Bush: "Damn Right I Approved Waterboarding!"

[native]

Skelly,

You make a number of worthy arguments and provide ample facts on this thread, without the usual level of hysteria or hyperbole. I commend you for standing up for your principles, which are really our principles.

Your points are well taken. I agree wholeheartedly with you that we must draw the line somewhere, but I simply disagree with you on where to draw the line.

Cheers!
Native

[native]

...I figured you would take it as a compliment being equated with a people:

* who have done nothing to earn the peace and freedom they enjoy, which for 65 years has only been guaranteed by an American military commitment that they nonetheless criticize;

* who claim the high moral ground on America because they have outlawed the death penalty, but who nonetheless resisted lifting a finger to stop a genocide occurring right within their midst (in fact, Bill Clinton had to twist their arms in order to our European/NATO allies to react to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia); and

* who have become a faithless people who worship at the altar of materialism, become soft and without any guiding principles, and look to their governments, rather than themselves individually, to provide for their most basic needs.

Europe has gone soft. That is why al-Qaida finds it to be a perfect place through which to move operatives.

Well said, Joe. Precisely so!

[HI54UNI]

It's easy to argue this from 20,000 feet when it doesn't directly affect you but if you had loved ones - a spouse, children, parents - in danger and you knew that waterboarding would get the answer needed to protect those loved ones I'll wager that everyone one of us would vote yes.

[native]

It's easy to argue this from 20,000 feet when it doesn't directly affect you but if you had loved ones - a spouse, children, parents - in danger and you knew that waterboarding would get the answer needed to protect those loved ones I'll wager that everyone one of us would vote yes.

Which is why I draw the line diferently than skelly.

[BlueHen86]

I have no problem with my country using whatever means necessary to defeat an enemy in time of war. If torture is what it takes, torture the hell out of them. If it takes killing civilians, kill the hell out of them. I don't care... the life or dignity of no enemy is worth the life of an american- ever.

What if the enemy is American? Oklahoma City was a terrorist act, and it was carried out by Americans. Are you okay with torturing Americans?

[BlueHen86]

It's easy to argue this from 20,000 feet when it doesn't directly affect you but if you had loved ones - a spouse, children, parents - in danger and you knew that waterboarding would get the answer needed to protect those loved ones I'll wager that everyone one of us would vote yes.

It's pretty easy to argue this when you don't think it all the way through.

Would they still say yes if there was a chance that the government could remove them from their house in the middle of the night, take them to a secret location and torture them because they think that they may have information?

Where do we draw the line when it comes to deciding who to torture? Only the people who are obviously terrorists? I'm pretty sure that they don't get due process ahead of time. Who are you going to give the power to when it comes to deciding who to torture? How can you be sure that there won't be a case of mistaken identity and you, or a loved one, might be suspected of having info. Or are you willing to waive those rights in the name of safety, even though doing so would be unconstitutional?

[YoUDeeMan]

I have no problem with my country using whatever means necessary to defeat an enemy in time of war. If torture is what it takes, torture the hell out of them. If it takes killing civilians, kill the hell out of them. I don't care... the life or dignity of no enemy is worth the life of an american- ever.

What if the enemy is American? Oklahoma City was a terrorist act, and it was carried out by Americans. Are you okay with torturing Americans?

Yes. A bastard is a bastard.

[YoUDeeMan]

It's easy to argue this from 20,000 feet when it doesn't directly affect you but if you had loved ones - a spouse, children, parents - in danger and you knew that waterboarding would get the answer needed to protect those loved ones I'll wager that everyone one of us would vote yes.

It's pretty easy to argue this when you don't think it all the way through.

Would they still say yes if there was a chance that the government could remove them from their house in the middle of the night, take them to a secret location and torture them because they think that they may have information?

Where do we draw the line when it comes to deciding who to torture? Only the people who are obviously terrorists? I'm pretty sure that they don't get due process ahead of time. Who are you going to give the power to when it comes to deciding who to torture? How can you be sure that there won't be a case of mistaken identity and you, or a loved one, might be suspected of having info. Or are you willing to waive those rights in the name of safety, even though doing so would be unconstitutional?

To protect my family...I don't give a rats azz who is interrogated and tortured. I have a 6 year old son. If someone kidnapped him or seriously threatened to kill him, everyone better get out of the way. I am not going to let him die because of some silly rules of engagement. If he is killed by some dirtbags, I will spend the rest of my life killing dirtbags and any family members of those dirtbags.

