Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

U.S. soldier 'waterboarded his own daughter, 4, because she couldn't recite alphabet'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0f0N4yERF

A soldier waterboarded his four-year-old daughter because she was unable to recite her alphabet.
Joshua Tabor admitted to police he had used the CIA torture technique because he was so angry.
As his daughter 'squirmed' to get away, Tabor said he submerged her face three or four times until the water was lapping around her forehead and jawline

Not sure if that is actually waterboarding, but terrible indeed.

it's jail time....

dbackjon wrote:

U.S. soldier 'waterboarded his own daughter, 4, because she couldn't recite alphabet'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0f0N4yERF

A soldier waterboarded his four-year-old daughter because she was unable to recite her alphabet.
Joshua Tabor admitted to police he had used the CIA torture technique because he was so angry.
As his daughter 'squirmed' to get away, Tabor said he submerged her face three or four times until the water was lapping around her forehead and jawline

Not sure if that is actually waterboarding, but terrible indeed.

That's not waterboarding, but he's a scumbag nonetheless.

POS indeed, but I wonder why the fact that he is a soldier makes it any more newsworthy? If he had been a newspaper reporter or a banker, would the article have stated that?

Good thing that she isn't a fetus or that dude would REALLY be in trouble.

CID1990 wrote:POS indeed, but I wonder why the fact that he is a soldier makes it any more newsworthy? If he had been a newspaper reporter or a banker, would the article have stated that?

Because the general public tends to hold military personnel to higher standard of personal conduct like they do cops, firemen, etc.

RobsPics wrote:

CID1990 wrote:POS indeed, but I wonder why the fact that he is a soldier makes it any more newsworthy? If he had been a newspaper reporter or a banker, would the article have stated that?

Because the general public tends to hold military personnel to higher standard of personal conduct like they do cops, firemen, etc.

I know. I was trying to be rhetorical in a sarcastic kind of way but failed.

However, have you noticed that they do the same thing for ex-cops, ex-soldiers, etc

CID1990 wrote:POS indeed, but I wonder why the fact that he is a soldier makes it any more newsworthy? If he had been a newspaper reporter or a banker, would the article have stated that?

War comes home.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:POS indeed, but I wonder why the fact that he is a soldier makes it any more newsworthy? If he had been a newspaper reporter or a banker, would the article have stated that?

War comes home.

Get him away from the kids and get him some help.

C'mon. Who hasn't held their kids' faces underwater once or twice when they didn't do what you asked them?

This society is getting soft.

PTSD?

Ibanez wrote:PTSD?

Wouldn't shock me. One of the biggest failings of bringing home troops is the lack of mental and emotional support they receive.

You guys try to blame combat, PTSD, an unstable soldier. Has anyone stopped and asked the girl if she put in an honest effort to learn the damn alphabet? I bet it was nonstop Dora the Explorer in her room. She can probably bust off an "Hola amigo" and tell you the finer points about Brazilian tree frogs, but 26 measly letters are just too much to absorb. If you want to blame someone, maybe it should be the executives at Nickelodeon.

93henfan wrote:You guys try to blame combat, PTSD, an unstable soldier. Has anyone stopped and asked the girl if she put in an honest effort to learn the damn alphabet? I bet it was nonstop Dora the Explorer in her room. She can probably bust off an "Hola amigo" and tell you the finer points about Brazilian tree frogs, but 26 measly letters are just too much to absorb. If you want to blame someone, maybe it should be the executives at Nickelodeon.

Who gave her that TV and paid the cable bill? Sure as fuck wasn't her. It comes full circle. Blame the parents.



What about the children!

Ibanez wrote:


What about the chickens!

This is what. Poor little guys didn't stand a chance: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... /100209037

What I'm about to say has nothing to do with the question of whether he's a soldier or not.

I think the society would be better off if it stayed the $%@! out of the relationship between parents and children. Yes, there would be horrible abuses as there are in any case. But we'd all be better off if we took the attitude that what somebody does with and/or to their own children is none of our business. The primary unit of socialization should be the family. The primary authority over children should be their parents. Government should butt out, period, unless and until there is definite and demonstrable permanent physical damage.

JohnStOnge wrote:What I'm about to say has nothing to do with the question of whether he's a soldier or not.

I think the society would be better off if it stayed the $%@! out of the relationship between parents and children. Yes, there would be horrible abuses as there are in any case. But we'd all be better off if we took the attitude that what somebody does with and/or to their own children is none of our business. The primary unit of socialization should be the family. The primary authority over children should be their parents. Government should butt out. Period.

After reading this post, had I not known you better I would think you were Pro-choice

Going to have to disagree with you.

Government has a major role in protecting those who can not protect themselves.

After reading this post, had I not known you better I would think you were Pro-choice

I anticipated that response; which is why I edited to include the idea of definite and demonstrable permanent physical harm. However, if there is any hypocrisy on my part, it is certainly exceeded by that practiced by those on the "other" side of the abortion debate; as they want to throw somebody in jail for making children uncomfortable yet have no problem with women terminating their own progeny so long as they haven't emerged from the prenatal environment.

The point is this: We have gotten to a point where we have made government primarily responsible for the well being and socialization of children. It shouldn't be like that. The primary unit of socialization should be the family and primary authority for the well being and socialization of children should be parents. As a general matter, government should not be second guessing parents' decisions with respect to how children are educated, disciplined, or anything else.

dbackjon wrote:Going to have to disagree with you.

Government has a major role in protecting those who can not protect themselves.

Yeah. So if my 7 year old is misbehaving and disobeys me and I give him a spanking I should be charged with domestic assault and arrested? Great logic there dback.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Going to have to disagree with you.

Government has a major role in protecting those who can not protect themselves.

Yeah. So if my 7 year old is misbehaving and disobeys me and I give him a spanking I should be charged with domestic assault and arrested? Great logic there dback.

there's a difference between spanking and abusing (that's what I heard on "Huckabee" at least)

dbackjon wrote:Going to have to disagree with you.

Government has a major role in protecting those who can not protect themselves.

this But I don't approve of all the methods used to protect the unprotected

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Going to have to disagree with you.

Government has a major role in protecting those who can not protect themselves.

Yeah. So if my 7 year old is misbehaving and disobeys me and I give him a spanking I should be charged with domestic assault and arrested? Great logic there dback.

No - there is a difference between causing permanent harm, and discipline.

I will agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of over-protection - but I would rather that than have children abused.

youngterrier wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Going to have to disagree with you.

Government has a major role in protecting those who can not protect themselves.

this But I don't approve of all the methods used to protect the unprotected

Which methods?

Parents should be allowed to discipline their children as they see fit, as long as it does not cause permanent harm. Spanking does not cause permanent harm. Burning with a cigarette does. Torturing to the point of causing REAL anguish is abuse.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Yeah. So if my 7 year old is misbehaving and disobeys me and I give him a spanking I should be charged with domestic assault and arrested? Great logic there dback.

No - there is a difference between causing permanent harm, and discipline.

I will agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of over-protection - but I would rather that than have children abused.

You cannot have it both ways.