Torture/Waterboarding: Discussion/Debate Thread - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-05-2008, 10:00 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LemonMelon


I just found the way people were debating this very strange.


oh, i agree. i don't give a shit what the bible has to say about most things, and one of the many reasons why is because of the crazy justifications for abhorrent behavior people draw from this book. does a loving God drown the world? you'll notice that someone brought up the "flood" as a justification for killing, and it wasn't an atheist liberal. so i think your eyeroll was a bit misplaced.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 12:37 AM   #227
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Can you actually tell me who these atheist liberals on FYM are?

I've been around here for a while and among regular participants I don't even know if I could come up with more than 5. And the most outspoken atheist here is no liberal to begin with.
Whatever do you mean, I am anti-conservative and therefore a librul.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 02:45 AM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:53 AM
A_W, you're such a classic liberal.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 03:09 AM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
I still haven't seen a legitimate response to the point that you don't know if you're interrogating a terrorist and to the point that it doesn't work.
Maybe I don't understand what the specific argument is all about but what about Khalid Sheikh Muhammed?

He's an admitted terrorist, he's the master planner (or was) of our greatest threat in the U.S..

If I'm torturing KSM, I know I'm interrogating or torturing a terrorist.

Same with Ramzi Yusef or some others.

Once you pull out a gun, shoot someone, and then proclaim "I did it and I'll do it again" the whole principle of 'presumption of innocence' goes out the window.

I agree that it usually doesn't work and (like the death penalty) I oppose it in 99% of the cases. I'm just saying, this idea that you can't tell who a terrorist is, is flimsy. If you're talking about the prisoners at Gitmo, then yes you're right on the money. If we're talking about known, admitted, habitual terrorists, this just gives people like diamond fodder for their "liberals hate America" cannon. Also, I watched the 60 minutes episode where the CIA agent admitted it had worked in at least one case he worked on. So we can't fully say that it never works.

I appreciate the argument that someone should oppose torture in 100% of the cases, on principle. I'm saying I disagree. In real world scenarios, I can see a <1% chance we might need it.

it is something I've wrestled with myself.
Not a faith based quandry but a question of principle.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 05:46 AM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:53 AM
I really don't see why it's such a crime for people of faith to consider their faith in taking a stand on issues like this. That in no way compels people who aren't religion to approach it from that angle.

This issue can be--and has been, on this thread--argued from multiple perspectives. What's so hard about that?

As if, bringing up religion automatically "lowers the discourse" Please.

Obviously I wouldn't waste my time arguing with A_Wanderer, for example, about what the Bible says. But with INDY or 2861 you better believe I will.

Obviously, legislation needs to be made without reference to particular religious beliefs but in challenging and INDIVIDUAL'S stance on an issue, it is TOTALLY legitamte to invoke religion if the person in question is religious.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 05:58 AM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:53 PM
^I agree with you there.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 06:42 AM   #232
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Maybe I don't understand what the specific argument is all about but what about Khalid Sheikh Muhammed?

He's an admitted terrorist, he's the master planner (or was) of our greatest threat in the U.S..

If I'm torturing KSM, I know I'm interrogating or torturing a terrorist.

Same with Ramzi Yusef or some others.

Once you pull out a gun, shoot someone, and then proclaim "I did it and I'll do it again" the whole principle of 'presumption of innocence' goes out the window.

I agree that it usually doesn't work and (like the death penalty) I oppose it in 99% of the cases. I'm just saying, this idea that you can't tell who a terrorist is, is flimsy. If you're talking about the prisoners at Gitmo, then yes you're right on the money. If we're talking about known, admitted, habitual terrorists, this just gives people like diamond fodder for their "liberals hate America" cannon. Also, I watched the 60 minutes episode where the CIA agent admitted it had worked in at least one case he worked on. So we can't fully say that it never works.

