Americans love torture

[cptau 169]

The counts of water boarding is actually misleading. KSM had water poured on his face 183 times. There were multiple pours in one session. Whether you think it is torture or not, the actual technique needs to be described.

http://www.aei.org/publication/mccain-is-wrong-ksm-was-not-waterboarded-183-times/

http://www.mrc.org/articles/was-ksm-really-tortured-waterboarding-183-times

"But the NYT's "183" figure is actually misleading, argued a U.S. official back in April when the Times' Scott Shane reported the "183" factoid (which had been first unearthed by a left-wing blogger):

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face - not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

"The water was poured 183 times - there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

[DKW 86 7,410]

1. Call me a liar again and it'll be the last time you do it here.

2. The DOJ is hardly a disinterested, uninvested third party here. Plus, "legal" and "moral" are not the synonyms. It also helps when you get to decide what the meaning of a word is for legal purposes.

3. That you think I'm a "lib" utterly cuts your credibility off at the knees. You couldn't be more clueless if you called yourself Cher and hung out with Alicia Silverstone.

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

If there were ANY credence to your assertions of torture the Obama administration would have fulfilled the demands that the left made to prosecute those involved, which never happened and never will.

He says that like it is a bad thing...

Look ET, we as a nation survived from 1783 until 2001 without condoning what is generally considered TORTURE OR DRONING.

It is not who we are as a nation.

[DKW 86 7,410]

Like the back and forth but a more serious question.

What do you think about drone strikes in countries not called Iraq or Afghanistan that kill operatives of terror and cause collateral damage? I'm being serious here...not trying to derail this wonderful discussion.

I am conflicted. It's much more ambiguous from a moral standpoint than torturing prisoners. There is no "equivalence" IMO.

In war we have often bombed or shelled with the sure knowledge that "collateral damage" will be inevitable. Does actually seeing the "collateral damage" before impact change the morality of the action? I am inclined to say no.

But I also recognize that undeclared, asymmetric wars come with a lot of moral ambiguities. Things were much simpler when dealing with existential war with a nation-state.

This probably deserves it's own thread.

When in the heat of a war with a determined foe, i am not sure that collateral damage bombing is not an overall good.

Look, carpet bombing Dresden in WWII was considered a war crime to some. I dont think so. I think it showed the German people we were ready to be as savage as they had been to so many millions of others. After Dresden, the face of reality changed in Germany. They knew what was coming and i am convinced that the more intelligent German Army officers and men knew that fighting harder was just prolonging the inevitable defeat.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

1. Call me a liar again and it'll be the last time you do it here.

2. The DOJ is hardly a disinterested, uninvested third party here. Plus, "legal" and "moral" are not the synonyms. It also helps when you get to decide what the meaning of a word is for legal purposes.

3. That you think I'm a "lib" utterly cuts your credibility off at the knees. You couldn't be more clueless if you called yourself Cher and hung out with Alicia Silverstone.

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

If there were ANY credence to your assertions of torture the Obama administration would have fulfilled the demands that the left made to prosecute those involved, which never happened and never will.

He says that like it is a bad thing...

Look ET, we as a nation survived from 1783 until 2001 without condoning what is generally considered TORTURE OR DRONING.

It is not who we are as a nation.

He acts like I really care about being called a liberal. It doesn't upset me - it just makes me think you're an idiot if you do. Or in a more charitable light, a complete and total n00b.

[AUUSN 823]

Like the back and forth but a more serious question.

What do you think about drone strikes in countries not called Iraq or Afghanistan that kill operatives of terror and cause collateral damage? I'm being serious here...not trying to derail this wonderful discussion.

I'll start a new thread about this subject later today because of the range of topics that go with it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

[AUUSN 823]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

You are confusing the actions of an intelligence agency conducting counter terrorism to a military action.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

I'm not a political, war ethics philosopher unlike some on here but I earned my CIB while I deployed so I may be biased or too passionate on the subject. I'm not a biblical nut either but my philosophy is "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth". We can't let morals hold us back when interrogating terrorists because they are the same people that killed 3,000 people in one day. To hell with em. They treat our POW's like s***. I've seen countless classified videos where they torture and kill our soldiers, videos that our government wouldn't dare to put on mainstream news networks. So it would be against our interests to protect them.

