slope. Where as if we reject torture completely and other people say this, it gives us leverage and credibility in negotiations, and helps add weight behind our country's demands, without prompting extra fear or suspicion.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 2:26 AM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 2:21:23 AM

^^^^^ the clash (and especially the roots thereof) between the West--and particularly America--predates President Clinton by a wide, wide margin.

Quote :

"1. The Neville Chamberlain comment was addressed to JCASHFAN. I should have listed my retorts in a better manner."

I understand, but I agree with what he's saying. I was trying to illustrate that taking that stance by no means makes you comparable to Chamberlain.

Quote :

"I would call waterboarding torture if I truly thought that it was--but even Congress still doesn't think it is. Be that as it may, at this time, I am not prepared to call waterboarding torture or to advocate that it be discontinued--but my understanding is that it has been discontinued already."

I looked all over the internet, but I can't find any videos that really do it justice. I will bet good money that I could make anyone on here agree with my position that waterboarding is torture in pretty short order, though...given the, uhmm, right circumstances.

and my understanding is that the military is now prohibited from using it as an interrogation technique on EPWs or detainees, but that the CIA does it.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 2:29 AM. Reason : ^^^^^]

11/6/2007 2:28:15 AM

I don't even think Bush would even say that waterboarding is not torture now though. Whenever he's asked about it, he just defers by saying "the US does not torture."

11/6/2007 2:34:23 AM

^^^

Quote :

"Also, your question is disingenuous, at best. It's like if I asked you 'did you use lube when you beat it to Bush's pic before posting on The Soap Box today?'"

moron

Will you stop posting shit like this, motherfucker? If you don't, I'm going to find a nerve center on you--something that really bothers you--and I'm going to focus on it like a laser. I will live and breathe making your day-to-day experience here a living hell. Try me.

So ease up on that shit a little, Twinkles, k? Remember, I asked nicely.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 2:44 AM. Reason : .]

11/6/2007 2:44:17 AM

^Aww, someone's found your nerve center and you want to get them back

11/6/2007 2:53:09 AM

I made an effort to be polite in that post. That was a legitimate comment, that directly related to the question you asked.

I'm not here to troll or push your nerve centers or anything like that... but this is not a legitimate question:
"Who did Bill Clinton order tortured that started jihad?"

11/6/2007 2:55:06 AM

^ Yeah, right. This passes as "polite" commentary where you're from?

Quote :

"Also, your question is disingenuous, at best. It's like if I asked you 'did you use lube when you beat it to Bush's pic before posting on The Soap Box today?"

In any event, even though I posed it more than once, the question at issue was actually meant to be rhetorical--I didn't expect JCASHFAN to answer it. I was simply using it to prove a point: Islamofascists don't need waterboarding or any other form of "torture" as an excuse for jihad.

You don't have to like me, but try being a bit more civil to me here and I will return the courtesy.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 3:05 AM. Reason : .]

11/6/2007 3:04:10 AM

I would like to point out that it was you who initially started the incivility. Anyone on this board would agree with me on that. If you are saying that you will refrain from the comments you are known for, then I will make an effort to be more respectful to you as well.

11/6/2007 3:08:36 AM

moron's example, while possibly crass, was legitimate. He made no personal threats he just called hooksaw out by means of analogy.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 3:20 AM. Reason : It wouldn't be the first time hooksaw overreacted.]

11/6/2007 3:16:15 AM

Quote :

"I would call waterboarding torture if I truly thought that it was--but even Congress still doesn't think it is. Be that as it may, at this time, I am not prepared to call waterboarding torture or to advocate that it be discontinued--but my understanding is that it has been discontinued already."

Waterboarding is torture. This is only debated by people who have a (self-perceived, at least) vested interest in waterboarding people yet cannot politically admit to torture. To copy my post from the AG thread:

100 US law professors say waterboarding is torture.

Senator John McCain says waterboarding is torture.

The US Department of State says waterboarding is torture.

To add some more:
The United States prosecuted the Japanese for war crimes for waterboarding people, among other things, which ended in the executions of 8 of the defendants.

