tj's answer is non-responsive, as expected. Who is arguing that McCain's treatment by the North Vietnamese or Daniel Berg's treatment was okay? The question tj won't answer is if he is okay with American soldier's getting waterboarded to get information out of them? I have no problem stating uncategorically that the US should not use interrogation methods on prisoners that are considered unacceptable for US soldiers.
It would seem that the question is an either/or one: Would you rather be waterboarded or have your head cut off agonizingly? I'd rather US soldiers be waterboarded than have their heads cut off-- same answer for civilians.
That's not the question either. Nice try though. Is it ok for US soldiers to be waterboarded for information? POOF
If you don't think it's torture, try it on yourself. This guy did: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717
Right, I changed the question because it is an inadequate question. What does it mean to say it's alright-- that I want them to do it? It's a trick question. I want all those terrorists to go away but since they won't, we fight on. Of course, it's not alright (as in desirable) that they waterboard Americans but it is preferable to sawing heads off. They are going to do what they want to do and T_J's point is that what they do is far worse than waterboarding-- all 5 minutes of it.
Great, now try sawing your head off, like what Al Qaeda has no problem doing to American civilians. Sorry, but I can stomach the simulated drowning of known terrorists for 5 minutes over 5 years in order to extract life saving information. Why can't you?
What you are doing with this false choice is equating a rogue terrorist group -- one that purposefully targets civilians -- with members of the United States Armed Forces. That is disgusting and wrong. What has been shown is that your false choice is meaningless, as MUCH WORSE is already happening to our soldiers. Again, why can't you stomach 5 minutes of waterboarding in 5 years when it happens to known terrorists with actionable intelligence AND produces results? Why can't you do that?
It's not about advocation. It's about acceptability. As a legitimate facet of war or justice or whatever. Here, I'll try again since you are still avoiding the question like the plague: Is it acceptable for terrorists to waterboard US troops for information? It's not a trick question - what you complain about as a "trick" is the entire point of the question!
answer the question. It isn't about terrorists vs. Soldiers, it's about waterboarding vs. waterboarding. Is it ok for U.S. soldiers to undergo waterboarding? You've been asked already, not stop running away from it and answer the question.
Here was my earlier reply. I didn't avoid the question... Why is it "better" to kill someone than to just torture them in a way that scares the hell out of them but from which they fully recover? The question is a bad one because it uses words which connote more than they denote. I still say better tortured than killed.
The question is if waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation policy. The answer is yes it is or not it isn't. If you think it is acceptable, then it is acceptable for others to use it on U.S. troops. A separate question would be if sawing off heads is acceptable. It isn't an either or deal.
it's funny how lots of bush admin folks and neocons and posters on this BBS are normally uber-quick to stake out the precious moral high ground and make all sorts of pronouncements on the BBS, or in blogs, or other meaningless rhetoric, but when it comes to the moral high ground of somethign that actually matters and affects real people in the real world, their strong moral convictions fade away.
There is no nation on the earth that doesn't torture people in desperate situations. I don't understand why this has to be a national issue though -- why not just keep it clandestine as it always has been in the past? Wedge issue...gay marriage 08' ?
Are US troops terrorists in your book? Why do you equate them to Al Qaeda fugitives? If a US soldier commits a terrorist act, then yes, by all means have them waterboarded. It's a lot better than what's happening to them now!! Until then, the comparison is invalid in every way, shape or form. I've answered your question, now answer my question: Why can't you stomach 5 minutes of waterboarding in 5 years when it happens to known terrorists with actionable intelligence AND produces results? Why can't you do that?
Yes you did!!!! The question is in regard to acceptability, not what you desire to happen. Again: Is waterboarding an acceptable (NOTE: acceptable not desireable) practice?
How unclear have I made it in saying that it is better to be waterboarded than to be killed by head-sawing? It's not unclear at all. Why the coyness about this? It's sad that this is done to anyone but, hell, it is a war and war is hell. People and nations are "forced" into doing all kinds of unspeakable things just to survive.
