Waterboarding

[MMI]

Well said, and I didn't sense any indicaiton of flaming here. Apparently you stopped at exactly the right point!

I did, didn't I? <deep breath ... count to 10>

Please allow me to clarify my standpoint ... I don't believe that I ever claimed that Arabs, Muslims or otherwise hated us. But if I was unclear, I appologize.

You were perfectly clear. You referred specifically to acts perpetrated by Al Qaeida, a group commonly understood to be moslem terrorists, and I do not believe you did that unaware of the west's - particularly USA's - dread of militant Islamic fundamentalists. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

But you DID mention gihads (sic) in a later post. A specifically moslem religious duty. And quickly withdrew from wanting to talk about religion. Forgive me if I think you were being disingenuous there.

(You did also refer to McVeigh, who wasn't a religious terrorist, but you did so separately.)

I don't believe that we're grabbing up some poor inocent random fellow at his place of business, only to water board him for things that he has no involvement in. If we are, then the fuckers that are responsible should and will burn in hell for their irresponsible actions.

To meet this criterion, you must try the wretch lawfully and establish his guilt before you can waterboard him. Nevetheless, I agree with your sentiment. After all, we're the good guys, aren't we, and we have standards to maintain.

Oh! Does that include the Americans in who rounded up the hundreds of poor farmers, tourists, students and non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan on suspicion of being terrorists ... no not even that; just because they were in the wrong place ... and deported them to a concentration camp outside the reach of US law or any other, kept them there - in cages - without charge or right of hearing (let alone appeal) for years and years and years. Who were frequently subjected to "disorientation Techniques" (another euphemism). Who, because they couldn't decide if they were prisoners of war (entitled to be treated with proper respect as captured soldiers and to be released as soon as the war was over), or criminals (entitled to know the charges against them, and to be able to put forward a defence to a properly constituted court without unreasonable delay). And who were then, for nothing more than political reasons, released without hearing, apology or compensation. If you were imprisoned for years without knowing why, and then let go without explanation, you'd expect an apology and compensation, wouldn't you?

Does it include the victims of "extreme rendition" - yet another euphemism for getting others to do our dirty work for us?

And what about the ones who ordered/condoned it?

But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives?

I don't know. Maybe we'll just have to take more care. But torture (waterboarding IS torture, and CAN kill, despite what you say) on any level in order to obtain information is totally unacceptable. What you are saying is, if you think there's a possibility that some American soldiers might face jeopardy, then it is legitimate to torture anyone just in case he knows whether that possibility is a reality. How many people are your prepared to torture before you get to the one who has that information? All of them? And how will you know? Information gained under torture is notoriously unreliable. People's safety might easily be jeopardised by acting on it.

And, as someone else has already said, that approach gives your opponents carte blanche to do exactly the same without fear of criticism from you.

Someone previously, here, proposed the use of drugs. I believe that what we're talking about is "Truth Serum". So, let's take a look at this "Truth Serum" that has been suggested as a more humane alternative to things such as water boarding.

Wasn't me, so let's not bother. I don't condone that any more than waterboarding.

[Mr.FixIt]

I did, didn't I? <deep breath ... count to 10>



You were perfectly clear. You referred specifically to acts perpetrated by Al Qaeida, a group commonly understood to be moslem terrorists, and I do not believe you did that unaware of the west's - particularly USA's - dread of militant Islamic fundamentalists. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

But you DID mention gihads (sic) in a later post. A specifically moslem religious duty. And quickly withdrew from wanting to talk about religion. Forgive me if I think you were being disingenuous there...

You are forgiven for thinking that I might ever be disingenuous, but then you don't know me yet, and therefore I understand. Occasionally, when I give instructions to my occupational subordinates that may seem to them to be unusual or out of the ordinary, they ask, "Are you sure?" I always respond in the same manner, "I don't say anything unless I am sure--I may be wrong, but I am always sure." So, I will respond to you, now, in the same manner, as I would respond to anyone else whether they agree with me or otherwise. I, (genuinely), have no issue with any specific religion, nor do I take issue with any religion. For all I care, the terrorists of 9/11 may as well have been southern baptists--the religion of the terrorists makes no difference to me, and is not the matter that I have any issue with. Who gives a good cod damn what religion the fuckers were. We might as well be arguing what astrological sign they were, or what hobbies or interest they had, or--Hell, if you want, we can take up Clinton's debate of the meaning of the word "IS"! Airplanes smashing into the side of buildings is not a religious matter, it's an extremist, political activist, terroristic, chicken-shit sucker punch of a matter that killed thousands.

I understand, however, how you might think that I am, "insult(ing) (y)our intelligence by pretending otherwise." Most Americans don't think like I do, but I am not most Americans. I am Me, and I speak for Myself--and I don't pretend shit!

I previously asked, "But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives?"

You replied, as anyone else might, "I don't know".

So let's suppose that now YOU (you meaning whomever might be reading this thread) are ultimately responsible for making such decisions, and you are now responsible for the outcome of thousands of innocent individuals, the fate of families, the fate of nations and the fate of a few fuckers that publicly proclaim to hate us and publicly proclaim their intent to kill us. What would you do?

Would you, strategically and politely, ask them to pretty please tell us all about the details of their devious intentions? I don't think so.

You see, it is easy to pretend that we might make the most moral and humane decisions if we were in charge--while we are sitting here on our computers, in our air-conditioned homes, while our BDSM slaves are fixing drinks and preparing our dinners (you know, the whole armchair quarterback theory), but if you REALLY put yourself in the shoes of the fucker in charge, you would probably think a little differently.

Ask me to wear the shoes of the fucker in charge, and I will still say WATER BOARD ON! (Then I will ask myself why I am wearing someone else's shoes!)