a Candidate For Sensativity Training

[Doove]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

But war is different. I don't know how much more plainly it can be said. The objective is to win the war. We authorize our soldiers to kill people. It is different.

Sure it's different. But if you can't square the logic, then just pointing out that it's different isn't a sufficient justification. The claim is that WB is not torture. So whether or not war "is different" really shouldn't be the point. If you wanna claim we can torture during war, then make that argument. Otherwise, you need to explain how we can use a non-torture tactic during war, but we can't use a non-torture tactic for more conventional crimes.

If you don't see that, I'm not going to be able to help you with this. You have to go into this discussion recognizing we aren't talking about a convenience store robbery gone wrong in the rough streets of Buffalo.

Lousy analogy. A better analogy would be a serial killer walking the streets of Buffalo. PJ claims "they" don't follow the rules, so why should we? Well, the rules they don't follow is that their intent is to kill civilians. So how is it different, a person walking the streets of Buffalo intending to kill civilians vs an Islamic extremist intending to kill civilians?

So again, if a war criminal is captured, is it legal to commit war crimes against that person? Which goes towards PJ's claim that "they don't follow the rules so we shouldn't have to either".

And if WB is not torture, then why is it a great idea to use it to protect me from an Islamic extremist, but forbidden when it comes to protecting me from a Ted Bundy?

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Doove

Sure it's different. But if you can't square the logic, then just pointing out that it's different isn't a sufficient justification. The claim is that WB is not torture. So whether or not war "is different" really shouldn't be the point. If you wanna claim we can torture during war, then make that argument. Otherwise, you need to explain how we can use a non-torture tactic during war, but we can't use a non-torture tactic for more conventional crimes.

Lousy analogy. A better analogy would be a serial killer walking the streets of Buffalo. PJ claims "they" don't follow the rules, so why should we? Well, the rules they don't follow is that their intent is to kill civilians. So how is it different, a person walking the streets of Buffalo intending to kill civilians vs an Islamic extremist intending to kill civilians?

So again, if a war criminal is captured, is it legal to commit war crimes against that person? Which goes towards PJ's claim that "they don't follow the rules so we shouldn't have to either".

And if WB is not torture, then why is it a great idea to use it to protect me from an Islamic extremist, but forbidden when it comes to protecting me from a Ted Bundy?

We aren't at war with the serial killer (or the convenience store robber). If you don't see the distinction this discussion is futile.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1 @ ATL

Let me make it simple for you Doove. I do NOT consider waterboarding torture. Anything that doesn't leave any marks is not torture. It may be unpleasent for the waterboardee, but it is not IMO torture.

Now are you happy?

Then you need to do a better job of explaining why we can't use it for conventional crimes. Because your first explanation was that it would be senseless since torture can't be used to convict anyone.

Ok, i've had enough. You've done nothing in your last 3 or 4 posts except offer the same dodges to the questions, while offering little more than "it's different" and "i don't think it's torture (unless i'm asked to explain why it's not used for conventional crimes)". So until you answer the questions, i think we've taken this as far as we can take it.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

We aren't at war with the serial killer (or the convenience store robber). If you don't see the distinction this discussion is futile.

Oh, i see the distinction alright. And i also see you offering nothing but "it's different". If that's the game you wanna play....

I may be right, i may be wrong. But at least i'm offering points as to why i think i'm right, beyond just saying "but that's different Doove, you just don't understand. It's different. Don't you get it? It's not the same thing. It's different". Spare me.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

We aren't at war with the serial killer (or the convenience store robber). If you don't see the distinction this discussion is futile.

Agreed that we are not at war with a serial killer. That still avoids a straight answer to two questions that are recurring in this thread:

Should torture be allowed during a war?

Is WB torture? PJ at least answered this one; fwiw I disagree with him

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Should torture be allowed during a war?

