You are The World-Champion Distorter of Other People's Point-of-View... ... and I thought it was just me that you raped.
If waterboarding is the house of horrors that people are making it out to be, I doubt that anything else would be more effective. No I didn't. This isn't a distortion of my point of view...it is an intentional misstatement of it. If you are going to butcher what others say...don't debate. Waterboarding does no lasting physical damage to a person. Anally raping them does. Jamming bamboo under their fingernails does. Using electric shock does. See the difference? So I guess you'd just ask them pretty please with sugar on top? Have a real alternative or don't waste your time or mine. Not always. There are matters of degree. Except for the fact that nobody is killed during waterboarding. This is actually a good point. The only rebuttal I can make to this is that it isn't like not waterboarding 3 guys in a 5 year war will cause the enemy to want to join hands and sing I'd like to buy the world a Coke.
This is not true. Electric shock and anal rape can be done in a way to cause no lasting physical damage. Is it OK, then? I am only going on what you yourself have written as I try and auger your meaning: That says results are what matters, right? If there is some cryptic meaning there that I missed, I apologize. Please explain it to me. I am simple. I take what you write at face value. If the choice was between dying quickly and cleanly or being subjected to extended waterboarding, then allowed to live, I would choose death. Making someone into a simpering, quivering pile of distress is more dehumanizing and less dignified than providing them a clean, quick death for both the torturer and the person being tortured. Notice that the Constitution talks about 'cruel and unusual punishment' but at no point places limits on the death penalty. I may misunderstand, but that seems indicates how the authors would comparatively value the two.
Real alternative: don't torture. Wrong. There is always a potential to save x number of lives as a result of some positive action. This is why the line must be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, you end up justifying the very acts of terrorism that you claim to fight against. This is both false and non-responsive. People have and do die during waterboarding. That is irrelevant to my point, though, which is that the value of life itself is diminished in a world where waterboarding is acceptable. It is much easier for an enemy to recruit soldiers for their cause if they can effectively demonize their opponents. It is easy to demonize an opponent who supports torture.
I would LOVE to end waterboarding, once and for all. You have failed, repeatedly now, to provide an alternative measure to bring out the information. Give me something to go on here. Give me an alternative that will get us the information we need. You have told me what NOT to do...now tell me what TO do. That is all I ask, and keep getting no response.
You failed to answer three major points I brought up which directly indict your justification for waterboarding: 1) That "lives are at stake" is a false justification for waterboarding, unless you are willing to justify your enemies' (the terrorists) atrocities by implication. 2) That waterboarding (and torture in general) devalues the inherent value of life, thus making it an inappropriate means to save lives. 3) That waterboarding might actually increase net lives lost in the long run. My alternative is to not use waterboarding (or any other form of torture) as an interrogation technique.
No...their tactics (as have been videotaped and broadcast) is to capture, interrogate, and publicly behead. They simply aren't the same thing. BTW...I never justified waterboarding. I have time and again stated that I want a better alternative. The job of the military is to save American lives, and sadly, war isn't pretty, it isn't fair, and it isn't nice. Perhaps if we publicly beheaded their captives, maybe then they would take us seriously. It is a pretty cold hearted thing to turn to the families of those who were killed and tell then that you didn't want to be inappropriate in saving the life of their loved one. If you can do that, then I applaud your ability to turn off your feelings. I agree that waterboarding would devalue human life is the goal and result would be to kill them and dispose of them. It devalues mental well being, but not life itself. I admitted before, and do again, that this is a good point. However, as long as we have a presence in the Middle East, and support Israel, their hatred of us is going to grow, just as it has in the last 3 decades. OK...so...AGAIN...for the umpteenth time...WHAT IS YOUR PREFERRED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE? You, to this point, have had nothing to state on this question, other than to say do nothing. If "do nothing" is your answer, have the courage to say so. At least then we'll know where you stand. It will be apparent that you don't really want the information, but at least we'll know where you stand. I have repeatedly asked a simple question, and have not gotten an answer. I have repeatedly in this thread stated that I want to discontinue waterboarding forever, but to satisfy those in the field, we need to give them some "dos" rather than only a list of "don'ts."