There are no rules in fights...if you don't like it, don't start one.

Rules.

[BlueHen86]

What if the enemy is American? Oklahoma City was a terrorist act, and it was carried out by Americans. Are you okay with torturing Americans?

Yes. A bastard is a bastard.

How do you know the terrorist is guilty? There were no trials for the 'terrorists' that were waterboarded after 9/11. How can you be sure that innocent American citizens won't be tortured? Are you really okay with ignoring the constitution just to try avoid another terrorist attack?

[BlueHen86]

It's pretty easy to argue this when you don't think it all the way through.

Would they still say yes if there was a chance that the government could remove them from their house in the middle of the night, take them to a secret location and torture them because they think that they may have information?

Where do we draw the line when it comes to deciding who to torture? Only the people who are obviously terrorists? I'm pretty sure that they don't get due process ahead of time. Who are you going to give the power to when it comes to deciding who to torture? How can you be sure that there won't be a case of mistaken identity and you, or a loved one, might be suspected of having info. Or are you willing to waive those rights in the name of safety, even though doing so would be unconstitutional?

To protect my family...I don't give a rats azz who is interrogated and tortured. I have a 6 year old son. If someone kidnapped him or seriously threatened to kill him, everyone better get out of the way. I am not going to let him die because of some silly rules of engagement. If he is killed by some dirtbags, I will spend the rest of my life killing dirtbags and any family members of those dirtbags.

There are no rules in fights...if you don't like it, don't start one.

Rules.

No rules. Got it. Great idea. And who protects your family from being tortured in the name of fighting terrorism? If one of your family members is suspected of being a terrorist are you still okay with them being tortured.

And do you really think the Bill of Rights are nothing more than silly rules of engagement?

[Pwns]

I think the poll is a pretty good demarcation between when water boarding is useful and when it's out and out torture. If you know someone has significant information that if obtained will result in the substantial protection of innocent lives, then yes, by all means, start pouring the water. But if you're just doing it to pass the time on some poor POW who has no information of use and you're just satisfying some sadistic, sick streak in your personality, then it's torture, pure and simple. Sometimes answers aren't as clear as we would like them to be.

This. If you get good information out of it, do it. If folks are careless about who they choose to do this to, then drop the hammer on 'em.

[BlueHen86]

I think the poll is a pretty good demarcation between when water boarding is useful and when it's out and out torture. If you know someone has significant information that if obtained will result in the substantial protection of innocent lives, then yes, by all means, start pouring the water. But if you're just doing it to pass the time on some poor POW who has no information of use and you're just satisfying some sadistic, sick streak in your personality, then it's torture, pure and simple. Sometimes answers aren't as clear as we would like them to be.

This. If you get good information out of it, do it. If folks are careless about who they choose to do this to, then drop the hammer on 'em.

How do you know that you will get good information out of it? Also, who is going to define who is using it carelessly and who is using it wisely?

[YoUDeeMan]

Yes. A bastard is a bastard.

How do you know the terrorist is guilty? There were no trials for the 'terrorists' that were waterboarded after 9/11. How can you be sure that innocent American citizens won't be tortured? Are you really okay with ignoring the constitution just to try avoid another terrorist attack?

We put innocent people into jail all the time. Some get the death penalty. But, for the most part, we get it right. And yes, if someone has information that can save lives, do whatever is necessary. The Constitution is a framework...it is not an end all be all.

If a couple people know where 10 nuclear weapons are, and we can save 100,000 lives by torturing one or two people to the answers...then screw those people.

If we are wrong, it was worth the risk. War is not fair. Generals and individuals make decisions that will lead to other people getting hurt. The reality is that innocent people get killed all the time in war...but the ultimate goal is to lower that number for your side by whatever means necessary.

[DJH]

It's easy to argue this from 20,000 feet when it doesn't directly affect you but if you had loved ones - a spouse, children, parents - in danger and you knew that waterboarding would get the answer needed to protect those loved ones I'll wager that everyone one of us would vote yes.

I was just going to post something similar.

[BlueHen86]

How do you know the terrorist is guilty? There were no trials for the 'terrorists' that were waterboarded after 9/11. How can you be sure that innocent American citizens won't be tortured? Are you really okay with ignoring the constitution just to try avoid another terrorist attack?

