Bush OFFICIALLY VETOS Legislation Barring Use of Waterboarding.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

I support Bush on many occasions, but something like this should only be used in restraint.

American soldiers can be kicked out of the Armed Forces for doing this, it's against regulations. Since I'm not CIA and know little about how the CIA actually works, I can't really comment, but I can see how in certain circumstances it can be used for something. As for every single AK47 wielding maniac, I doubt you'd get much.

Hoobinator

One of the loopholes that the US government uses in getting around getting its troops to torture supposed "terrorists" is to outsource the torture. So ship off the detainees to another country or get private military contractors to do the job for you, because they're pretty much immune from prosecution.

That's contractors and other governments. I don't judge soldiers or CIA agents for what one of many high end government workers decides to let happen.

The US government knows full well what it is doing when outsourcing torture. Getting someone else to do torture for you, under your request still makes you part of the torture process, you're still complicit in the act.

Thank you for completely misunderstanding what I was saying and pretty much avoiding my entire point.

I never said we can't say the guy who made the order couldn't be blamed.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]waterboarding will never do any psychological or physical permanant damage to anyone which is why the US likes it and it's so effective; it works quickly. It's only getting publicized because it works so wellHoobinator

Like so much with torture, it works at getting you the information that you want coming from the detainees mouth.

The Egyptian who testified that there were WMD's in Iraq all those years ago did so under torture, and we all know his testimony was oh so accurate in hindsight. :roll:

Only question I would ask you is, would you support the use of waterboarding on american troops?

They would be lucky if just waterboarding was used on them. US troops have been subjected to far worse.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]waterboarding will never do any psychological or physical permanant damage to anyone which is why the US likes it and it's so effective; it works quickly. It's only getting publicized because it works so wellsonicare

Like so much with torture, it works at getting you the information that you want coming from the detainees mouth.

The Egyptian who testified that there were WMD's in Iraq all those years ago did so under torture, and we all know his testimony was oh so accurate in hindsight. :roll:

Only question I would ask you is, would you support the use of waterboarding on american troops?

They would be lucky if just waterboarding was used on them. US troops have been subjected to far worse.

Doesn't mean you should be allowed to reciprocate the act. And I know "terrorists" have also been subjected to pretty harsh treatment as well. The US government is the one who goes on about Human Rights and accuses other nations of torturing people. This is just a pure case of hypocrisy. You can't take the moral high ground and at the same time expect to use underhand tactics.

It's use cannot be really debated. I doubt there are many dependable studies on the effectiveness of torture in an interrogation.

The_Ish

That's not really true; in fact, there appears to be evidence... that torture does not, in fact, work the way its users would like to think it does.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]waterboarding will never do any psychological or physical permanant damage to anyone which is why the US likes it and it's so effective; it works quickly. It's only getting publicized because it works so wellbman784

Torture doesn't work, folks.

Thank you for completely misunderstanding what I was saying and pretty much avoiding my entire point.

I never said we can't say the guy who made the order couldn't be blamed.

-TheSecondSign-

You weren't explicit enough. It seemed you were condoning the actions of the officials who were giving the orders. Mis-reading a post is easy enough.

They would be lucky if just waterboarding was used on them. US troops have been subjected to far worse.

sonicare

I'll defer to Mahatma Gandhi on this one:

"An eye for an eye only serves to make the world blind."

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]I wonder what McCain thinks of this.bman784

Sorry dreams John McCain was against waterboarding but he voted against banning it. So basically he flipped and changed opinion at the last moment, hoping the electorate didn't see his change in opinion.

John McCain is not against waterboarding anymore.

"Here is what McCain said while campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa last October. "Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak. People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that…When I was imprisoned, I took heart from the fact that I knew my North Vietnamese captors would never be treated like I was treated by them… There are much better and more effective ways to get information. You torture someone long enough; he'll tell whatever he thinks you want to know."

McCain failed to back up his campaign rhetoric in February when he voted against this same bill when it was going through the Senate. It would appear that what we have here is an obvious case of a nominee changing his position to conform to the rest of his party. With one swath of his veto pen, President Bush will force John McCain to choose whether he is going to stick to his principles, or pander for the presidency. If you really have to wonder which one he will choose, then you probably have not been following presidential campaign politics for very long."

How very disappointing.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]you know if they use it to stop lets say a terrorist bombing a few hours before it happens im okay with itbman784

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

It's use cannot be really debated. I doubt there are many dependable studies on the effectiveness of torture in an interrogation.

