Waterboarding Rocks!

[scissorhands]

Don't *act* so high and mighty, SM.

Yes, the signers of the Declaration of Independence put lives and sacred honor on the line, but they put THEIR LIVES on the line, not just the lives of thousands and thousands of other innocents. The signatories of the C.A.T. have risked nothing other than the lives of a whole world full of innocent people, who those we are now fighting seem hell bent on torturing and far worse.

And let's not forget that Washington and our founding fathers were fighting a war against a STATE opponent, where the way we treated their soldiers might indeed be expected to impact the way the British acted towards our people. And eventually it did impact that. In contrast, al-Qaeda is not a STATE and there has been nothing to suggest that al-Qaeda's treatment of others is in any way or will be in any way impacted by our use of waterboarding and the like to gather information about their illegal and immoral activities from their illegal combatants.

Furthermore, I suspect that many of the things that have now been ruled torture by you on the left would simply not have been considered torture back in Revolutionary Times. When they spoke of torture, they meant the real thing. After all, most of our founding fathers even believed in capital punishment for murder, sabotage and spying, which you on the left generally don't believe in nowadays. Right? So don't go acting like the Founding Fathers would necessarily agree with you about this.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Committee on Spies which the American Congress created in 1776? Many of its members were Founding Fathers. It enacted the first espionage act:

RESOLVED, That all persons not members of, nor owing allegiance to, any of the United States of America, as described in a resolution to the Congress of the 29th of June last, who shall be found lurking as spies in or about the fortification or encampments of the armies of the United States, or of any of them, shall suffer death, according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a court martial, or such other punishment as such court martial may direct.



And who did this law apply to? Someone who posed as an ordinary citizen to do harm to our country? Like al-Qaeda's terrorists? Should we therefore follow the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and simply execute all al-Qaeda that we capture? At least that would spare us the torture of this debate.

Exactly and if it was considered acceptable to the Founding Fathers to simply execute them, then why not gain some valuable information beforehand?

 

[tsig]

Even if it means thousands of people die as a result of not doing it? How can that be "right"? Like I said, you folks seem to think it is worse to inflict temporary pain and discomfort on 3 VERY BAD PEOPLE than to knowing stand by and let thousands of people die that you could have saved by doing so.

I notice we're now up to three people and now they are "VERY BAD".

Is there going to be an upper limit to the escalation?

You know "I'll do 10 for 100 but 50 is to many".

 

[Lonewulf]

Or I may just decide it'd be too much like pounding my head against a brick wall.

Projecting much?

 

[Drysdale]

Shooting SS vermin whom you catch in the act of a dispicable crime is not morally equivalent to inflicting lasting pain on someone just because you were told he might have committed a crime.

And don't tell me that torture does not cause PTSD.

So now we're torturing people that are just suspected of a crime?

When did this happen?

 

[Drysdale]

The guys they waterboarded were not just a couple cab drivers that got lost.

They were guys that would just as soon cut your head off as to look at you and you justify the others because they were SS vermin?

 

[Prometheus]

So now we're torturing people that are just suspected of a crime?

When did this happen?

Ever hear the phrase, "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't be bothered to go through the last couple of pages and nominate every single one of Nova Land's posts, but I would like to.

 

[Praktik]

seconded

 

[A'isha]

Thirded.

 

[varwoche]

Fourthed. He should be waterboarded if he doesn't post more in politics.

 

[Praktik]

Fourthed. He should be waterboarded if he doesn't post more in politics.

I've come to understand, thanks to BAC, that my moral compass is "broken".

As such, I have no compunction about waterboarding an innocent in order to produce more writings I enjoy reading.

 

[BeAChooser]

I notice we're now up to three people and now they are "VERY BAD".

Is there going to be an upper limit to the escalation?

ROTFLOL! Imagine that folks!

We've "escalated" to 3 people.

Three people after over 8 years of fighting a war with 100,000s of our soldiers committed across the globe against an utterly brutal opponent that has ruthlessly murdered many tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has tortured countless others. Three.

Yes, a shocking total of 3 people, even though our opponent has committed unspeakable acts on those of our soldiers unfortunate enough to have been captured by them and has murdered thousands of our soldiers through actions that can only be described as terrorist acts.

A stunning 3, even though our soldiers have captured and detained thousands and thousands of people that were suspected of being involved in terror acts and planning terror acts.

A gut wrenching 3, even though the President in power all that time has been repeatedly compared to Hitler by members of the left and even the leadership of it's "moderate" democrat party.

A heart wrenching 3, during a time that the left has likened US troop behavior to the Nazi SS and Gestapo.



To be perfectly blunt, I think Bush and our soldiers have shown a remarkable restraint under those conditions. A restraint that I'm not sure liberals for all their talk even have. I guess now that Obama is in power, time will tell as they have to react to a continuing WMD threat.

And I know you don't understand this, tsig, but every one of those three we waterboarded really are VERY BAD. But then, seeing what's been expressed in this thread, why would anyone expect members of the left to appreciate that statement? Because it seems to most of you, there is no VERY because you believe in moral equivalency where all BAD is the exactly the same.

 

[BeAChooser]

Fourthed. He should be waterboarded if he doesn't post more in politics.

So, varwoche, where do you stand with regards to my question?