We put innocent people into jail all the time. Some get the death penalty. But, for the most part, we get it right. And yes, if someone has information that can save lives, do whatever is necessary. The Constitution is a framework...it is not an end all be all.

If a couple people know where 10 nuclear weapons are, and we can save 100,000 lives by torturing one or two people to the answers...then screw those people.

If we are wrong, it was worth the risk. War is not fair. Generals and individuals make decisions that will lead to other people getting hurt. The reality is that innocent people get killed all the time in war...but the ultimate goal is to lower that number for your side by whatever means necessary.

So, if it's your 6 year old that is being tortured for the info it's worth it?

Either we live by rules (in this case the Constitution) or we don't. If we choose not to so be it, but don't complain when it's one of your loved ones (the same ones you vowed to protect at all costs) that are being tortured, apparently it's worth it even if they don't have relevant infomation.

[YoUDeeMan]

To protect my family...I don't give a rats azz who is interrogated and tortured. I have a 6 year old son. If someone kidnapped him or seriously threatened to kill him, everyone better get out of the way. I am not going to let him die because of some silly rules of engagement. If he is killed by some dirtbags, I will spend the rest of my life killing dirtbags and any family members of those dirtbags.

There are no rules in fights...if you don't like it, don't start one.

Rules.

No rules. Got it. Great idea. And who protects your family from being tortured in the name of fighting terrorism? If one of your family members is suspected of being a terrorist are you still okay with them being tortured.

And do you really think the Bill of Rights are nothing more than silly rules of engagement?

No one protects my family from being tortured...some nut job might take us hostage at any moment and sometimes there is nothing you can do about some situations. Then again, I could get hit by lightning or a meteor.

Live a clean life and odds are you most likely will not have issues. However, if someone does torture my family and they are innocent, I'm going to make sure the ones who did the torturing pay.

If my son grows up to be a douche and does something that deserves torture, then he has to face the music.

Consequences.

BTW, I like the Bill of Rights. Good stuff to guide us through most of our issues. However, sometimes desperate times require desperate measures. If our President decided to declare Marshall Law and suspend many of our rights, will you revolt every time on principle or will you weigh his actions against whatever is the threat?

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

[BlueHen86]

No rules. Got it. Great idea. And who protects your family from being tortured in the name of fighting terrorism? If one of your family members is suspected of being a terrorist are you still okay with them being tortured.

And do you really think the Bill of Rights are nothing more than silly rules of engagement?

No one protects my family from being tortured...some nut job might take us hostage at any moment and sometimes there is nothing you can do about some situations. Then again, I could get hit by lightning or a meteor.

Live a clean life and odds are you most likely will not have issues. However, if someone does torture my family and they are innocent, I'm going to make sure the ones who did the torturing pay.

If my son grows up to be a douche and does something that deserves torture, then he has to face the music.

Consequences.

BTW, I like the Bill of Rights. Good stuff to guide us through most of our issues. However, sometimes desperate times require desperate measures. If our President decided to declare Marshall Law and suspend many of our rights, will you revolt every time on principle or will you weigh his actions against whatever is the threat?

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

What you are saying is that you are okay with your son being tortured, even if he is innocent. But you also vowed to protect him. Who exactly are you protecting him from?

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

[YoUDeeMan]

We put innocent people into jail all the time. Some get the death penalty. But, for the most part, we get it right. And yes, if someone has information that can save lives, do whatever is necessary. The Constitution is a framework...it is not an end all be all.

If a couple people know where 10 nuclear weapons are, and we can save 100,000 lives by torturing one or two people to the answers...then screw those people.

If we are wrong, it was worth the risk. War is not fair. Generals and individuals make decisions that will lead to other people getting hurt. The reality is that innocent people get killed all the time in war...but the ultimate goal is to lower that number for your side by whatever means necessary.

So, if it's your 6 year old that is being tortured for the info it's worth it?

Either we live by rules (in this case the Constitution) or we don't. If we choose not to so be it, but don't complain when it's one of your loved ones (the same ones you vowed to protect at all costs) that are being tortured, apparently it's worth it even if they don't have relevant infomation.

If my 6 year old was grabbed by some government guy and they wanted to torture him, they'd have to go through my dead body. That's because I know him and he is not a threat. And we'd die as a stat...just like any other innocnet person does these days. But the world would move on. Always has, always will.

