Waterboarding

[Bill of Rights]

(a nit to pick, Dahmer wasn't executed, a fellow prisoner beat him to death)

Good point. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[KDUBCR250]

I voted no because we are suppost to be the " good guys " and we all know the good guys never do that kind of **** !

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, no. Not any Muslim. I speak specifically toward the militant Muslim, or RIFs. . The average Muslim that is arrested ought to be given their fair day before their own court system. They are not POWs, they are not war criminals, and they have their own justice system. And if they are American civilians, they should be tried in America, by American standards.
And I don't even agree with that we should waterboard/torture every single RIF that we capture. Most of them should be treated at least semi-hospitably, and be given fair living conditions. Many studies have shown that (and Hussein was one of the examples) in order to obtain information from people, it is far more advisable to be friendly and compassionate to them. Once they realize you're not a bad guy, or that you're not just going to kill them, but that they will be treated fairly... they tend to be far more willing to confide and share information with you. However, that takes time, and if the information is time-sensitive then you can't do that. Waterboarding, and similar methods of interrogation are effective, if done properly. I do not think it should be a small matter, but it should be taken under serious consideration. If the information is absolutely necessary within a very limited time-frame, and you had that method at your disposal, and you knew the one interrogated was withholding that information--or even a major portion of it--would you not consider it?

Furthermore, I was talking to a friend about this tonight, and he brought up another point. If the timing was so dire... say, for example, you were part of a squad of Marines that had just been ambushed. You were able to beat back the ambush, but you hear a wounded RIF stating that his friends would get you soon. You already had information that there would be another patrol of them in the area, but you didn't know when or where. All you had on you were your rifle, your bayonet, maybe a knife, and your ammo. Would you, in order to protect your life and the life of your men, be willing to apply physically painful and possibly permanently disabling torture to this man in order to find out what he knows?
And, as a side-note I just thought of, would you end up killing him afterwards... or would you attempt to keep him alive and turn him in to a proper POW camp afterwards?
And that's not just to Bill, I think it's a fair question to ask in general. Granted it's a bit extreme, and most here couldn't say for sure whether or not they could go through with it... but would you condone it, if you knew it could be done?

Anyway, sorry for that confusion.

Again, as I said, I'm glad the decision does not rest on my shoulders. What would I do? I don't know. From where I sit right now, probably put the SOB on point and let him be the first to die.

With a ham ration strapped to his ass. <evil grin>

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

What rights did the guy getting his head cut off have? Who protected him? What rights do you think you would have with these animals? This Khalid should be taken out and shot with no trial like they would do to you if it is known without a doubt he is guilty. When individuals have information that can save the lives of many innocent people I have no problem doing whatever is necessaryto get them to talk.

The bleeding hearts would do whatever it took if it was their family, their children who would die if this animal does not tell what he knows. If you feel so sorry for the bad guy put your carry gun in a drawer at home so you don't become judge and jury and executioner if some insane person holds you up; you can't have it both ways. This type of nutty thinking is why this country is so screwed up.

I think you missed my point, Dick. I was asking what he meant; whether he referred to ALL Muslims, to all RIFs, or to the specific person who "did the crime".

If he meant ALL Muslims, I would have disagreed-that would be the same as saying that if any gun owner committed a crime with a gun, that we should all pay for it.
If he'd said ALL RIFs, I would have disagreed-that would be like saying that if a LTCH holder had his permit revoked for cause, we all should.
If alternatively, he said that because we know that KSM committed a crime of violence, we should punish KSM appropriately, then with that I can agree wholeheartedly.

I have no sympathy for those who declare war on our country or our citizens, but I don't lump all people of similar skin color, religious belief, or even upbringing together.

And by the way... if you really think you're correct in calling me a "bleeding heart"... kindly note what I said in the paragraph after the one you quoted: "...If I'm a family member of the person KSM is depicted beheading, I want to put a couple of hollow-points in the MFer's belly and watch him die a slow death." That does not say that I don't want to see the same thing done even if I'm not a family member-in that case, he's done it to one of my countrymen, and that's enough for me to think it an appropriate punishment, and though I wouldn't necessarily want to do it myself, I wouldn't balk at doing so.

