Waterboarding

[SirRealism]

I'm not trying to derail, but a quick thought of consequence: while reading these well-spoken thoughts on both sides, I was struck by the contrast between this discussion over waterboarding... and my memories of seeing people in other parts of the world handing out candy to kids in "celebration" of 9/11. Just the fact that this discussion is happening... here... in an open forum... amongst "gun nuts". Absolutely amazing.

I was told recently by a liberal acquaintance that he has a hard time finding any reason to be proud of the US. He's *%&ing blind.

 

[techres]

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

I personal read this as you can't inflict torture on americans, not that no american can torture.

Just my but since I don't see them as even falling under our Con. I for cutting off fingers and what not. This documents only applies to OUR gov and ITS people and people on ITS soil. So anything else is far game.

You miss my point. I am arguing that the veil between enemy and American has already been pierced with the creation of the class "enemy combatant". I.E. you can be stripped of your Americanness by being called an enemy. The precedent already exists even if the SCOTUS managed to "right it" after 3+ years of illegal solitary confinement.

You then give waterboarding powers to be used on the enemy and the first pressure we have to get "results" and you will again see "enemy combatants" who happen to be Americans. They might be found on enemy soil like Taliban John, or may on American soil as was the case in Chicago.

Remember the rage against the Militias after the Oklahoma City Bombing? Get something bigger and suddenly they just might go after people who look alot more like you and me...

You cannot unleash something this big and just hope it gets used against the bad guys because you trust your gov't. That is unless you think the next president, and the one after him, and the one after her, etc. are all gonna be the kind of people you can trust.

I am not willing to make that bet. And neither would have the founders.

 

[techres]

This is not done on American soil and is not done to Americans.

Yet.

 

[NateIU10]

You cannot unleash something this big and just hope it gets used against the bad guys because you trust your gov't. That is unless you think the next president, and the one after him, and the one after her, etc. are all gonna be the kind of people you can trust.

Perfectly stated. I'd rep ya, but need to spread some around first

 

[schwaky18]

You miss my point. I am arguing that the veil between enemy and American has already been pierced with the creation of the class "enemy combatant". I.E. you can be stripped of your Americanness by being called an enemy. The precedent already exists even if the SCOTUS managed to "right it" after 3+ years of illegal solitary confinement.

You then give waterboarding powers to be used on the enemy and the first pressure we have to get "results" and you will again see "enemy combatants" who happen to be Americans. They might be found on enemy soil like Taliban John, or may on American soil as was the case in Chicago.

Remember the rage against the Militias after the Oklahoma City Bombing? Get something bigger and suddenly they just might go after people who look alot more like you and me...

You cannot unleash something this big and just hope it gets used against the bad guys because you trust your gov't. That is unless you think the next president, and the one after him, and the one after her, etc. are all gonna be the kind of people you can trust.

I am not willing to make that bet. And neither would have the founders.

I agree with you there, the foundation of my argument is these people are not governed by our law. Assuming arguendo, bin laden would be caught in Indiana I would hold firm to the idea that he CANNOT be torture or waterboarded or anything that violates the Con. This is because he now falls under our rule of law. If they do any of this crap in this country or to our people it is wrong because we are governed by the Con.

I agree with you though because of this we have entered a slippery slope that may allow for it to be done here at home. But assuming the Gov. doesn't overstep its boundaries I have no problem with them doing it. But since our gov. always overstep its boundaries I guess I have to agree with you.

 

[schwaky18]

I'm not trying to derail, but a quick thought of consequence: while reading these well-spoken thoughts on both sides, I was struck by the contrast between this discussion over waterboarding... and my memories of seeing people in other parts of the world handing out candy to kids in "celebration" of 9/11. Just the fact that this discussion is happening... here... in an open forum... amongst "gun nuts". Absolutely amazing.

I was told recently by a liberal acquaintance that he has a hard time finding any reason to be proud of the US. He's *%&ing blind.

+1 on that. Although I think we prefer the term "patriots"

 

[SirRealism]

Since the poll is worded Should waterboarding be legal?, I voted "no". But in the scenario dburkhead presented, I'm guessing I'd give the CIA permission if I had the authority... for the greater good.

I've never been in the military, but I'm sure there are probably many circumstances where I might break the law during war out of personal conviction or for the greater good.

 

[NateIU10]

+1 on that. Although I think we prefer the term "patriots"

I don't know, "gun nut's" got that ring to it that just brings a smile to my face

 

[schwaky18]

I don't know, "gun nut's" got that ring to it that just brings a smile to my face

LOL me too as long as its coming from someone on this forum. But someone from Kalifornia or IL. or over 60% of congress I prefer the term patriot.

 

[schwaky18]

Oh and don't forget the new Prez

 

[SirRealism]

I don't know, "gun nut's" got that ring to it that just brings a smile to my face

I used "gun nuts" to point out that people have a predefined notion of who we are based on the fact we own guns.

