How Does A Religious Society View Waterboarding And Other Methods Of Torture? (beliefs, belief)

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

Well, well, the first honest thing you've admitted, namely that you dismiss out of hand the view that waterboarding isn't torture.

LoL you act as if I've said something fundamentally different, which isn't the case; like all my other posts on this subject I've stated that torture is making people suffer as much as possible without killing them.
Since waterboarding fits this most basic definition of torture waterboarding = torture.
But why am I arguing this with you when you've simply stated that waterboarding simply cannot be torture?
Which again is as illogical as saying that a circle has 4 corners.

Whether you punch someone in the face because you don't like the way he is looking at you or because he attacked you; punching someone in the face is still an act of violence.
The same goes for waterboarding; whether you waterboard someone because you want to interrogate him or because you are a friggin' sadist, waterboarding still is a form of torture.
Being a conservative or liberal has nothing to do with it.

[fiveredapples]

In my initial post I said that Liberals have no argument for the claim that waterboarding is morally wrong. I noted the Liberal ploy of simply assuming that waterboarding is torture. You see, they think this makes their job of branding waterboarding as immoral a lot easier, because people are more inclined to say that torture is immoral. Their silence about the harm of waterboarding is what's so telling. They can't point to this part of waterboarding, or this effect of waterboarding, in order to say, "See, that's why it's morally wrong."

Waterboarding is similar to blasting music for hours at a time at someone. Neither episode of water-pourings will kill you. Not even an accumulation of water-pourings will kill you. Just like no six-hour session of listening to loud music will kill you. No, what happens is that this grows on your nerves, and you reach a point where you say, "I don't want to experience this again, so now I'll talk." Waterboarding is benign and ingenious -- it is a faster way to get terrorists to talk than the loud music technique and it's not very painful at all. It simply gets on your nerves a lot faster. It is the most benign and effective way to get terrorists to talk, and Liberals mischaracterize what waterboarding is and would deprive us of our most effective weapon against terrorist attacks. I call that sinister and stupid.

Liberals are basically conceding that waterboarding isn't morally wrong. They stay silent about it. Instead, they want to talk about torture, because this magical notion does all their arguing for them.

My challenge remains. Tell me why pouring water down the nose of terrorists so they get that drowning feeling is immoral? Hell, we've all endured more pain skinning our knees. We've all swallowed water in the pool. And swallowing pool water is actually more dangerous and harmful than waterboarding, because waterboarding isn't 'nearly drowning someone', it's having their bodies react as if they're drowning.

If someone kidnapped your newborn, hid her somewhere, and refused to say where the child was upon being captured, why on earth would waterboading the criminal so he'll talk before the baby dies be immoral? Heck, we would think that slapping him around a bit wouldn't be immoral. But waterboarding doesn't even go that far. Personally, I would sanction some real painful stuff so he'd talk. In my opinion, he forfeits the right not to be beaten, or worse, by putting my child in that position. Yet Liberals would grant terrorists even greater protection. They say, "Let hundreds of innocent Americans die! Rather that than waterboard a terrorist."

This is the malignant mentality of a Liberal. He has no argument for his stupid ideas, yet he'd deprive us of a perfectly effective and moral technique of saving the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

My girlfriend made me suffer when she broke up with me, but that's hardly torture.

Because your girlfriend telling you that she is breaking up with you can never be considered an act of violence. Nor is the simple act of ending a relationship an act of violence.
But in case that you believe it is do you then believe that she breaking up with you morally justifies you to rape her because she made you 'suffer' so that by raping her you can make her suffer in turn?
An eye for an eye and all that?

This is very disturbing, but it isn't torture. Just like swallowing water in the pool is disturbing but not exactly painful. Waterboarding isn't even very painful.

So you admit that waterboarding is the same as suffocating someone.
But tell me, are you the only conservative who believes that strangling someone is not act of violence? That at the worst it could only be seen as disturbing and at the very least it is a form of sex?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

"What people believe is irrelevant"...followed by your beliefs. Oh the irony!

They aren't beliefs, it's what the various treaties state.

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

The US has violated no laws or treaties in waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a terrorist who is not covered by the Geneva Convention, our Constittuion, or federal and state laws.

FAIL.

Torture falls under jus cogens. I would try to explain it, but you don't seem to be able to grasp even the basic concepts of pre-emptory norms and customary laws.