GabuEx

That's not really true; in fact, there appears to be evidence... that torture does not, in fact, work the way its users would like to think it does.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

It's use cannot be really debated. I doubt there are many dependable studies on the effectiveness of torture in an interrogation.

GabuEx

That's not really true; in fact, there appears to be evidence... that torture does not, in fact, work the way its users would like to think it does.

In it, experts find that popular culture and ad hoc experimentation have fueled the use of aggressive and sometimes physical interrogation techniques to get those captured on the battlefields to talk, even if there is no evidence to support the tactics' effectiveness. The board, which advises the director of national intelligence, recommends studying the matter.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You can't debate it's usefulness, because there is no data to compare it with. What I'm arguing is that it should not be removed as a possible tool, but it should be used in restraint until there is better data to determine what type of interrogation methods work and what does not.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]waterboarding will never do any psychological or physical permanant damage to anyone which is why the US likes it and it's so effective; it works quickly. It's only getting publicized because it works so wellHoobinator

Like so much with torture, it works at getting you the information that you want coming from the detainees mouth.

The Egyptian who testified that there were WMD's in Iraq all those years ago did so under torture, and we all know his testimony was oh so accurate in hindsight. :roll:

Only question I would ask you is, would you support the use of waterboarding on american troops?

They would be lucky if just waterboarding was used on them. US troops have been subjected to far worse.

Doesn't mean you should be allowed to reciprocate the act. And I know "terrorists" have also been subjected to pretty harsh treatment as well. The US government is the one who goes on about Human Rights and accuses other nations of torturing people. This is just a pure case of hypocrisy. You can't take the moral high ground and at the same time expect to use underhand tactics.

I'm glad you live in the land of oz with magical fairies where everyone loves each other. Unfortunately, the real world is a far darker place. I don't like torture or terror, but I realize they exist. I'm sure your own nation liberally employs torture whether you know of it or not.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

It's use cannot be really debated. I doubt there are many dependable studies on the effectiveness of torture in an interrogation.

The_Ish

That's not really true; in fact, there appears to be evidence... that torture does not, in fact, work the way its users would like to think it does.

In it, experts find that popular culture and ad hoc experimentation have fueled the use of aggressive and sometimes physical interrogation techniques to get those captured on the battlefields to talk, even if there is no evidence to support the tactics' effectiveness. The board, which advises the director of national intelligence, recommends studying the matter.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You can't debate it's usefulness, because there is no data to compare it with. What I'm arguing is that it should not be removed as a possible tool, but it should be used in restraint until there is better data to determine what type of interrogation methods work and what does not.

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]you know if they use it to stop lets say a terrorist bombing a few hours before it happens im okay with itbman784

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]waterboarding will never do any psychological or physical permanant damage to anyone which is why the US likes it and it's so effective; it works quickly. It's only getting publicized because it works so wellsonicare

Like so much with torture, it works at getting you the information that you want coming from the detainees mouth.

The Egyptian who testified that there were WMD's in Iraq all those years ago did so under torture, and we all know his testimony was oh so accurate in hindsight. :roll:

Only question I would ask you is, would you support the use of waterboarding on american troops?

They would be lucky if just waterboarding was used on them. US troops have been subjected to far worse.

Doesn't mean you should be allowed to reciprocate the act. And I know "terrorists" have also been subjected to pretty harsh treatment as well. The US government is the one who goes on about Human Rights and accuses other nations of torturing people. This is just a pure case of hypocrisy. You can't take the moral high ground and at the same time expect to use underhand tactics.

I'm glad you live in the land of oz with magical fairies where everyone loves each other. Unfortunately, the real world is a far darker place. I don't like torture or terror, but I realize they exist. I'm sure your own nation liberally employs torture whether you know of it or not.

Well done for reducing the conversation to one of a childs level.:roll:

And as for my nation, I am absolutely against the UK government (or any government for that matter), in using torture. I am also completely against the UK extradition policy to the US, where it sends whatever citizens it wants to the US for potential torture. It strips them of any rights they may have had in the UK. I am also against the UK helping CIA torture flights using UK bases, and am completely against any help the UK government provides with helping other countries like Egypt or Pakistan in torturing their own people.

So yes I am very vocal against my own country. :roll:

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]you know if they use it to stop lets say a terrorist bombing a few hours before it happens im okay with itdrowningfish999

These hypothetical ticking time bomb scenarios don't actually exist in the real world though.

Water boarding is torture?Frattracide

We've tried it as torture before. How you like them apples? Anyways, time for another special comment Keith.