[AUUSN 823]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

I'm not a political, war ethics philosopher unlike some on here but I earned my CIB while I deployed so I may be biased or too passionate on the subject. I'm not a biblical nut either but my philosophy is "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth". We can't let morals hold us back when interrogating terrorists because they are the same people that killed 3,000 people in one day. To hell with em. They treat our POW's like s***. I've seen countless classified videos where they torture and kill our soldiers, videos that our government wouldn't dare to put on mainstream news networks. So it would be against our interests to protect them.

Thanks for your service. Then you know from your training how to treat a combatant once he has been pulled from the battlefield. Remember My Lai in Vietnam?

[AURaptor 1,121]

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

I'm not a political, war ethics philosopher unlike some on here but I earned my CIB while I deployed so I may be biased or too passionate on the subject. I'm not a biblical nut either but my philosophy is "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth". We can't let morals hold us back when interrogating terrorists because they are the same people that killed 3,000 people in one day. To hell with em. They treat our POW's like s***. I've seen countless classified videos where they torture and kill our soldiers, videos that our government wouldn't dare to put on mainstream news networks. So it would be against our interests to protect them.

Thanks for your service. Then you know from your training how to treat a combatant once he has been pulled from the battlefield. Remember My Lai in Vietnam?

I was trained to not take prisoners. Just to show you how times have changed. Yes, I remember studying about My Lai... Another black eye for America.

[AUUSN 823]

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

I'm not a political, war ethics philosopher unlike some on here but I earned my CIB while I deployed so I may be biased or too passionate on the subject. I'm not a biblical nut either but my philosophy is "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth". We can't let morals hold us back when interrogating terrorists because they are the same people that killed 3,000 people in one day. To hell with em. They treat our POW's like s***. I've seen countless classified videos where they torture and kill our soldiers, videos that our government wouldn't dare to put on mainstream news networks. So it would be against our interests to protect them.

Thanks for your service. Then you know from your training how to treat a combatant once he has been pulled from the battlefield. Remember My Lai in Vietnam?

I was trained to not take prisoners. Just to show you how times have changed. Yes, I remember studying about My Lai... Another black eye for America.

I hear you loud and clear. You are an agent of the state on the battlefield projecting the war plan as set forth by your government and leadership. A CIA agent at a black site in Romania is not. That's my argument.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

You have an enormous capacity for delusion.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

You have an enormous capacity for delusion.

Rather reminiscent of how Bill Clinton selectively re-defined terms to delude himself into believing he was being truthful. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in his mind was the truth because he just redefined "sexual relations" to not include oral sex. Funny that Raptor of all people would follow his lead.

[AURaptor 1,121]

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

You have an enormous capacity for delusion.

So do you. Difference is, I don't show it.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

You have an enormous capacity for delusion.

Rather reminiscent of how Bill Clinton selectively re-defined terms to delude himself into believing he was being truthful. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in his mind was the truth because he just redefined "sexual relations" to not include oral sex.

Actually, he used the most technical definition of the phrase. He wasn't deluding himself about what he did, he was deceiving the American people while being technically correct. His goal was to deceive others, not delude himself.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

You have an enormous capacity for delusion.

Rather reminiscent of how Bill Clinton selectively re-defined terms to delude himself into believing he was being truthful. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in his mind was the truth because he just redefined "sexual relations" to not include oral sex. Funny that Raptor of all people would follow his lead.

You are an amazing study in selective delusion, yourself. You prefer to take a one sided report to heart w/o even wondering if there is another side to this story. Seems to me you'd be perfectly comfortable with a kangaroo court as long as it serves your personal perspective. Never mind in 2003 Congress gave the CIA the approval AND the funding to do the very thing they did and that includes the likes of key critics now, Rockefeller and Pelosi who are righteously indignant about it now. I am also amazed by your apparent inability to see the political motivation behind this report. Democrats wanted to use the report as a cudgel against the CIA and they did it by not even speaking to anyone who participated in the program.

3000 Americans had been senselessly murdered. Intel indicated that a second wave of attacks was imminent and rather than understanding that specific context and the attendant pressure it put on those charged with protecting Americans, you prefer pontificating about what Jesus would do by suggesting that what was done goes against everything taught in the Bible. Forgive my candor but, I'm just glad your input in such matters is limited to this obscure forum as i would feel intensely uncomfortable about you actually having any kind of say so. Are you comfortable making the absolute argument that there is never any time or any situation wherein the EITs employed would be OK?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

You are an amazing study in selective delusion, yourself. You prefer to take a one sided report to heart w/o even wondering if there is another side to this story. Seems to me you'd be perfectly comfortable with a kangaroo court as long as it serves your personal perspective. Never mind in 2003 Congress gave the CIA the approval AND the funding to do the very thing they did and that includes the likes of key critics now, Rockefeller and Pelosi who are righteously indignant about it now. I am also amazed by your apparent inability to see the political motivation behind this report. Democrats wanted to use the report as a cudgel against the CIA and they did it by not even speaking to anyone who participated in the program.

