Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - More hypocrisy from the U.S.

[John Deere]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Signed,
British General Cornwallis

That's about as old as the crust in your panties.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by HubbardHall85

liberal media

YOU ARE PATHETIC

[John Deere]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

YOU ARE PATHETIC

Actually, I'll turn down your invitation to join your



organization. Tell P.A.T. that I said "hi".

[EComCon]

KEITH OLBERMANN SPECIAL COMMENT ON WATERBOARDING NOV 5, 2007

YouTube - KEITH OLBERMANN SPECIAL COMMENT ON WATERBOARDING NOV 5, 2007

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

I'm curious, why didn't you use slavery as the analogous example? Certainly your "drinking" analogy is apt because of the forced pouring of large quantities of vile liquid down the throats of the helpless while viewing football games. Just curious if you might see any underlying factors that may make one circumstance more analogous than another.

This is one of your best posts ever Jack. Seriously, well done.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

funny how the point flew over your head as well.

It isn't just that it once was illegal and now it isn't. It's that up until recently when this practice was used against U.S. interests it is seen as a major crime, but NOW the U.S. doesn't have a problem with it.

That doesn't make it hypocritcal though. Nobody is out there pretending to have something they don't possess.

Changes in policy are what you get in government all the time. It comes with different people being in charge all the time. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

That is my point.

You just can't call a goverment a hypocrite. It's a collection of people that changes all the time. Find an individual and you are on to something.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

That doesn't make it hypocritcal though. Nobody is out there pretending to have something they don't possess.

Changes in policy are what you get in government all the time. It comes with different people being in charge all the time. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

That is my point.

You just can't call a goverment a hypocrite. It's a collection of people that changes all the time. Find an individual and you are on to something.

Nobody called a government a hypocrite. This stance is hypocritical of America in general.

Bad when used against Americans
Good when used BY Americans

That is hypocritical, in a generalized sense.

Of course you have changes in policy and many of those changes are hypocritical in nature. Whether you have changes in administrations or not, these admins nonetheless represent the will of the people of America in general.

Your view is a cop out and suggests that America should never have to hold a consistent view on anything, ever.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

That doesn't make it hypocritcal though. Nobody is out there pretending to have something they don't possess.

Changes in policy are what you get in government all the time. It comes with different people being in charge all the time. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

That is my point.

You just can't call a goverment a hypocrite. It's a collection of people that changes all the time. Find an individual and you are on to something.

You are seriously strange. The change in policy was dictated by this administration, by this country's elected leaders. By Cheney, by Bush and, under their policy directed pressure, by their minions Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and the rest ... that makes it US policy, fool.

The US has a long standing policy and national moral stance of being against torture ... as a nation, not as who happens to occupy leadership at a given time.

[John Deere]

Originally Posted by Fletch

even centuries worth of progress.

I guess that means that Bush has wiped out the good will that Benjamin Franklin gave us in France?

Frenchman: Damn Bush. I'm going to take down my pictures of Benjamin Franklin in my foyer.

Frenchman: Yeah, Lafayette was sure stupid to help the Americans knowing that they would eventually beget Bush.

Frenchman: Our soldiers died in vain helping the Americans in the Revolutionary due to Bush's existence.

Fletch certainly adds a new twist to the "It's All Bush's Fault".

[Lochgelly]

I'm a liberal and I am in favor of torture...well...kind of...anyway...

I hate to admit it in some ways but you can't generalize situations in this regard...

It is like the nuclear option...you hope you never have to use it but it is an option and should remain on the table...

Generally, torture should not be allowed against uniformed wearing soldiers in the field of combat.....I agree with that....

However, there are situations where it might be necessary...

Let's say we are talking about terrorists...and say those terrorists have a nuclear bomb....its set to go off somewhere in the US...we capture one of the terrorists who has information about the nuke terrorist plot....

There ya' go....if beating the crap out of him can save 5 million US lives...well....here is the whippin' stick....go at it...

Again...if its a military man in uniform and he has information on troop movements etc...but in a conventional war kind of way...we are bound by the Geneva Convention...we can't and should not torture...yes...that means that 10's or even 100's of American Soldiers could be at risk...still the answer is no...no torture....

But in those extreme terorrist situations...there needs to be flexibility...

Yeah I know...its is a sick world we live in...

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

I'm a liberal and I am in favor of torture...well...kind of...anyway...

I hate to admit it in some ways but you can't generalize situations in this regard...

It is like the nuclear option...you hope you never have to use it but it is an option and should remain on the table...

Generally, torture should not be allowed against uniformed wearing soldiers in the field of combat.....I agree with that....

However, there are situations where it might be necessary...

Let's say we are talking about terrorists...and say those terrorists have a nuclear bomb....its set to go off somewhere in the US...we capture one of the terrorists who has information about the nuke terrorist plot....

There ya' go....if beating the crap out of him can save 5 million US lives...well....here is the whippin' stick....go at it...

Again...if its a military man in uniform and he has information on troop movements etc...but in a conventional war kind of way...we are bound by the Geneva Convention...we can't and should not torture...yes...that means that 10's or even 100's of American Soldiers could be at risk...still the answer is no...no torture....

But in those extreme terorrist situations...there needs to be flexibility...

Yeah I know...its is a sick world we live in...

Does torture even work? I mean, wouldn't the person say ANYTHING just to get the torture to stop? How can you rely on info from the tortured?

[Other Mike]

Loch,

Great points. Why are such tactics used?

Go's opinion is that the military is full of a bunch of idiots who just like to get off on watching brown people suffer. Any opinon to the contrary, and we are called idiots as well.

Realistically, such practises are probably very rarely used. In the case of waterboarding, it was done 3 times and none since '03. So bringing it up now, clearly is only for political reasons.

Odds are, the tactic probably produces results and was chosen for a well thought out reason.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by Other Mike

Go's opinion is that the military is full of a bunch of idiots who just like to get off on watching brown people suffer. Any opinon to the contrary, and we are called idiots as well.

link please Please don't put words in my mouth, I've never stated anything CLOSE to what you claim.

and is it even the military who uses these tactics? wouldn't it be more likely to be the CIA

Realistically, such practises are probably very rarely used. In the case of waterboarding, it was done 3 times and none since '03. So bringing it up now, clearly is only for political reasons.

and you know this, how?

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

You are seriously strange. The change in policy was dictated by this administration, by this country's elected leaders. By Cheney, by Bush and, under their policy directed pressure, by their minions Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and the rest ... that makes it US policy, fool.

The US has a long standing policy and national moral stance of being against torture ... as a nation, not as who happens to occupy leadership at a given time.

Anytime a Lib starts calling names you have them. Not to mention you can count on them blaming Bush somehow.

Let's not forget that waterboarding was made illegal 40 years ago. (Not by Bush)

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Does torture even work? I mean, wouldn't the person say ANYTHING just to get the torture to stop? How can you rely on info from the tortured?

My guess is that it works or it wouldn't be an issue.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

My guess is that it works or it wouldn't be an issue.

You didn't answer the question. We may think it works, but plenty of evidence out there says it doesn't.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

Anytime a Lib starts calling names you have them. Not to mention you can count on them blaming Bush somehow.

Let's not forget that waterboarding was made illegal 40 years ago. (Not by Bush)

You don't "have" anyone. Your post was problematic and you were told why, move on.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

You didn't answer the question. We may think it works, but plenty of evidence out there says it doesn't.

If that is the case then why did you ask?

Hell, I don't know if it works. I am not an expert in that kind of thing and I am guessing nobody else here is either.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

You don't "have" anyone. Your post was problematic and you were told why, move on.

No it wasn't. It was spot on.

Let me break it down.

Waterboard made illegal 40 years ago.

GWB's admin made it legal in 2003.

Two different parties, with two different thoughts.

NOT hypocritical.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

If that is the case then why did you ask?

to start a conversation?

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

No it wasn't. It was spot on.

Let me break it down.

Waterboard made illegal 40 years ago.

GWB's admin made it legal in 2003.

Two different parties, with two different thoughts.

NOT hypocritical.

You might want to research a little if you think the last "judgment" made by the U.S. on water boarding was made 40 years ago.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

You might want to research a little if you think the last "judgment" made by the U.S. on water boarding was made 40 years ago.

I don't need to. My point still stands. The party making the decision has never been constant. It's been going on for decades.


Ok, discussion. Toture has been around for a long time. I don't condone it but I can tell you this. If charged with a secret. I am probably going to give it up if someone wants to cut off my toe.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

I don't need to. My point still stands. The party making the decision has never been constant. It's been going on for decades.


Ok, discussion. Toture has been around for a long time. I don't condone it but I can tell you this. If charged with a secret. I am probably going to give it up if someone wants to cut off my toe.

Your point is incorrect. It is hypocritical that the United States shifts back and forth on a topic like this. Very recently the U.S. stance was to "scold" other nations for water boarding, now when it fits our purpose, it is OK... You are basically saying we aren't being hypocritical because we are hypocritical about other issues. It makes no sense.


Now, why wouldn't you just lie to avoid having your toe cut off?

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Your point is incorrect. It is hypocritical that the United States shifts back and forth on a topic like this. Very recently the U.S. stance was to "scold" other nations for water boarding, now when it fits our purpose, it is OK... You are basically saying we aren't being hypocritical because we are hypocritical about other issues. It makes no sense.


Now, why wouldn't you just lie to avoid having your toe cut off?

Where did you get the second hypocritical? I never said anything like that. I just said a goverment as a whole can't be hypocritical because the decision makers change all the time.

I am guessing the guy doing the cutting can spot a lie. The arguement is that they do these things (not toe cutting) to gain the good info. If they couldn't tell the difference between a lie and the truth we might as well not even question them right? I am condoning torture here. Just trying to answer your question.

[oscar novak]

Follow the link below to read letters from Navy pilots who were subjected to waterboarding and what they think of the technique. Note that one of the pilots was waterboarded in the 1970s when it was allegedly illegal. If waterboarding is torture, why are veterans' organizations not calling for the elimination of torture for military personnel, which has apparently been going on for more than 30 years?

Here is a quote from the commentary in the blog post:

There is room for legitimate disagreement about when interrogation techniques may become too harsh. But I think an easy standard to apply is that if we do it to our own troops in training, we ought to be able to do it to the leaders of al Qaeda.

Democrats "Wary" of Military Commissions Compromise