That having been said... I LOVE the term. It's what I is.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Terrorist are not entitled to any Constitutional Rights.
I don't see waterboarding as torture.
I don't see sleep deprivation as torture.
I don't see underwear on your head as torture.
If you don't want that treatment, stay the hell off of the battlefield.
You start defining torture as anything that might upset or hurt the FEELINGS of an enemy, you might as well just shoot yourself and get it over with.
Any leader of men (regardless of what level) is responsible for the welfare of those men. If there are means to help save lives and end threats, then at what point do we limit the ability of those means?
We know this enemy uses fear and terror as tactics. We have to know the enemy before we can defeat them. They know force and not much else.
I'm pretty sure if my squad was attacked and we captured an enemy, I would be inclined to use whatever means for the info that could save lives.

 

[schwaky18]

So for you that say Terrorist are entitled to Con Rights and therefore we should not torture them, wouldn't shooting/bombing them be a violation of DP? Therefore, we should not take guns to battle. Also, if we capture any one they should stand trial and be able to post bail? Also, lets ship some lawyers out there so the have counsel. Don't forget judges too. And Juries, jury of their peers. How would you like to get jury duty in Iraq

You can't give them some rights and not give them all the rights. So lets throw out the rules of war because they don't matter in this context.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Terrorist are not entitled to any Constitutional Rights.
[snip]

I'm pretty sure if my squad was attacked and we captured an enemy, I would be inclined to use whatever means for the info that could save lives.

The military is bound by the Geneva Convention. There can be honor in war.

 

[Turtle]

This country was founded by tough people making tough choices and thats one of those tough choices.

 

[techres]

We know this enemy uses fear and terror as tactics. We have to know the enemy before we can defeat them. They know force and not much else.
I'm pretty sure if my squad was attacked and we captured an enemy, I would be inclined to use whatever means for the info that could save lives.

And if your squad was attacked and some minutes later captured someone you "though" was "likely" terrorist?

I would have two questions:

1. Would she be given any protections as an enemy soldier?
2. Would your soldiers be given free reign to do anything to extract any useful info? Rape? Killing her family members in front of her? Taking off her body parts?

And would you or your soldiers be accountable for these acts, because if not, you just agreed to be a Nigerian UN Peacekeepter in Africa or a Saudi Cop and act as they do. You also just agreed to break the UCMJ and put yourself in the face of a court marshal. All because you think they may have useful info. Forget ever convincing me that we need to save another nation from a despot if this is our way of doing business.


And that is the rub.

 

[schwaky18]

The military is bound by the Geneva Convention. There can be honor in war.

Sorry but war is war there should be no Geneva Convention or rules. Honor in war is winning. No one gives a rat's a$$ about the loser that was honorable.

Just my opinion and people will probably scrutinize me for this. But I think its stupid to have rules to war. If I try to take over the world and break all these rules and I succeed in taking over the world who is going to enforce these rules on me. Further, will we look honorably on our country because they didn't break the rules or be pissed that we lost.

 

[BloodEclipse]

The military is bound by the Geneva Convention. There can be honor in war.

So are the terrorists playing by this set of rules?
Show me where the military is bound to the Geneva Convention for the treatment of armed combatants who wear no uniform and is not the fighting force for any Country.

 

[techres]

This country was founded by tough people making tough choices and thats one of those tough choices.

And yet for some reason we seem to think our times are so hard in comparason. I mean, really, we do. We are in a long term struggle, but not a fight that could have us each hanging from a tree next to the street tomorrow morning. We act as if we are with our fear jacked up so high that we think the founding principles of this country are quaint and irrelevant due to the "dangers we face".

We sit in our comfortable homes, warm in front of a screen, typing away at the horrors and dangers we face at the hands of people so vile and crafty that our only solution is to take them apart piece by piece, etc.

People, we are not there yet. REALLY.

But we in our self generated fears, conveniently fueled by the very hollywood we despise (yet use as viceral proof that Jack Bauer could make waterboarding give up the location of the bomb), and we are ready to give away our own freedoms and self respect.

Back down to earth.

Here's another question:

Which do you really find more likely -
1. That we will have a situation where a nuclear bomb will be in a city and we will have the mastermind in our hands, and waterboarding will save us all.

or

2. That our government will find a way to backfire yet another poorly thought out, feel good, piece of legislation and in the end we will all get bitten by yet again trusting a bumbling government bureaucracy led by an person bent on making his vision of the future come to pass.

I am more inclined to expect #2 over #1 personally!

 

[techres]

So are the terrorists playing by this set of rules?
Show me where the military is bound to the Geneva Convention for the treatment of armed combatants who wear no uniform and is not the fighting force for any Country.

The UCMJ clearly defines mistreatment of prisoners. If the CIA and other bodies of the government came into line with the UCMJ, we would not be having this conversation.