Bush OFFICIALLY VETOS Legislation Barring Use of Waterboarding.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

I haven't made any points why US should abandon torture.... :lol: What would you like the legal one, the Geneva convention, the human rights based one, the morality based one??? Torture as it stands today by the US breaks every rule in the human rights, Generva convention, but it's OK, it's the US, let them do it, it's only against "terrorists". :roll:

The_Ish

You're right. You havn't made any points on why the US should abandon any type of torture. Including waterboarding. You also made no points as to why the US shouldn't blame terrorists for abandoning human rights. None of your arguments have been relative those.

Terrorists should abide by the rule of the Geneva conventions, if they don't, that shouldn't stop the US from not fulfilling its duties.

Simple really.

I look at it this way. If we know for certain a terrorist attack is going to happen in exactly one week, and we are holding a terrorist who holds key information and being "nice" to him or some other method won't cut it, by all means I say water board him. If it comes down to the (depending on your view) torture of one man or the deaths of many Americans, I'd take the "torture".

In most other cases though, water boarding should not be used.

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

The Taliban behind attacks on US citizens, which attacks were these??? I hope he's not implying Taliban were behind 9/11.

Hoobinator

I wasn't. :|

Then please explain which attacks on US citizens were the Taliban behind. :| I can't for the life of me figure it out?

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

The Taliban behind attacks on US citizens, which attacks were these??? I hope he's not implying Taliban were behind 9/11.

Hoobinator

I wasn't. :|

Then please explain which attacks on US citizens were the Taliban behind. :| I can't for the life of me figure it out?

That was my mistake due to my misunderstanding. Though I never implied, nor meant to imply that the Taliban were behind 9/11. They harbored many of the people involved with 9/11. I'm sure you remembered that.

still havent fessed up to where you are fromClinton015

The UK. A fellow nation that hasn't rid itself of torture tactics. And yes I am ashamed.

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

The Taliban behind attacks on US citizens, which attacks were these??? I hope he's not implying Taliban were behind 9/11.

The_Ish

I wasn't. :|

Then please explain which attacks on US citizens were the Taliban behind. :| I can't for the life of me figure it out?

That was my mistake due to my misunderstanding. Though I never implied, nor meant to imply that the Taliban were behind 9/11. They harbored many of the people involved with 9/11. I'm sure you remembered that.

Which people? None of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. You must mean Osama right. The man who could quite easily have been in many other surrounding countries.

But if the US government says it was Osama in Afghanistan then it must be true. After all these people told us Iraq had WMD's and they were found to be telling the truth. :|

Terrorists should abide by the rule of the Geneva conventions, if they don't, that shouldn't stop the US from not fulfilling its duties.

Simple really.

Hoobinator

Terrorists don't abide by the Geneva conventions, and why should the US when interrogating terrorists to find out information to protect it's citizens?

Just as simple.

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

The Taliban behind attacks on US citizens, which attacks were these??? I hope he's not implying Taliban were behind 9/11.

Clinton015

I wasn't. :|

Then please explain which attacks on US citizens were the Taliban behind. :| I can't for the life of me figure it out?

He's only just confessed to it being a mistake. So the mistake was on his part, not mine. ;)

Terrorists don't abide by the Geneva conventions, and why should the US when interrogating terrorists to find out information to protect it's citizens?

Just as simple.

The_Ish

because the US is supposedly "better" then these terrorists?

[QUOTE="Clinton015"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

The Taliban behind attacks on US citizens, which attacks were these??? I hope he's not implying Taliban were behind 9/11.

Hoobinator

I wasn't. :|

Then please explain which attacks on US citizens were the Taliban behind. :| I can't for the life of me figure it out?

He's only just confessed to it being a mistake. So the mistake was on his part, not mine. ;)

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

Terrorists should abide by the rule of the Geneva conventions, if they don't, that shouldn't stop the US from not fulfilling its duties.

Simple really.

The_Ish

Terrorists don't abide by the Geneva conventions, and why should the US when interrogating terrorists to find out information to protect it's citizens?

Just as simple.

But anyone the US defines as being a terrorist... is a terrorist. Do you not see the problem??? :| Who do you torture, what wrong should he have committed before he can be tortured. Should a person X from Syria who may have links to terrorism, though not certain, should they be tortured.