If you had in your custody a person who had previously killed thousands of Americans in a plot of horrendous proportions, who was high up in an organization that very likely had other plots under way that might kill thousands more Americans ... plots that might be nearing completion because the person was boasting that "soon" you would see the results of them, and this person had resisted all conventional interrogation attempts for months to get him to reveal the nature of those plots and who was involved in them, would you waterboard him? Would you subject him to a little temporary pain and discomfort in the hopes of saving an unknown but possibly quite large number of people? Or would you just let those plots come to fruition, knowing full well they could very likely kill many more Americans and do untold amounts of damage?

 

[Upchurch]

Says the guy that would allow millions to die from starvation and illness rather than take money from those who could afford it.

/BAC

 

[Dr Adequate]

Says the guy that would allow millions to die from starvation and illness rather than take money from those who could afford it.

I'm beginning to think that his moral compass is broken. And his intellectual gyros and his sanity altimeter.

 

[Praktik]

I'm beginning to think that his moral compass is broken. And his intellectual gyros and his sanity altimeter.

BAC, this is a working moral compass. Please have yours serviced at the earliest opportunity.

 

[The Fool]

So, varwoche, where do you stand with regards to my question?

If you had in your custody a person who had previously killed thousands of Americans in a plot of horrendous proportions, who was high up in an organization that very likely had other plots under way that might kill thousands more Americans ... plots that might be nearing completion because the person was boasting that "soon" you would see the results of them, and this person had resisted all conventional interrogation attempts for months to get him to reveal the nature of those plots and who was involved in them, would you waterboard him? Would you subject him to a little temporary pain and discomfort in the hopes of saving an unknown but possibly quite large number of people? Or would you just let those plots come to fruition, knowing full well they could very likely kill many more Americans and do untold amounts of damage?

It surprises me that after Nova land completely and methodically dismantled your position that you are going to dust it off and run it past Varwoche? Do you expect the result to be any different?

At the minimum you can say that although you are wrong at least you are persistant.

"NovaLand, I'll respond to your posts when I get the time.
Or I may just decide it'd be too much like pounding my head against a brick wall.
I'll let you know after I read your posts."

No, you won't respond to his posts....You have been owned....you will hope the posts drop off the page and wait for an opportunity to rerun the failed argument... Hang on, you've already done it.....

Take it away Varwoche..

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So now we're torturing people that are just suspected of a crime?

When did this happen?

Well. . the Bill of Rights excludes the authority of our government to arrest or hold people in custody for no reason. The Geneva Convention covers prisoners of war. The definition of torture specifies that it only applies to what an agent of the government does to someone in his custody.

So how else do you come to have someone in your control or custody?

 

[BeAChooser]

Says the guy that would allow millions to die from starvation and illness rather than take money from those who could afford it.

Since you insist on derailing this thread (which is an indication that you know you were losing the debate ), let me point out that absolutely nothing is stopping rich democrats from donating whatever money is needed to feed the world's 900 million (or so) hungry mouths. I think rich democrats can certainly afford to do it. Let's see if that's true?

First, how much will that cost? Well, here's an aid organization (http://www.feedthehungryaustralia.org/ ) that says it costs just $6 to send 100 meals anywhere in the world. So if a hungry mouth needs to eat 3 meals a day every day, $6 buys about a month of food, shipped anywhere in the world. So it would cost about $70 to feed a hungry mouth for a full year. Therefore, democrats need donate only $63 billion a year to feed all the world's hungry. And that's tax deductible!

Wouldn't that be wonderful ... to finally see rich democrats put their money where their mouth is and feed the world's poor out of their vast resources? They sure would embarrass the republicans if they did that.

Next, let's see how much wealthy democrats make in the United States? Obama declared anyone earning more than $250,000 a year is rich so we'll use that figure. And what is the total yearly income of everyone in the US making more than $250,000 a year? Well according to Wikipedia, in 2006, there were about 116,000,000 households in the United States and 1.93% of them had annual incomes exceeding $250,000. Assuming it's about the same today, that means that the "rich" in America make about $560 billion dollars a year.

So, how much of that half a trillion goes to democrat households? I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than half. Afterall, here's a study (http://www.freestateproject.org/node/15788 ) which found that if you take the "wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts", Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions. Let's just assume it's half, which would mean rich democrats earn over $250 billion dollars a year. Seems to me, that's plenty of money to run their households, school their children, pay the mortgage, save for retirement, donate to the democrat party, go on a vacation or two, pay their taxes (well those that aren't tax cheats like the half dozen in Obama's administration) AND still donate $50 billion a year (a measly 20% of the total) to make sure no one in the world goes to bed hungry. And if that's not enough I'm sure they'd be generous and tap into their accumulated wealth (which is in the trillions) to make up any small difference. Right, Upchurch?

The fact that they aren't doing this suggests to me, given all the concern expressed by Upchurch and his friends here, that they are being hypocritical about this issue. Because again, NOTHING is stopping them from ending starvation. Just their own greed.

By the way, even greedy (that's what democrats say he is) fat cat (that's what democrats say he is) Republican George Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income during his Presidency. Surely the democrat rich can match and even exceed that ... for such a good cause. Right, Upchurch?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm beginning to think that his moral compass is broken. And his intellectual gyros and his sanity altimeter.

BAC, this is a working moral compass. Please have yours serviced at the earliest opportunity.

So you two ... have you donated your 20% this year to end world hunger? Or are you like the rest of the democrat party. All talk, no action?