I don't recall whose signature it is, but someone on here has an appropriate sentence: "I am a peaceful man, but I am not a pacifist."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Again, as I said, I'm glad the decision does not rest on my shoulders. What would I do? I don't know. From where I sit right now, probably put the SOB on point and let him be the first to die.

I entirely agree. While I'd like to seem like the Jack Bauer bad ass out there, who really knows? I can say I condone doing this or that, but it's also got to be offset by what I can do as a person. Y'know? There's a reason a lot of people get very disgusted/squeamish about doing something like that (besides the sight of blood). And I feel that's just humanity's inherent nature to know when something is against the natural order. Torture, to any degree, is not how we operate as a specie, but one of the beauties--and curses--of our specie is that we can act out of the instinctual norm in order to accomplish something. Such as... jumping out of a plane to land behind enemy lines. That's just pure insanity, but someone's gonna do it to win the day. Or... torturing someone for information, to save lives hopefully. I very much think that, with a lot of these cases the ends justify the means.

I voted no because we are suppost to be the " good guys " and we all know the good guys never do that kind of **** !

Yes... yes... yes. And the good guys always get the girl, and are able to pull death-defying stunts to end up saving the day.
I think that's a flawed logic. We just so happen to be the bigger, more advanced 'liberators' in this case. Don't confuse that with being the 'good guys'. We're not in a movie, and we're not playing parts in something that will end up with some sort of moral or ending. It's war. We'd like to think we're the 'good guys', but there are plenty of people who think they're the 'good guys'.

What we do have to be, however, is fair and just. We are brining an alien concept of democracy and freedom of the individual to a realm where that is relatively unheard of. We're bringing a mindset that, no matter your religion, your race, or your sex, you are as human and as equal as anyone else. Many of them are unwilling to embrace that, and many are willing to fight the change. But... if they are willing to be civil, if they are willing to do things on an even ground, they will be treated with the proper respect and proper civility that they deserve.
Take a look at Israel, for example, when they dealt with Arafat... a man who was at least willing to recognize that the Israelis had some claim to Palestine, they talked on the table and were hopeful towards a solution. Now that they're dealing with Hamas, a man who doesn't even believe Israel exists, and all he does is send in (or allow) suicide bombers and terrorists, he is dealt with harshly.
And that's the case here. In Iraq, we're pretty civil with the Iraqis, and we're working towards a solution. Whether or not it will work and sustain is a different argument, but so long as we are there and negotiating, it's fair. In Afghanistan, it's different. It's guerrilla warfare and Jihadists all over the place. They are willing to torture and kill Americans who are captured just because they can, even though the man may know little or nothing about what they want or need to know. Do they really deserve our passion or pity? No.

 

[ruger17hmr]

Eye for eye policy paved the way for the WWI, WWII, and numerous genocides, which resulted in 100's of millions of deaths just during the past 100 years. Isn't it about time we need to explore other alternative policies? Hopefully one that is not spear headed by the violence.

This 'us' vs 'them' mentality will lead us to the path of destruction

 

[dburkhead]

Eye for eye policy paved the way for the WWI, WWII, and numerous genocides, which resulted in 100's of millions of deaths just during the past 100 years. Isn't it about time we need to explore other alternative policies? Hopefully one that is not spear headed by the violence.

This 'us' vs 'them' mentality will lead us to the path of destruction

If you actually studied any history (as opposed to the PC cr@p taught in schools these days), you'd know that "other ways" have been "explored." None of them got very far since the first time they ran up against somebody who didn't agree with their pacifistic views they tended to become extinct. Funny how that worked out. The only real exceptions were subcultures within a larger culture where the larger culture's ethics were such that they protected (i.e. did the fighting on behalf of) the subculture.