Or is this a case of only torture brown people with funny names and leave everyone else out.

Havn't you ever heard of Osama Bin Laden?

cpo335

Yeah and hes Saudi.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

Terrorists don't abide by the Geneva conventions, and why should the US when interrogating terrorists to find out information to protect it's citizens?

Just as simple.

Hewkii

because the US is supposedly "better" then these terrorists?

Which people? None of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. You must mean Osama right. The man who could quite easily have been in many other surrounding countries.

But if the US government says it was Osama in Afghanistan then it must be true. After all these people told us Iraq had WMD's and they were found to be telling the truth. :|

Hoobinator

Once again, your making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. I never said the terrorists that attacked 9/11 or were involved in 9/11 were Afghani.

Yes, Osama might have been in the other countries, but there is no evidence for that. In fact...Afghanistan was the country he was most likely to be in, because it is a safe haven for terrorists.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

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

Terrorists should abide by the rule of the Geneva conventions, if they don't, that shouldn't stop the US from not fulfilling its duties.

Simple really.

Hoobinator

Terrorists don't abide by the Geneva conventions, and why should the US when interrogating terrorists to find out information to protect it's citizens?

Just as simple.

But anyone the US defines as being a terrorist... is a terrorist. Do you not see the problem??? :| Who do you torture, what wrong should he have committed before he can be tortured. Should a person X from Syria who may have links to terrorism, though not certain, should they be tortured.

Or is this a case of only torture brown people with funny names and leave everyone else out.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

Terrorists don't abide by the Geneva conventions, and why should the US when interrogating terrorists to find out information to protect it's citizens?

Just as simple.

Hewkii

because the US is supposedly "better" then these terrorists?

Yes, because the US was not resorting to attacking civilians specifically to scare them into allowing them to advance their own agenda.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

Which people? None of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. You must mean Osama right. The man who could quite easily have been in many other surrounding countries.

But if the US government says it was Osama in Afghanistan then it must be true. After all these people told us Iraq had WMD's and they were found to be telling the truth. :|

The_Ish

Once again, your making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. I never said the terrorists that attacked 9/11 or were involved in 9/11 were Afghani.

Yes, Osama might have been in the other countries, but there is no evidence for that. In fact...Afghanistan was the country he was most likely to be in, because it is a safe haven for terrorists.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Again your assumption that Osama may have been in Afghanistan could be about as correct as WMD's could be Iraq. Maybe it was all BS.

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

Which people? None of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. You must mean Osama right. The man who could quite easily have been in many other surrounding countries.

But if the US government says it was Osama in Afghanistan then it must be true. After all these people told us Iraq had WMD's and they were found to be telling the truth. :|

Hoobinator

Once again, your making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. I never said the terrorists that attacked 9/11 or were involved in 9/11 were Afghani.

Yes, Osama might have been in the other countries, but there is no evidence for that. In fact...Afghanistan was the country he was most likely to be in, because it is a safe haven for terrorists.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Again your assumption that Osama may have been in Afghanistan could be about as correct as WMD's could be Iraq. Maybe it was all BS.

Yes, because the US was not resorting to attacking civilians specifically to scare them into allowing them to advance their own agenda.

The_Ish

I don't see what that has to do with following the Geneva convention.

I look at it this way. If we know for certain a terrorist attack is going to happen in exactly one week, and we are holding a terrorist who holds key information and being "nice" to him or some other method won't cut it, by all means I say water board him. If it comes down to the (depending on your view) torture of one man or the deaths of many Americans, I'd take the "torture".

In most other cases though, water boarding should not be used.

Cube_of_MooN

1) Never happens, too much Sum of All Fears I think.

2) Torture wouldn't help at all in this case, your post is a purely emotional response.

You got to do what you got to do to get important information to protect the country. If you dont like it, get out of the country. kool-aids

But anyone the US defines as being a terrorist... is a terrorist. Do you not see the problem??? :| Who do you torture, what wrong should he have committed before he can be tortured. Should a person X from Syria who may have links to terrorism, though not certain, should they be tortured.

Or is this a case of only torture brown people with funny names and leave everyone else out.

Hoobinator

You're implying that my stance towards the use of torture should be liberal. No.

Torture should be used against those that we know have terrorist links and has information that we can use, and even then torture should be used in restraint.