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

Hoobinator

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

The_Ish

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it.

Hoobinator

False. "Terrorists" do what they do to advance their own agenda, and it is never in the public's interest and is most likely to result in a direct attack on civilians.

Government organizations do what they do to protect and serve their own nation and it's people.

of course not no sane person would however getting rid of it altogether gets rid of your options. its kinda like when a doctor does something to save you but in the process it might kill you. the question is is it worth the risk and i say yes it isSerraph105

The thing is that the likelihood of your scenario is infintismally smaller than the likelihood of the scenario he brought up and intelligent obtained through torture is less reliable and no quicker than intelligence gained through humane means. Basically as I see it anybody who supports these crimes has been manipulated into believing something that is mostly pure fiction.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

Hoobinator

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

I don't believe that most terrorists operate with any ethical code. Do you think the terrorists that were shooting 5 year old children in the back at Beslan were worried about whether or not that was in accordance with the Geneva Convention? But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it.

The_Ish

False. "Terrorists" do what they do to advance their own agenda, and it is never in the public's interest and is most likely to result in a direct attack on civilians.

Government organizations do what they do to protect and serve their own nation and it's people.

False, large generalisations get you nowhere. "Terrorist" organisations and people, advance their own political agendas, much like the any other government. To view them as people who are below the rule of law, is exactly what the human rights documents and geneva conventions were designed to counteract against.

Also the fact that anyone could be called a terrorist, and tortured without due process isn't frightening enough. :|

"Do unto others, as you would like done to yourself."

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it.

Hoobinator

False. "Terrorists" do what they do to advance their own agenda, and it is never in the public's interest and is most likely to result in a direct attack on civilians.

Government organizations do what they do to protect and serve their own nation and it's people.

False, large generalisations get you nowhere. "Terrorist" organisations and people, advance their own political agendas, much like the any other government. To view them as people who are below the rule of law, is exactly what the human rights documents and geneva conventions were designed to counteract against.

Also the fact that anyone could be called a terrorist, and tortured without due process isn't frightening enough. :|

"Do unto others, as you would like done to yourself."

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

sonicare

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

I don't believe that most terrorists operate with any ethical code. Do you think the terrorists that were shooting 5 year old children in the back at Beslan were worried about whether or not that was in accordance with the Geneva Convention? But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Pathetic smear insults get you nowhere.

The fact remains that although some "terrorists" may not be abiding by the rule of law, it is still up to those who created the laws and who advocate them i.e. the US government to abide by theirs.

You can't automatically smear a people by calling them "terrorists" and strip them of any rights they may have had. So a person who is simply labelled a "terrorist" could under the amended laws, the one Bush wants in place, be tortured and had done whatever they want against them.

Again if it doesn't need explaining enough, you can't take the moral high ground and use double standards yourself.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it.

drowningfish999

False. "Terrorists" do what they do to advance their own agenda, and it is never in the public's interest and is most likely to result in a direct attack on civilians.

Government organizations do what they do to protect and serve their own nation and it's people.

False, large generalisations get you nowhere. "Terrorist" organisations and people, advance their own political agendas, much like the any other government. To view them as people who are below the rule of law, is exactly what the human rights documents and geneva conventions were designed to counteract against.

Also the fact that anyone could be called a terrorist, and tortured without due process isn't frightening enough. :|

"Do unto others, as you would like done to yourself."

The War on Terror is a direct military response. :|

False, large generalisations get you nowhere. "Terrorist" organisations and people, advance their own political agendas, much like the any other government. To view them as people who are below the rule of law, is exactly what the human rights documents and geneva conventions were designed to counteract against.

Hoobinator

That's why I quoted terrorist. ;)

Whether or not every person called a terrorist is an actual terrorist can be debatable, but in during these times, the enemies of the US and it's people (insurgents, Al Queda, etc) are terrorists in every definition of the word. In other words, this puts the US in the moral right, and the "terrorists" in the moral wrong.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it.

drowningfish999

False. "Terrorists" do what they do to advance their own agenda, and it is never in the public's interest and is most likely to result in a direct attack on civilians.

Government organizations do what they do to protect and serve their own nation and it's people.

False, large generalisations get you nowhere. "Terrorist" organisations and people, advance their own political agendas, much like the any other government. To view them as people who are below the rule of law, is exactly what the human rights documents and geneva conventions were designed to counteract against.

Also the fact that anyone could be called a terrorist, and tortured without due process isn't frightening enough. :|

"Do unto others, as you would like done to yourself."

It's an extremely difficult situation. Terrorists have no rules. They have no morals. They have no ethics. Initially they may have had some political motives, but in the end it just becomes about hate and killing. They get off on killing people. In terms of politics, terrorism has almost never achieved its goals. All it ends up doing is polarizing the opposing group.

The trouble is, how do you fight terrorism? It's easy to get bitter and start trying to "get back" at terrorists with equally low tactics. If they don't fight fair, why should we? Countries end up sacrificing their values and such in the process. There's no easy answer or solution. But unlike some, I'm not going to ride some high horse and condemn and chastise everything . . .

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

sonicare

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Making statements like this makes you look like a fool and takes away any credibility that you may have had.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

False, large generalisations get you nowhere. "Terrorist" organisations and people, advance their own political agendas, much like the any other government. To view them as people who are below the rule of law, is exactly what the human rights documents and geneva conventions were designed to counteract against.

The_Ish

That's why I quoted terrorist. ;)

Whether or not every person called a terrorist is an actual terrorist can be debatable, but in during these times, the enemies of the US and it's people (insurgents, Al Queda, etc) are terrorists in every definition of the word. In other words, this puts the US in the moral right, and the "terrorists" in the moral wrong.

But this morality itself is a concoction of western standards and labels. ;) So basically it comes down to, "whoever the US and its allies think is a terrorist... is a terrorist", since there is no global overarching world government, by which each side could put their case against.

In more simplified terminology, US morality is not absolute, and never has been.

But this morality itself is a concoction of western standards and labels. ;) So basically it comes down to, "whoever the US and its allies think is a terrorist... is a terrorist", since there is no global overarching world government, by which each side could put their case against.

Hoobinator

False, again.

Directly attacking innocent people to stop them from continuing their lives like they want is pretty much a universal wrong. It isn't a Western moral standard. It isn't an Eastern moral standard. It's just a moral standard.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]I wonder what McCain thinks of this.bman784

Sorry dreams John McCain was against waterboarding but he voted against banning it. So basically he flipped and changed opinion at the last moment, hoping the electorate didn't see his change in opinion.

John McCain is not against waterboarding anymore.

"Here is what McCain said while campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa last October. "Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak. People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that…When I was imprisoned, I took heart from the fact that I knew my North Vietnamese captors would never be treated like I was treated by them… There are much better and more effective ways to get information. You torture someone long enough; he'll tell whatever he thinks you want to know."

McCain failed to back up his campaign rhetoric in February when he voted against this same bill when it was going through the Senate. It would appear that what we have here is an obvious case of a nominee changing his position to conform to the rest of his party. With one swath of his veto pen, President Bush will force John McCain to choose whether he is going to stick to his principles, or pander for the presidency. If you really have to wonder which one he will choose, then you probably have not been following presidential campaign politics for very long."

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

Hoobinator

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

I don't believe that most terrorists operate with any ethical code. Do you think the terrorists that were shooting 5 year old children in the back at Beslan were worried about whether or not that was in accordance with the Geneva Convention? But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Pathetic smear insults get you nowhere.

The fact remains that although some "terrorists" may not be abiding by the rule of law, it is still up to those who created the laws and who advocate them i.e. the US government to abide by theirs.

You can't automatically smear a people by calling them "terrorists" and strip them of any rights they may have had. So a person who is simply labelled a "terrorist" could under the amended laws, the one Bush wants in place, be tortured and had done whatever they want against them.

Again if it doesn't need explaining enough, you can't take the moral high ground and use double standards yourself.

Stop trying to play the victim here. Smear tactics? Get over yourself. You just defended the actions of terrorism in an earlier post. You claim hypocrisy on others, but you bash torture yet seem to justify terror tactics. That makes no sense to me. You should be equally as vigilant in condemning both.

I don't label countries, races, or groups of people - terrorist. I don't label Iran or North Korea as terrorists. What I label terrorists are specific groups and individuals, who by their actions, target civilians and nonmilitary targets. I certainly understand the danger of broad categorization and am opposed to that.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

gobo212

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Making statements like this makes you look like a fool and takes away any credibility that you may have had.

Then please justify terrorism for me. Please show me how it is an acceptable practice.

[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

sonicare

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Making statements like this makes you look like a fool and takes away any credibility that you may have had.

Then please justify terrorism for me. Please show me how it is an acceptable practice.

Just proving my point.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

gobo212

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Making statements like this makes you look like a fool and takes away any credibility that you may have had.

Then please justify terrorism for me. Please show me how it is an acceptable practice.

Just proving my point.