One's status, that is to say whether one is a terrorist or freedom fighter, or neither, is not relevant.

Also, pursuant to all Conventions under jus cogens, one's status under the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution is irrelevant.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment applies to everyone on Earth.

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

You might as well say terrorists have the right to vote in this country too.

FAIL.

That's a Strawman Argument. The right to vote in the United States has no bearing on the applicability of the The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

But look at how -- yet again -- a Liberal refuses to explain why waterboarding is morally wrong.

I am not a liberal.

I am an ultra-conservative, so far to the right I make George Bush (take your pick) look like Eugene Debs.

I am also an atheist.

I do not have to explain why water-boarding is morally wrong.

Whether water-boarding is moral or immoral or ethical or unethical is of no importance whatsoever.

The simple facts are that the US is a party to several international treaties, including The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

So long as the US is a party to those treaties, it is violating international law when it employs water-boarding.

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

I'm not here debating the legality of waterboarding, for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I think you lose that argument just as surely as you're losing this one. I'm here arguing an ethical matter. If you can't appreciate the distinction, then go ask someone who does before entering a debate on the matter.

It's a little hard to entertain incompetents who can't figure out the topic or stay on it.

An intelligent person would recognize that ethics is irrelevant. Once again, the US is a party to the The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Water-boarding is not permitted and the US is violating international law, and that is objective, not subjective.

If water-boarding was ethical, then law enforcement agents in the US would be allowed to water-board witnesses and suspects to obtain information.

However, law enforcement officials in the US are not allowed to water-board witnesses and suspects, because the US Supreme Court considers it to be immoral and unethical.

Torture is not permitted because it does not produce results. Thousands of people in the US "confessed" to crimes they did not commit simply to get a drink of water or something to eat, because they had been interrogated non-stop by police for up to 48 hours or more.

Other innocent people "confessed" to crimes simply to use the bathroom and relieve themselves, after being interrogated non-stop for 12 to 24 straight hours.

People will saying anything the interrogator wants to hear in order to stop tortuous interrogations.

For someone like me, who has experience in setting up and running conspiracies, intelligence/counter-intelligence, and terrorism/counter-terrorism, it would be child's play to set up a terrorist cell that goes through the motions on a non-existent target. I know there is no target, but they wouldn't.

When I dimed one out and sent the rest to the phony target, you would torture him, and he would confess to planning an attack on a target that wasn't really a target, and you'd spend all of your time, money and resources to protect that target, while I send the real terrorist cell to attack the real target.

Congratulations.

And good luck trying to explain to people why you were too incompetent to prevent the attack.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Mircea

The US is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and water-boarding violates the Convention to which the US is a party.

The "...and water-boarding violates the Covention to which the US is a party" is your opinion, a.k.a. a mere belief of yours. Please, I don't have time for philosophy 101 lessons. Do you really think you just woke up one day and settled the debate, genius? How brilliant.

What you fail to understand, among other things, is that torture requires intent to inflict severe pain and suffering, and none of the CIA methods meet this standard. And the reasons are this: (1) the CIA didn't specifically intend to inflict severe pain and suffering, and (2) because they didn't in fact inflict severe pain and suffering.

You don't know the facts. You just emote.

Strawman argument? That sounds cute coming from you. Back away from logical terms you don't fully grasp.

I'm having an ethical discussion about waterboarding. Believing in God has nothing to do with it, so why are you bringing it up? Psst, that's a rhetorical question: I know you're clueless.

Originally Posted by Mircea

An intelligent person would recognize that ethics is irrelevant.

LOL...Where do you learn your sophomoric rhetoric? Let me try: An intelligent person would recognize that you're a lying Liberal who is clueless about ethics, philosophy, or basic argumentation. Yep! I'm convinced.

Once again, the US is a party to the The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Water-boarding is not permitted and the US is violating international law, and that is objective, not subjective.

The law isn't subjective, but so what? That doesn't settle the question of whether this or that interrogation technique (think 'waterboarding') falls within the definition of the law. In other words, you're just obfuscating. Three quarters of what you write is irrelevant or wrong.

If water-boarding was ethical, then law enforcement agents in the US would be allowed to water-board witnesses and suspects to obtain information.

That's idiotic reasoning. We don't grant prisoners of war a phone call, moron, yet we do grant that to people detained by law enforcement.