The better alternative is this: If you as a President feel it is absolutely necessary, then do it and go before the world and say "We did this and here's why." And you face the consequences. You don't try to make torture the policy of the United States. You don't spit on the Geneva Conventions. You don't crap on the position America took during the WWII War Crimes trials. You don't get third-rate lawyers to write justifications for torture. You don't send your minions out to try and confuse the issue by comparing it to fraternity pranks or swimming. You don't send your Congressional allies out to diminish the issue by talking about a stupid TV show. As President, you don't pretend that you don't know what's going on and you don't lie about it when asked. You don't hide behind a veil of secrecy by saying "we can't discuss that because that would tell the terrorists what we do." The whole damn thing is dishonest, immoral, and downright unAmerican. Where torture is concerned, we should want it to be extraordinary and our government to be honest about it. Instead, we have an administration doing their best to make it ordinary and being completely dishonest about it and obfuscating any inquiry into it by others. The banality of evil indeed. Do you really believe the administration's talking points about the frequency and necessity? Not to mention the notion of supposed Christians supporting the idea of torture... how can you read the biblical descriptions of the last days of Jesus, call him your savior, and still support the idea of torture? I can't.
Some wonder about the notion of supposed Christians being able to read the Bible and yet be "pro choice". Seems to me there's a verse to the affect of seeing the speck in your brothers eye,yet not the log in your own.....
Not to turn this into an abortion thread, but my views on the two are fairly similar. I'd like abortions to be rare and of necessity. I don't like abortion and I wouldn't consider myself pro-choice, though I understand and acknowledge the position. Of course, neither do I consider myself pro-life in the way it used. I think the movement's fixation on fetuses and the disregard for babies after birth is ridiculous. I appreciate the assumptions in your post though. Considering torture and abortion, I do, however, think there's a difference between what the government does to someone in the name of all the people and what individuals do.
Fair enough. I do not appreciate the stance the current administration has taken on this issue. If this action were to be taken, it would have to be out of dire necessity and a clear and present danger to our country and our citizenry. I would prefer it not happen at all, but if it does, and the issue is raised, I would expect honesty about it. Totally agreed. I honestly do not know. I would like to think the best, but there is a large amount of doubt. There is also a large difference between the innocent unborn and those who seek to mass murder. This is a thorny issue with some valid points to be made on both sides. I wish the world were such that this wasn't even a topic to be had.
OMG, it would appear that you "tolerate" abortion in the same way that the administration "tolerates" waterboarding... is that right? Wish it were rare or even unnecessary but... How can the anti-abortion movement focus on babies after birth if they are dead? Doesn't your job end somewhere? The greater disparity when considering torture and abortion is the innocence factor of the babies as compared to the terrorists not the nature of the agent administering the procedure.
the alternative is called not waterboarding. Which, apparently, works really well, since waterboarding is pretty much unnecessary, according to this thread, hence its lack of use.
That's great, that abortion was brought up. Because almost all of you crying about "waterboarding" are the same ones who believe gassing a baby to death in the womb should remain legal. Let's protect terrorists instead of children! Sure, makes perfect sense. I have no qualms at all about saying I support whatever gets the information that protects innocent lives from terrorists. Even the lives of the idiots who whine about how they are being protected. And yeah, Cheetah, go ahead and post a Nicholson from A Few Good Men picture, did I order the Code Red? You're ---damn right I did! .