On the other hand, if he were born in a war zone and he hung out with some dumb fvcks who were planning on blowing some innocent folks up, then I'd beat the information out of him myself.

You seem to like tossing out extremes. No problem. But in war, everything is fair so it usually comes down to the lesser of two evils. I'd rather kill or torture an innocent person every once in a while in order to save hundreds.

[YoUDeeMan]

No one protects my family from being tortured...some nut job might take us hostage at any moment and sometimes there is nothing you can do about some situations. Then again, I could get hit by lightning or a meteor.

Live a clean life and odds are you most likely will not have issues. However, if someone does torture my family and they are innocent, I'm going to make sure the ones who did the torturing pay.

If my son grows up to be a douche and does something that deserves torture, then he has to face the music.

Consequences.

BTW, I like the Bill of Rights. Good stuff to guide us through most of our issues. However, sometimes desperate times require desperate measures. If our President decided to declare Marshall Law and suspend many of our rights, will you revolt every time on principle or will you weigh his actions against whatever is the threat?

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

What you are saying is that you are okay with your son being tortured, even if he is innocent. But you also vowed to protect him. Who exactly are you protecting him from?

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

You are not getting it.

I would protect my innocent son. That's what father's do. If he were guilty, I'd let him be tortured to save other lives.

Taken to your extreme, we can't bomb any cities, fire any rounds into a building, sink any ship...EVER (there might be an innocent survivor of a sunken fishing boat on board a warship that we targeted). Innocent people die all the time. But we must sometimes bomb cities, sink ships and kill civilians in order to win a war. I can understand that.
Play the odds. Do we torture everyone? No, but we take out best guess and get it done.

I would be sad and angry if my son were a victim, but I'd understand the need to do what is needed to get the job done.

[BlueHen86]

So, if it's your 6 year old that is being tortured for the info it's worth it?

Either we live by rules (in this case the Constitution) or we don't. If we choose not to so be it, but don't complain when it's one of your loved ones (the same ones you vowed to protect at all costs) that are being tortured, apparently it's worth it even if they don't have relevant infomation.

If my 6 year old was grabbed by some government guy and they wanted to torture him, they'd have to go through my dead body. That's because I know him and he is not a threat. And we'd die as a stat...just like any other innocnet person does these days. But the world would move on. Always has, always will.

On the other hand, if he were born in a war zone and he hung out with some dumb fvcks who were planning on blowing some innocent folks up, then I'd beat the information out of him myself.

You seem to like tossing out extremes. No problem. But in war, everything is fair so it usually comes down to the lesser of two evils. I'd rather kill or torture an innocent person every once in a while in order to save hundreds.

Even in war there are rules. At least there have been in the past. What you are saying is that you are okay with rules, as long as they are not too inconvenient. Thousands of Americans have died trying to protect our way of life, yet you so easily dismiss it.

[BlueHen86]

What you are saying is that you are okay with your son being tortured, even if he is innocent. But you also vowed to protect him. Who exactly are you protecting him from?

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

You are not getting it.

That's because you are not making sense.

You will protect your familiy from terrorists, but you are okay with the govenment coming after them.

[YoUDeeMan]

If my 6 year old was grabbed by some government guy and they wanted to torture him, they'd have to go through my dead body. That's because I know him and he is not a threat. And we'd die as a stat...just like any other innocnet person does these days. But the world would move on. Always has, always will.

On the other hand, if he were born in a war zone and he hung out with some dumb fvcks who were planning on blowing some innocent folks up, then I'd beat the information out of him myself.

You seem to like tossing out extremes. No problem. But in war, everything is fair so it usually comes down to the lesser of two evils. I'd rather kill or torture an innocent person every once in a while in order to save hundreds.

Even in war there are rules. At least there have been in the past. What you are saying is that you are okay with rules, as long as they are not too inconvenient. Thousands of Americans have died trying to protect our way of life, yet you so easily dismiss it.

Stop with the nonsense.

Seriously, in some states it is against the law to have sex in any position other than the missionary. Are you telling me that you will honor the dead soldiers and refrain from a good blow job and you will tell your lady friend that she can't get on top? Doubt it. You probably break laws and ordinances several hundred times per year...speeding, jaywalking, public intoxication. Inconvenient items...dismissing those who died for this country and its laws.

