How Does A Religious Society View Waterboarding And Other Methods Of Torture?

[fiveredapples]

I'm going to point out why you're so confused and wrong. I'm going to take great pains to do it. It's not so much for you -- mainly because I think it'll go above your head -- but for others, so they can see how poorly this response of yours is. Liberals don't have a good response to the commonsense position that waterboarding is morally permissible, so they do things like you did: obfuscate and complicate things to the point of confusion.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

In my opinion torture is ALWAYS wrong....Nine times out of ten the torturer gets bad info, because the person being tortured will say whatever he needs to to get the torture to stop.

Who cares about what you think of torture. We're talking waterboardng. So, wrong topic. You're also wrong abotu torture, but that's another debate.

Next. You came up with "nine times out of ten" out of thin air. Where do you get your statistics? The CIA extracted useful (that is, good) information from 3 out of 3 terrorists. So, 100% track record. Pretty good, eh? So, you made up a statistic and you mislead about the success rate of waterboarding.

Next. We also corroborate what terrorists tell us, which is how we know the information was good (that is, useful), so this they "will say anything" nonsense is exactly that: nonsense.

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning.

Funny how you didn't mention extreme pain or the intent to cause it, which is precisely what you need to label waterboarding as torture. The terrorist isn't drowning, so no threat of dying. Waterboarding gives the sensation of drowning, which is an uncomfortable sensation, but it is not extreme pain as anyone who has accidently swallowed water in the pool knows. So, waterboarding fails to meet the 'torture' definition. What's truly disgusting is that you're, essentially, trying to deprive us of the most benign and effective method we have of combating terrorists. You know, people who are killing innocent Americans. Where are you many posts abuot how evil and wrong they are? Where is your indignation about cutting people's heads off? No, you spend your time trying to undermine our efforts to combat these savages. Nice job, Liberal monster.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death

Lies. No extreme pain. You can't drown if water isn't entering your lungs. You don't know what waterboarding is. That's why it gives the sensation of drowning, without actually drowning anyone. No brain damage cases yet from CIA waterboarding. Why is that? No broken bones from CIA waterboarding. Why is that? Uninterrupted? LOL...what is that? If I poke your head with my finger UNINTERREPTED, you will die. LOL..."uninterrupted"! You see how dishonest and comical you are? The CIA doesn't implement uninterrupted waterboarding (whatever that is).

Liberal = Evil Idiot.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by philosofish

No that's not what I saying. I already wrote what I am saying.

Well, unless you're claiming that a broken finger is irreversible damage you are saying that anything short of killing the victim or chopping off limbs should be permissible.
Only death is considered to be 100% irreversible damage
In other words as long as you don't kill the victim or chop off limbs you are pro-torture.

[fiveredapples]

I've seen this Mancow video several times. You realize that Khalid Sheik Mohammed withstood 187 water pourings. Mancow said it was "horrific" after one waterpouring. Really, Mancow, horrific? Please. I don't want to belittle what one does experience, but we're talking about the testimony of a guy who had previously drowned (so he's got that baggage) and who wasn't in pain. Did you hear him say "ouch" or express that he suffered at all? No. Some people have higher thresholds for such things, and Mancow would have failed POW training. Plain and simple.

But what's so great about the video is that it only helps my argument -- not yours. Look at Mancow. If he truly couldn't withstand another pouring, because it was "horrific", then he would cooperate. So, we save the lives of thousands of innocent Americans and someone need only experience something as benign as one water pouring because that one pouring is "horrific." Mind you, it was horrific but pretty much painless. It was so horrific that he could finish an interview after taking a second to collect himself.

Really, you people would rather let innocent Americans die than someone be made to suffer one water pouring. Your logic is so twisted and your morals are so corrupted that you think Mancow's testimony actually helps your cause when it, in fact, destroys it.

[sanspeur]

Why do I have this intense desire to strap you to a plank and pour water in your face?

One well documented effect of torture is that, with rare exceptions, its victims will say or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue "confessions" and implication of others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn.