Teddy Roosevelt had US troops court marshaled for waterboarding.

He had this to say:

Quote :

"The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army."

If the administration is determined to torture people, then the least that they can do is to openly admit to it, have some transparency to the process, and be held accountable within some reasonable frame of time. But that, of course, will never happen.

11/6/2007 7:38:37 AM

Quote :

"I call it protecting the United States of America by any means necessary."

For a country that strives to be a beacon of freedom in a dark word, letting the ends justify the means is pretty shitty.

11/6/2007 7:42:20 AM

Quote :

"I don't even think Bush would even say that waterboarding is not torture now though."

of course Bush and/or congress will not claim waterboarding is torture. durrrr de durrr.
They are trying to protect their own interests.

Kinda like how the leader of BlackWater is going to claim that his "employees" were fired upon thus justified in slaughtering all those civilians in the Iraq Market Square incident

11/6/2007 11:14:00 AM

Quote :

"Teddy Roosevelt had US troops court marshaled for waterboarding."

Well, considering what we did in the Philippines, that's small consolation. I like how that article implies that the Filipinos initiated the bad behavior. US soldiers burned villages and executed countless people on suspicion or less. Teddy responds by condemning torture. Nice, but not nearly enough. I consider it a primarily political move. As the article says, it mollified critics of the war.

11/6/2007 1:18:34 PM

SBI looks into death of man Tasered at jail

Quote :

"HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. - The SBI has been called in to investigate the death of a Hendersonville man who had an apparent heart attack after deputies subdued him with a stun gun at the jail."

Quote :

"It's the second reported death in less than a month under investigation in western North Carolina involving a Taser [emphasis added]."

http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/761765.html

Where's the outrage, folks? If a Talibum had accidentally died because a spook poured water up his nose, some of you here would be howling like scalded cats.

11/6/2007 3:46:22 PM

I think we should ban cars. They kill thousands every year.

11/6/2007 3:49:17 PM

Are you seriously arguing that people don't think tasers are abused?


Don't you remember the whole 'don't tase me bro' debacle? Half of the people were screaming abuse of power (because of the taser use) while the other half were yelling that he deserved it.

Also don't you remember that kid that was dragged out of a building being tased by campus security while students were shouting the sec. officers down and it made national news?

Yes, they are overused and kill people, but when used properly they're far more effective and less deadly than guns.

Waterboarding has NO practical uses other than torture.

11/6/2007 3:51:29 PM

^^ Stupid.

^

Quote :

"Waterboarding has NO practical uses other than torture gaining valuable information from dangerous terrorists."

Fixed.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2007 4:02:15 PM

What valuable piece of information has ever been gained by torture?

Even in some of the articles you've posted concerning torture, the experts have said that torture does not produce reliable information.

11/6/2007 4:05:13 PM

^

Quote :

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess [emphasis added]."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

You can read, yes?

11/6/2007 4:07:56 PM

Quote :

"gaining valuable information from dangerous terrorists.""

Sorry man, the evidence is weighed pretty heavily against this argument. Come up with something more substantiated if you're going to go this route.

11/6/2007 4:08:07 PM

^^ It doesn't say that his confession is true. All it says is that he lasted 2 minutes before screaming mercy.

11/6/2007 4:11:29 PM

Quote :

"Where's the outrage, folks?"

Actually there has been a lot of outrage of police abuse from using a taser.

11/6/2007 4:17:00 PM

Quote :

"What valuable piece of information has ever been gained by torture? Even in some of the articles you've posted concerning torture, the experts have said that torture does not produce reliable information."

That doesn't mean that it is not with some utility.

11/6/2007 4:45:17 PM

The information or the torture?

11/6/2007 4:52:02 PM

Quote :

"http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866 You can read, yes?"

Do us all a favor

And go back and read the rest of the information at this link you posted

And never fucking post in this section again after realizing how hard you just clowned yourself

11/6/2007 5:20:23 PM

^ from the same article

Quote :

"According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals. His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment. "

11/6/2007 5:25:01 PM

This is a rather important point in this discussion:

Quote :

"hooksaw: "In case some of you have forgotten, our enemies, the Islamofascists, don't just pour water on your head--they cut the motherfucker off" theDuke866 ftw right, but WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING THOSE FUCKHEADS SET THE BAR FOR US. WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS, REMEMBER?"

Let's try to remember that we're the United States, the ones who set the bar on live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a country that prides itself on both freedom and justice. We pride ourselves on having due process, habeous corpus, and freedom from punishment deemed "cruel and unusual."

I reject torture out of hand on moral principle. By lowering our standards of behavior down to that of the enemy, we become out enemy. You cannot root out evil by adopting its own practices.

However, I may be able to support this:

Quote :

"[M]ake a provision that torture be allowed on a case by case basis, say, by executive order Judicial order subject to public disclosure within a certain timeframe"

Torture is a punishment, and punishments are meant for criminals. Criminals are convicted by the courts. Only a convicted criminal/terrorist can or should be tortured. A detainee should have the right to due process before being convicted, much less tortured.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM. Reason : d]

11/6/2007 9:27:15 PM

^^ and even worse:

Quote :

""The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005. It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer. Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets." "

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM. Reason : fdsg]

11/6/2007 9:44:56 PM

Quote :

" http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866 You can read, yes?"

Haha, self pwnt.

11/7/2007 2:02:59 AM

Quote :

"What valuable piece of information has ever been gained by torture?"

A Tanzarian

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Names Names

Quote :

"Captured al-Qaeda planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has given U.S. interrogators the names and descriptions of about a dozen key al-Qaeda operatives believed to be plotting terrorist attacks on American and other Western interests, according to federal officials. Other high-level al-Qaeda detainees previously disclosed some of the names, but Mohammed, until recently al-Qaeda's chief operating officer and the brains behind the 9/11 attacks, has volunteered new ones. He has also added crucial details to the descriptions of other suspects and filled in important gaps in what U.S. intelligence knows about al-Qaeda's practices."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,436061,00.html

I am sick and fucking tired of tracking down and posting legitimate information for people who wouldn't accept it under any circumstances.

1. If you don't like/agree with/think useful the enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding, fine. I don't care--fuck off already. I have a viewpoint that differs from most here and never the twain shall meet.

You have asked for evidence that waterboarding works and I have provided that evidence. Most of you simply don't like the facts.

2. Is waterboarding a perfect solution to intelligence-gathering needs? NO! Of course not! If it were, everybody would be doing it--and I have yet to see a perfect method for this type of thing.

3. Should waterboarding be used on all war prisoners? NO! Of course not.

4. Should waterboarding be one option for only the most dangerous terrorists that are believed to hold highly valuable information? YES! To tell the terrorists that we won't do this or that if push comes to shove is itself a crime.

5. Should waterboarding be approved at the highest levels of the federal government? YES! It should be approved by an executive so that he or she can be held accountable for any abuses--not some obscure fucking federal judge.

6. Deaths from tasers at the hands of U.S. officials: ~12

Deaths from waterboarding at the hands of U.S. officials: 0 known

Is this clear enough for all of you?

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 4:41 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2007 4:32:37 AM

honestly i wish we could capture bin laden and torture him...i bet we would get so much info cause you know we would torture him hardcore

11/7/2007 4:35:22 AM

Probably not. Terrorist networks are just that, networks, not hierarchies with established chains of command.

11/7/2007 4:45:34 AM

well to be perfectly honest i wish we could steal iraqs oil forever

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 5:03 AM. Reason : but i do feel it would be awesome to get stuff from bin laden]

11/7/2007 5:03:25 AM

Democrats and Waterboarding
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Quote :

"This pacifistic stance appeals to the left wing of the democratic electorate, which may have some influence on the outcome of democratic primaries, but which is far less likely to determine the outcome of the general election. Most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, independents or undecided -- want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism [emphasis added]. Hundreds of thousands of Americans may watch Michael Moore's movies or cheer Cindy Sheehan's demonstrations, but tens of millions want the Moores and Sheehans of our nation as far away as possible from influencing national security policy. That is why Rudy Giuliani seems to be doing surprisingly well among many segments of the electorate, ranging from centrist Democrats to Republicans and even some on the religious right."

