 |
Hello:
I guess if you say something long enough some people will believe it. I didn't think we were that dumb, though. You DO remember the Supreme Court Justice who said that he can't describe porn, but he knows it when he sees it.
Well, I know torture when I see it, and we torture. I don't care how many times the decider decides to change the meaning of words.
Go ahead, tell me how wonking a guy upside his head repeatedly ain't torture.
excon
Does the U.S. torture in the same manner as, for example, a terrorist country in the Middle East? If you say no, does it mean that the U.S. does not torture? No. I do not know where President Bush is coming from when he says the U.S. does not torture. Maybe the methods of extracting information are not as vicious as another country's, but it is still there.
Hello shy:Quote:
Originally Posted by shygrneyzs
The trouble begins with parsing the word. Bush and Gonzales did it. You're doing it. I won't.
Besides, what kind of question is that?? Do other countries torture people worse than we do?? If the answer is yes, does that mean our torture is OK?? I'm sorry. I don't get it.
There was a time when we didn't torture because of who WE were. We didn't treat people based upon how they treated us. That was a time when we held the moral high ground. We were a good, clean and pure country.
Now we torture, and the excuse we use is, well look at who THEY are.
excon
This is not a new discussion.
Take into consideration the level of threat, case by case.
I do know that since I'm not in the unique position of facing the types of people that wish the US, and other nations, were wiped off the face of the earth, I don't know how find out what needs to be found out to prevent more murders.
By just backing away from those we know have information, when they don't tell what they know, even though we asked really, really nicely... would be stupid. What if you knew someone was about to launch a domestic attack on (pick any large gathering), you know who and how, but not when or where... if you could ask, do you think they would tell you? No. So walk away and let them. Now your borderline complicit.
Hello again Cap'n:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Our enemy's have ALWAYS had information that could save lives... Nothing is different here. Besides, we won WW II without torturing anyone. How'd we do that?
Complicit in their behavior?? Nahhhh... Not even close. We didn't torture nazi's and we're not, by any stretch of the imagination, complicit in what they did.
Arrrgh.
excon
What proof do we have that torture occurs now, or that, if it does, it isn't justifiable?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If the same degree of media was available during WWII, would we have seen elements of torture? I believe we would.
I find it difficult to believe any escalated conflict can go without someone's use of persuasion, and without someone labelling their methods as torture.
One thing that has changed is the liberals have changed the meaning of torture to include putting 'panties' on Muslim terrorist's heads. Yet we are suppose to sit back and accept them beheading our contract workers and so forth as if it is just another part of the daily news.
I am so tired of the Politically Correct libs mincing words in a do as I say not as I do way.
If I had a gun and someone was shooting at me I would shoot first.
No koolaid for me!
Hello again, Cap'n:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Bush and Gonzales say that head slapping and water boarding ISN'T torture. They're saying that because they're doing that.
It's torture. You can call it something else, but that doesn't change what it is. I can call an elephant a stove too.
If you read what I previously wrote, you'll see that it's NEVER justified. That's NEVER. I don't care who THEY are. I care who WE are.
Individuals who acted on their own?? I would guess there were. But as a policy?? No, No and No.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Difficult as it may be for you to believe, but we were NEVER accused of torturing anyone before this - NEVER!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
excon
Based on interpretation, asking in a stern voice is considered torture.
Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Torture, according to international law, is:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
So like I said, asking too loudly would be intimidating... we'd better get out the kid gloves or just let them have there way and not make them play by the same rules!
Torture, Al-Qaeda Style - May 24, 2007
Hello again, Cap'n:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
We're apparently not on the same page here. I don't think asking loudly would be torture.
But you're missing the part about whacking somebody upside their head and waterboarding them. Either we got to start talking about the same thing here, or we got to stop talking.
excon
Well, if the fundies get their way, we are well along the road to Armageddon. There are people actively planning to destroy not just liberal democracy, but all human existence because they believe it is "god's will".
I'm not familiar with "waterboarding" but I'm thinking you don't approve.
Whacking someone upside their head, I'm accustomed to. Once thought to be appropriate for child-rearing.
What did these individual do to be "whacked" or "boarded?"
I don't think that it is right and there should be other more effective ways to accomplish what they want. One thing I always thought was if someone was torturing me for information I would mislead them on purpose which I heard some prisoners do so what did it accomplish!
Hello again, Cap'n:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
You're great. You ask the perfect questions...
Waterboarding can be accomplished in several deviant ways. The one you'd be most familiar with, is sticking the guy's head in the toilet until he's about to drown, and then ask him a question. If he hesitates, dunk his head in again. You must've seen that in countless movies, and on the TV show 24.
We do it better though. We tip a guys head back and pour water up his nose till he thinks he's going to drown. If he doesn't answer, we do it again.
And, it isn't a matter of whether I approve or not. It's a matter of whether WE as a country approve. We never have before, and I'm not talking about weenies, either. I'm talking about tough guys like Ike Eisenhower - the 5 star general who won the war..
And, no. I don't think whacking upside the head is good for child rearing or interrogation.
What did they do to get whacked?? They got arrested. You're the one who thinks they have information. All I know is, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do I trust that they were arrested due to our legal standard of "probable cause"?? I do NOT.
They might be really bad guys - and they might not. Lots of the supposed "bad guys" we kept in Gitmo, have been let go - free as a bird. They couldn't have been too bad, but we tortured them anyway.
excon
__________________Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Is there a difference?:p
Give each a choice--a month of home-cooked meals, comfortable beds, and plenty of morale-lifting reading material, friendly guards, terrific counselors, animal therapy (with good supervision, caring for rescued dogs and cats in an adjoining animal shelter), regular group social events.
When the month is up, give them a choice. More of the same if they tell all they know or torture (give examples) if they don't.
Cap'nRich, we have a Plan. There will be a Confession Committee of three people (excon will be one of them and I will be the second) to assess the information that has been gathered after The Month of Love and Grace. The Confession Committee will privately and personally interview each detainee who has confessed in order to determine the truth of the confession.
Btw, all Confession Committee decisions are final and are not subject to lawsuit, argument, or temper tantrums.
The Confession Committee will then systematically and lovingly personally interview the detainees who have not confessed. It will be determined by the Confession Committee why the unconfessed detainees have retained vital information or even if any of the detainees has, in fact, vital information.
The Confession Committee will not retain prisoners indefinitely whereby amenity funding will be spent down to zero and all baked goods will be eaten. The Confession Committee is in need of a third member. Please apply, if you so desire. If you are chosen, you will then be privy to the Rules and Regulations as well as to all the details of the Plan of the Confession Committee.
Thank you, Wondergirl, for this update.
I didn't see a link to the application page for the stated position, but I am quite interested.
I feel it would be an honor to serve (cookies).
Cap'nRich, a major part of the Confession Committee Member Acceptance Procedure has to do first with the demeanor, attitude, and character of the applicant. Is there anyone on AMHD who would be willing to attest to your good character and be willing to write a reference letter describing your demeanor and attitude heretofore? Be forewarned--this person him/herself will have to be of sound mind and solid morals.
If the letter is accepted and is worthy enough to be placed on file, you will be sent a Confession Committee Application.
This Confession Committee member is extremely pleased that you have already said "it would be an honor to serve (cookies)".
I would have sent ye a recommendation from me crew but I recently seen ye already been there, Captain Mary Kidd!
Oh, and see rule #5:
Pirate Laws! The Arrrrtimate list of rules for being a Pirate
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 PM. |