Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I dont really think the results matter. The real issue is whether waterboarding is torture. We know that torture is effective, we just ban it because of our own moral beliefs. So if you believe waterboarding is torture, the ends dont justify the means. If you dont think its torture, than all this may show is that it is more effective than regular interrogation. Either way the question is, do you think waterboarding is torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 06:11 PM) I dont really think the results matter. The real issue is whether waterboarding is torture. We know that torture is effective, we just ban it because of our own moral beliefs. So if you believe waterboarding is torture, the ends dont justify the means. No, that's not the issue. Waterboarding is torture. When it's used by other regimes we dont' agree with we easily call it torture. And we don't know whether it's effective. That's why we don't allow it in our courts. Because it put thousands of innocent people to die because they false confessed. None of your post is true, none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) Oh I didnt know you had a dictionary that listed all of the forms of torture and that waterboarding was explicitly listed, care to cite your source, perhaps the Geneva Convention? Dont allow it in our courts, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking Military Courts? Are you talking Criminal Courts? What law are you exactly applying here? I get that certain people adamantly are against waterboarding, in a historical context waterboarding is not what "torture" meant when any torture law was written. Over time we have expanded torture to include mental cruelty, but that is a complete gray area. Im glad that you think the world is all black and white though, because Im not sure a single part of your post was anything more than your opinion. Unless of course you can find me a legal definition that explicitly states waterboarding is torture. As for being used by other regimes, Id apply the exact same argument. I dont make up different rules for the US or for other countries. And we do know torture is effective, if you threaten to rip some ones fingers off they are more likely to talk than if you let them run in a field and have 5 star meals. Being in jail is a form of torture, its just not "cruel and unusual". So I disagree with your opinion, although unlike you, Ill let you be entitled to it, instead of saying your statements are "false" when there is no right or wrong answer. Edited May 4, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) No, that's not the issue. Waterboarding is torture. When it's used by other regimes we dont' agree with we easily call it torture. And we don't know whether it's effective. That's why we don't allow it in our courts. Because it put thousands of innocent people to die because they false confessed. None of your post is true, none. I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as you make it seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) I dont really think the results matter. The real issue is whether waterboarding is torture. We know that torture is effective, we just ban it because of our own moral beliefs. So if you believe waterboarding is torture, the ends dont justify the means. If you dont think its torture, than all this may show is that it is more effective than regular interrogation. Either way the question is, do you think waterboarding is torture. We know it's effective at doing what torture does...extracting false information or false confessions. That is always what torture has been best at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 11:39 AM) I'd argue he infers the second, otherwise he would have just said "no." Edit: Sorry, I meant the first statements bmags makes. The second is supported since he affirms that they were waterboarded (among other things). I think he infers the first though, otherwise he could have just said no, waterboarding didn't give us anything useful. Since I'm being the grammar police today, I'll also clarify this He can't infer something by saying it. He can only imply. The person hearing it is the one who would infer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Balta, Any confession may include false information (regular interrogation techniques included). Torture will get people to talk. The reason we dont do torture has nothing to do with its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. It is entirely about whether we believe in torture at all. Even if you could find a study that said if you cut a guys balls off he will 100% of the time tell the truth, Id be against it. Because its not about the ends justifying the means, its about the means themselves. Im not sure why people who are against torture would be arguing against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) Oh I didnt know you had a dictionary that listed all of the forms of torture and that waterboarding was explicitly listed, care to cite your source, perhaps the Geneva Convention? Dont allow it in our courts, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking Military Courts? Are you talking Criminal Courts? What law are you exactly applying here? I get that certain people adamantly are against waterboarding, in a historical context waterboarding is not what "torture" meant when any torture law was written. Over time we have expanded torture to include mental cruelty, but that is a complete gray area. Im glad that you think the world is all black and white though, because Im not sure a single part of your post was anything more than your opinion. Unless of course you can find me a legal definition that explicitly states waterboarding is torture. As for being used by other regimes, Id apply the exact same argument. I dont make up different rules for the US or for other countries. And we do know torture is effective, if you threaten to rip some ones fingers off they are more likely to talk than if you let them run in a field and have 5 star meals. Being in jail is a form of torture, its just not "cruel and unusual". So I disagree with your opinion, although unlike you, Ill let you be entitled to it, instead of saying your statements are "false" when there is no right or wrong answer. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with John Woo. US Civilian courts do not allow evidence obtained thru torture. Have you any evidence torture is effective? no. Have you any evidence Waterboarding is not considered torture? No, except for a few bogus legal documents from john woo. So you are plainly wrong, as you are on most every topic you speak on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) I dont really think the results matter. The real issue is whether waterboarding is torture. We know that torture is effective, we just ban it because of our own moral beliefs. So if you believe waterboarding is torture, the ends dont justify the means. If you dont think its torture, than all this may show is that it is more effective than regular interrogation. Either way the question is, do you think waterboarding is torture. I've always enjoyed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) Balta, Any confession may include false information (regular interrogation techniques included). Torture will get people to talk. The reason we dont do torture has nothing to do with its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. It is entirely about whether we believe in torture at all. Even if you could find a study that said if you cut a guys balls off he will 100% of the time tell the truth, Id be against it. Because its not about the ends justifying the means, its about the means themselves. Im not sure why people who are against torture would be arguing against this. We've got great examples from even the last 10 years. We KNEW that Al Qaeda was working with Iraq, but no one was telling us that they were, so we waterboarded enough people and sent enough people to Egypt until they told us what we knew. The State of Illinois Knew that those people on death row were guilty. So they turned off the cameras in the interrogation room and let that one cop wind up put like 30+ people onto death row. Torture works because the person tells you everything. Anything and everything. They make stuff up to get you to stop. Torture only works when the torturer knows the answer already...the torturer will always get that answer before the end. We waterboarded KSM 180 times in a month and we didn't get the actual name of this courier or even his code name, but we got a lot of phony terror alerts and learned that Saddam was running Al Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with John Woo. US Civilian courts do not allow evidence obtained thru torture. Have you any evidence torture is effective? no. Have you any evidence Waterboarding is not considered torture? No, except for a few bogus legal documents from john woo. So you are plainly wrong, as you are on most every topic you speak on. Unlike you, I said it was my opinion, so I dont need to cite any sources or back up my statements, because what I believe is entirely what i believe. You on the other hand seem to believe that you have the answer, but you dont have to prove why your answer is nothing more than opinion. All I know is, if you think Im wrong on a subject, I probably am right. Balta, I dont even know what you are referring to. Torture works because the person tells you everything. Anything and everything. They make stuff up to get you to stop. Torture only works when the torturer knows the answer already...the torturer will always get that answer before the end. So you agree with me that torture is effective at eliciting information (true and untrue) Where have I ever said that torture was effective at getting truthful statements? All I have said is torture makes people talk, but that it doesnt matter, because torture shouldnt be allowed because its torture, not because of its effectiveness. If you argue its effectiveness and someone can prove a certain form of torture is 100% effective, you then have people argue that form of torture is okay. Conversely if you take my position, if its torture its not okay regardless of the outcome, than you dont have to worry about that situation. Because as soon as its determined to be torture, its no longer okay. Edited May 4, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 President Obama: We will not release Bin Laden pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) President Obama: We will not release Bin Laden pictures. I can't say it's the wrong decision, but I will say I'm surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Good move in not releasing the pictures. The doubters will claim the pictures are photo-shopped. The extremists will use it as a rallying point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Since I'm being the grammar police today, I'll also clarify this He can't infer something by saying it. He can only imply. The person hearing it is the one who would infer. Ha, good catch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ May 4, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Good move in not releasing the pictures. The doubters will claim the pictures are photo-shopped. The extremists will use it as a rallying point. The thing I'm reminding myself of is the cell phone video of Saddam being killed, with people taunting him and chanting "Muqtada". I expected the photos would get released, but in light of how it went down that time, I can't complain all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:28 PM) I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with John Woo. US Civilian courts do not allow evidence obtained thru torture. Have you any evidence torture is effective? no. Have you any evidence Waterboarding is not considered torture? No, except for a few bogus legal documents from john woo. So you are plainly wrong, as you are on most every topic you speak on. You remind me a lot of this guy with your ridiculous way of discussing issues with people: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) Good move in not releasing the pictures. The doubters will claim the pictures are photo-shopped. The extremists will use it as a rallying point. My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) Ha, good catch To be clear, I agree with what you were saying. Waterboarding must have had some part in the gathering of the information that led to Osama bin Laden, since he had multiple opportunities to flat-out deny that it did and he passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 And I'm pretty sure that those pictures will eventually leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 WTF is waterboarding? sounds not so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (greg775 @ May 4, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) WTF is waterboarding? sounds not so good. If you don't know the answer to that already, then you're not in the right place here in a politics-based forum. That'd be like me being a white sox fan and asking "Who's Greg Walker"? (Edit: yes, I do think I just compared Greg Walker to torture). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) conspiracy alert!! What if Bin Laden isn't dead? What if they captured him instead to gain more intel? Eh? Eh? Edit: I write this because of the flip in "we'll show you the pics, we won't show you the pics" from the WH Edited May 4, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 4, 2011 -> 11:18 AM) This thread is slowing down precipitously and that makes me sad. Kind of how all threads wind up here. Nothing new at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) Kind of how all discussions of things end up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts