Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
Member is Online
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 23, 2010 16:55:21 GMT -5
This is all well and good, we can all say we are against torture. Hurrah!!! I am also against Syracuse, Satan, and killing babies for food. My issue is that I do not believe that waterboarding, as the US conducted this practice, constitutes torture. Some people believe it is, other people believe it is not, but I have yet to see a really convincing argument about this particular practice from anyone. And no, talking about how people abused the use of water in the past is not a convincing argument. The US did not do anything like those practices. I won't say there is not a danger of someone crossing a line, sure there is, but we don't have any evidence that it happened. And I am pretty confident in saying that no one in the world conducts interrogations -- yes, even under the Bush administration -- with as many rules, restrictions and safeguards for the prisoner's well being than the US does. So, yes, I am against torture of anyone by anyone. But I also happen to be OK using a harsh technique like waterboarding when the situation requires it. And finally, no, I am not worried that if we waterboard terrorists, then terrorists will abuse our soldiers. Because terrorists don't care. They don't beat up our guys. Are you kidding? No, they cut off their heads or set them on fire and hang them from a bridge. And they'll do that whether we waterboard KSM or not (since they did, in fact, do this, and they did it before anyone in the world knew about waterboarding, I feel pretty safe in making this statement). Boz, as part of Navy SEAL training they also force water intake by having the SEAL candidates stay underwater until they "break" and inhale water just so they know their own mental limits. After they inhale water, two divers who are there pull them out and resuscitate them. For much of Hell Week the SEAL candidates spend the majority of their time in 40 to 50 degree water suffering from various stages of hypothermia and pneumonia. They also are dropped into the Pacific by helicopter several miles from shore in t-shirts, pants and boots and remain their until one of them quits the SEALS. In my brother in laws class, no one quit, but a guy went into hypothermic shock and so they fired the flare when he passed out. He was in a coma for several days. They also attend SERE school where they endure several forms of torture, not just waterboarding so as to best prepare them if they were to be captured by say the North Koreans or the Iranians. I don't think just because the Navy SEALS deal with something in their training means it is inbounds. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 23, 2010 16:56:53 GMT -5
Question: Bando earlier posted "...torture is always morally wrong and never permitted". Does this morally wrong issue apply to Pakistanis? Or Afghans? Or, just to Americans? It is ALWAYS morally wrong. Period. Applies to everyone. The reason I asked the question was Ambassador seemed to suggest, though he didn't specifically state it, that if Pakistan happened to use torture, so be it. "I respect generally that Pakistan is sovereign, and the Taliban is more of a threat to them than it is to us. They can make their own decision as to torture just as this country, through its government, has made the decision to reject torture. I certainly prefer that Pakistan decide likewise, but I am not about to slam the clearly beneficial outcome here because of it just as I hope you wouldn't slam the results were they not due to torture." |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 23, 2010 17:04:11 GMT -5
My point was largely pragmatic. We are unlikely to be able to force a moral vision on the Pakistani government, try as we might (and should), just as many of our allies rightly called on the prior administration to reject torture (and largely failed until Bush's second term).
I see the torture issue differently from the admirable folks that argue torture is always wrong. They are largely right IMO, but the question becomes a so what. I am not about to slam the intel we may have received due to it (open question) just as I hope others do not slam the info we have received from lawful interrogation and protections (although we are left to wonder about that judging from the reaction to Zazi).
