EPTso i could handle that whole "death by a 1000 slices" bs from the japanese
Conservatives Waterboarded - Voluntarily. - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
opsayo
591 Posts
so i could handle that whole "death by a 1000 slices" bs from the japanese | ||
|
DeathSpank
United States1029 Posts
On May 24 2009 11:36 Wohmfg wrote: Don't you think it would be different if someone else was pouring the water on though? And they seem to hold the cloth pretty tight over the person's mouth so I don't think you could bite it, I might be wrong though. no doubt, I'm just saying if you could you should. It also would be ten times worse if I had someone do it to me rather than myself. Like I said yesterday, it immediately causes a panic attack. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 24 2009 11:39 DeathSpank wrote: no doubt, I'm just saying if you could you should. It also would be ten times worse if I had someone do it to me rather than myself. Like I said yesterday, it immediately causes a panic attack. Ah ok, I thought you were saying that waterboarding sucked, not that waterboarding yourself sucked, lol. | ||
|
DeathSpank
United States1029 Posts
On May 24 2009 11:42 Wohmfg wrote: Ah ok, I thought you were saying that waterboarding sucked, not that waterboarding yourself sucked, lol. well it wasnt fun!!!!! lol | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right? | ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
On May 24 2009 14:25 baal wrote: Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right? So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right? except rape does cause permanent physical damage. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 24 2009 11:30 Servolisk wrote: Necessary? Well, I don't mind what format torture is argued on whether it is morals or practicality, it ends up losing either way. First, from what has been revealed so far this "necessary" torture has not been useful. Legal interrogation has. Then there is the problem of explaining the necessity of waterboarding a few of these guys a couple hundred times after they've already spilled everything already. Then there is the problem that this is a huge blow to our political objectives in the places we are fighting wars, as well as other areas. Looking like nazi's isn't going to help us when we try to get the cooperation of Iraqis or Afghans. And we absolutely need their cooperation to succeed, since it isn't really a matter of military. We either have enough of them cooperate, which will require a lot, or... we kill every single one of them with bombs? On every level it is not pragmatic. I accuse you of watching 24. Hmm I read this twice and it honestly seems 98% non-sequiter to what I wrote, except the part about waterboarding being ineffective. I don't know if torture/waterboarding is effective because I have read conflicting reports on that matter. Which leads me to believe it is at least effective some of the time. It seems a moot point; If it is effective, then a) my post challenges opponents of coercive interrogation to also oppose big government and foreign intervention. Or if it is ineffective, b) both you and I agree, since there would be absolutely no utility in the practice, even if you accept interventionism. | ||
|
Talith
United States1102 Posts
If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference? | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On May 24 2009 14:53 Rakanishu2 wrote: except rape does cause permanent physical damage. How could rape done properly always cause physical permanent damage if regular sex doesn't cause permanent physical damage? Not that I'm condoning it. On May 24 2009 11:38 opsayo wrote: one i cut myself with a knife, TWICE so i could handle that whole "death by a 1000 slices" bs from the japanese haha everything except the dying part right? | ||
|
Pawsom
United States928 Posts
To me, the more interesting question, is if torture is ever ok. Is it ok to torture a confirmed terrorist if it could save 1000 innocent lives? Not quite sure how I feel about this one. | ||
|
DeathSpank
United States1029 Posts
| ||
|
yoodeok
United States101 Posts
On May 24 2009 15:34 Talith wrote: I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others. If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference? You rightfully say that waterboarding looks like it sucks. Sadly, the waterboarding of Hitchens and Mancow that were posted do not fully capture the experience. Real waterboarding would be being waterboarded multiple times, no matter what you said, while having people yelling at you in a language you didn't understand smack you around, and knowing that instead of freedom you can expect to go back to a cell after the session is over. It's absolute terror. No matter whether you are innocent (and we know that the majority of people that the US picked up after 9/11 are), you'll say whatever you want the guys torturing you to say, just to make it stop. Think about it. Really, really think about it. After the tenth time, I'd admit to being the leader of the hermaphrodite conspiracy to assassinate all female US congresswomen with exploding cigarettes, based in the basement of the White House and with the US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Vice President in on the whole thing, or something equally ridiculous, just to make it stop. And so would you. Waterboarding isn't effective for the most part - the CIA said exactly that when they were talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was supposed to be a high-level al-Qaeda dude, and was actually more of a mid-level financier. He got waterboarded, oh, about 180 times or so, is said to have impressed his interrogators by holding out for two minutes during one of those times, and even then the CIA says that the information that was received by the use of waterboarding was "not entirely accurate". The CIA also says that 3 out of like 200 guys got this treatment. It's impossible to verify any of these numbers but the big picture should be clear. This is a practice that was found illegal in this country (the US) in the 19th century. By waterboarding people in CIA-run prisons in far-off lands for incorrect information, Americans who get nabbed by hostiles overseas are probably, all in all, more likely to be subjected to brutal treatment, including waterboarding, than before - as now we can't say that we have the moral high ground. What about terrorists with nuclear bombs? What if you have the terrorist who masterminded the whole thing in your hands and you need the bomb codes in the next two hours or New York City will be a smoking crater? What if you waterboarded the guy and he gives you false information/is holding out against all odds? At what point do the rack, thumbscrews, and electrodes come into play? How likely is this scenario? And so it begins - the goalposts get moved, and the argument goes from "Waterboarding isn't torture, we don't torture" to "Well OK, maybe we torture a little, but look at the hundreds and/or/of thousands of lives that were saved"... all because it's OK when you're doing it, but not when they are. It does bring up a lot of questions that aren't going to be easy to answer, but for right here, right now, waterboarding isn't something that should be done. Better intelligence can be gathered using less brutal techniques. | ||