The "there has to be a better way" arguments fall into the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion, specifically "argument from consequences"--to assume that the argument must be right or wrong based on whether one likes/dislikes the consequences of the argument. However much we might wish for a "better way" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such a way exists.

 

[ruger17hmr]

Do you not see that the world is getting worse everyday?

You said, "However much we might wish for a "better way" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such a way exists.".

So, do we simply carry on the policy that is not working?
The change must begin somewhere! There has to be the way to bring about peace
to this world without the blood shed.

In my opnion, appealing to emotion is by far the better solution than using tanks and missiles to coerce the submission.

BTW, when I say 'we', it is refering to the humanity in general.

 

[dburkhead]

Do you not see that the world is getting worse everyday?

You said, "However much we might wish for a "better way" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such a way exists.".

So, do we simply carry on the policy that is not working?
The change must begin somewhere! There has to be the way to bring about peace
to this world without the blood shed.

In my opnion, appealing to emotion is by far the better solution than using tanks and missiles to coerce the submission.

BTW, when I say 'we', it is refering to the humanity in general.

Since it's been the case since the dawn of time, it's not a matter of "better" or "worse." Anymore than falling down is evidence that gravity is "getting worse every day."

There is no "has to be" about it. It would be nice if there was a way, but there is no evidence that such a way actually exists.

BTW, you might want to check out the actual history of things. Despite your breathless repeating of numbers, things have improved. In times past, it was normal for captives taken in wars/raids to be sacrificed to whatever gods the victors believed in. At a later date, it was decided that putting them to work. Yes, slavery was horribly bad by modern standards but was clearly a step up from ritually killing them, usually by the most painful means possible (for some reasons, the "gods" always delighted in pain and suffering as much as bloodshed).

Nowadays, in the civilized world, captives are simply restrained, with rules intended to ensure a minimum of civilized treatment of the captives, and repatriated when the situation in the conflict permits doing so. Complications arise, of course, when a nation that is a part of these agreements is in conflict with another that is not. One of which is: how do you encourage the non-compliant group to follow the "laws of war"? The World Court? Don't make me laugh. There is nothing that the World Court can do to offenders that is worse than people face every day in combat. The threat that someone might take offense and haul them off to court somewhere down the road weighs very lightly on the choices someone has to makd right now in a combat situation.

However, the Geneva Conventions recognize that and make allowances for it in the Doctrine of Reprisals. I've discussed it elsewhere (in this very thread, I think) so I won't repeat it here. It works a lot better than any threats of international trials. (As one example do you really think any soft feelings kept the Nazis from using chemical weapons in WWII? Nope. The threat of reprisal--that the allies had the capability and likely the stones to respond in kind to such an attack was the reason neither the Wehrmacht nor the SS used chemical weapons in combat. Now, chemical weapons against people who could not retaliate in kind--or at all for that matter--that was a whole different story. ).

Also consider, that a new, extremely powerful weapon was developed, used exactly twice immediately after development then, never again used in anger. Is there any precedent for anything like that in history? Even once. (No.)

There were several years at the end of WWII where the US had huge armies in both Europe and Asia, where the US had a nuclear monopoly. Where the US had absolute unquestioned mastery of the air, and thus the ability to deliver nuclear weapons when and where they chose. What nation in history, put in such a dominant position, resisted the temptation to go forth "conquering and to conquer"? None, that's what.

If you really want a "better way" it's not the US, or even the Western powers in general that you have to convince. For the West, there are really only two options: stop the barbarians in the only language they know, or let them in the gates and cheer their "restraint" while Rome is sacked. Until you can convince the barbarians (currently, the RIFS) to stop storming the gates, those are the only two options available however much you might wish otherwise.

Wishing just doesn't make it so.

 

[smitty12b]

I voted no because we are suppost to be the " good guys " and we all know the good guys never do that kind of **** !

We are the good guy's but sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.