Quote :

"Consider, for example, the contentious and emotionally laden issue of the use of torture in securing preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism -- the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario. I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio: 'You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over.' He said Congress should draw a narrow statute 'which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.' The president would have to 'take personal responsibility' for authorizing torture in such an extreme situation. Sen. John McCain has also said that as president he would take responsibility for authorizing torture in that 'one in a million' situation. Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president -- indeed any leader of a democratic nation -- would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack. The only dispute is whether he would do so openly with accountability or secretly with deniability. The former seems more consistent with democratic theory, the latter with typical political hypocrisy. There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works -- it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives. The kind of torture that President Clinton was talking about is not designed to secure confessions of past crimes, but rather to obtain real time, actionable intelligence deemed necessary to prevent an act of mass casualty terrorism. The question put to the captured terrorist is not 'Did you do it?' Instead, the suspect is asked to disclose self-proving information, such as the location of the bomber. Recently, Israeli security officials confronted a ticking-bomb situation. Several days before Yom Kippur, they received credible information that a suicide bomber was planning to blow himself up in a crowded synagogue on the holiest day of the Jewish year. After a gun battle in which an Israeli soldier was killed, the commander of the terrorist cell in Nablus was captured. Interrogation led to the location of the suicide bomb in a Tel Aviv apartment. Israel denies that it uses torture and I am aware of no evidence that it did so to extract life-saving information in this case."

Quote :

"This brings us to waterboarding. Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of 'waterboarding' cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents -- some of which I disagree with -- the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process [emphasis added]. The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans? [Emphasis added.] Perhaps political campaigns and confirmation hearings are not the appropriate fora in which to conduct subtle and difficult debates about tragic choices that a president or attorney general may face. But nor are they the appropriate settings for hypocritical public posturing by political figures who, in private, would almost certainly opt for torture if they believed it was necessary to save numerous American lives. What is needed is a recognition that government officials must strike an appropriate balance between the security of America and the rights of our enemies. Unless the Democratic Party -- and particularly their eventual candidate for president -- is perceived as strong and smart on national defense and prevention of terrorism, the Bush White House may be proved to have made a clever partisan decision by refusing to make the war against terrorism a bipartisan issue. The Democrats may lose the presidency if they are seen as the party of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich and those senators who voted against Judge Mukasey because he refused to posture on a difficult issue relating to national security. They will win if they are seen as just as tough but a lot smarter on how to deal with real threats to our national interests."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119439827396084663.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Abso-fucking-lutely.

11/7/2007 5:42:19 AM

did the fox news owner take over wsj yet?

11/7/2007 5:47:12 AM

^ What difference does it make? Stop fucking up the threads, man.

11/7/2007 6:09:10 AM

Quote :

"-- A majority of Americans consider waterboarding a form of torture, but some of those say it's OK for the U.S. government to use the technique, according to a poll released Tuesday. Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. Asked whether they think the U.S. government should be allowed to use the procedure to try to get information from suspected terrorists, 58 percent said no; 40 percent said yes. In the procedure, water is used on restrained prisoners to make them feel like they are drowning. The practice became an issue during the recent confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey, who has refused to categorically reject the practice. Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that while he finds waterboarding personally "repugnant," he could not answer "hypothetical" questions about whether the technique amounts to torture. Senators' reaction to Mukasey's statements on waterboarding and the president's power to order warrantless electronic surveillance threw his nomination into doubt. But his confirmation was all but assured last week when two key Democratic senators said they will vote in favor of Mukasey despite the controversy. The committee is scheduled to take up the nomination Tuesday. Bush nominated Mukasey to replace longtime ally Alberto Gonzales, who resigned in September. Sources with knowledge of the CIA-run interrogation program have said waterboarding is not currently being used in its interrogations. But those sources have said waterboarding was used in the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now facing trial before a military tribunal for planning al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition and by Cambodia's brutal Khmer Rouge regime and the World War II Japanese military, according to advocacy group Human Rights Watch. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was carried out over the weekend and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/


I can highlight things too. Americans don't want us to torture people.