[fiveredapples]

We've trained our military using waterboarding in SERE school. Have we tortured over 30 thousand American soldiers? No. Would we sanction the use of torture on Americans even for military training purposes? No. Mancow endured one water pouring, which is less than GI's get in SERE school, yet he called it horrific. Either we disregard Mancow as a bad judge, or one water pouring truly is effective enough to make people want to cooperate. Either way, my argument only gets stronger.

[fiveredapples]

Your slippery slope nonsense is rather dull. We waterboarding three terrorists, and all gave us good information. That's really hard to reconcile with your false claim that waterboarding doesn't work. Who watched Mancow endure one water pouring (KSM endured 183) and thought "Wow, he's in terirble pain and he's going to have lasting effects"? LOL...nobody. We got confessions from, among others, KSM and we corroborated that information. Uhm, if you buy a baseball, you might throw it and hit someone in the eye and they could go blind and then they will suffer and suffering is torture, so buying a baseball is torture. That's how coherent your reasoning is.

Waterboarding is frigthening because it gives you the sensation that you're going to drown. Rollercoasters are more frigthening just when you think there's a possibility of dying. But once you actually have confidence that you're not going to die, then they cease being as frightening. Waterboarding is a benign interrogation technique.

Can you please forward me all your papers condemning beheadings of Americans? I would love to see them. Can you please forward me all your papers condemning SERE training? I would love to read them too. Can you please explain how making a known terrorists endure a few water pourings is anywhere near to torture or unjust given his plot to murder -- actually kill -- innocent people? You don't know what you're talking about. That's evidence by your citing the Spanish Inquisition and the VIetcong, cases of a different technique of "waterboarding" then we use now. Or, that we used until the biggest idiot ever elected president decided to end the practice -- you know, the practice which was our most effective way of combating terrorism. You have no moral grounds to stand on. You advocate for what only strengthens terrorists, and you say nothing against them and their evils. You can't even name those evils as you'd then be pressed to answer the question of what are we morally permitted to do in defending ourselves from such truly horrific crimes. You are silent exactly when you should be, and you speak out just when you should be silent.

[philosofish]

Until there is a magic potion which makes the drinker give up information, there needs to be a method which while not being torture, is useful in obtaining the crucial life saving information. That is if you want to save lives of course. Waterboarding and sleep deprevation seem to fit. The subjects will not be physically harmed irreversably (one can also argue that they will not be physically harmed at all), but will be exposed to discomfort and/or unpleassantness severe enough to make them give up the life saving information.

If anyone can come up with a less severe method then waterboarding that is at least equally effective, I will stop arguing for waterboarding all together. I mean, we could simply ask the subject which should be OK by everyone, right? Does anyone think simply asking will work?

[fiveredapples]

Philosofish, you're wasting your time. These people aren't interested in finding a working alternative. This is why you'll never see them offer any workable ideas. To normal human beings, doing away with a vital tool for combating terrorism, our most vital tool so far, is almost suicidal. To Liberals, it's what we must do because they have a visceral reaction to the idea. That's it. They don't know what waterboarding is, they don't know how useful it has been, they don't know how to argue for their assumption that it's torture, and they have no interest in thinking up something else we could do instead of waterboarding.

Liberals are shallow human beings, and this shallowness leads to them being evil and ignorant. This is why the vast majority of Hollywood actors are Liberals -- because you don't have to study or think much to feel that waterboarding must be wrong (because harm is involved), or abortion must be good (because one more choice is given to a female), or drilling on-shore is wrong (because oil is black and evil, and mother Earth is our lovely mother), anthropogenic global warming is real (because man is bad and we need to regulate man), quotas are good (because minorities are blessed souls even if they kill and rape us. God bless you, Mexicans, for invading our country. I shall vote to keep you here and support my moronic president who wants to outlaw a Constitutional law in Arizona), free Mumbia (who was guilty), etc.

Liberals qua Liberals are imbeciles.