The chief reason why I reject torture is that there is simply nothing out there right now to suggest it gives us something that proper methods do not. For example, the difference between asking Abdulmutallab some quick, initial questions as occurred and preparing a pitcher of water may be a mushroom cloud if you accept Orwellian Cheney-think. We do not know one way or the other. Certainly after 150 KSM waterboardings, the persistence of the method may have prevented us from more quickly obtaining information through lawful means. In the absence of some additional information here, I think the presumption should be in favor of following the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 25, 2010 14:02:29 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 25, 2010 14:38:04 GMT -5
Our political differences aside, this is always good news. Well, assuming the 13 others killed were other combatants and not collateral damage, that is, it's always good news. Obviously, would be even better if we could've captured and gotten intel out of him (by whatever means you think is appropriate), but as C.J. Craig says, "Some of these guys, you're going to have to walk up to them and shoot them." Walking up to them, in this case, meaning "death from above." |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 25, 2010 14:45:37 GMT -5
Agree, Boz. I think it is also fair to say that we need not wait to determine whether we can capture these guys alive if we have them in our crosshairs merely because of potential intelligence value.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 25, 2010 19:44:23 GMT -5
Guess it's okay to kill them, just don't waterboard them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 25, 2010 20:00:21 GMT -5
Guess it's okay to kill them, just don't waterboard them. For someone who asks others to not speak for him, my observation is that you sure attempt to do it a lot. I do, however, appreciate your professorial lecture. Nothing wrong with a spirited debate. To my knowledge, we haven't tortured anyone on the battlefield, so it really isn't even part of the debate as I understand it. So, the torture supporters present yet another false choice by this line of thinking - as if torture is an option in an open battle/shoot out kind of situation. I suspect our guys are trained to take the Taliban out rather than to knock on the door with a pitcher of water in hand. I remain convinced that our best weapon in a war is provided by our military rather than our lakes and streams and have no qualms with our use of it to take out Taliban targets. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Feb 26, 2010 17:17:55 GMT -5
Guess it's okay to kill them, just don't waterboard them. Yes, these are indeed the laws of war as codified in convention. Engaging combatants on the battlefield with lethal force is a legitimate part of war. Torturing captives who, by virtue of their captured status, are no longer active combatants is not legitimate. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 26, 2010 22:22:51 GMT -5
I'd rather be killed than tortured and rather kill than torture. Just sayin'. Heat of battle (and actual battle, for that matter) is a lot different than capture/interrogation/torture.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 26, 2010 22:26:33 GMT -5
I'd rather be killed than tortured and rather kill than torture. Just sayin'. Heat of battle (and actual battle, for that matter) is a lot different than capture/interrogation/torture. I don't know about that. I'm sure of the fact that I'd rather be tortured than killed. One is temporary. One is permanent. And, not having killed or tortured anyone, I can't say which I'd prefer. I'm pretty sure both are not things one would want to have to do. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 27, 2010 0:58:59 GMT -5
I think the main difference in principle is that the soldier killed on the battlefield has the chance to defend himself, and poses a direct threat to your own safety, either immediately or in the future. The prisoner in shackles has no chance to defend himself, and cannot threaten you.
The other issue is that the only way to get the soldier in the field to do what you want (stop fighting) is to kill him (assuming you can't convince him to surrender). As General Petraeus says, there are methods other than torture that are just as if not more effective in getting the prisoner to do what you want (talk).
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 27, 2010 9:35:26 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 7, 2010 13:36:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Mar 7, 2010 13:50:58 GMT -5
cut this effer's nuts off.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 7, 2010 14:14:03 GMT -5
Meh, I'm not sure he'll be very useful in terms of intel. He's just a spokesman.
That said, I'm glad he's captured, and I hope we can extradite him and bring him to justice. As the article notes, he's already been charged with treason, among other crimes, and that couldn't be more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 7, 2010 18:11:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Mar 7, 2010 20:01:27 GMT -5
While the story now seems to be incorrect, it would have been interesting to see what protections he would get because he was arguably no longer a U.S. citizen.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 7, 2010 22:20:30 GMT -5
While the story now seems to be incorrect, it would have been interesting to see what protections he would get because he was arguably no longer a U.S. citizen. I think he'd probably get normal constitutional protections because we'd want to try him in a US court for treason. |
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Mar 8, 2010 11:13:02 GMT -5
While the story now seems to be incorrect, it would have been interesting to see what protections he would get because he was arguably no longer a U.S. citizen. I think he'd probably get normal constitutional protections because we'd want to try him in a US court for treason. You could still probably try him for treason in a military commission and not give him U.S. constitutional protections on the theory that he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the treason, but is no longer one. Just speculating |
|
