Bush: "Damn Right I Approved Waterboarding!"

[BlueHen86]

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.

You still need to answer the question as to who makes the determination regarding guilt. That is alot of power to hand someone and can be easily abused, especially when you consider history shows you are most likely going to be told what you want to hear as opposed to getting any useful information.

[BlueHen86]

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.

Are you this person? Or are you just another jackass (like me ) posting on a message board. One of us needs to get off his moral high horse, the other is BlueHen86.

[BlueHen86]

Good debate guys. I gotta go to bed now, my son has a wrestling tourney later today and I gotta get up early. Have a good night, err... morning.

[CID1990]

So far I am the only 'no' vote. I wouldn't want someone to torture me, so I don't think I should torture anyone else.

So by your calculus you would not be willing to kill to save others or yourself, either?

[CID1990]

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?

You mean as opposed to sticking a needle in an American's arm and putting him down?

[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?

You mean as opposed to sticking a needle in an American's arm and putting him down?

There is a difference between capital punishment and torture, I hope I don't have to explain that to you.

[93henfan]

You mean as opposed to sticking a needle in an American's arm and putting him down?

There is a difference between capital punishment and torture, I hope I don't have to explain that to you.

There's certainly a difference, and I would have been OK with both for Timothy McVeigh. Maybe start with showing him a slide presentation of the remains of every baby he blew up in the daycare center in the Murrah Federal Building while I took a blowtorch to his nut sack. That would be day one if I were in charge.

And of course a nice easy lethal injection after enough sessions that he convinced me that he was remorseful.

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

You still need to answer the question as to who makes the determination regarding guilt. That is alot of power to hand someone and can be easily abused, especially when you consider history shows you are most likely going to be told what you want to hear as opposed to getting any useful information.

You are still going in circles and missing the point.

People decide the guilt, just as they do today in civil and military trials. Are you questioning our leadership struture or our tactics? Two different issues.

People can make mistakes. You go with your best shot and move on. We elect officials and they pick people to lead. As I've said many times, sometimes you get the wrong person...that happens in our civil trials. Oooops. As a father, I could witness my innocent son put to death in our current court system. Would I be happy about that? No. But would I decide that America's court system needs to be thrown out entirely? Nope.

To bring your "guilt" stance back to you, you are OK with the death penalty but not torture. So, what if the guy put to death was innocent? In your world, with your focus on absolute guilt, our entire justice system would collapse and we would not be able to convict anyone. And yes, even in our court system, people make false confessions all the time.

Use torture to save lives. And no, that doesn't mean that you run around and round up everyone. The same people who decide who the bad guys are doesn't change. The only change is the decision to torture them instead of killing them with a drone attack. Guilt is already a decided issue in both cases.

[CID1990]

You mean as opposed to sticking a needle in an American's arm and putting him down?

There is a difference between capital punishment and torture, I hope I don't have to explain that to you.

Really? There is?

No sh!t, Sherlck.

In one case, the government straps a guy down and kills him.

In the other, the government straps a guy down and makes him feel like he is drowning.

Yes, I agree there is a difference.

The problem is that you and some like you seem to have this faux elevated sense of humanity and evolved empathy towards non-state actors (and one in-state actor) who would kill large numbers of Americans, yet somehow you believe that we should not pull out all the stops to thwart them. Fvck them. I could care less how many we waterboard. IN fact, I do not have a problem with torture, either, since waterboarding and pulling out fingernails or shocking someone's balls with an Interstate battery are ALSO not the same thing.

Persoanlly, I do not worry about being tortured. I do not receive emails from Achmed the Sh!thead Al Qaeda guy. I also do not worry too much about it because I am not involved in acts of international or domestic terrorism, nor do I associate with anyone who even remotely fits that bill.

Anyone who brings up Timothy McVeigh in ANY argument about terrorism and methods of combating it needs to also argue that he should not have been executed for his crime. It would be intellectual dishonesty not to do so.

You may go back to your embroidery, Nancy.

[BlueHen86]

There is a difference between capital punishment and torture, I hope I don't have to explain that to you.

Really? There is?

No sh!t, Sherlck.

In one case, the government straps a guy down and kills him.

In the other, the government straps a guy down and makes him feel like he is drowning.

Yes, I agree there is a difference.

The problem is that you and some like you seem to have this faux elevated sense of humanity and evolved empathy towards non-state actors (and one in-state actor) who would kill large numbers of Americans, yet somehow you believe that we should not pull out all the stops to thwart them. Fvck them. I could care less how many we waterboard. IN fact, I do not have a problem with torture, either, since waterboarding and pulling out fingernails or shocking someone's balls with an Interstate battery are ALSO not the same thing.