When you quit harping on what was legal, since nothing I've posted on this subject has ever been about what was legal, I will feel the need to respond to this repeated angle of yours. You're arguing against a position of your choosing rather than the position I've put forth.

3000 Americans had been senselessly murdered. Intel indicated that a second wave of attacks was imminent and rather than understanding that specific context and the attendant pressure it put on those charged with protecting Americans, you prefer pontificating about what Jesus would do by suggesting that what was done goes against everything taught in the Bible. Forgive my candor but, I'm just glad your input in such matters is limited to this obscure forum as i would feel intensely uncomfortable about you actually having any kind of say so. Are you comfortable making the absolute argument that there is never any time or any situation wherein the EITs employed would be OK?

Yes, I am concerned about what Jesus would do. As a Christian who believes in objective, ultimate truth, I think that what He would do matters.

I am comfortable saying that good ends and intentions do not justify using evil means.

[TheBlueVue 177]

You are an amazing study in selective delusion, yourself. You prefer to take a one sided report to heart w/o even wondering if there is another side to this story. Seems to me you'd be perfectly comfortable with a kangaroo court as long as it serves your personal perspective. Never mind in 2003 Congress gave the CIA the approval AND the funding to do the very thing they did and that includes the likes of key critics now, Rockefeller and Pelosi who are righteously indignant about it now. I am also amazed by your apparent inability to see the political motivation behind this report. Democrats wanted to use the report as a cudgel against the CIA and they did it by not even speaking to anyone who participated in the program.

When you quit harping on what was legal, since nothing I've posted on this subject has ever been about what was legal, I will feel the need to respond to this repeated angle of yours. You're arguing against a position of your choosing rather than the position I've put forth.

3000 Americans had been senselessly murdered. Intel indicated that a second wave of attacks was imminent and rather than understanding that specific context and the attendant pressure it put on those charged with protecting Americans, you prefer pontificating about what Jesus would do by suggesting that what was done goes against everything taught in the Bible. Forgive my candor but, I'm just glad your input in such matters is limited to this obscure forum as i would feel intensely uncomfortable about you actually having any kind of say so. Are you comfortable making the absolute argument that there is never any time or any situation wherein the EITs employed would be OK?

Yes, I am concerned about what Jesus would do. As a Christian who believes in objective, ultimate truth, I think that what He would do matters.

I am comfortable saying that good ends and intentions do not justify using evil means.

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society. I figured you'd be one who would be a proponent of keeping the govt and religion totally separated. i guess I was wrong. let me ask you this...would you favor a Christian Theocracy in American rather than a Constitutional Republic?

Are you unwilling to approve fighting for the protection of Americans strictly on religious grounds? One other thing..you keep referring to "evil means" Was the murder of 3000 Americans equally evil or not as evil as employing EITs?

[AUUSN 823]

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

[TexasTiger 12,810]

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details...

[TitanTiger 20,471]

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you?

Stop staying dumb stuff. Something being legal doesn't make it right. At one time slavery and Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal. They were morally wrong. Abortion is currently legal. It is morally wrong.

If you're going to engage me in debate, don't put forth completely laughable retorts like this.

Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society. I figured you'd be one who would be a proponent of keeping the govt and religion totally separated. i guess I was wrong. let me ask you this...would you favor a Christian Theocracy in American rather than a Constitutional Republic?

There you go again. Believing that morals and ethics and laws invariably must intersect is not equivalent to wanting a Christian Theocracy. The question is not whether your will allow morality to influence your laws. The only question is, whose morality will influence it?

Are you unwilling to approve fighting for the protection of Americans strictly on religious grounds?

I've said no such thing.

One other thing..you keep referring to "evil means" Was the murder of 3000 Americans equally evil or not as evil as employing EITs?

Of course murdering 3000 Americans was evil. What sort of head injury would you need to have suffered to think that believing torture to be evil somehow would alter that?

[TheBlueVue 177]

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details...

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

[AUUSN 823]

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details...

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

If it's legal why did the CIA create black sites and keep the details from congress and the American public. Why don't we use EITs on our own citizens?