Is Waterboarding torture?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Discuss...

[AFTiger 282]

We have discussed this before.

link

[TexasTiger 13,029]

We have discussed this before.

link

That was not a discussion.

[BZ770 2]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nope.

Next question

[Tiger Al 0]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

I live in Mobile. Will you agree to let me and some of my MP buddies from the 1165th waterboard you?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

I live in Mobile. Will you agree to let me and some of my MP buddies from the 1165th waterboard you?

And if not, why not?

[mowegl 4]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

I live in Mobile. Will you agree to let me and some of my MP buddies from the 1165th waterboard you?

Theres lots of things that I dont want to do that arent torture - like going to the library..or running a marathon..or watching the soap opera channel - but that doesnt make them torture. Just because something isnt pleasant doesnt mean its torture. I dont even know what waterboarding is, but that's not a good argument.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

I live in Mobile. Will you agree to let me and some of my MP buddies from the 1165th waterboard you?

Theres lots of things that I dont want to do that arent torture - like going to the library..or running a marathon..or watching the soap opera channel - but that doesnt make them torture. Just because something isnt pleasant doesnt mean its torture. I dont even know what waterboarding is, but that's not a good argument.

Those comparisons don't exactly make for a good argument either-- "We're going to give you choice-- you get waterboarded, or you're forced to check out a book. What's it gonna be?"

[AURaptor 1,126]

The points about waterboarding which are intentionally being over looked are 1) it's suppose to serve a purpose, if it's used at all, to get information out which otherwise one would not devulge. 2) it's used on bad guys who have had every opportunity to 'play nice' but have so far refused. This crap of " if it's not torture, why don't you do it " is bogus on 2 fronts.

1. We're not terrorist who want to murder 100's or 1000's of citizens

2- We have no information to yield, waterboarding or not.

A root canal can be considered 'torture', but in certain cases, it's pretty much required. However, if you don't need one, why have it ? To prove that it's NOT torture ? That don't make no sense now how.

[Tiger Al 0]

The points about waterboarding which are intentionally being over looked are 1) it's suppose to serve a purpose, if it's used at all, to get information out which otherwise one would not devulge. 2) it's used on bad guys who have had every opportunity to 'play nice' but have so far refused. This crap of " if it's not torture, why don't you do it " is bogus on 2 fronts.

1. We're not terrorist who want to murder 100's or 1000's of citizens

2- We have no information to yield, waterboarding or not.

A root canal can be considered 'torture', but in certain cases, it's pretty much required. However, if you don't need one, why have it ? To prove that it's NOT torture ? That don't make no sense now how.

Daniel Levin thought it made perfect sense to undergo it to see exactly what it was.

LINK

[TexasTiger 13,029]

\This crap of " if it's not torture, why don't you do it " is bogus on 2 fronts.

1. We're not terrorist who want to murder 100's or 1000's of citizens

2- We have no information to yield, waterboarding or not.

=

How do we know that until we question you?

[CCTAU 3,350]

This is torture:

PUSH

Why would you and your MP buddies even know how to water torture? If I had done anything to suggest that I was into terrorism, then I would probably have it coming. But very few terrorists were at Sunday church meeting when they were nabbed.

And I thought I-65 at the Prattville exit smelled better now. How long you been on Mobile?

[AFTiger 282]

We have discussed this before.

link

That was not a discussion.

With you, there is never a discussion only name calling.

What I consider torture is irelavent. There is an agreed upon definition in the Geneva Conventions. I realized that law is is relative thing for liberals but here it is:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

a. Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

b. Taking of hostages;

c. Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

d. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949

However, the Geneva Convention does not address the form of assymetrical warfare in practice by Al Qada today. President Bush had directed that the convention be applied to these butchers but it appears to be a very one sided application not endorsed by the enemy.

[otterinbham 0]

Yep. Here's a take on it from one of those liberals in the National Guard:

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach

Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is,

the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Yep. Here's a take on it from one of those liberals in the National Guard:

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach

Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is,

the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

All these torture victims still got a head. The ones we get back from the terrorists usually have no head and the rest of their bodies are mutilated also. Maybe they should tell them when they join up that you may not get to the virgins, we'll just make you think you might. but at least they live. Sounds like nobody gives a $hit about our guys who were tortured (truly) and then drug through the streets. So pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass about a bunch of whiny ass terrorists.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

First of all, waterboarding is torture according to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed and ratified by the United States. Some pertinent excerpts:

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions...

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture...

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture...

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

We're doing all of the above things. And in some cases, we're doing them to people who were innocent and had no information regarding terrorist activities.

Waterboarding is also in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed and ratified by the United States:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

And secondly, it's not necessary and not torturing does not equal "doing nothing." Just to dispell that notion, some commentary from an active military intelligence officer, Army Capt. Kyle Teamey:

"When I was in the officer's basic course, one of the instructors, only half-jokingly, proclaimed, "Beatings and drugs are for fun, not for information." His point was you can get anyone to say anything you want through torture. Good information came from psychology, interpersonal skills, and long hours with your prisoner. The best interrogators I've worked with tended to be very good at reading people and very good at using their understanding of the person and their culture to get them to talk - no waterboarding required...