However, law enforcement officials in the US are not allowed to water-board witnesses and suspects, because the US Supreme Court considers it to be immoral and unethical.

Wrong! The Supreme Court has said no such thing. If waterboarding were indeed judge immoral and unethical, then it wouldn't be permitted on anybody -- yet we permit our military to undergo waterboarding is SERE training. You FAIL. You lie. And you're not even very convincing.

Torture is not permitted because it does not produce results. Thousands of people in the US "confessed" to crimes they did not commit simply to get a drink of water or something to eat, because they had been interrogated non-stop by police for up to 48 hours or more.

Thank you. Since waterboarding does and has produced great results, results which let us disrupt and break-up plans to bomb London and Los Angeles (See: Courting Disaster by Marc A. Thiessen), then waterboarding must not be torture by your own lights. Again, you just conceded.

Well, I'm a former super high level master genius expert on terrorists cells, so everything you just said is stupid and wrong. LOL...you're laughable. Why are you here disputing empirical facts? You already can't handle my superior reasoning, but now you want to challenge established facts? Go ahead, buddy, keep telling us how waterboarding doesn't work.

And good luck trying to explain to people why you were too incompetent to prevent the attack.

Spoken like a true Liberal moron, er, a guy more conservative than either Bush. Ha!!!!

Stop already with your nonsense. You've lost the legal debate, now let grown-ups continue with the ethical debate.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

(1) the CIA didn't specifically intend to inflict severe pain and suffering, and (2) because they didn't in fact inflict severe pain and suffering.

LoL You're a special kinda genius.
Or maybe you’re just special.
Following your 'logic' the CIA (or everyone else for that matter) can rape unconscious individuals because 1) the CIA agents only intended to have intercourse and every pain and suffering they may have caused the victim during the act is all unintentional.
2) The (unconscious) women did not object during the rape so technically it isn't a rape.
3) In the event the victim became pregnant because of the 'procedure' proves that she enjoyed the whole experience which obviously proves that she never could have been raped.
It is only common sense that women who do not enjoy being raped cannot climax sexually.

Thank you. Since waterboarding does and has produced great results, results which let us disrupt and break-up plans to bomb London and Los Angeles (See: Courting Disaster by Marc A. Thiessen), then waterboarding must not be torture by your own lights.

For waterboarding to work the victim must have the knowledge desired by the torturer.
If the victim possesses no knowledge torture, or in this case waterboarding, becomes wholly ineffective.

Spoken like a true Liberal moron, er, a guy more conservative than either Bush. Ha!!!!

Stop using indoctrinated political propaganda (meaningless popular political slogans), er I mean, 'common sense'.

Stop already with your nonsense. You've lost the legal debate, now let grown-ups continue with the ethical debate.

Only children or infantile grown-ups think in terms of winning or losing a debate.
Besidez, declaring yourself the winner of a debate is only spin-doctoring, especially when you spin an ethical debate into a political debate.
But I guess I shouldn't blame you because you live in a 2party system where you're indoctrinated to believe that everyone who disagrees with ya can only be of the opposite party and they are all delusional, right?

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

2) The (unconscious) women did not object during the rape so technically it isn't a rape.

This tells us all we need to know about your reasoning powers.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Following your 'logic' the CIA (or everyone else for that matter) can rape unconscious individuals because 1) the CIA agents only intended to have intercourse and every pain and suffering they may have caused the victim during the act is all unintentional.
2) The (unconscious) women did not object during the rape so technically it isn't a rape.
3) In the event the victim became pregnant because of the 'procedure' proves that she enjoyed the whole experience which obviously proves that she never could have been raped.
It is only common sense that women who do not enjoy being raped cannot climax sexually.

This isn't even an apropos analogy. The CIA didn't intend to cause those terrorists severe pain and suffering. Furthermore, they didn't in fact casue them severe pain and suffering, which is why it's near impossible to plausibly argue that they had the intent. Hence, it was not torture as torture requires intent to inflict severe pain and suffering.

When you write "Following your 'logic'", I laugh uncontrollably. You can't even follow explicit premises and complaints, but now you want to glean my logic? Ha..............................ha!