Which is what?

False, again.

Directly attacking innocent people to stop them from continuing their lives like they want is pretty much a universal wrong. It isn't a Western moral standard. It isn't an Eastern moral standard. It's just a moral standard.

The_Ish

Then the US Government is a terrorist every time it arrests a weed smoker. Question:

Which one of these two groups is a terrorist organization and which is composed of freedom fighters?

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But this morality itself is a concoction of western standards and labels. ;) So basically it comes down to, "whoever the US and its allies think is a terrorist... is a terrorist", since there is no global overarching world government, by which each side could put their case against.

The_Ish

False, again.

Directly attacking innocent people to stop them from continuing their lives like they want is pretty much a universal wrong. It isn't a Western moral standard. It isn't an Eastern moral standard. It's just a moral standard.

The case wasn't so much against what is terrorism, but who is a terrorist. Would it be justified if the US government thought person X from Syria was a terrorist? Would the US be justified in torturing that person, to get the knowledge they want? What about groups that don't target civilians like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, all 125,000 were recently declared terrorists by George W Bush. There has been no proof that these people have ever attacked or killed Iranian civilians.

I am not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but the use of torture in modern world is extremely dubious and dangerous. Not only is it completely against the laws of most western nations, laws which would have to changed accordingly if they wanted to carry on with torture, but against who would it be directed at.

So again I make my point, using a government like the US or its allies to attach the word "terrorist" onto a person or a people, seems to strip them of any right they ever had.

waterboarding will never do any psychological or physical permanant damage to anyone which is why the US likes it and it's so effective; it works quickly. It's only getting publicized because it works so wellDivergeUnify

"Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure"

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But from a constitutional, legal and humans right point of view the use of torture is abhorrent and illegal. You're basically saying continue using torture because at some point, we might be found right in doing so, even though there are innumerable cases historical cases which say otherwise.

I kind of see the justification of torture like the justification of carpet bombing or nuking a civilian village, you never know we might just end up killing some terrorists as well.

sonicare

Enemies of the US are not Constitutionally protected. Though they are protected by Human Rights, which is pretty much spit on by every nation.

Yes, I am saying that you should use torture. There is not enough data to tell of it's effectiveness, but completely ruling it out is naive.

And your analogy at the end is not relevant at all.

So you would be happy with "terrorists" using torture techniques on US soldiers. I mean if the US government does it, then it has no moral right to stop the enemy doing it. Infact it would have no right to even criticise the enemy from doing it.

I don't believe that most terrorists operate with any ethical code. Do you think the terrorists that were shooting 5 year old children in the back at Beslan were worried about whether or not that was in accordance with the Geneva Convention? But then again, you're probably one of those people that tries to justify terrorism. Those school children had it coming. . . .:roll:

Pathetic smear insults get you nowhere.

The fact remains that although some "terrorists" may not be abiding by the rule of law, it is still up to those who created the laws and who advocate them i.e. the US government to abide by theirs.

You can't automatically smear a people by calling them "terrorists" and strip them of any rights they may have had. So a person who is simply labelled a "terrorist" could under the amended laws, the one Bush wants in place, be tortured and had done whatever they want against them.

Again if it doesn't need explaining enough, you can't take the moral high ground and use double standards yourself.

Stop trying to play the victim here. Smear tactics? Get over yourself. You just defended the actions of terrorism in an earlier post. You claim hypocrisy on others, but you bash torture yet seem to justify terror tactics. That makes no sense to me. You should be equally as vigilant in condemning both.

I don't label countries, races, or groups of people - terrorist. I don't label Iran or North Korea as terrorists. What I label terrorists are specific groups and individuals, who by their actions, target civilians and nonmilitary targets. I certainly understand the danger of broad categorization and am opposed to that.

Attacking civlians whether using a home made IED or a B52 bomber from 10,000 feet is completely unjustified. Civilians should never be targetted.

Happy now? :roll: And at no point have I justified terrorism. I've been justifying the principle of rights for everyone. So if that happens to mean that a terrorist is given due process in a court of law, without the use of torture then so be it.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

False, again.

Directly attacking innocent people to stop them from continuing their lives like they want is pretty much a universal wrong. It isn't a Western moral standard. It isn't an Eastern moral standard. It's just a moral standard.

Aidenfury19

Then the US Government is a terrorist every time it arrests a weed smoker.

Failed analogy.

Arresting weed smokers and making them pay a civil fine or go to a rehab center for a week is not comparable to stopping terrorists from killing hundreds of innocent people.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.