This should be allowed especially when we know who the terrorist is. Whether we use torture or not should not be a question - a government should do whatever it needs to protect it's people. What should be a question is how we define those terrorists, and how certain we are of their links and intentions. Granted, I don't agree that everyone Bush calls a terrorist is a terrorist, but in this day and age, we can easily determine which terrorist is a threat to the US.

And your comment about the brown people with funny names was irrelevant and intolerable. My name is not funny. In fact, I'd say it's better than yours. And no, I do not look like entirely Indian, like you seem to think we are when you refered to us as brown.

Again your assumption that Osama may have been in Afghanistan could be about as correct as WMD's could be Iraq. Maybe it was all BS.

Hoobinator

Possibly, but many 9/11 fugitives were being harbored in Afghanistan, and it was a haven for anti-US terrorists. Invading Afghanistan and displacing their old government was a far better and understandable move than invading Iraq in terms of the relative safety of the US.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

Yes, because the US was not resorting to attacking civilians specifically to scare them into allowing them to advance their own agenda.

Hewkii

I don't see what that has to do with following the Geneva convention.

Me neither.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But anyone the US defines as being a terrorist... is a terrorist. Do you not see the problem??? :| Who do you torture, what wrong should he have committed before he can be tortured. Should a person X from Syria who may have links to terrorism, though not certain, should they be tortured.

Or is this a case of only torture brown people with funny names and leave everyone else out.

The_Ish

You're implying that my stance towards the use of torture should be liberal. No.

Torture should be used against those that we know have terrorist links and has information that we can use, and even then torture should be used in restraint.

This should be allowed especially when we know who the terrorist is. Whether we use torture or not should not be a question - a government should do whatever it needs to protect it's people. What should be a question is how we define those terrorists, and how certain we are of their links and intentions. Granted, I don't agree that everyone Bush calls a terrorist is a terrorist, but in this day and age, we can easily determine which terrorist is a threat to the US.

And your comment about the brown people with funny names was irrelevant and intolerable. My name is not funny. In fact, I'd say it's better than yours. And no, I do not look like entirely Indian, like you seem to think we are when you refered to us as brown.

Firstly the "brown people" remark wasn't meant as an insult, but a deliberately exaggerated statement to highlight the absurdity of it. I've been defending peoples rights in this thread from the beginning, so I wouldn't exactly start to insult people right now.

Secondly I am completely against the above highlighted text. The fact is we can't easily detect who the terrorist is. So the use of torture really would be against people in the dark. And if you really do know how to tell which terrorist is threat then please enlighten me, I'd like to know.

Secondly I am completely against the above highlighted text. The fact is we can't easily detect who the terrorist is. So the use of torture really would be against people in the dark. And if you really do know how to tell which terrorist is threat then please enlighten me, I'd like to know.

Hoobinator

The ones shooting at us, or in the process of killing us.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

Secondly I am completely against the above highlighted text. The fact is we can't easily detect who the terrorist is. So the use of torture really would be against people in the dark. And if you really do know how to tell which terrorist is threat then please enlighten me, I'd like to know.

The_Ish

The ones shooting at us, or in the process of killing us.

So basically captured combatants. But as combatants in war, they have certain rights under the Geneva convention, even if they don't fight as part of a state. Again to expand on an earlier point I made, would an army that solely targets the US, like say Sadr's Army in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan, would they still be deemed as civilian targetting "terrorists"?

So basically captured combatants. But as combatants in war, they have certain rights under the Geneva convention, even if they don't fight as part of a state.

Hoobinator

And that is when the US has the right to use whatever means is available to them to protect it's citizens, like a government is supposed to.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

So basically captured combatants. But as combatants in war, they have certain rights under the Geneva convention, even if they don't fight as part of a state.

The_Ish

And that is when the US has the right to use whatever means is available to them to protect it's citizens, like a government is supposed to.

But the Geneva convention was meant to stamp this out. OK, lets fast forward say in 10 years from now the US and China go to war, many US soldiers are captured, torture is used on them to extract information, would the Chinese military and state be justified?

Because I will guarantee you, if the US chooses to adopt open torture policies this is going to send a massive fallout to other nations and potential future wars and treatment of prisoners.

[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.

Since when is it a privilege to live under a government that tortures its own subjects and those from abroad? Sacrifices have been made not to live under a government that has no regard for basic, fundamental human rights.