 

[ruger17hmr]

The US dominance in the military has not been able to eradicate all the violences in the world. It is just matter of time before other nations will catch up to US militarily. Russia and China is already not too far behind.
EU as a group is already up to par with the US in military strength. There are other nations that are equipped with the nuclear weapons, and some of the rogue nations are inspired to acquire the technology.

You are right when you say that so far the threat of retaliation has stopped other nations from initiating the nuclear attack, however, I must tell you the time is ripe for the nuclear conflicts as the world is engulfed in the numerous regional conflicts, not to mention the current diabolical world wide economic meltdown.

You are under an impression that the Arabs are the culprits for the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have different theory for the current military conflicts. The main culprit is the greed!
The conflict is about the resources, mainly that of oil. Israel and Arabs are nothing but tools used in the grand scheme of things, acquiring strategic advantage in the Middle East - US backing Israel with Saudis in its pocket and Russians and French siding with Iran. The importance of oil in the world economy will make certain that there will never be peace in the Middle East region unless the world changes, unless the humanity changes.

 

[truckie166]

im sure that our enemy is doing worse things to our boys than just waterboarding

 

[CarmelHP]

So, do we simply carry on the policy that is not working?
The change must begin somewhere! There has to be the way to bring about peace
to this world without the blood shed.

Throw away your guns, melt them down. Shouldn't peace begin with you?

 

[dburkhead]

The US dominance in the military has not been able to eradicate all the violances in the world. It is just matter of time before other nations will catch up with US militarily. Russia and China is already not too far behind.

First off, I was speaking of the few years after WWII. That was quite clearly written in the article.

As for "eradicating all violence in the world" that's not up to us. As the old saying goes, "it takes two to have a peace, but only one to start a war." If the other side decides on war, you've got the choice of either giving them one, or letting them have an uncontested massacre.

EU as a group is already up to par with the US in military strength.

Snicker.

There are other nations that are equipped with the nuclear weapons, and some of the rogue nations are inspired to acquire the technology.

Which is kind of the point of some of the activity going on.

You are right when you say that so far the threat of retaliation has stopped other nations from initiating the nuclear attack, however, I must tell you the time is ripe for the nuclear conflicts as the world is engulfed in the numerous regional conflicts, not to mention the current diabolical world wide economic meltdown.

And once again the point sails serenely past you.

You are under an impression that the Arabs are the culprits for the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have different theory for the current military conflicts. The main culprit is the greed!
The conflict is about the resources, mainly that of oil. Israel and Arabs are nothing but tools used in the grand scheme of things, acquiring strategic advantage in the Middle East - US backing Israel with Saudis in its pocket and Russians and French siding with Iran. The importance of oil in the world economy will make certain that there will never be peace in the Middle East region unless the world changes, unless the humanity changes.

The above "theory" goes by another name: it's called "believing the enemy propaganda.

Radical Islam (and, for most of its history there really wasn't any other kind) has been at conflict with the rest of the war since Mohammed had his first Hashish dreams (that's my theory on where the Koran actually came from). The very first thing Islam did, once they gathered up some numbers, was start invading their neighbors. The very first foreign war of a young United States was against the Barbary Pirates--an Islamic group that flat out stated that their religion (Islam) gave them the right to plunder other nations. Yes, Christianity once made similar claims. The difference is: the RIFs still claim that "right." The "Islamic lands" that need, per their view, to be returned to Muslim only rule include Spain and the Pyrenees up to the Tours/Poitiers area (where Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, finally stopped their advance and turned them back).

They have never accepted the kind of "live and let live" philosophy that's rather common in the West. Oil? That's nonsense. By that logic we would be invading Canada and Mexico. We are quite happy to buy the oil from folk who have it. Oh, wait, however, a number of the Middle East States once sold the rights to develop the oil (since they didn't have the capacity to do so themsevles). Then, once the folk they sold the rights to did the work and spent the money to put the wells in, develop the infrastructure to get it to ports, develop the ports that the tankers could come in and take the oil to markets where people could pay for it, the people who sold it then turn around and steal it from the people they sold it to (yes, "steal." People use words like "nationalize" or "reclaim" but the simple truth is: once you sell something, it isn't yours any more).