I appreciate the argument that someone should oppose torture in 100% of the cases, on principle. I'm saying I disagree. In real world scenarios, I can see a <1% chance we might need it.

it is something I've wrestled with myself.
Not a faith based quandry but a question of principle.
The problem is that we have no system in place to judge "how certain" we are that a person is a terrorist. It's sort of like the death penalty arguments. People are trying to rate how certain they are that someone's guilty. It can't work like that. Inevitably, they will be wrong.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 08:39 AM   #233
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan

If I'm torturing KSM, I know I'm interrogating or torturing a terrorist.

Which puts you, and those you work for (US citizens), squarely on the same level as the terrorist.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-06-2008, 09:30 AM   #234
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


You posted so very much supporting and excusing the use of torture, then said you weren't condoning it.

It's either yes or no. You either think it's appropriate conduct or you don't. No excuses, no hypotheticals, no "everybody else does it," no nothing.
I'm gonna take another crack at this and address Sean as well.

Let's agree for a moment on what torture is, that it's repugnant, that it coarsens the heart and that it sends society down a slippery slope of accepting more and more of what was previously unacceptable. Agreed?

One, but what if we can't agree on a definition of torture?
And two, if we seek to restrict or even outright ban the practice, should we allow for exceptions?
Those are fair questions aren't they?

Now realize that a great many people feel the exact same way about abortion.

But by the same token, what if we can't agree on a definition of life?
And again, if we seek to restrict or even outright ban the practice, should we allow for exceptions?
Equally fair questions?

Bottom line.
We don't have a consensus on what is, and isn't torture, and
I don't feel I "condone," "support," or "excuse" torture -- simply because I can see the need for highly-restricted exceptions -- anymore than I condone, support or excuse abortion because, there as well, I acknowledge that exceptions must be allowed for in any restriction.

I don't know if that helps or not?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:03 AM   #235
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

Obviously I wouldn't waste my time arguing with A_Wanderer, for example, about what the Bible says. But with INDY or 2861 you better believe I will.

Obviously, legislation needs to be made without reference to particular religious beliefs but in challenging and INDIVIDUAL'S stance on an issue, it is TOTALLY legitamte to invoke religion if the person in question is religious.
Exactly. I don't think anyone was arguing against torture using faith in a legislative way. But just questioning the consistancy of someone who uses faith in almost every other thread.

There are those that bring up their faith in every other thread. They want their faith to be legislated when it comes to marriage, when it comes to teaching science, they want it in the courthouses, some even bring it up when it comes to global warming, BUT then all of a sudden their moral compass shuts off and faith can't be used when talking about torture?

It's very telling. To me it's a screwy compass and poor alignment of priorities.

Two women loving each other makes Jesus cry(even though he never mentioned such thing).

Torture, Jesus is cool with(even though he did speak out against).

How does this hypocrisy make sense?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:14 AM   #236
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


As if, bringing up religion automatically "lowers the discourse" Please.

Sorry Sean, but in this case it absolutely does. Roll your eyes all you want.

There is one person here, Irvine, arguing actual facts and statistics - that torture does not and has not worked. In fact, it is the crux of John McCain's argument (but I guess conservatives now hate him?) as well. THIS is what the discourse should be about. Because at the end of the day, whatever Jesus may or may not think - and frankly like I said, predicting what Jesus would do is the sort of arrogance we could all stand to do without - nothing changes the fact that torture is just inefficient and brings about bad information.

But instead we're going to debate back and forth Biblical passages with people who are set in their ways anyway and will not change. And nobody except the one guy is actually bothering to point out why it is precisely that torture doesn't work. You bet that to me, this is a lowering of the discourse. It is exactly the same thing as when we were debating cloning here and half the people were quoting scripture without even knowing what the hell cloning is and the fact that it's been done for decades and the fact that it's singlehandedly responsible for essentially all medical research being done.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 09:14 PM   #237
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Sorry Sean, but in this case it absolutely does. Roll your eyes all you want.