11/7/2007 7:21:50 AM

Quote :

"6. Deaths from tasers at the hands of U.S. officials: ~12 Deaths from waterboarding at the hands of U.S. officials: 0 known "

For the record, the ABC news article that you previously posted for our review specifically details one death from waterboarding. I think that it is fair to assume that disclosure of such instances isn't as common as those deaths at the hands of officers routinely in the public eye.

11/7/2007 7:24:48 AM

^^ Argumentum ad numerum ("argument or appeal to numbers"): No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Better luck next time.

^ For the record, the death I think you're referring to was from hypothermia--not waterboarding:

Quote :

"The sources said that in that case a young, untrained junior officer caused the death of one detainee at a mud fort dubbed the 'salt pit' that is used as a prison. They say the death occurred when the prisoner was left to stand naked throughout the harsh Afghanistan night after being doused with cold water. He died, they say, of hypothermia [emphasis added]."

This shows the danger of untrained individuals doing any type of interrogation. But I agree that it is certainly possible the number of deaths in question may be shrouded due to classified status.

11/7/2007 7:41:23 AM

Quote :

"No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

Unfortunately for you, this is a democracy so numbers do mean things. It may not make it optimal in all cases but if people want to stay in office they usually need to listen to the people.

11/7/2007 7:51:25 AM

Quote :

"Argumentum ad numerum ("argument or appeal to numbers"): No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Better luck next time."

Remember this the next time you claim that the ticking time bomb scenario is realistic because everyone keeps talking about it.

11/7/2007 8:09:05 AM

^^ To waterboard or not will not be decided by referendum. FYI.

^ I never indicated that the "ticking bomb" scenario was valid because many people think it is. I indicated that many people think it's valid--there's a difference for those with the skills to comprehend that difference.

Your posts grow weaker--both of you. And some part of you fears that I am right, which would cause you to question your entire belief system, wouldn't it?

11/7/2007 8:32:05 AM

Quote :

"Your posts grow weaker--both of you. And some part of you fears that I am right, which would cause you to question your entire belief system, wouldn't it?"

BWAHAHAHA!!!

Don't flatter yourself. Right or wrong, you're too big a piece of shit to change anyone's belief system.

And perhaps our posts grow weaker because it's not worth the effort when all you're going to do is stick with your cut-paste-highlight-you guys are idiots chorus.

11/7/2007 8:40:12 AM

Quote :

"To waterboard or not will not be decided by referendum."

I never claimed this, but congratulations for trying to sidestep what I was saying.

Quote :

"And some part of you fears that I am right, which would cause you to question your entire belief system, wouldn't it?"

I'm perfectly secure with my moral convictions and don't think that you could ever really make me question them. Feel free to try though, you'll have to learn some real debating skills to do this though.

11/7/2007 8:42:33 AM

^^ (1) Look--inappropriate laughter just like Hillary. What're you hiding? (2) No, you're a "piece of shit"! And (3) you admit that your posts grow weaker? Weak.

^

Quote :

"Unfortunately for you, this is a democracy so numbers do mean things. It may not make it optimal in all cases but if people want to stay in office they usually need to listen to the people."

What, you mean like the Democrat-led Congress with the lowest approval numbers in history? They don't seem to listening to anybody.

Quote :

"I'm perfectly secure with my moral convictions and don't think that you could ever really make me question them. Feel free to try though. . . ."

I don't have to try--your post reveals to me that it already happened to a degree.

11/7/2007 8:52:51 AM

To me the argument isn't about whether torture is illegal, but in fact it's about how what type of red tape (and how much) is needed to ensure it's used appropriately.

That is all.

11/7/2007 12:14:33 PM

Mind-probing technology should end this debate.

Of course, we might continue torturing simply for fun.

11/7/2007 2:03:52 PM

I hope hooksaw is taken from his home by men in black suits one night and waterboarded in the name of "national security"

11/7/2007 2:05:06 PM

Do you think he'd provide actionable intelligence?

11/7/2007 2:19:10 PM