Bush Vetos Waterboarding

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:04 pm

Prepare to be tortured! What's good for the goose...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_ ... torture_22

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:09 pm

This veto is absolutely sickening, in my opinion. If the United States of America expects to garner even the remotest amount of respect in the international community, we absolutely CANNOT torture people. State-sanctioned torture makes our nation just as barbaric as the supposed state-sponsors of terrorism that we are supposedly fighting right now. This veto is a travesty. Bush can't get out of office fast enough, in my opinion. I hope and pray that our legislature does the right thing and tells Bush where he can shove his veto by overturning it.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:10 pm

So, no S&M clubs I take it.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:11 pm

i question whether or not enough people actually think torture is a bad thing to compel the people who can to actually override the veto.

Its sort of weird how when you hear some people discuss the issue, they dont really know how to say that they are ok with torture, because they realize its one of those things your supposed to socially say your against, but for whatever reason they arent.

So i imagine torturing probably is going to still be accepted for a little while longer at least.

reminisco · Post by **reminisco** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:18 pm

even outside of moral or social considerations, the fact remains that if we torture our enemies, our enemies will torture our soldiers.

in WWII, the Germans were treated notoriously horribly by the Russians and vice versa. on the other hand, the Western Allies were treated well by the Germans and vice versa.

if we "take the gloves off" against our enemies in the GWOT, i really see NO REASON whatsoever for American boys to go and VOLUNTEER for active duty... cause that's what we have here, an all volunteer army.

this is bad PR all around. from a international diplomatic standpoint and a domestic diplomatic standpoint. the USA should NOT torture. and whether people want to argue about whether a method really IS torture or not is a waste of time -- the real heart of the matter is what other people PERCEIVE the practice to be. especially our enemies.

if we were giving Al-Qaeda combatants visible reminders of WHY they should live in peace with us, i think it'd diminish this conflict far more -- in the long run -- than any possibility of actionable intelligence gathered through torture.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:22 pm

while its probably a dark and ugly road and too speculative of a statement for me to get away with...id argue theres probably a substantial enough segment of policy makers who hold too prejudicial of a stance against islam to avoid the dehumanization process, which makes torture far more justifiable in the eyes of the perps, as opposed to the german situation, where in many of cases the Germans may have viewed as similar to themselves...excluding the ones that they dehumanized as part of their eliminationist agenda that is

jimboston · Post by **jimboston** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:28 pm

Gip... how come you never give at least one realist option for someone with an opposing view on your polls?

I do like all the subjects you raise here.

I like the sense of humor you bring to the conversation.
(Even though it someitmes annoys.)

It's thought provking and it spurs good konversations.

That said... an option like;
"Maybe... I mean I don't really approve of the idea of torturing people. However if I believe the information gathered would save lives I can't really say I wouldn't do it."

You know... never say never man.

You got kids?

Some sick bastard takes your little girl and puts her in a hole somewhere. You find him... but he's not telling where she is. You telling me you wouldn't do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you could think of to get this guy to talk?????

jimboston · Post by **jimboston** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:37 pm

reminisco wrote:even outside of moral or social considerations, the fact remains that if we torture our enemies, our enemies will torture our soldiers.

in WWII, the Germans were treated notoriously horribly by the Russians and vice versa. on the other hand, the Western Allies were treated well by the Germans and vice versa.

This arguement doesn't hold water. If anything... it's an arguement FOR torture of Muslim Extremists. Not against. Following your logic... if we do it to them they will do it to us...

Well... they have already done it to us. So....

... that however was not my main point or rebuttal.

The biggest problem is that there are not overlapping or share values. Germans (for the most part) shared values and religion wih their Alliance enemies in WWII.

If the enemy followed the Geneva Convention... we would/should as well. They don't. They specifically target civilians... we don't.

God... I don't know why I let the Gip get me started!

jimboston · Post by **jimboston** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:38 pm

jimboston · Post by **jimboston** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:38 pm

Sorry for the multiple posts... the site hung and I clicked submit a couple times.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:40 pm

you really went on a double posting rampage there if it already deleted a few of them.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:45 pm

jimboston wrote:If the enemy followed the Geneva Convention... we would/should as well. They don't. They specifically target civilians... we don't.

God... I don't know why I let the Gip get me started!

Then take the moral high-ground. It would certainly help the whole 'America right, terrorist wrong' black and white rhetoric, nor help shore up the gaping hole that is current public opinion... If we know 'our boys' are playing by the rules, we're gonna be a hell of a lot more supportive than if we know this kinda shit goes on.

jimboston · Post by **jimboston** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:56 pm

Guiscard wrote:
jimboston wrote:If the enemy followed the Geneva Convention... we would/should as well. They don't. They specifically target civilians... we don't.