There is one person here, Irvine, arguing actual facts and statistics - that torture does not and has not worked. In fact, it is the crux of John McCain's argument (but I guess conservatives now hate him?) as well. THIS is what the discourse should be about. Because at the end of the day, whatever Jesus may or may not think - and frankly like I said, predicting what Jesus would do is the sort of arrogance we could all stand to do without - nothing changes the fact that torture is just inefficient and brings about bad information.

But instead we're going to debate back and forth Biblical passages with people who are set in their ways anyway and will not change. And nobody except the one guy is actually bothering to point out why it is precisely that torture doesn't work. You bet that to me, this is a lowering of the discourse. It is exactly the same thing as when we were debating cloning here and half the people were quoting scripture without even knowing what the hell cloning is and the fact that it's been done for decades and the fact that it's singlehandedly responsible for essentially all medical research being done.
Not everyone who believes in the Bible is set in their ways and unwilling to change. Not by a long shot. I maintain it is NOT unreasonable--especially among Protestants for whom Biblical authoritity is a big deal--to discuss Biblical or faith perspectives with other people who share the same outlook.

I would concede that people who aren't that interested in the Bible using the Bible to try force people to admitt their hypocrisy is probably a fruitless endeavor.

I recognize the strength of Irvine's arguments--they are excellent on a secular level, but I'd also point out to people of faith that there is no serious counterargument from a position of faith either. So in that case, maybe we agree. Religion shouldn't enter into it, because religion doesn't have a pro-torture argument (well, actually it does, but nobody dared to actually put that forward--well, besides me. And it wasn't put forward because it reveals the ugliness of the God a lot of people believe in).
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-07-2008, 08:24 AM   #238
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Associated Press / February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON - The White House yesterday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal - not torture as critics argue - and has saved American lives.

President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met, a spokesman said.

A day earlier, the Bush administration acknowledged publicly for the first time that the tactic was used by US government questioners on three terror suspects. Testifying before Congress, CIA Director Michael Hayden said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003.

Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.

Hayden banned the technique in 2006 for CIA interrogations, the Pentagon has banned its employees from using it, and FBI Director Robert Mueller said his investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation after Hayden's disclosure.

Bush personally authorized Hayden's testimony, White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said.

"There's been a lot written out there - newspaper, magazine articles, some of it misinformation," Fratto said. "And so the consensus was that on this one particular technique that these officials would have the opportunity to address them - in not just a public setting, but in a setting in front of members of Congress, and to be very clear about how those techniques were used and what the benefits were of them."

Fratto said CIA interrogators could use waterboarding again, but would need the president's approval to do so. That approval would "depend on the circumstances," with one important factor being "belief that an attack might be imminent," Fratto said. Appropriate members of Congress would be notified in such a case, he said.

"The president will listen to the considered judgment of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgment of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique," he said. "The president will listen to his advisers and make a determination."

Fratto said waterboarding's use in the past was also approved by the attorney general, meaning it was legal and not torture.

Officials fear calling waterboarding torture or illegal could expose government employees to criminal or civil charges or even international war crimes charges.

"Every enhanced technique that has been used by the Central Intelligence Agency for this program was brought to the Department of Justice and they made a determination that its use under specific circumstances and with safeguards was lawful," Fratto said.

Critics say waterboarding has been outlawed under the UN's Convention Against Torture, which prohibits treatment resulting in long-term physical or mental damage.

They also say it should be recognized as banned under the US 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits treatment of terror suspects that is described as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading."

The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding by name.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 02:24 PM   #239
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Associated Press / February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON - The White House yesterday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal - not torture as critics argue - and has saved American lives.

i rest my case.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 02:26 PM   #240
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


i rest my case.

dbs
Impressive. This White House apparently also thought it was ok to deceptively lead our country into a war based on lies and, in effect, sent thousands of young soldiers to their deaths. I don't think too many people are putting a lot of stock into what comes out of the mouths of those in the White House these days.
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com