well now that we've gotten that out of the way I suppose I will respond... It pains me to hear you describe what I speak of in this manner. Truth and virtue were/are socratic ideals on which much of western civilization has been built. Regretably since they do not fit into your box you have dismissed them as having no practical value. Furthermore, fear can/has/will drive men to do things they ordinarily would not do out of neccesity. What I have been asking all along was: "Is fear justification for forsaking one's morality". You seem to agree that waterboarding is morally reprehensible but accept it as neccesary because you are afraid that there is no alternative to this method or others like it. I beg to differ. While I do not claim to be any expert on military interrogation techniques it does not seem to me that there is absolutely no other method of gathering information than torture. Lives are always at stake. The ends do NOT always justify the means. If this were so, slavery, imperialism, genocide. torture, and a host of other atrocities could be justified by this same school of thought. I realize that these are extremes of that doctrine but the spirit of such a belief is the thrust of these occurances. That being said, I am not blind to the world around me. I realize that in extreme and desperate situations the extraordinary must be done. But by condoning this from the get-go as a neccesary tactic completly undermines any sense of right and wrong within us. We both desire the same thing. "That the world were such that this wasnt even a topic". But how on earth do you expect the world to become such a place if you dismiss "virtue, truth, principles, etc." as buzzwords and platitudes. If you do not believe that these things have value and a place within in our society there is no hope of the world moving beyond a place where torture is needed. I'm sorry to single you out refman..and I know that for you and all of us this is a difficult issue because our neccesity is pitted against our values. I chose values because I would like to at least be able to say that if I had to torture someone because my loved ones were in real and imminent danger that it was the absolute, postive, last resort and that I was forsaking all that I held to be good and right because I had exhausted all other options. At the end of the day I would have to live with the fact that what I did was still WRONG, but had no alternative. We need to seek out alternatives to torture, not condone it.
If you look at the history of Western governments, particularly in times of war, sadly truth and virtue have little to do with it. If you look at the French and English in the 1600s and 1700s, they were amongst the most brutal. Since that time, we have led the way. I do not think that you ignore your own morality. I think that when there are exigent circumstances, you cannot pull completely off the table the unthinkable simply because it is immoral. That is a good way to end up dead. And if I knew of a good and effective alternative, I would be happy with a total ban on waterboarding with severe penalites for violating the ban.
Ref, You and I are both pretty bright individuals..but to assert that no alternative exists to torture because you and I (or anyone else on this bbs) hasnt thought of one is a bit arrogant eh? For all we know there is an alternative (or heck there might NOT be one)..but shouldnt we expend more energy and research on alternative information gathering rather than condoning that which we know is wrong? I think a little of the reason we are ok with torture because in a way it exacts a bit of vengence on those who would wrong us. While I 100% understand why this may be (and I'm am grateful to the men and women who defend this country) I still cannot find it in my being to say its right. Technology has created a great many wonderous things..but to think we still cant find a method of making a man tell the truth or getting the answers we need without brutality is a little disheartening. We can create weapons of great power and devestation but we cant make a truth serum? Yea right. I respect both sides of the issue as it is a difficult one. There are so many complexities, scenarios and shades of grey that would make many a good man sit and question himself. In the end I still feel like we should not condone this type of thing particularly because of the standard it sets for the dehumanizing of others. I'm not a care bear..simply a man of principle.
I want to try and simplify this. Govts. that torture are wrong. It was wrong when N. Vietnamese did it to McCain. It was wrong when the Nazis do it, it was wrong when Stalin did it, It was wrong when the Khmer did it, it's wrong when Egypt does it, it was wrong when Saddam did it, it is wrong when the U.S. does it. I would rather believe our govt. be on the side that opposes torture, and not defends it. It doesn't matter if which govt. it is. Every govt. that does it is doing it because they believe they are preserving itself, and protecting itself from danger. But it doesn't matter why. There is never any excuse for torture. There is never a circumstance where it is OK. Those who torture should be made responsible for their wrongdoing.
If you knew of a good alternative - as if you are somehow the repository of a unique insight into torture and interrogation techniques. Right. Oh - wait aren't you the same person who once tried to pull rank on the BBS, and claimed that you understood more about terrorism than anybody because you were .. drumroll .. A PSYCHOLOGY MINOR! Makes more sense now.