Is WB torture? PJ at least answered this one; fwiw I disagree with him

yes torture is allowed during war (in my world)

& the answer to WB is then moot...WB away

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Doove

If you wanna claim we can torture during war, then make that argument. Otherwise, you need to explain how we can use a non-torture tactic during war, but we can't use a non-torture tactic for more conventional crimes.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

yes torture is allowed during war (in my world)

If you would have just said that a few posts ago, you would have saved me an awful lot of trouble.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

yes torture is allowed during war (in my world)

If you win. If you lose, the victor will seek retribution.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

If you win. If you lose, the victor will seek retribution.

Sucks, doesn't it?

atlcomedy, PJ: The Geneva Convention that the US is a signatory to forbids torture. In a conventional war - lets leave aside whether the campaign against al-Quaida, etc is a war with combatants on the other side - should the US allow torture?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Sucks, doesn't it?

atlcomedy, PJ: The Geneva Convention that the US is a signatory to forbids torture. In a conventional war - lets leave aside whether the campaign against al-Quaida, etc is a war with combatants on the other side - should the US allow torture?

They do not think it is torture....even if it is torture they think we should do it....they think it is effective....even though we train our troops on ways to mitigate its effectiveness.

They use Osama death as an example of information gleamed from water boarding. It was gleamed from something like this. We water boarded the suspect. He lied about what we were asking him....therefore water boarding is effective!

I have seen people try and stretch the truth to align it with what they want to believe in this forum before but never to such an absurd degree. It really is Fox News responsibility . They keep saying that we would not have killed Osama without water boarding...which is a flat out lie. Well it is not a lie if you are crazy enough to believe that an effective tool in enhanced interrogation is having someone lie to you and then of course you have to already know that they are lying. We got Olivia and PJ falling for this crap hook line and sinker. Nowhere have they shown where waterboarding is effective. If they could, I would be all for it! Damn, I guess you really can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. Lets hope they do not fall off into the latter!




Here is WTF Rumsfeld said about this lie Fox news is trying to spread. Evidently he did not get the memo.







Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”



Read more on Newsmax.com: Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding at Gitmo

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

.............................. ...We got Olivia and PJ falling for this crap hook line and sinker. Nowhere have they shown where waterboarding is effective. If they could, I would be all for it! Damn, I guess you really can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. Lets hope they do not fall off into the latter!




Here is WTF Rumsfeld said about this lie Fox news is trying to spread. Evidently he did not get the memo.







Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”



Read more on Newsmax.com: Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding at Gitmo

And? You actually believe Rumsfeld? Well there you have it then. Proof positive.

No, WTF, as I stated before. We disagree on several points:

One, I think waterboarding is effective. There have been enough counts that it was/is - Rusfeld's bullshit aside. There is truth, lies, statistics and interpretation of said statistics. Everyone knows that. I do not agree with your interpretation. I don't even think Rumsfeld does. He's just a lieing dog.

Two, I do not consider waterboarding torture. I do not find anything wrong with battlefield interrogation as long as it is not prolonged or extreme. I know you know the difference, but I also know you are going to ask me to define it anyway. I can't define it, like the judge defining pornography, but I - and you - know it when you see it.

Three, and this is for Doove and you, we are not at war with our criminals - alleged or otherwise. That you two keep referring to this non quid pro quo argument is getting tiresome.

Four, war is indeed different. It is all out killing. Crime fighting isn't. Period.

In summary, I do not believe your statistics. You do not believe mine. I do not accept your analogy comparing war to crime. You do not accept my viewing them as different. Further discussion is circular masturbation. Have at it, but again, peace on this one.

[Marshall]

Ummmm......criminals in the US have a little thing called their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination....nobody here knew this? Doesn't anybody even glance at the US Constitution now and then? This is high school level information.......

you cannot find WBing statistical information on-line or in a library, it is classified information.......that information is only available to authorized military and CIA personnel......sorry that you "intellectuals" won't have an opportunity to render your dispositive opinions on the matter.....

what some of you liberals choose to ignore is that WB is intended only to make terrorists cooperate....what interrogators do is ask questions regarding matters they know the answers to to assess the credibility of the terrorist....once the lying stops, so does the WBing.....what was it about my original post on the subject that was so hard to understand?