God... I don't know why I let the Gip get me started!
Then take the moral high-ground. It would certainly help the whole 'America right, terrorist wrong' black and white rhetoric, nor help shore up the gaping hole that is current public opinion... If we know 'our boys' are playing by the rules, we're gonna be a hell of a lot more supportive than if we know this kinda shit goes on.

You know.

That's a good point.

I think....

naaaawww f**k it... torture the pricks!

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:58 pm

For the last 200 years, American society has been struggling toward a more equal, just, and free society. At the center of much of that struggle has been a societal drive to do what is right. I can't see how any American who believes in the rights to life and liberty and in the Bill of Rights (cruel and unusual punishment, anyone?) could possibly defend any kind of torture. While I understand the gist of GT's arguments regarding dehumanization of muslims, particularly radical islamists, America cannot afford to compromise our moral principles based on a mentality of 'they're not really humans anyway, they're animals' or 'the enemy is doing it to us, so why don't we do it to them?'. That kind of rationalization is inexcusable.

And tom, the analogy comparing capturing a guy who kidnapped your child doesn't remotely apply. Maybe it would apply if you were talking about a law being passed expressly allowing you to torture the asshole, but individual acts of passion are completely different than state-defined policy. We're talking about a law that will tell the CIA that it's not allowed to use torture as standard operating procedure. Arguments that such practices should be protected are based on a culture of fear. If you're really proud to be an American, then you can't be prepared to leave American principles behind as soon as America is threatened.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:04 pm

Colossus wrote:For the last 200 years, American society has been struggling toward a more equal, just, and free society. At the center of much of that struggle has been a societal drive to do what is right. I can't see how any American who believes in the rights to life and liberty and in the Bill of Rights (cruel and unusual punishment, anyone?) could possibly defend any kind of torture. While I understand the gist of GT's arguments regarding dehumanization of muslims, particularly radical islamists, America cannot afford to compromise our moral principles based on a mentality of 'they're not really humans anyway, they're animals' or 'the enemy is doing it to us, so why don't we do it to them?'. That kind of rationalization is inexcusable.

And tom, the analogy comparing capturing a guy who kidnapped your child doesn't remotely apply. Maybe it would apply if you were talking about a law being passed expressly allowing you to torture the asshole, but individual acts of passion are completely different than state-defined policy. We're talking about a law that will tell the CIA that it's not allowed to use torture as standard operating procedure. Arguments that such practices should be protected are based on a culture of fear. If you're really proud to be an American, then you can't be prepared to leave American principles behind as soon as America is threatened.

And then what will it extend to? The whole slippery slope thing is usually bollocks, but it could certainly be applicable here. Will torture start being OK to use at home? If the lives of citizens could be endangered, then why not?

I think torture is one of those things where you simply need to draw a solid and obvious line. There are many ways of interrogating people which don't involve torture, and I'm sure many of them work. They may take longer, but they certainly aren't forbidden under international law or barbaric. Were such practices used against, say American soldiers during action in Kosvo then I'm sure the US would be the first to press for convictions for war crimes.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:05 pm

DaGip wrote:Yes, I am emotionally void and enjoy hurting people and throwing puppies off of cliffs!

at last, a poll option i can vote for!

SolidLuigi · Post by **SolidLuigi** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:33 pm

It won't let me click all the no choices..........

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:48 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Colossus wrote:For the last 200 years, American society has been struggling toward a more equal, just, and free society. At the center of much of that struggle has been a societal drive to do what is right. I can't see how any American who believes in the rights to life and liberty and in the Bill of Rights (cruel and unusual punishment, anyone?) could possibly defend any kind of torture. While I understand the gist of GT's arguments regarding dehumanization of muslims, particularly radical islamists, America cannot afford to compromise our moral principles based on a mentality of 'they're not really humans anyway, they're animals' or 'the enemy is doing it to us, so why don't we do it to them?'. That kind of rationalization is inexcusable.

And tom, the analogy comparing capturing a guy who kidnapped your child doesn't remotely apply. Maybe it would apply if you were talking about a law being passed expressly allowing you to torture the asshole, but individual acts of passion are completely different than state-defined policy. We're talking about a law that will tell the CIA that it's not allowed to use torture as standard operating procedure. Arguments that such practices should be protected are based on a culture of fear. If you're really proud to be an American, then you can't be prepared to leave American principles behind as soon as America is threatened.
And then what will it extend to? The whole slippery slope thing is usually bollocks, but it could certainly be applicable here. Will torture start being OK to use at home? If the lives of citizens could be endangered, then why not?

I think torture is one of those things where you simply need to draw a solid and obvious line. There are many ways of interrogating people which don't involve torture, and I'm sure many of them work. They may take longer, but they certainly aren't forbidden under international law or barbaric. Were such practices used against, say American soldiers during action in Kosvo then I'm sure the US would be the first to press for convictions for war crimes.