You are so eager to follow the rules that you are against torture...unless a couple of judges say it isn't torture? One minute it is bad, and magically the next it is OK? You'd be OK if it were your son as long as a judge said so? Forget the actual pain involved or the lives that can be saved...you are worrying about an opinion from a couple of strangers that can change on their whim over a glass of bourbon? Wow.

Look, I get it. Soldiers must follow orders in order for an army to be effective and societies must live within rules in order to prevent anarchy and chaos. But don't toss that crap about as if everything is written in stone. Rules are for the masses in everyday life while exceptional situations usually call for exceptional actions.

Funny who rules can be "conveniently" suspended by a President, a Captain...by just about anyone in a position of power...and have been througout the ages. Later, when the suits meet, or the survivors vote, they decide if the actions are punishable...even if the actions they don't like actually saved their lives. It is almost comical.

[YoUDeeMan]

You are not getting it.

That's because you are not making sense.

You will protect your familiy from terrorists, but you are okay with the govenment coming after them.

I'm OK with the government coming after my son if they think it will save hundreds of others. If I think he is innocent, they will have to go through me because I will protect him (hey, I could be wrong, but that's another story). If I think he is guilty, then he will face the music.

If I think evidence shows a person might be guilty, then I'm OK with torture. If not, then I don't agree with torturing random people.

No different than our legal system putting people in jail.

Not really a conflict there. You're just not getting it.

[ChickenMan]

It's easy to say that waterboarding shouldn't be used when debating the issue in the world of theory (were most libs exist).. but it's far different in the real world when hundreds or maybe thousands of lives may be a stake and you have real reason to believe that a suspect has information that could prevent such a disaster. As I stated.. it's very easy to sit on your moral high horse when you don't have any responsibility and don't know any of the facts.. but it's quite another matter when you are well informed and actually are the person charged with the responsibility to protect American lives.

[BlueHen86]

Even in war there are rules. At least there have been in the past. What you are saying is that you are okay with rules, as long as they are not too inconvenient. Thousands of Americans have died trying to protect our way of life, yet you so easily dismiss it.

Stop with the nonsense.

Seriously, in some states it is against the law to have sex in any position other than the missionary. Are you telling me that you will honor the dead soldiers and refrain from a good blow job and you will tell your lady friend that she can't get on top? Doubt it. You probably break laws and ordinances several hundred times per year...speeding, jaywalking, public intoxication. Inconvenient items...dismissing those who died for this country and its laws.

You are so eager to follow the rules that you are against torture...unless a couple of judges say it isn't torture? One minute it is bad, and magically the next it is OK? You'd be OK if it were your son as long as a judge said so? Forget the actual pain involved or the lives that can be saved...you are worrying about an opinion from a couple of strangers that can change on their whim over a glass of bourbon? Wow.

Look, I get it. Soldiers must follow orders in order for an army to be effective and societies must live within rules in order to prevent anarchy and chaos. But don't toss that crap about as if everything is written in stone. Rules are for the masses in everyday life while exceptional situations usually call for exceptional actions.

Funny who rules can be "conveniently" suspended by a President, a Captain...by just about anyone in a position of power...and have been througout the ages. Later, when the suits meet, or the survivors vote, they decide if the actions are punishable...even if the actions they don't like actually saved their lives. It is almost comical.

You're telling me to stop with the nonsense? Seriously? You state that you are willing to torture kill a few innocents in order to save hundreds of lives. Find me one time in history when that happened. I can find many examples where innocent people confessed to things they weren't guilty of just to stop the torture. People actually confessed to being witches during the Salem witch trials, you don't really thnk they were witches do you? The Spanish Inquistion also racked up a lot of confessions, many of which were fabricated. The effectiveness of torture is questionable, which is one of the main reasons that many nations have been against it.

If you are okay with torture that's fine; but then you must also be okay with the possiblity that one of your loved ones may tortured someday. Posting on a message board that you are only gonna torture the bad guys sounds cool, but it isn't practical in the real world. Someone has to make the decisions as to who gets tortured and who doesn't. At the very minimum there need to be laws in place to protect us from ourselves and our government, I don't want a repeat of the Augusto Pinochet regime to happen in the U.S.

As for martial law, historically it has been limited in the U.S. (that's right, even the use of martial law has rules) and I am unaware of any instance where U.S. martial law okayed the use of torture.