There are many things that are not desirable, we're talking about what is not acceptable. It's not desirable for any US soldier to be be captured. It's not desirable for any US soldier to be questioned by the enemy. It's not desirable for any US soldier to be fed crappy food, while in captivity. However, all of those things are acceptable treatment for a US soldier captured by the enemy, or an enemy captured by the US. Is it acceptable to waterboard a US soldier to get information? And if not, then why is it acceptable to waterboard the enemy to get informantion. That is the question that you and tj and basso are running away from like someone was chasing you with a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the US constitution, and the Geneva Conventions.
The original question asked if it was "okay." Now you substitute "acceptable." These words make the question unclear. Okay connotes permission. Acceptable connotes uncaring. Can't you see that waterboarding is several steps down from head-sawing? How's this for clairty: I'd rather every American soldier be waterboarded than killed... I predict that this will be spun wildly.
Bull****. The word "ok" was used because TJ implied it was "ok" for terrorists to be waterboarded. Nice try. You are being very clear that you won't answer the question. You're now going so far as to play dumb. Very dumb. POOF
I have already answered the question, so it's merely representative of the libs' incredibly weak position that all they can do is repeat this one point. Sorry guys, but that just don't work. 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?
You are joking? Here is the post that contains gifford's original question: The word "okay" is a direct quote from gifford; I don't know if it is even in T_J's post. You imply it is. What you call playing dumb is actually being smart. It's a lazily constructed, disingenuous question meant to trap and, sorry, but I prefer not to walk into it. That being said waterboarding is and always better than having your head sawed off.
Well tj you've come the closest to answering the question (proving that you at least have more nads than giddyup), close enough that I'll answer your question. I can't stomach the US waterboarding enemy captives (I don't care how long, over how many years) because it is torture. Just as shoving a broomstick up some enemies ass is torture, even it only happened once for one minute in 100 years. I don't care if either method can get "actionable intelligence" (and I'm sure both can). It's not acceptable to do this to US soldiers and it's not acceptable to do it to enemy captives. As imperfect as this country is (as all countries are), American ideals such as a prohibition on cruel and inhuman punishment have been a powerful force for good in the world. US support for the Geneva Conventions and human rights in general, have made the world a much better place than it would otherwise be, even though all countries/groups do not abide by the conventions or respect human rights.
It isn't an either or situation. It isn't like they can be allowed to waterboard as long as they don't off heads. That answer is not responsive at all. The question is asking if waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique. It requires yes or no. If it is acceptable it is acceptable for anyone.
You haven't answered the question. IT isn't that it's ok for soldiers and not ok for terrorists. Either the technique is acceptable, or the technique is not acceptable. If it is acceptable that means that it can be done to our soldiers with you acknowledging the whole time that it is ok. Now is waterboarding acceptable? Yes or No. If I have to go by what you've said so far, I would guess your answer is yes. If it is yes, then it's hardly a way to support our troops.
Liberals disgust me when they want to coddle enemies such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, who planned 9/11. sickening.
Here is my latest version of yes... "That being said waterboarding is always better than having your head sawed off." I would like to point out that you have changed the question again. You pose the less volatile "acceptable interrogation technique" instead of the earlier "acceptable to waterboard Americans." Did you stop beating your wife?
neocons disgust me when they want to approve torturous tactics okaying them to be used on our brave troops who are serving our country. They don't disgust me when they believe that if you aren't torturing that you are automatically coddling. That is actually funny that they can't see any of the area in between. They are accusing the army field manual and U.S. military of coddling for it's modern existence. We all know that the Army Field manual is specifically against water boarding.
Following this logic, then, supporting the killing of terrorists is also not supporting the troops... because they might try to kill US soldiers. Have I got that right?
Not even close to the same question as the wife one. The question is and has always been is it an acceptable interrogation technique. Nobody is arguing or ever suggested that it's worse than being beheaded. The question has always been is it an acceptable interrogation technique. If you say it is, then realize you are okaying that technique to be used against U.S. soldiers as wel.
POOF. Point proven. This whole point was to turn this around as an attack on US troops. "Okaying them to be used on our brave troops..." Sheesh. How many of you called me dumb for circuitously answering a devious question. I answered it in a way that indicated my position without falling into the trap set.