Based on your reasoning it seems that fear has already gotten to you, rendering you incapable to reason sensibly.

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

[QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"]

I look at it this way. If we know for certain a terrorist attack is going to happen in exactly one week, and we are holding a terrorist who holds key information and being "nice" to him or some other method won't cut it, by all means I say water board him. If it comes down to the (depending on your view) torture of one man or the deaths of many Americans, I'd take the "torture".

In most other cases though, water boarding should not be used.

Aidenfury19

1) Never happens, too much Sum of All Fears I think.

2) Torture wouldn't help at all in this case, your post is a purely emotional response.

You got to do what you got to do to get important information to protect the country. If you dont like it, get out of the country. kool-aids

Well said.

People convince themselves that torture is okay because of crazy 'torture X guy or a nuke goes off' hypothetical scenarios, but that's (1) a ridiculously implausible scenario (2) based off of a lot of incorrect assumptions about the reliability of torture information.

In all propability, it would work out like this.

CIA Agent: Should we torture this guy? He may know about a plot to set off a bomb in NYC.
Cube_of_MooN: Sure.

*torture*

CIA Agent: Well, he didn't know anything. He eventually gave us bad information, and while we were pursuing those leads the bombs went off in LA. If only we had directed our resources to a reliable form of intelligence...
Cube_of_MooN: DURBRBURBURBURBURBUBRUBR

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

So basically captured combatants. But as combatants in war, they have certain rights under the Geneva convention, even if they don't fight as part of a state.

The_Ish

And that is when the US has the right to use whatever means is available to them to protect it's citizens, like a government is supposed to.

Rest assured that a country where the government is allowed to torture internationally and locally, we are neither safe nor free.

good idea...that will be effective...afterwards you can give him 5 lashings and ban Tv for a weekClinton015

Do unto others as you would have them do to you. It's the golden rule, and applies even in war.

If an arab nation tortured an american soldier, war would be declared faster than you can say 'geneva conventions'

You treat your POWs as you would expect them to treat theirs. End discussion.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you. It's the golden rule, and applies even in war.

If an arab nation tortured an american soldier, war would be declared faster than you can say 'geneva conventions'

You treat your POWs as you would expect them to treat theirs. End discussion.

Mr_sprinkles

Agreed.

banned not banned, they will still do ithormagaunt

Torture is just part of war. There is no way around it. kool-aids

Didn't a man once say something like this...

The damage torture does to the reputation of America far outweighs any military advantage one might gain through the use of torture...

Personally, I don't think waterboading is torture...

[QUOTE="kool-aids"]Torture is just part of war. There is no way around it. Mr_sprinkles

If the CIA wants information on anything, they can torture just about anyone. Plus, America is way different the Britain, it is most of the time America vs. Terrorist. Britain has a small hand in the war in Iraq, so why would they have to interrogate anyone?

You do realize that most nations of the world employ torture? If you think yours doesn't, then I'd like to sell you a car. . . . sonicare

Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean we have to.

We need change in this country. We need to lead the world by example and tell all the other countries, "This is how it's done."

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="kool-aids"]Torture is just part of war. There is no way around it. kool-aids

If the CIA wants information on anything, they can torture just about anyone. Plus, America is way different the Britain, it is most of the time America vs. Terrorist. Britain has a small hand in the war in Iraq, so why would they have to interrogate anyone?

If the CIA wants info from a US soldier, and they don't talk, should they torture them?

[QUOTE="kool-aids"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="kool-aids"]Torture is just part of war. There is no way around it. Mr_sprinkles

If the CIA wants information on anything, they can torture just about anyone. Plus, America is way different the Britain, it is most of the time America vs. Terrorist. Britain has a small hand in the war in Iraq, so why would they have to interrogate anyone?

If the CIA wants info from a US soldier, and they don't talk, should they torture them?

Im not saying they should, but if they have to, more power to them.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="kool-aids"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="kool-aids"]Torture is just part of war. There is no way around it. kool-aids

If the CIA wants information on anything, they can torture just about anyone. Plus, America is way different the Britain, it is most of the time America vs. Terrorist. Britain has a small hand in the war in Iraq, so why would they have to interrogate anyone?

If the CIA wants info from a US soldier, and they don't talk, should they torture them?

Im not saying they should, but if they have to, more power to them.