Waterboarding Rocks!

[boloboffin]

No doubt you believe sex offenders can be "rehabilitated" as well. Why does society have to suffer for your social engineering experiments?

Third base!

 

[A'isha]

No doubt you believe sex offenders can be "rehabilitated" as well. Why does society have to suffer for your social engineering experiments?

 

[Cicero]

So why don't you, if you disagree with the recollections and assessments of these particular interrogators?

There recollections are their recollections. But they do not speak for the OSS agents who didn't pull out a chess board when interrogating their captives. It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with them.

 

[tsig]

Bah. They weren't real patriots. Only real patriots waterboard.

If you're not man enough to give up your manhood by torturing then you can't serve.

Sorry gramps your ways were ok for the nazis but now we got real evil.

 

[Upchurch]

You can ask OSS agents who used the waterboarding technique on captured Nazis in the field and possibly get a different assessment.

The number one hit on Google for "OSS waterboard" is this thread.

(I blame myself for giving your claims enough credibility to look into them myself.)

I call BS on the OSS claim. Put up or shut up.

 

[BeAChooser]

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry

No you don't. Casuistry refers to case-based reasoning. A casuist would argue that, depending upon the details of the case, lying might or might not be illegal or unethical. You are responding emotionally and stating categorically that in all cases, regardless of the details, you would not inflict even temporary pain or discomfort. Which is why you would let a hundred thousand people die when you might have been able to save them.

And for the record, I think Lincoln would not be on your side in this issue. He was willing to wage an exceedingly bloody war just to keep the union together. Human life was not a preeminent concern. Nor were the constitutional rights of citizens. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. He had troops arrest over a thousand northern citizens just because they were critical of his administration. Some of those citizens were newspaper editors. And I could go and on.

Furthermore, Lincoln’s military became quite good at torturing civilians who had been arrested without a warrant. And most ironically, his army even developed a method of water torture. According to http://50thstar.blogspot.com/2005/09/lincoln-bush-torture-and-special.html Mark E. Neely's 1991 work "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" has a section titled "Torture," where Neely described a practice in Union prisons:

Handcuffs and hanging by wrists were rare, but in the summer of 1863 [after General Orders 100 was promulgated], the army had developed a water torture that came to be used routinely...

That source goes on to note:

As Neely relates when this practice was discovered:

No one exploded in indignation or horror. No one issued a special order demanding that such practices cease. No one requested investigation or study. No one asked whether other prisoners than the one Lyons [British foreign minister] inquired aboutreceivedd such treatment. No one, except Lord Lyons, asked what law governed such cases. No one expressed any personal outrage or personal feeling at all, including Lincoln's secretary of state. [Pg. 109-112]

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Drysdale]

Because it won't go away just because you ignore it:

Cicero, you have something to learn from these old guys, as well. If you don't feel ashamed, there is something wrong with you.

This is apples and oranges. The Germans were following the orders of a dictator whom many did'nt like nor have faith in but to speak up was suicide.
Most had families and homes and wanted the war to end as much as we did.

The Radical Islamists are doing it out of their maniacal belief in their religious views and consider it an honor to die in the killing of infidels.

How can you compare it?

 

[BeAChooser]

Cicero, you have something to learn from these old guys, as well. If you don't feel ashamed, there is something wrong with you.

You are the one who should be ashamed, Upchurch. You are willing to let a hundred thousand innocent people die in a bomb blast, just because you are too squeamish and self righteous to find out where that bomb is by inflicting some non-lethal, temporary pain and discomfort on someone who probably knows where the bomb is (which would also make him an exceedingly evil, guilty terrorist). You are an icon of moral equivalence.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do Cicero and BeAChooser support changing the criminal justice system to admit evidence gleaned from torture?

If through waterboarding, a person reveals the location of a nuclear bomb that is about to go off and kill a hundred thousand people, wouldn't you say there's a strong possibility that person was involved in the plot? The criminal justice system is not meant to be a suicide pact.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Seems to me you are claiming that the allegations against KSM and the al-Qaeda operatives that were waterboarded have no more basis than the allegations made against people at the Salem witch trials?

Do you think any such information is admissable as evidence in any legitimate court? I presume you don't. Why do think the courts reject this information? It is because it is utterly unreliable.

I see you aren't denying my assertion. Such is the insanity of the left.

 

[jj]

I see you aren't denying my assertion. Such is the insanity of the left.

It is telling that you use an obviously malicious and dishonest argument to the excluded middle in order to vilify the people who do not buy into your USA as new Christian Militant State attitude.

Does Jesus want people to lie in his name?

 

[Upchurch]

You are the one who should be ashamed, Upchurch. You are willing to let a hundred thousand innocent people die in a bomb blast, just because you are too squeamish and self righteous to find out where that bomb is by inflicting some non-lethal, temporary pain and discomfort on someone who probably knows where the bomb is (which would also make him an exceedingly evil, guilty terrorist).

You know, if any of that were remotely true, you'd have a point.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, Soviet tanks breaking through the NATO lines and causing Germany to collapse and fall under Russian dominion wouldn't result in any US military or civilian casualties whatsoever (to say nothing of the militaries and civilians of our European allies). So there was no need to worry about the tremendous, unprecedented threat of death and destruction that suddenly appeared in the wake of 9/11.

Folks, see the mental contortions that someone who believes in moral equivalence will go to defend that view?

You are aware that we kept huge numbers of soldiers based in Europe to fight off a conventional attack, right? That MAD was not seen as any sort of deterrence against the Soviets sending their divisions streaming through the Fulda Gap?