Advocating torture as state policy only agrivates our relations with other countries, as one country--all be it freind or foe--would lose a considerable amount of respect for the state that advocates and sponsors torture. To cause pain, suffocate, or choke any prisoner definitely falls under the category of cruel and unusual punishment. To advocate this is to repeal our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. The overwhelming cruel hearted stance of our leaders only serves to undermine our very moral existence and strain any such freindships with all such nations that would offer us an alliance in truth and in heart. Wary then becomes our allies, and therefore, a wary ally is an enemy in wait.

If this law doesn't pass, the torture of prisoners (foreign and domestic) will have to be accepted in American society. If you think people in America don't respect life now, wait until it is okay to torture people.

This is the wrong message to send to the world...absolutely the wrong message!

Hologram · Post by **Hologram** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:29 pm

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with it. I like to think that I'm realistic and that we sometimes need information and we need it fast, and sometimes torture is the only way to do it.

However, against our own citizens? Absolutely not, and not just because I'm selfish and I don't want to be tortured. It's more to do with the liberties and whatnot guaranteed by our laws and Constitution.

Anyway, it's probably just because I'm a heartless, soulless son of a bitch.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:39 pm

Hologram wrote:Personally, I don't have a huge problem with it. I like to think that I'm realistic and that we sometimes need information and we need it fast, and sometimes torture is the only way to do it.

However, against our own citizens? Absolutely not, and not just because I'm selfish and I don't want to be tortured. It's more to do with the liberties and whatnot guaranteed by our laws and Constitution.

Anyway, it's probably just because I'm a heartless, soulless son of a bitch.

You care about your country so that makes you not all that heartless. Soulless? Well, you are still posting in the forum...so that only leaves us with the SOB, and I don't personally know your mama

[size=0]At least i ain't gonna admit it to your face...[/size]

Hologram · Post by **Hologram** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:42 pm

Hahaha, well, she's more of a whore than a bitch, but the phrase works better unmodified.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:10 pm

Hologram wrote:Hahaha, well, she's more of a whore than a bitch, but the phrase works better unmodified.

Yep, a whore she is! And what a whore!

The problem with this whole torture deal, is that it should have never seen the light of day in the public's eye. Westernized human compassion will want to show compassion, as has been programmed into us and our societal psyche via Christianized religion.

Even if you profess yourself to be an atheist, I bet you still have an understanding of Christian teachings: Do unto others..., Judge not lest..., Love thy enemy. These are just a few of Jesus' teachings from the Bible that is engrained into Westernized culture, whether we like it or not.

These fundamental moral convictions are what supposedly makes our culture more beneficient and prosperous. If we knowingly commit tortoreous acts against our enemies, then we become the hypocrits of our own society, regardless of the information gathered.

Under torture, I will tell you anything you want to hear. "You're a witch aren't you Mr.DaGip!" (the Inquisitor begins to turn the thumbscrews).

"YES! HELL YES! I'm a frickin' WITCH! Whatever you say! I need salvation! Please, Jesus, forgive me! And, you know that guy that lives down the street from me, Hologram is his name...yeah, the guy with an eagle tatooed over an American flag on his arm! He's a WITCH too!"

Torture is not a reliable method of info gathering, and our leaders should not be in support of it if we want to be part of a Global community.

And if the government wanted to keep all this torture stuff secret, they could of in my opinion. Why didn't they?

brooksieb · Post by **brooksieb** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:29 pm

well i used to be a soldier and i think that you should only use torture if they use it against you, but it is more complicated than what i just said so sometimes you should not use it even if the enemy uses it against you

though in northern ireland we were fighting the IRA a unnoficial army if you like we wud use torture loads sure it wernt aloud the way we done it but we used to be very corrupt torture and rule breaking wise, but we never ever used it with children

jimboston · Post by **jimboston** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:52 pm

DaGip wrote: The problem with this whole torture deal, is that it should have never seen the light of day in the public's eye. Westernized human compassion will want to show compassion, as has been programmed into us and our societal psyche via Christianized religion.

And if the government wanted to keep all this torture stuff secret, they could of in my opinion. Why didn't they?

Gip Gip Gip...

I actually agree with this. It should have been keep on the DL for the betterment of out national security. Back in the day the Media was peopled by men who thought of themselves as citzens first and reporters second. If it was in the best interest of the US to keep something secret... they general would. This changed in the US after Watergate.

The limey media can still keep a secret... the recent item with Prince William fighting in Afganistan was know my UK media... but kept quiet until it was broadcast by some web media outlet. (Slate?)