|
404.Nintu
Canada1723 Posts
On May 24 2009 15:58 DeathSpank wrote: If I was ever tortured I would lie my ass off. Exactly. And hence the problem with W/B or any enhanced interrogation. There's not a whole lot preventing them from making shit up. Problem is, what if there's a language barrier and you generally believe it's the devil that's doing it to you? I agree with the statement that it furthers their resolves and simply assures them that we are infact the enemy, wishing them harm, and confirming their ideology. I saw "we" even though I'm happily Canadian. If that's the case, then it really is simply perpetuating their hatred and if anything, adds to their own recruitment power and determination. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On May 24 2009 15:54 Pawsom wrote: I'm surprised there are people arguing about whether or not it constitutes torture after hearing these participants claims after only enduring a few seconds of it. To me, the more interesting question, is if torture is ever ok. Is it ok to torture a confirmed terrorist if it could save 1000 innocent lives? Not quite sure how I feel about this one. No, the more interesting question is if performing torture is okay for the united states in this instance and how to determine and provide accountability on a legal level for that choice. I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to torture if they can provide a net reduction in total harm, but the question is whether or not that is so in this case. The case for waterboarding as an interrogation technique over torture is a simple semantic one to make people ignore that, the more vital issue. That's why the related issues of image abroad, effectiveness, accountability, etc. are being raised. If it was purely a definitional issue, or an issue of how to approach that definition you wouldn't see these points as important, but they are. Moreso than the label you attach to waterboarding. | ||
|
Talith
United States1102 Posts
On May 24 2009 16:08 yoodeok wrote: You rightfully say that waterboarding looks like it sucks. Sadly, the waterboarding of Hitchens and Mancow that were posted do not fully capture the experience. Real waterboarding would be being waterboarded multiple times, no matter what you said, while having people yelling at you in a language you didn't understand smack you around, and knowing that instead of freedom you can expect to go back to a cell after the session is over. It's absolute terror. No matter whether you are innocent (and we know that the majority of people that the US picked up after 9/11 are), you'll say whatever you want the guys torturing you to say, just to make it stop. Think about it. Really, really think about it. After the tenth time, I'd admit to being the leader of the hermaphrodite conspiracy to assassinate all female US congresswomen with exploding cigarettes, based in the basement of the White House and with the US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Vice President in on the whole thing, or something equally ridiculous, just to make it stop. And so would you. Waterboarding isn't effective for the most part - the CIA said exactly that when they were talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was supposed to be a high-level al-Qaeda dude, and was actually more of a mid-level financier. He got waterboarded, oh, about 180 times or so, is said to have impressed his interrogators by holding out for two minutes during one of those times, and even then the CIA says that the information that was received by the use of waterboarding was "not entirely accurate". The CIA also says that 3 out of like 200 guys got this treatment. It's impossible to verify any of these numbers but the big picture should be clear. This is a practice that was found illegal in this country (the US) in the 19th century. By waterboarding people in CIA-run prisons in far-off lands for incorrect information, Americans who get nabbed by hostiles overseas are probably, all in all, more likely to be subjected to brutal treatment, including waterboarding, than before - as now we can't say that we have the moral high ground. What about terrorists with nuclear bombs? What if you have the terrorist who masterminded the whole thing in your hands and you need the bomb codes in the next two hours or New York City will be a smoking crater? What if you waterboarded the guy and he gives you false information/is holding out against all odds? At what point do the rack, thumbscrews, and electrodes come into play? How likely is this scenario? And so it begins - the goalposts get moved, and the argument goes from "Waterboarding isn't torture, we don't torture" to "Well OK, maybe we torture a little, but look at the hundreds and/or/of thousands of lives that were saved"... all because it's OK when you're doing it, but not when they are. It does bring up a lot of questions that aren't going to be easy to answer, but for right here, right now, waterboarding isn't something that should be done. Better intelligence can be gathered using less brutal techniques. I thank you for your lengthy response and enjoyed hearing your point of view. Just curious though not to start anything but what are your suggestions for eliciting information from them? I think we both agree that methods beyond asking please are required in order to save lives, but where do you draw the line? I've heard of chemical use and would be all for that. I'm not sure how effective truth serums are but would that be an option you'd agree would be permitted? Too bad there's no truth bugs from wrath of khan! | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
Although I thought water boarding was torture before, they were definitely an eye opening thing to me. So many absolutely retarded posts in this thread=/ | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On May 24 2009 14:53 Rakanishu2 wrote: except rape does cause permanent physical damage. it does????? oh please elaborate | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On May 24 2009 15:34 Talith wrote: I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others. If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference? These people werent even in a trial, you cannot label somebody on such a simpleton term "terrorist" when it hasnt even proved that they are ones, plus when you do draw the line. When some extremist muslims torture foreign soldiers they are also doing it to save the lives of their conrades, families and friends. How can people be so dumb to not see everybody follow their idea, to you they are terrorist, to them, americans are terrorists and obviously given the circunstances, the world expected more humanity coming from a 1st world country that is suposed to be ruled by lawfulness, but turns out you are using torture like it was 500 years ago. | ||
| ||
