Waterboarding?

Is waterboarding torture?

We called it torture and considered it a war crime when the japs did it to our POW's.

Look it up.

Keli, how many identities do you have now? How many times are you going to vote in your own poll?

Of course waterboarding is torture. I'm convinced that you know it.

GEEEEZUS, it's torture to read some of the postings on this Forum.

And I wouldn't expect anyone, especially the good Senator and previous POTUS Candidate who spent 6 years as a POW to come home and admit that "torture does work".

SamCogar wrote:And I wouldn't expect anyone, especially the good Senator and previous POTUS Candidate who spent 6 years as a POW to come home and admit that "torture does work".

When the next attacks occurs, liberals--and most libertarians--will be screaming like little girls for the government to do whatever it takes to prevent another attack--including waterboarding.

Stephanie wrote:Keli, how many identities do you have now? How many times are you going to vote in your own poll?

Of course waterboarding is torture. I'm convinced that you know it.

I only have two identities--the good Kirk and the bad Kirk. I ONLY voted once "nyet." How did you vote, Ms. Libertarian?

Stephanie the Republican voted once. I only have one identity, although I will admit to having more than one attitude.

I voted "oui".

Google "Mattew Alexander torture"

Stephanie wrote:Stephanie the Republican voted once. I only have one identity, although I will admit to having more than one attitude.

I voted "oui".

Google "Mattew Alexander torture"

Maybe former Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, The Mother of Safer Bullets, can come up with non-torturous torture--kinder and gentler enhanced interrogation methods? Any suggestions for the Dr, Pauline?

Google "Matthew Alexander torture"

Stephanie wrote:Google "Matthew Alexander torture"

The cure for torture is: Assume that the enemy is not willing to talk, then take no prisoners. An enemy combatant can only save his skin by wearing a yellow bumper sticker around his turban that states "DON'T KILL--WILLING TO TALK."

TerryRC wrote:We called it torture and considered it a war crime when the japs did it to our POW's.

Look it up.

TerryRC,

After considering it, I agree that waterboarding is torture.

I also think it is the least heinous thing the Japanese did to American POW's. Good heavens, waterboarding would be a "day off" for an American POW of the Japanese.

But, again, waterboarding is torture and we ought not be doing it.

But the legal opinion that said it was acceptable should not be punishable by law, and neither should any other opinion ever.

Pelosi is overplaying her hand, and she's going to get it.

SheikBen wrote: But, again, waterboarding is torture and we ought not be doing it.

Yes Michael, and the end or final results of such thinking ........ will be akin to the guaranteed results of what will happen anytime a liberal leftist minded person get involved in a "bar room brawl" and strictly adheres to The Queensberry Rules.

All I can say is:



.

Yes Michael, and the end or final results of such thinking ........ will be akin to the guaranteed results of what will happen anytime a liberal leftist minded person get involved in a "bar room brawl" and strictly adheres to The Queensberry Rules.

Yes. Reading some of these posts IS torture.

Sam. I don't care. I was asked if waterboarding is torture. I said we used to think it was.

I just don't want Americans saying that we have any moral authority over the terrorists if we are willing to do these things.

Torture away. Just don't do it in my name and just don't be a hypocrite about it.

That may not be the "liberal" view, but then I don't get their newsletters, either.

If you ever get in a bar fight with me, and I have been in a few, don't worry, you won't see any rules.

Sam,

If someone is shooting at our soldiers, our soldiers should kill them. Any gunfight should be immediately met with aerial bombings. I don't think we should be fighting to lose, whatsoever. If we are going to be there, we should go "straight through" hell as opposed to pussy-footing about it.

However, once they are in our custody, we have values that are different and better than the people we are fighting. Once these people cease to be personally threats to us, we are honor bound to treat them well. But one second before they cease to be threats, they should be eliminated by any means available.

we have values that are different and better than the people we are fighting. Once these people cease to be personally threats to us, we are honor bound to treat them well.

Unfortunately, our government does not have better values and few in government have any honor. This is true in all branches of our government and both major parties.

