Bush OFFICIALLY VETOS Legislation Barring Use of Waterboarding.

Did anyone else think that waterboarding was a form of surfboarding before they clicked on this topic?

>_>

Whight_Knight

No, because I watch television occasionally.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]Torture is bad, but sometimes it is necessary. As long as nobody goes overboard with it, I have no problem with torture.Dreams-Visions

I don't like torture and I don't agree with it, but in rare instances, I don't know . . . it may have use. It's just whether you want to lower yourself or your country to that level. It's a lose - lose situation - would you lower your ethics to torture a terrorist and learn where they planted a bomb to kill thousands or would you hold your standards yet committ thousands to die base ond that? I don't know the answer.

it's an unrealistic scenario. The Jack Bauer reality is fiction. It will be fiction. Information given under torture is useful when?

You should read that long piece that I quoted. Good for everyone's health.

Torture wouldn't exist if it wasn't useful to those implementing it. It has worked in the past, especially during wartime. It's just whether or not you want your society to drop to that level.

Let us reason together, brother:

So the question becomes this:

-Do we torture 100 men...many of whom have no information...many of whom are innocent in the first place....in order to happen upon 1 that may have some slightly useful information, should he "break" and come clean? For the sheer *possibility* that said terrorist (whom doesn't have a bright icon shining over their head revelaing their identity) will say something?

-How many of those 100 men who had no information or were innocent told us something under torture that has no truth to it, just to get the torturing to stop? How many wild goose chases will we have went on?

-What happens if we miss "the bomb" (the implausable scenario) because we tortured a guy/guys into a false-confessions and we went to the wrong places?

-What happens to the 99 who were tortured and are later released to be interviewed by Al Jazeera and others, shaping the image of US foreign policy?

-Is the true result of torture false confessions (telling you what you want to hear so that it will stop), or truth?

Think on these things, my friend.

I'm not justifying torture. I don't like it. I think it is unethical. All I'm saying is that it had use to those that have used it in the past. You can make up lots of imaginary situations or try to reason it out with your own logic, but torture has provided useful information to those that have used it in the past. That's not disputable. Many governments and militaries across different cultures have used it. It's methods have been refined over the centuries for a reason. It wouldn't be used by so many if it didn't work or provide useful information.

Again, I don't approve of it. I think it degrades the society that uses it, but to say that it produces no useful information is naive and incorrect.

My question to you continues to be: at what cost? And how many is it reasonable to torture those who know nothing for the possiblity of getting something worthwhile?

My question to you continues to be: at what cost? And how many is it reasonable to torture those who know nothing for the possiblity of getting something worthwhile?

Dreams-Visions

Again, I don't agree with torture. I think the cost is too high. I'm just saying that it is a method to obtain information - it has value in that sense. You were saying that torture has no value, but that is not true. People can obtain information that way - granted it is unethical and degrading to your society.

Even if they do speak, will they speak the truth?

Mr_sprinkles

No...which is how they got someone to confess to planning 9/11 when in reality it was a tiny portion of the US government/people who want to control the world.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

My question to you continues to be: at what cost? And how many is it reasonable to torture those who know nothing for the possiblity of getting something worthwhile?

sonicare

Again, I don't agree with torture. I think the cost is too high. I'm just saying that it is a method to obtain information - it has value in that sense. You were saying that torture has no value, but that is not true. People can obtain information that way - granted it is unethical and degrading to your society.

fair enough.

Torture wouldn't exist if it wasn't useful to those implementing it. It has worked in the past, especially during wartime. It's just whether or not you want your society to drop to that level.

sonicare

It has worked to instill fear into the population and make them admit to anything, its pretty apparent by the various incidents its most famous for. The interrogation of Joan of Arc, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials (amongst others), various totalitarian governments have all been places where it was used effectively and I think you'll agree accuracy is of little importance in those situations.

Torture has never been proven to give reliable information, theres far more evidence to the contrary.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Torture wouldn't exist if it wasn't useful to those implementing it. It has worked in the past, especially during wartime. It's just whether or not you want your society to drop to that level.

Aidenfury19

It has worked to instill fear into the population and make them admit to anything, its pretty apparent by the various incidents its most famous for. The interrogation of Joan of Arc, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials (amongst others), various totalitarian governments have all been places where it was used effectively and I think you'll agree accuracy is of little importance in those situations.

Torture has never been proven to give reliable information, theres far more evidence to the contrary.

I don't agree with torture or justify it, but if it has never been proven to give useful/reliable information, then why is it still used? For fun? I'm sure it has worked in the past. It may not be 100% reliable but very few things in the intelligence community are. Again, I feel it is morally wrong, but I don't deny that to some unsavory characters it has use.

I don't want my country/society to rely on it. They're better and more ethical ways to get information and protect ourselves. And honestly, I'd rather die or have loved ones die than rely on torture.

I don't agree with torture or justify it, but if it has never been proven to give useful/reliable information, then why is it still used? For fun? I'm sure it has worked in the past. It may not be 100% reliable but very few things in the intelligence community are. Again, I feel it is morally wrong, but I don't deny that to some unsavory characters it has use.