We should be developing an ideological alternative (or alternatives) to jihad and are instead alienating our allies, enraging the populations from which the terrorists arise, and most importantly, alienating our COG

in the form of the U.S. electorate. A liberal democracy, such as the US, operating in an environment with pervasive media cannot afford to dally in tactics that may provide some short term gains at the expense of long term success.

It is not just the US that has made this error in judgment. The Brits and French did the same in their COIN [counterinsurgency] campaigns in 20th century and suffered for it. We should learn from their mistakes - and ours."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

From that same article:

Retired Air Force Col. Robert Certain, who was held as a prisoner of war after being shot down over North Vietnam:

We ex-POWs don't look kindly on sadistic behavior, especially when it degenerates into torture. Kyle is right, it doesn't do much to get useful info, it only gives the sadist some thrills.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Terry Daly, a veteran of military intelligence operations in the Vietnam War, then added:

I have yet to speak with an experienced, successful interrogator who advocates mistreating their subjects. As personally satisfying as it may seem to beat the hell out of detainees, it doesn't usually get you what you want -- accurate, reliable information that you can trust and upon which you can act.

In Vietnam the Provincial Interrogation Centers routinely used skilled Vietnamese interrogators to obtain accurate, detailed information on the organization, personnel and structure of the Vietnamese Communist Infrastructure -- exactly the type of information Guantanamo should be producing by the pound on radical Islamic terrorism.

I think we make a major strategic error when we support such would-be macho men as we see in this administration showing their supposed toughness by advocating torture, when we know it doesn't work.

Finally, Air Force Col. William Andrews, who was a POW during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, added:

...when I was shot down over Iraq in 1991, I expected to be tortured...because I was in the hands of the bad guys. As I was beaten, I had a sense of moral superiority over brutal men who had a monopoly on physical power in the interrogation room. This moral superiority came from the knowledge that we were the good guys and we didn't treat our prisoners that way. We were better than they were. I believe we cannot ever afford to give that up.

These are guys in the thick of it, who have interrogated people or been interrogated and tortured themselves. Better information comes from skilled interrogators who have good interpersonal skills, read people well, are intelligent and can outwit the detainees, or in some cases gain their trust.

All these torture victims still got a head. The ones we get back from the terrorists usually have no head and the rest of their bodies are mutilated also. Maybe they should tell them when they join up that you may not get to the virgins, we'll just make you think you might. but at least they live. Sounds like nobody gives a $hit about our guys who were tortured (truly) and then drug through the streets. So pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass about a bunch of whiny ass terrorists.

It's little consolation to me, nor do I think it's much of an explanation to give if one was giving an accounting before Almighty God for his or her actions that I was less evil than someone else in the manner of torture I chose to inflict.

You don't have to sell your soul and sacrifice your humanity to obtain security.

[RunInRed 16,492]

How is waterboarding not torture? You guys are nuts. I don't want my country engaging in activities we ridicule around the world. Didn't Saddam torture his own people? Didn't Hitler torture his own people? Didn't Stalin torture his own people?

We can't lead by example and engage in these kind of activities. Waterboarding is torture and there is no place for it. Period.

[CCTAU 3,350]

How is waterboarding not torture? You guys are nuts. I don't want my country engaging in activities we ridicule around the world. Didn't Saddam torture his own people? Didn't Hitler torture his own people? Didn't Stalin torture his own people?

We can't lead by example and engage in these kind of activities. Waterboarding is torture and there is no place for it. Period.

Yes. Our "example" is really making a difference to the terrorists. They will continue to torture and kill anyone associated with us every opportunity they get.

Let me ask you a question. Does your son save an extra bullet in case he is about to get captured by the enemy? Mine does. Why? Because he, and his superiors, KNOW that they will be TORTURED and killed.

So, although, I do feel for the innocent that may get caught up in this I feel nothing but contempt for the terrorists. They have no qualms torturing us. We are not fighting a standing army. We are fighting an army of spies. And spies must be dealt with differently. They chose poorly.

So you can preach love or whatever. But until the heads of Americans and American soldiers no more fall from their bodies, we should make it damn clear that there will be no mercy.

[channonc 466]

How is waterboarding not torture? You guys are nuts. I don't want my country engaging in activities we ridicule around the world. Didn't Saddam torture his own people? Didn't Hitler torture his own people? Didn't Stalin torture his own people?

We can't lead by example and engage in these kind of activities. Waterboarding is torture and there is no place for it. Period.

Yes. Our "example" is really making a difference to the terrorists. They will continue to torture and kill anyone associated with us every opportunity they get.

Let me ask you a question. Does your son save an extra bullet in case he is about to get captured by the enemy? Mine does. Why? Because he, and his superiors, KNOW that they will be TORTURED and killed.

So, although, I do feel for the innocent that may get caught up in this I feel nothing but contempt for the terrorists. They have no qualms torturing us. We are not fighting a standing army. We are fighting an army of spies. And spies must be dealt with differently. They chose poorly.

So you can preach love or whatever. But until the heads of Americans and American soldiers no more fall from their bodies, we should make it damn clear that there will be no mercy.