How are we supposed to teach things like honor to our teens and young adults when the Speaker of the House tells such blatant lies and members of Congress always have their greedy hands in every pocket and cookie jar?

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

Once these people cease to be personally threats to us, we are honor bound to treat them well.

Michael, your use of "us" and "we" is in the possessive case.

And that is one of the prime reasons there is so much trouble in this frigging world. Too many people are only concerned with what happens to them ..... and could give a crap less what happens to anyone else.

Absolutely, once those people are in custody, their physical person itself poses no threat to you, us, we or anyone else.

But the information contained in their mind which they voluntarily refuse to divulge ...... poses one hell of a threat to dozens or thousands of others. Not you, not us, not we, …… but potentially hundreds or thousands of “somebody-elses”.

Such enemy combatants in custody are no different than a murdering pedophile that is in custody. Say a murdering pedophile that both you (or TRC) and the police know that said pedophile knows where he buried one of your children in an underground vault with a limited supply of air.

Said pedophile poses no danger whatsoever to you (or TRC), to the police, to me or to Joe Smutzs. But the information contained in his mind which he voluntarily refuse to divulge ...... poses one hell of a threat to the life of that child.

Now maybe you (or TRC) don’t give a crap about the life of your child, ….. but I sure as hell do, ……. and I would beat that pedophile severely about the head n’ shoulders, …. more than any place else, …. until he divulged that information.

And your “honor bound” be damned …… as far as I care.

And I'll leave "the praying" up to someone else ..... because I know it doesn't work. It is really only useful for getting a few pats on one's back ..... after the fact.

Cheers

Hi Sam,

First off, let me say that yours is an honorable position. That the left would seek to demonize it shows their own lack of character. I disagree, but not as someone who thinks you evil for the position.

Ultimately the problem with terrorists and their ilk is that they are alive in the first place. If a well placed missile destroyed every village that had terrorists in it, villages would very quickly insist the terrorists go elsewhere, and there we would kill them.

The problem here is that we are bringing a knife to a gun fight. If one of the terrorists uses a civilian as a shield, that person's death is on the terrorist and not on us.

Now I don't mind offering a terrorist a break from the death penalty for information that saves lives. I don't mind bribing and punishing. If a terrorist fails to give us information that could have saved lives, that too could be punishable, including death.

But we are going about this all wrong. We want to find out information after it has occurred, and I am suggesting that we should be levelling cities. At first many people will die, but ultimately the terrorists will stop being harbored and fewer people in total will die. We don't need to be building democracies or otherwise engaging in nation building. If we must be there, we must be clear that we are there to neutralize the enemy and to leave.

There is a story that I like although I'm sure you'll find it lame. A group of westerners were walking along a river in Africa and noticed a child in the water. One of their party jumped into the river and rescued the child. Soon they noticed another child in the water and yet another Westerner jumped in. When they noticed a third child, one perceptive westerner started walking up a hill. They asked him what he was doing. He stated "I'm going to look for whoever is throwing children into the water."

We can't be playing defense here. If we must be there, let us kick the requisite ass, make clear that one American soldier is worth 10 million of their soldiers, and that we will leave the moment Al Qaeda violence stops.

But if we have someone in custody, the war for them is over. If they can see that we will always operate in our best interest, I think they will find it is in their best interest to help us.

Mike,

Your argument is based on the premise that the villagers are all voluntarily harboring terrorists. That simply isn't true.

I simply cannot see how destroying entire villages because there are some terrorists hiding there.

With all the nation-building and preemptive war our nation has been engaged in the past several years a pretty compelling argument could be made by those forced to suffer the death, destruction, and displacement that accompanies our foreign policy that the American government is a terrorist organization. I would imagine some of those innocent civilians feel pretty darn terrorized. I don't think that gives them some sort of moral authority to go bomb every US community with an army base, national guard artillery, recruitment office etc.

Hi Steph,

There is no doubt that there would be many innocent lives lost with such a scorched earth policy, but I believe much fewer overall.

Remember that I most wanted to see the US leave upon capturing Hussein.

