Waterboarding

[schwaky18]

Originally Posted by SavageEagle

On the other hand, the Bill of Rights recognize God Given Human Rights, not just rights thought up by man.

Thats the only argument against waterboarding that I would agree with. If this falls under an inaliable then I say no to waterboarding. But in times of war to protect your people is this an inaliable right? If so, then is bombing someone that is not immediately threaten your life, murder? This would also fall under an inaliable right. Seems to me in times of war some inaliable rights have to be set aside for a greater good.

[SavageEagle]

Originally Posted by schwaky18

Thats the only argument against waterboarding that I would agree with. If this falls under an inaliable then I say no to waterboarding. But in times of war to protect your people is this an inaliable right? If so, then is bombing someone that is not immediately threaten your life, murder? This would also fall under an inaliable right. Seems to me in times of war some inaliable rights have to be set aside for a greater good.

Exactly my point.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by SavageEagle

On the other hand, the Bill of Rights recognize God Given Human Rights, not just rights thought up by man. These rights should be afforded to all men women and children without bias.

This is the point I was going to make when I finished reading. I'm glad to see that someone finally got to it.

I am an American. I am proud of my country, I am proud of my Constitution. I've taken as my screen name one of the founding documents that makes this country so great.

Another of those documents is the Declaration of Independence. I'm going to quote from it here, because I think the quote is important:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Gentlemen, with respect, that does not say "...that all Americans are created equal...", it says "all men". To further drive that point home, our wise Founders added another layer: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Clearly, our Founders were saying that the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and indeed all rights belonged to all men, no matter the line that divided them.

Now... We are presented with a situation in which enemies caught may have information vital to saving lives. Many if not all of us, given those specifics, would say that there is no line we cannot cross in retrieving that information. As long as the enemy is olive skinned, wears a turban or a robe, or in short is Not Like Us, it's easy to make that statement. When the "enemy" starts looking a lot more like us, and his status as "enemy" is decided by one guy in an office, especially one who already defines himself as better than the rest of us or whose loyalties and even citizenship are questionable, the line becomes very blurred. Once the concepts of waterboarding, of torture, of psychological warfare, etc exist, they are available for use, especially when there is no outside knowledge or oversight that does not come with a "wink wink, nudge nudge". We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Pandora's box is open. What we can do is define strict rules which we, the people, emplace upon our servants, government, setting the use of that knowledge as beyond the pale, and further, strict punishment for those who violate those rules.

Is there a place for torture, for psy-ops, etc.? I don't know. Part of me knows that to dissuade criminals, you have to create a possible penalty they will not want to pay. Loss of life is usually what we've chosen, saying that to defend ourselves (on a personal level) means that the criminal has already chosen that someone will die and it is our job to ensure that the one who does so is not us. Alternatively, given that analogy, would we, individuals, be justified in torturing a criminal before calling the police to take him away? Of course not, but the terrorist has many times already made peace with the idea of dying as a martyr.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

I do not pretend to have the answers. There are probably multiple answers, but that then leads to the quandry that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and thus, the law must be the differentiation, not the specifics of which man stands accused and may be interrogated by which method.

I don't know what's right, but I know what's wrong. I'm just not always sure when or if two wrongs make something right, or if "necessity" should be our plea-if it is, is it our argument or our creed?

Blessings,
B

[DarkLight]

Rep added to Bill of Rights for his Bill of Rights quote along with the outstanding explanation and persuasive argument!

[semperfi211]

Yes I support waterboarding or any other form of torture like pulling their teeth out one by one with a pair of pliers etc.. If it is used to extract information that may save innocent lives I don't think we should hold back one bit.

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by semperfi211

Yes I support waterboarding or any other form of torture like pulling their teeth out one by one with a pair of pliers etc.. If it is used to extract information that may save innocent lives I don't think we should hold back one bit.

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

[...]
Now... We are presented with a situation in which enemies caught may have information vital to saving lives. Many if not all of us, given those specifics, would say that there is no line we cannot cross in retrieving that information. As long as the enemy is olive skinned, wears a turban or a robe, or in short is Not Like Us, it's easy to make that statement. When the "enemy" starts looking a lot more like us, and his status as "enemy" is decided by one guy in an office, especially one who already defines himself as better than the rest of us or whose loyalties and even citizenship are questionable, the line becomes very blurred.

According to one of the misnamed "Patriot Acts", the President has the power to determine on his own authority who is an "enemy combatant".

The person who will be sworn in in 22 days to that office is an avowed enemy of our rights, as proven by his voting records in the IL State Senate and the US Senate as well, at least for those times he was actually there to vote.

Is it such a stretch to think that such a person would (ab)use that power to define any gun owner who does not surrender his firearms, all of them, on demand, to police, without remuneration, as an "enemy combatant"?

Recall that if that happens, a person so defined may be denied the right of habeas corpus, be held incommunicado, may be tried in secret, without access to evidence, witnesses, or even the right to testify in his own defense.

When one's only "crime" is to stand in defense of his rights, the rights which you serve(d?) to defend and protect, against a tyrannical government run amok, I cannot think that justifying torture is acceptable.

As I said above, I don't know what's right in this case, but I know what's wrong. There are no easy answers, however sometimes I wonder if the greater enemy is over on the other side of a big puddle in a giant Devil's Sandbox or living/working behind walls of white stone, protected by men and women sworn to do so and paid by our taxes.

Blessings,
B

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

According to one of the misnamed "Patriot Acts", the President has the power to determine on his own authority who is an "enemy combatant".

Did you actually read that in the actual act or are you repeating what the Media has said about it? Frankly, I can't find either "enemy" or "combatant" in the text of the Patriot Act.

If it's what you've actually read, could you please provide a reference so I can see it for myself.

If it's what the Media has said, could you please remember that the media lie a lot.

[10ring]

Just hope they don't capture you. You might lose your head.

Comparing waterboarding to real torture and/or execution is nonsense.

[10ring]

Creating the sensation of drowning or sticking womens underwear on someones head doesn't compare to this:

School of Torture - March 4, 2008 - The New York Sun

Baquoba, June 2007: Discovery of the first torture house. Victims had drill holes in their bodies and deep gouges caused by blow torches; an Al Qaeda flag was in the torture house; many of the torture wounds were in the bottom of the feet of the victims. Torture equipment included: Drills, blow torches, chains hanging from the walls and ceiling, blood trails, saws, drills, knives, weapons, masks, and handcuffs.

Khan Bani Saad, August 2007: Discovery of rooms filled with torture tools and murdered Iraqi victims.

Arab Jibour, near Dora, south of Baghdad, August 2007: Blood splattered on the walls. Piles of corpses found outside the house.

Muqdadiyah, December 2007: Beds wired for electrical shock with electricity still on. Masks, whips, bloody knives, and chains hanging from ceiling on the site. Twenty-six bodies found buried on site: most had hands tied and were shot in the head.

I think you're the one that needs to get a freaking clue of what torture is.

[turnandshoot4]

If anyone is in a position to talk about torture it is McCain. Not you or I. I have never been tortured. He has. So I will side with McCain here.

Why are people ignorant if they think our methods are non productive. Everyone is ignorant to what really might be going on. It's not everyone's fault, we are not there.

Even if the media doesn't want you to hear that torture does work, does that make sense? Let's look at this logically: if I want you to tell me something and you want me to stop, what are you going to do? TELL ME SOMETHING!