So you would advocate that we disregard the international treaties we have signed that condemn torture?

[otterinbham 0]

Basically, your entire feeble argument is "So what if it's torture? They do worse."

First and foremost rule of Asymmetrical Warfare is that it is a POLITICAL conflict as much as a military conflict. The entire progress of late in the war has been due to the fact that the Administration and the top military brass have finally recognized this fact and have changed strategy and tactics in a wholesale manner.

Stoop to torturing the enemy, and you throw away that critical advantage. Suddenly, we're the guys who are no better than al Queda in the eyes of the populace, except that we speak English, while they speak Arabic. If anything, when you are dealing with a population where the enemy can melt in the shadows, so to speak, you have to demonstrate clearcut moral superiority in terms of tactics.

Second, intelligence officers are almost unanimous in their belief that torture confers no advantage. I sat and listened to an interesting discussion among a variety of colonels and majors in intelligence. Their conviction was clear: A prisoner will say anything under torture to stop the torture. So the intelligence you gained while throwing away the moral high ground is faulty.

Third, it is clearly against international law. If you look back at the history of this country, especially during the 20th Century, the one consistent advantage we have had is that our country stood for individual human rights and dignity, not to mention the rule of law. The employment of waterboarding and its ilk destroys that credibility on the international scene. So, now, how are we going to marshall international opinion against some other dictator who employs the same methods that we do?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

So you would advocate that we disregard the international treaties we have signed that condemn torture?

I would prefer this to the utter bull**** lying we're doing now by committing these various acts of torture, then declaring "we don't torture" or making up stupid terms like "enhanced interrogation." If you're going to torture, be a man and own up to it instead of being a torturer AND a liar.

[CCTAU 3,350]

So you would advocate that we disregard the international treaties we have signed that condemn torture?

I would prefer this to the utter bull**** lying we're doing now by committing these various acts of torture, then declaring "we don't torture" or making up stupid terms like "enhanced interrogation." If you're going to torture, be a man and own up to it instead of being a torturer AND a liar.

Actually, we should be better at hiding it and making sure it never reaches the public.

I don't like torture, but I don't like being the bitch either. I feel if they torture and kill 1 of ours, we should torture and kill 100 of theirs. I'm tired of being the stand up country that everyone pisses on. A terrorist deserves NO RIGHTS. Truthfully, if the evidence is overwhelming or they were caught in the act, or if you get hold of any of those bastards on video killing an American, then he should be tortured and killed and dropped back into the streets as he did to us.

Is water-boarding torture? HMMM. Depends on who it's used on.

On some it's called justice.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Actually, we should be better at hiding it and making sure it never reaches the public.

Be sure, your sin will find you out. What you want is impossible. God will ensure that's the case.

I don't like torture, but I don't like being the bitch either. I feel if they torture and kill 1 of ours, we should torture and kill 100 of theirs. I'm tired of being the stand up country that everyone pisses on. A terrorist deserves NO RIGHTS. Truthfully, if the evidence is overwhelming or they were caught in the act, or if you get hold of any of those bastards on video killing an American, then he should be tortured and killed and dropped back into the streets as he did to us.

I'll quote a guy named Mark Shea on this as he says it better than I could paraphrase:

What lies at the heart of all consequentialist appeals to do grave evil for the greater good is, ultimately, a refusal to trust that God knows what he is talking about. It is the conviction that the Christian revelation is not an insight into the heart of reality, but a sort of idealistic dream that is fun to contemplate in quiet moments and maybe even an "inspiration" in a vague way, but is nonetheless something that hard thinkers and tough-minded men must sweep away when crunch time comes in favor of "realistic" solutions that require us to frankly embrace sin and evil if we hope to live or remain free. In this analysis, the functional belief of the Machiavellian realist is "You shall embrace evil, and evil shall make you free and keep you safe."

The argument of the Christian revelation is that this is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie from the pit of hell. Because the argument of the Christian revelation is that Christ intends our happiness and knows better than we do what is actually the best way for the human person to realize that. This involves a conception of Christ's commands as something other than impossible ideals or as cruel irrational restrictions on our freedom which we have to obey for no reason other than fear. In short, it involves the idea that the one who created us did so because he wills our happiness and obedience is actually ordered toward life and freedom, not toward our destruction.

When God tells us one thing about how to handle our enemies and we explicitly do the utter opposite because "we have to" for security, we're saying we know better than God the way the world works. I'm speaking to Christians here. If you claim the Bible as the guide for humanity and Christ as your Savior, there's no wiggling out of this.

Is water-boarding torture? HMMM. Depends on who it's used on.

Situational ethics are not an option. Water boarding is torture according to the definitions of torture that our country has signed and ratified already.

[CCTAU 3,350]

When it's your son that they WILL cut the head off of if they capture him, it's hard to have a rational view.

So as I go through life with these feelings, I don't justify them, I just live with them. And I sleep well. Maybe a day comes when I don't. But for now, I will not die for a terrorist and I don't want my son dying either. So if only one gets scared that he will be tortured and killed and that one chooses not to shoot at an American, I can live with that. For now.....