Persoanlly, I do not worry about being tortured. I do not receive emails from Achmed the Sh!thead Al Qaeda guy. I also do not worry too much about it because I am not involved in acts of international or domestic terrorism, nor do I associate with anyone who even remotely fits that bill.

Anyone who brings up Timothy McVeigh in ANY argument about terrorism and methods of combating it needs to also argue that he should not have been executed for his crime. It would be intellectual dishonesty not to do so.

You may go back to your embroidery, Nancy.

You are so simple I knew set you up knowing that you would go there. I am against capital punishment, I have voiced my opinion on here a few times in the past. Maybe you should take up embroidery, debate clearly isn't your thing.

[BlueHen86]

You still need to answer the question as to who makes the determination regarding guilt. That is alot of power to hand someone and can be easily abused, especially when you consider history shows you are most likely going to be told what you want to hear as opposed to getting any useful information.

You are still going in circles and missing the point.

People decide the guilt, just as they do today in civil and military trials. Are you questioning our leadership struture or our tactics? Two different issues.

People can make mistakes. You go with your best shot and move on. We elect officials and they pick people to lead. As I've said many times, sometimes you get the wrong person...that happens in our civil trials. Oooops. As a father, I could witness my innocent son put to death in our current court system. Would I be happy about that? No. But would I decide that America's court system needs to be thrown out entirely? Nope.

To bring your "guilt" stance back to you, you are OK with the death penalty but not torture. So, what if the guy put to death was innocent? In your world, with your focus on absolute guilt, our entire justice system would collapse and we would not be able to convict anyone. And yes, even in our court system, people make false confessions all the time.

Use torture to save lives. And no, that doesn't mean that you run around and round up everyone. The same people who decide who the bad guys are doesn't change. The only change is the decision to torture them instead of killing them with a drone attack. Guilt is already a decided issue in both cases.

Nope. I am against the death penalty. I think that it is nothing more than useless revenge. It doesn't solve any problems and I don't think it's the Christian thing to do.

As for torture, there is real debate as to it's effectiveness. You can get people to admit to almost everything if you put them under enough stress. You might be able to convice me that it is needed, but so far I haven't found any of the arguments on here to be all that compelling (just as I'm sure you haven't found mine to be compelling).

What you won't be able to convince me of is that we should be willing to forfeit all of our civil rights in an effort to win the war on terror. I think that at the very minimum there must be some due process, especially where American citizens are involved. There has to be rules, otherwise we might as well live under Taliban rule.

[BlueHen86]

So far I am the only 'no' vote. I wouldn't want someone to torture me, so I don't think I should torture anyone else.

So by your calculus you would not be willing to kill to save others or yourself, either?

So by your calculus apples and oranges are the same thing. If I am attacked, I will defend myself. Similiarly, if I attacked someone else I would expect them to defend themselves. The question isn't "Should we defend ourselves?", it's "How do we defend ourselves?".

Try to keep up. I realize that you have an internet tough guy image to try and maintain (fortunately for you that doesn't require a lot of intellegence) but bad analogies are kind of boring.

[CID1990]

So by your calculus you would not be willing to kill to save others or yourself, either?

So by your calculus apples and oranges are the same thing. If I am attacked, I will defend myself. Similiarly, if I attacked someone else I would expect them to defend themselves. The question isn't "Should we defend ourselves?", it's "How do we defend ourselves?".

Try to keep up. I realize that you have an internet tough guy image to try and maintain (fortunately for you that doesn't require a lot of intellegence) but bad analogies are kind of boring.

OK Gandhi. We'll just agree to disagree on the matter. There's a place for people who think like you along side the other 90% of us as well.

[BlueHen86]

So by your calculus apples and oranges are the same thing. If I am attacked, I will defend myself. Similiarly, if I attacked someone else I would expect them to defend themselves. The question isn't "Should we defend ourselves?", it's "How do we defend ourselves?".

Try to keep up. I realize that you have an internet tough guy image to try and maintain (fortunately for you that doesn't require a lot of intellegence) but bad analogies are kind of boring.

OK Gandhi. We'll just agree to disagree on the matter. There's a place for people who think like you along side the other 90% of us as well.

90% of peope are in favor of torture? Really. Heck, you don't even 90% in the response to this poll. Oh well, I already knew intellegence wasn't your strong point, it logically follows that math isn't either.

[kalm]

Bluehen is absolutely owning this one.

[CID1990]

Bluehen is absolutely owning this one.