I don't want my country/society to rely on it. They're better and more ethical ways to get information and protect ourselves. And honestly, I'd rather die or have loved ones die than rely on torture.

sonicare

Because it is a useful tool for intimidation and if they get 1% then thats enough in these things. That is not even close to an acceptable standard here, even if torture was acceptable to begin with. That figure BTW is pure speculation on my part but its reasonable to assume that if they are:

a) Willing to kill themselves for their religion

b) Have been trained to withstand torture

Then even if you do get real terrorists you're not too likely to get much real information. Also sorry about that, I didn't see that last post of yours, this thread moved fast.

I want to know what other techniques are used for torture, and then i will make judgement. But from the sound of it, i dont see any problem with waterboarding.

Sorry if this story is published on other places, but you used Fox News for your source. Nuff said.Fireball2500

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNORmRm4JahUoi8tBwl8CvvliqygD8V954481

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23526436/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702686.html

It's an Associated Press article, not an opinion piece. Take the pettiness somewhere else.

Helium-flash

Torture methods

Our OBL crew will be around your house later an show you ,lol

Next thing you know they are going to ban skateboarding.whos_next000

I want to know what other techniques are used for torture, and then i will make judgement. But from the sound of it, i dont see any problem with waterboarding.

helium_flash

yeah, its not like it hurts or anything. It doesn't cause any lasting damage to the lungs at all, honest. And it starves your body of oxygen, but that doesn't matter does it? Its not like the lack of oxygen flowing to your brain might cause any damage or anything...

.... and it doesn't hurt you mentally or physically at all. It's good for you! it's like an enema for your face!

Waterboarding won't work much longer.

Now that the word is out about it, terrorists will "train" their members by practicing waterboarding and just get used to it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88012586&ft=1&f=1001

it has been officially vetoed.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I want to know what other techniques are used for torture, and then i will make judgement. But from the sound of it, i dont see any problem with waterboarding.

Mr_sprinkles

yeah, its not like it hurts or anything. It doesn't cause any lasting damage to the lungs at all, honest. And it starves your body of oxygen, but that doesn't matter does it? Its not like the lack of oxygen flowing to your brain might cause any damage or anything...

.... and it doesn't hurt you mentally or physically at all. It's good for you! it's like an enema for your face!

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I want to know what other techniques are used for torture, and then i will make judgement. But from the sound of it, i dont see any problem with waterboarding.

helium_flash

yeah, its not like it hurts or anything. It doesn't cause any lasting damage to the lungs at all, honest. And it starves your body of oxygen, but that doesn't matter does it? Its not like the lack of oxygen flowing to your brain might cause any damage or anything...

.... and it doesn't hurt you mentally or physically at all. It's good for you! it's like an enema for your face!

you assume much. I already posted about this. Their lungs DO fill up with water. There are doctors standing outside in case something goes wrong. It is not a simulation of drowning. You ARE drowning when being waterboarded.

If it stops the terrorists from blowing my arse up, then by all means go ahead.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I want to know what other techniques are used for torture, and then i will make judgement. But from the sound of it, i dont see any problem with waterboarding.

helium_flash

yeah, its not like it hurts or anything. It doesn't cause any lasting damage to the lungs at all, honest. And it starves your body of oxygen, but that doesn't matter does it? Its not like the lack of oxygen flowing to your brain might cause any damage or anything...

.... and it doesn't hurt you mentally or physically at all. It's good for you! it's like an enema for your face!

and inhaling a little water is not quite the same as having water poured into your lungs.

If it stops the terrorists from blowing my arse up, then by all means go ahead.

jointed

[QUOTE="jointed"]

If it stops the terrorists from blowing my arse up, then by all means go ahead.

Dreams-Visions

Americas turning into a joke...more so. Honestly in 50 years America will probably be a millitary run country with camera in every home.

"America: Freedom until we decide otherwise"darklord888

Do you know that London is one of the most heavily watched cities - there's hidden cameras and surveillance on almost every street. . . .

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]Sorry if this story is published on other places, but you used Fox News for your source. Nuff said.Dreams-Visions

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNORmRm4JahUoi8tBwl8CvvliqygD8V954481

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23526436/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702686.html

It's an Associated Press article, not an opinion piece. Take the pettiness somewhere else.

This one's for the scare mongers. Special piece of information collecting for you guys, seeing as how this thread is still alive.

Terrorism related deaths in the USA, period 1968-2006 = 3227 deaths. across a 41 year period.

From the above data, the worldwide total deaths from terrorism were = 35,023 period 1968-2006 (including modern wars).

Deaths from Lightning Strikes in the USA, period 1959-1994 = 3239 deaths, across a 36 year period.

From the above data, approximately 90 deaths from lightning strikes occur every year in the USA. If we use this information and extrapolate over a 41 year period, same as the terrorism period we'll find that approx 3689 deaths occurred over a 41 year period for deaths related to lightning strikes.

That's right folks, many more people in the US die from lightning strikes than terrorism. Heck about as many people die in a 3 year period from murders in the USA alone, than all the people who have died from terrorism worldwide between the period 1968-2006. And just to put the whole thing in even more context, there are more murders in India in one year than all terrorism deaths over the past 41 years.

I suppose we should all walk around wearing rubber suits and rubber johnnies to protect ourselves.

Don't let the governments rule you by fear.