But if we are to insist on staying, then we need to fight to win and to get out of there. There should be narrowly and easily defined objectives and it should be clear to everyone that once met, off we go. And it also needs to be clear that once our objective is met, we intend to harm no one. Mistreating captives is one more way for our scruples to be questioned.

I am far from convinced that Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else should have democracy thrust upon them by the United States. If they posed a threat, our interest should be to eliminating that threat and nothing else. People are concerned about who will take over in the void left. I suggest allowing the Iraqis and the Afghanis to figure that out.

That's the thing, Mike......the Iraqis never posed a threat to our nation or her citizens. Hussein was a madman and the world is a better place without him but........he was a madman who for a lot of years was supported by the US government. It's our meddling in the affairs of other nations that is the problem.

Now Keli and Sam and people of their mindset can make whatever kind of rebuttal they want but the simple truth of the matter is US interference in the Middle East helped create the situation GWB was confronted with in 2002. Certainly reasonable people willing to look at the history of the past 7 years or so can look at the events unfolding in Afghanistan and Pakistan today and come to the conclusion US foreign policy, US intervention, is the direct cause of much of the violence and displacement and instability we are seeing in Pakistan today.

What will occur if the situation in Pakistan worsens, or spreads? Pakistan is a nuclear power, after all. The talking heads in Washington and Israel have a fair percentage of Americans in a tizzy over the possiblity of a nuclear Iran and we hear all kinds of threats and predicitions of massive destruction if Iran develops nuclear weapons when what we should be concerned about is maintaining stability in Pakistan. The current regime in Pakistan isn't my idea of idyllic by any stretch of the imagination but if this government falls who knows what kind of lunatic(s) may rise to power? Who knows just how far the violence will spread?

Barack Obama was elected on the promise that he would withdraw the troops. He isn't withdrawing anything. Not only are we still in Iraq but he's sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan and some of them are crossing into Pakistan.

Bush lied and people died? Obama lied and they're dying still. Where's the outrage from the left?

Stephanie wrote:What will occur if the situation in Pakistan worsens, or spreads? Pakistan is a nuclear power, after all. The talking heads in Washington and Israel have a fair percentage of Americans in a tizzy over the possiblity of a nuclear Iran and we hear all kinds of threats and predicitions of massive destruction if Iran develops nuclear weapons when what we should be concerned about is maintaining stability in Pakistan. The current regime in Pakistan isn't my idea of idyllic by any stretch of the imagination but if this government falls who knows what kind of lunatic(s) may rise to power? Who knows just how far the violence will spread?

Here ya go Steph, a tidbit that may prompt you to be taking the Captain's bottle down off the shelf.

Pakistan rapidly adding nuclear arms, U.S. says

Congress concerned that military aid might be diverted to nuclear program

WASHINGTON - Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30801800/

.

SheikBen wrote:Hi Sam,

We can't be playing defense here. If we must be there, let us kick the requisite ass, make clear that one American soldier is worth 10 million of their soldiers, and that we will leave the moment Al Qaeda violence stops.

Well Mike, I can only disagree with two words in your above statement, ..... "their soldiers".

They are not ...... soldiers, ......... they are a band of terrorists attempting to overthrow the Government and take control of the country.

But anyway, the US should not be over there, anywhere, ..... if they can't even "clean the feces out of their own nest". The "gangs" of local terrorists habituate every major city in the US.

And the US can't clean it up over there ...... and they can't clean it up here ...... because the bleeding heart lefty liberals in the US won't let them do it. The police and/or Law Enforcement are sued, badgered and berated .... if they even so much as grab one of those dudes and twist their arm a little bit.

.

Just another reason why our government shouldn't be sending our tax dollars overseas.

Now maybe you (or TRC) don’t give a crap about the life of your child, ….. but I sure as hell do, ……. and I would beat that pedophile severely about the head n’ shoulders, …. more than any place else, …. until he divulged that information.

Wow.

Vigilantes rule. Also, they have carried out justice and have never got the wrong guy.

Wait. Vigilantes have murdered innocent people in their beds on more than one occasion.

I'll do my own dirty deeds, thanks. I won't hide behind another.

Also, you ignore my very valid point. We considered waterboarding to be torture when the japs did it to our boys. What changed?