While oil was an issue in the Iraq war, it's not that we want the oil. Pretty much everywhere else in the world, we're willing to buy it so why should Iraq be any different. It's what Saddam Hussein was doing with the revenue from oil sales that was alarming: things like funding terrorists. (Yes, I know that the claim is made that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda--the documented meetings between high level folk in Al Qaeda and high level folk in the Iraqi government were purely social calls, I'm sure--but even if we were to grant that "fact" Al Qaeda wasn't and isn't the only terrorist group, even RIF terrorist group, out there. The financial support provided by Iraq to various terrorist groups, such as those in Palestine, is also well documented.)

Sorry, but your "theory" runs aground and breaks its keel on the rock of facts.

 

[ruger17hmr]

My firearms are used for target practice as sports.
Would I use my firearm for survival? Probably!
Would I use it for revenge? Probably not!
I do try to be a peaceful person everyday.
It is not an easy task, but I do try.
All I am saying is that the world will be much better place if we all try to be peaceful.

 

[dburkhead]

My firearms are used for target practice as sports.
Would I use my firearm for survival? Probably!
Would I use it for revenge? Probably not!
I do try to be a peaceful person everyday.
It is not an easy task, but I do try.
All I am saying is that the world will be much better place if we all try to be peaceful.

Well, the people who are not of good will would certainly find it a "much better place" if their victims voluntarily chose not to fight back.

Once you convince the barbarians to stop assaulting the gates, I'll stop manning the walls--and not before.

 

[Prometheus]

Once you convince the barbarians to stop assaulting the gates I'll stop manning the keyboards--and not before.

Fixed it for you

Seriously man. Stop living in fear.

 

[dburkhead]

Fixed it for you

Your attempt to be "clever" noted.

Seriously man. Stop living in fear.

Put your guns down. Leave them home. Get rid of them even. Seriously, man. Stop living in fear.

Oh, wait a minute. Recognizing that there are real threats in the world and preparing to deal with them isn't actually "living in fear."

 

[CarmelHP]

Would I use my firearm for survival? Probably!

Then you've already negated your own argument. We're talking about survival.

 

[SavageEagle]

"We are sorry for the interuption in your regularly scheduled thread...."

Guys, I must say this is very long an interesting thread. One that has not really changed my outlook on waterboarding since I pretty much agree that waterboarding is no more torture than being in prison or a war itself.

As I am bias I can't really say both sides have made good arguements, but they have. To "live in fear" is something all sane people do because we FEAR for our lives. Nobody wants to die, or watch a loved one die. You can't say you would rather watch a loved one die in the place of the person trying very hard to kill them, all in the name of freedom. Otherwise none of us would be here on this board arguing FOR the second amendment.

I will admit, I was kinda on the fence about this whole issue when it first started, but I always believed in doing what needed to be done to insure America did not fall victim to acts of terrorism. Now I feel more strongly about it. Not strongly about using these kinds of techniques on anyone and everyone, but when time is of the essence and when it's used on they enemy who would kill you if he/she had the means.

And one last thing. Those who say they live without fear are one or more of three types of people. Liars, Insane, or Naive. Liars because we all fear SOMETHING. That something we live with everyday whether we realize it or not. Insane because if you fear nothing, you care about nothing. Naive because you are lying to yourself because most people really do care about something and someone. You fear the lose of that something and/or someone......

....You lock your doors at night, you carry a pistol, you have alarms, you are always aware of your surroundings, you have possessions you treasure, you have people you love, you are a patriot. I have yet to find anyone of this forum that doesn't fall into AT LEAST two of these categories.....

My point is that to keep America and Americans safe, we must do what is necessary to do so short of comprimising on our rights. Felons give up their rights when they commit their crime. People hell bent on murdering every one of us give up their rights as well. So why do you want to give them those rights when they are neither guaranteed to them, nor do they deserve them?