You've already made it clear that you think rape is torture (which is contentious, by the way), so what you're saying is that I think you can torture someone but not inflict severe pain and suffering on them. But, obviously, I'm not saying that. And you'd know that if you could master basic English. I'm saying that there are interrogation techniques which cause people severe pain and suffering and others that don't. That's obviously non-contentious. And since waterboarding, as an interrogation technique by the CIA, is designed specifically not to cause severe pain and suffering, it would be a little difficult to argue that it is torture. This is why no one has made that claim stick, and why you're losing this debate. But at least you're trying to have this debate (as confused as you are); whereas dumbass Romanian boy isn't even aware of what this debate is.

For waterboarding to work the victim must have the knowledge desired by the torturer. If the victim possesses no knowledge torture, or in this case waterboarding, becomes wholly ineffective.

Thank you for the lessson, Mr. Obvious. And Khalid Sheik Mohammed had tons of useful information. Many Americans are alive today because we waterboarded that terrorist.

Only children or infantile grown-ups think in terms of winning or losing a debate. Besidez, declaring yourself the winner of a debate is only spin-doctoring, especially when you spin an ethical debate into a political debate. But I guess I shouldn't blame you because you live in a 2party system where you're indoctrinated to believe that everyone who disagrees with ya can only be of the opposite party and they are all delusional, right?

You realize that everyone speaks in terms of winning or losing a debate, right? You realize that there is such a thing as winning a debate, right? You're so transparently Liberal it's pathetic. Only Liberals have a problem with winning and losing, because winning implies there are losers. Ooh. We can't go around labelling some people losers, now, can we? Grow up, pansy. You're a loser because you've lost this debate. Deal with it.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

This isn't even an apropos analogy. The CIA didn't intend to cause those terrorists severe pain and suffering. Furthermore, they didn't in fact casue them severe pain and suffering, which is why it's near impossible to plausibly argue that they had the intent. Hence, it was not torture as torture requires intent to inflict severe pain and suffering.

If that's the case then why not use waterboarding as a new educational tool?
You know, waterboard the child every time it gives a wrong answer.
I'll bet that waterboarding will teach students the mistake of not paying attention in class or not learning the study material at home.
By your logic the teachers never had the intent to harm their students.
The fact that waterboarding would harm the students is just an unintended side affect, right?

Thank you for the lessson, Mr. Obvious. And Khalid Sheik Mohammed had tons of useful information. Many Americans are alive today because we waterboarded that terrorist.

Many Americans wouldn't have died if your government never had meddled in the Middle East because of oil.
Heck, it was your (conservative) government who helped Saddam Hussein's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963.

You realize that everyone speaks in terms of winning or losing a debate, right?

I don’t care what everyone does.
Just because everyone else is dumb enough to jump off a bridge does not mean that I will.
I don't see debating as a game, but as playing.
To me playing is all about learning and gaming (or sports) is all about winning.
I don’t debate to ‘win’ or convince others to my point of view.

[fiveredapples]

If that's the case then why not use waterboarding as a new educational tool?

So because I claim that waterboarding doesn't cause severe pain and suffering, you think that I'm somehow -- in your warped way of thinking -- committed to the view that we should also use it on children and as an educational tool? Man, how you manage to peel a banana is beyond me.

I also think kissing doesn't inflict severe pain and suffering, yet I don't think we should use it on children as an educational tool.

I also think that tickling doesn't inflict severe pain and suffering, yet I don't think we should use it on children as an educational tool.

Need I give more examples for you to see how utterly disjointed your reasoning is?

Many Americans wouldn't have died if your government never had meddled in the Middle East because of oil.
Heck, it was your (conservative) government who helped Saddam Hussein's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963.

I'm not here to talk about your anti-American propaganda. Blame America for 9/11 all you want. You're free to be an idiot. Start a "Why I Hate America" thread if you want to spew your lies and hate, but this is not the thread for it.

I don't see debating as a game, but as playing.
To me playing is all about learning and gaming (or sports) is all about winning.
I don’t debate to ‘win’ or convince others to my point of view.

Well, it's obvious you don't debate in order to convince others to your point of view, because that would require that you give others reasons to believe that your point of view is correct.

You care so much that others have the same vile opinion of the USA, the same wrong views on waterboarding that you do, that you're here trying to make this into a debate about anything but waterboarding.

The only thing you've done so far is help substantiate my claim about Liberals: they cannot argue for their wrong belief that waterboarding is immoral, and they will distort that debate anyway they can.