ROTFLOL! You are wrong. Everyone back then knew that if the Soviets invaded Europe, our conventional forces were not going to stop them ... that tactical (and sometimes those are pretty big) nuclear weapons would be used. Even the left knew this ... which is perhaps why they fought so hard against deployment of those weapons to Europe.

And are you aware that Soviet doctrine at the time did not distinguish between tactical and strategic use of nuclear weapons? That when we used tactical nuclear weapons to stop a Soviet advance, they would respond with strategic weapons. And it is fear of our response to THAT progression, i.e., MAD, that kept the Soviets from even attempting such an invasion, even as the Soviet Union collapsed.

Also, are you aware of the concept of a trip wire? That's what the forces in Europe mostly were. They were there to buy time, in hopes of negotiating a ceasefire before all hell broke loose. They also provided the justification for forcing our involvement ... giving the Soviets a reason to believe we'd use those tactical weapons to defend our troops.

The same principle applies in Korea. Our conventional forces probably could not stop a Korean attack. Our forces there are a trip wire to show that we are serious about stopping any aggression, ... to give a reason for responding with the full might of our arsenal should the North Koreans be so foolish as to invade South Korea.

Above you said that the US was prepared to "absorb" a nuclear attack.

That's correct.

Do you really, really think that such an "absorption" wouldn't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives?

Now why would you think I'd think that?

What makes your hypothetical millions of terrorist casualties so much worse than my hypothetical millions of Soviet casualties

I see that you didn't even try to understand what I said.

Quote:
That is not acceptable. And after the attack, we might not know with any certainty how to effectively retaliate ... who to retaliate against ... how to prevent the next attack? Except by doing what we are now doing; ie., trying to wage an information war against terrorism and find out about plots before they mature. That was the lesson of 9/11. I hope the current Administration hasn't forgotten that lesson but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

You have zero sense of geopolitical perspective if you truly think the current terrorist threat is so much greater than the old Soviet threat that we have to adopt torture just to survive.

Why didn't you actually respond to the point I made? What are going to do after you let those hundred thousand people die because you're too squeamish and self righteous to inflict a little temporary pain and discomfort on someone who probably knows information that could stop it? Send out "I feel your pain" letters to all the surviving relatives? Send out thousand of grief counselors? Tell your lawyers to prosecute whoever was responsible? And how are they going to find out who that is? How are they going to capture those persons? You going to throw a few missile cruise missiles at some camp somewhere like Clinton in the years before 9/11? And that will make up for those hundred thousand dead Americans?

 

[A'isha]

No you don't. Casuistry refers to case-based reasoning. A casuist would argue that, depending upon the details of the case, lying might or might not be illegal or unethical. You are responding emotionally and stating categorically that in all cases, regardless of the details, you would not inflict even temporary pain or discomfort. Which is why you would let a hundred thousand people die when you might have been able to save them.

Hitchens said that, not me. Take it up with him. Or at least try and read for context next time.

And you know that every time you use that increasingly-asinine "You'd let a hundred thousand people die!!11!" accusation, God makes a kitten take a logic class.

Ironic, isn't it?

Ah, you have the morality of the mid-nineteenth century. Congratulations.

 

[leftysergeant]

This is apples and oranges. The Germans were following the orders of a dictator whom many did'nt like nor have faith in but to speak up was suicide.
Most had families and homes and wanted the war to end as much as we did.

BS. Most of the torture was done by Gestapo and SS.

The Radical Islamists are doing it out of their maniacal belief in their religious views and consider it an honor to die in the killing of infidels.

How can you compare it?

They made good SS men at one time.

 

[leftysergeant]

Pratik also sees no moral difference between the objectives of the US and those of the Japanese in that war. His moral compass is completely broken.

There is no difference, as far as regards the motivations of those who ordered the invasion of Iraq and the torture of prisoners. "Win at any cost."

Sorry, the destruction of America as we know it is not an acceptable cost.

 

[BeAChooser]

Irrelevant.

Other than proving that your claim that "Both 'political intercourse' and 'two or more militaries' imply struggle between governments, not governments versus loosely confederated extremist religious zealots" was nothing but hot air.

Originally Posted by Prometheus
Do you really think they would be morally correct in allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die rather than inflict temporary, non-lethal physical and mental stress on a single prisoner? ... snip ...

No I do not.

Good. And that's hardly irrelevant.

I also do not think that they would be morally correct if they chose to eat babies while waltzing atop a rainbow. Since both propositions are equally likely

You really think that in the future it's as likely that someone will have to decide if they are going to eat "babies while waltzing atop a rainbow" as decide whether or not to torture someone who may have information they need in a few hours to save thousands of lives? If you say so.

I've already answered the question, and you even accepted my answer,

Yeah, but you keep saying things that make me think maybe you didn't take the question seriously.

 

[Upchurch]

How can you compare it?

Because reality is not a Tom Cruise movie.

 

[leftysergeant]

Members of the OSS are also veterans of WWII, and they used the waterboarding technique on Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffeln personnel captured during the war.

Of course the OSS wasn't in the cozy surroundings of Fort Hunt Virginia when they questioned their captives. They were in Sicily/Italy/France when they needed to get information in a hurry. Do their actions invalidate your notion that the U.S. held the moral high ground in WWII?

Until you come up with documentation of that I am going to call you a liar. It is too far-fetched to believe and you have been echoing the sentiments of the evil trolls who think that it is an effective technique.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC is probalby going to say it's the Washington Post, so part of the liberal media.

Pardalis, I'm still wondering how much certainty you'd need before you'd make an attempt to save 100,000 lives by inflicting a little temporary pain and discomfort? You seem to have fled from that question.