Hen thinks waterboarding is wrong. I get it.

[kalm]

Bluehen is absolutely owning this one.

Hen thinks waterboarding is wrong. I get it.

Hen is rational and consistent with his philosophy and the ideals of the U.S.

[FargoBison]

KSM killed thousands of innocent people and was involved in numerous terrorist plots. I find it amazing and scary that some here would be content to let him sit in a cell and never say a word.

If I didn't do everything possible to get information from him and something happened that could have been prevented, I'd have a hard time living with myself.

[kalm]

KSM killed thousands of innocent people and was involved in numerous terrorist plots. I find it amazing and scary that some here would be content to let him sit in a cell and never say a word.

If I didn't do everything possible to get information from him and something happened that could have been prevented, I'd have a hard time living with myself.

But could you do it on the 170th attempt?

This thread is long on the Jack Bauer and short on reason.

[FargoBison]

KSM killed thousands of innocent people and was involved in numerous terrorist plots. I find it amazing and scary that some here would be content to let him sit in a cell and never say a word.

If I didn't do everything possible to get information from him and something happened that could have been prevented, I'd have a hard time living with myself.

But could you do it on the 170th attempt?

This thread is long on the Jack Bauer and short on reason.

1, 170, 1,000, like I care how many attempts it takes if we are talking about somebody like KSM.

This thread is short on reason, it seems like people want to live by this universal standard. That doesn't usually workout so well in the real world, where flexibility is needed in most situations.

[Chizzang]

All bullsh!t aside...
Ignoring the talk of Human Rights and moral high ground etc. etc.

Torture is consistent with historical US foreign policy
So is insertion of puppet political Regimes
As well as using Military force to secure natural resources and corporate strongholds

It's an interesting philosophical argument (in a CESARE BECCARIA kind of way) but ultimately meaningless if you examine our history...

Why it would surprise anybody that Bush would support torture after completely fabricating a war is ridiculous - President Bush (love him hate him or whatever) hasn't done anything that should shock anybody

[CID1990]

Hen thinks waterboarding is wrong. I get it.

Hen is rational and consistent with his philosophy and the ideals of the U.S.

Again, that's his opinion, as it is yours. I disagree.

See Chizzang's post above. Waterboarding is not inconsistent with the America has always done business. If you wish to strive for a higher plane of existence, then that's fine. But don't accuse the US of being peace love and puppy dogs, and now waterboarding is suddenly some kind of aberration.

[YoUDeeMan]

So by your calculus you would not be willing to kill to save others or yourself, either?

So by your calculus apples and oranges are the same thing. If I am attacked, I will defend myself. Similiarly, if I attacked someone else I would expect them to defend themselves. The question isn't "Should we defend ourselves?", it's "How do we defend ourselves?".

Try to keep up. I realize that you have an internet tough guy image to try and maintain (fortunately for you that doesn't require a lot of intellegence) but bad analogies are kind of boring.

A person has your family rigged up to a bomb. All he has to do is call your house and the phone will trigger the bomb. He laughs at your attempts to talk to him and reaches for the phone. You have a cannon pointed at him. You shoot, he dies...no injury, the cannon will obliterate him. You don't shoot, your family dies.

Thou shall not kill.

Good luck.

[YoUDeeMan]

Nope. I am against the death penalty. I think that it is nothing more than useless revenge. It doesn't solve any problems and I don't think it's the Christian thing to do.

As for torture, there is real debate as to it's effectiveness. You can get people to admit to almost everything if you put them under enough stress. You might be able to convice me that it is needed, but so far I haven't found any of the arguments on here to be all that compelling (just as I'm sure you haven't found mine to be compelling).

What you won't be able to convince me of is that we should be willing to forfeit all of our civil rights in an effort to win the war on terror. I think that at the very minimum there must be some due process, especially where American citizens are involved. There has to be rules, otherwise we might as well live under Taliban rule.

Due process? What kind of due process are we giving famlies who live next to a bomb factory that we decide to target for destruction? What kind of due process does an enemy soldier get when he gets cut in two by a cluster bomb? Maybe he was getting ready to defect...but we didn't ask him. The due process is through the military decision process...the same one that would be used to decide if the enemy combatant is worthy of torture.

You said you were OK with a courts decision of whether waterboarding is torture. That doesn't match your Christian philosophy. Which is it? And "Thou shall not kill" is pretty simple...we don't get to add amemdments to that. If you are a Christian, you shall not kill...period.

So much for consistency.

[native]

Bluehen is absolutely owning this one with me and skelly in our no-tell motel hug fest.

FIFY, k!