One issue I have with YOU making this comment. It contradicts other stuff you say. You seem to indicate in other posts that the Gov't has too many secrets. (Can you say 9/11 was an Inside Job?) So why would you advocate them keeping this secret.

Last point here... if they could've kept it secret they would've.

I know some people here believe the Gov't can keep secrets...
*JFK assasinated by the CIA/Mod/Cuba
*Man has never landed on the moon... it's a farce.
*Area 51... aliens from another star system live amoung us and the Gov't knows. (Shit... the aliens are the reason we get cancer.)
*Aids is a neo-con created virus.. intended to wipe out lefty-gays and also to depopulate Africa.

I personally believe none of this... but the conspriracy theorists who do now also wonder why the gov't can keep this stuff secret, but not torture of a few muslims.

DaGip wrote: Torture is not a reliable method of info gathering, and our leaders should not be in support of it if we want to be part of a Global community.

Two thoughts here Gip... not mutually exclusive.

The second one is up for debate. The first is false. May not always be reliable... may not always be called for... but it can and has been reliable and useful in some instances.

Jim

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:54 am

jimboston wrote:
DaGip wrote: The problem with this whole torture deal, is that it should have never seen the light of day in the public's eye. Westernized human compassion will want to show compassion, as has been programmed into us and our societal psyche via Christianized religion.

And if the government wanted to keep all this torture stuff secret, they could of in my opinion. Why didn't they?
Gip Gip Gip...

I actually agree with this. It should have been keep on the DL for the betterment of out national security. Back in the day the Media was peopled by men who thought of themselves as citzens first and reporters second. If it was in the best interest of the US to keep something secret... they general would. This changed in the US after Watergate.

The limey media can still keep a secret... the recent item with Prince William fighting in Afganistan was know my UK media... but kept quiet until it was broadcast by some web media outlet. (Slate?)

Freedom of the Press can be a messy thing in a free country, especially one that advocates state sponsored torture. We were better off not ever knowing about it, but somehow, our free press got a hold of it. And since it was a story that involved actual atrocities committed by us, the liberal media thought it was their duty to present it. Should the media have shown restraint in presenting this information to the public? In some ways, yes. The timing came during the middle of the deadliest battles in Iraq! Not really the morale booster you want during the war, but should have been reported? Eventually, I say yes.

As for Prince Williams location in Afghanistan, I totally agree that the press should have shut their mouths on that deal. Prince William would be a good trophy target for kidnapping or assassination (kidnapping would be the most valuable). Total irresponsible reporting over that whole issue.

jimboston wrote:One issue I have with YOU making this comment. It contradicts other stuff you say. You seem to indicate in other posts that the Gov't has too many secrets. (Can you say 9/11 was an Inside Job?) So why would you advocate them keeping this secret.

Last point here... if they could've kept it secret they would've.

I know some people here believe the Gov't can keep secrets...
*JFK assasinated by the CIA/Mod/Cuba
*Man has never landed on the moon... it's a farce.
*Area 51... aliens from another star system live amoung us and the Gov't knows. (Shit... the aliens are the reason we get cancer.)
*Aids is a neo-con created virus.. intended to wipe out lefty-gays and also to depopulate Africa.

I personally believe none of this... but the conspriracy theorists who do now also wonder why the gov't can keep this stuff secret, but not torture of a few muslims.

As I replied above to the first part of your rhetoric, I do believe the media should report on this issue, I just don't agree with the timing. And as far as 9/11 Inside Job being kept a secret, they haven't done that good of a job...but I would rather stay off that subject, unless someone starts a new thread on it, of which I hardly ever even respond to anymore.

As for the rest of your conspiracy topics you have brought up, I do not feel the need to answer to them in this thread.

I just feel that for some reason the government actually wanted these torture pictures and stories to get out. Why? I don't know, but it does seem quite strange that for a super secretive military, and all the while we are at war, somehow pictures and stories of torture get leaked? It just doesn't seem right. But now the cat's out of the bag and we have to deal with it. So we might as well deal with it in the most human way we can, and that is not to keep promoting the inhumane torture of prisoners.

jimboston wrote:
DaGip wrote: Torture is not a reliable method of info gathering, and our leaders should not be in support of it if we want to be part of a Global community.
Two thoughts here Gip... not mutually exclusive.

The second one is up for debate. The first is false. May not always be reliable... may not always be called for... but it can and has been reliable and useful in some instances.

Jim

I agree with you, sir. I should have reworded, as at times torture may prove to be effective, but most of the time it is just being cruel and humiliating your enemy prisoners.

Please read just one of many articles on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan11.html

Torture is like gambling, sometimes you hit BlackJack and you get all excited, but keep playing and you will end up bust!

Bush Vetos Waterboarding

Should the United States Torture?

Bush Vetos Waterboarding