As Ronaldus Maximus said, "It's not that liberals are stupid, it's just that they believe things that just aren't so."

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by WTF

They do not think it is torture....even if it is torture they think we should do it....they think it is effective....even though we train our troops on ways to mitigate its effectiveness.

They use Osama death as an example of information gleamed from water boarding. It was gleamed from something like this. We water boarded the suspect. He lied about what we were asking him....therefore water boarding is effective!

I have seen people try and stretch the truth to align it with what they want to believe in this forum before but never to such an absurd degree. It really is Fox News responsibility . They keep saying that we would not have killed Osama without water boarding...which is a flat out lie. Well it is not a lie if you are crazy enough to believe that an effective tool in enhanced interrogation is having someone lie to you and then of course you have to already know that they are lying. We got Olivia and PJ falling for this crap hook line and sinker. Nowhere have they shown where waterboarding is effective. If they could, I would be all for it! Damn, I guess you really can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. Lets hope they do not fall off into the latter!




Here is WTF Rumsfeld said about this lie Fox news is trying to spread. Evidently he did not get the memo.







Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”



Read more on Newsmax.com: Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding at Gitmo

Ummmmmmmmm.......Rumsfeld on the O'Reilly Factor 5/4/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzaw7pXInbk

let me know when you start feeling stupid....I'd like to know if you have any shame in you....

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Sucks, doesn't it?

atlcomedy, PJ: The Geneva Convention that the US is a signatory to forbids torture. In a conventional war - lets leave aside whether the campaign against al-Quaida, etc is a war with combatants on the other side - should the US allow torture?

I understand that.

I'm saying I would permit it.

First of all warfare has changed greatly over the last ~60 years. DG, what is a "conventional war" these days anyway.

Second I don't support using it on a whim. Frankly it is resource intensive to be effective. There is also some strategic value in keeping and treating prisoners decently.

Let's at least not put our forces at a competitive disadvantage with enemies that aren't playing by rules.

[Marshall]

Isn't shooting an unarmed man against the Geneva Convention? Barry is a war criminal and the UN has already demanded information from the US for the circumstances around UBL's death. Barry must want to vacation in France after his presidency without being arrested. I'll bet the circumstances were against international law. Barry gotta hide the evidence, thus no pictures and a mob inspired body dump.......I guess it's the "Chicago Way".......

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Three, and this is for Doove and you, we are not at war with our criminals - alleged or otherwise. That you two keep referring to this non quid pro quo argument is getting tiresome.

The reason you find it tiresome is because it exposes your inability to really deliver a coherent defense beyond just to say "it's different". Well no shit, war is different than crime fighting. Let us count the ways for chrissake. But what's not different is waterboarding. It's the same exact thing, whether it's done in wartime, or simply as a crime fighting tool. You say "different circumstances" and i say "same activity", so we're at an impasse.

So let's try this. You see, my reasons against waterboarding as a crime fighting tool are exactly the same as my reasons against waterboarding during war. I would think that with a smidgen of intellectual honesty, particularly since you claim it's not even torture (which is a different discussion altogether), you would think the reasons for waterboarding during war would be good reasons for waterboarding as a crime fighting tool. So as i said, let's try this. Let's take war out of the equation. And since you seem to agree that waterboarding is not a tool that should be used for crime fighting, tell me. Why not? Lay out your reasons, whether there are 3, 4, 5 or even 6 of 'em, as to why it would be a bad idea. Because frankly, if i become convinced it's good for war, then i'll be suggesting we should use it for crime. So tell me why you think that would be a bad idea. And remember, approach it solely from the standpoint of whether or not it would make a good crime fighting tool.

And then i'll give you my reasons against it, which like i say, will be the same under both circumstances.