ah297900 wrote:

Nuclear annihilation works too, but it doesn't mean we should do it.

We did do it, and it saved a ton of U.S. servicemen's lives.

ah297900 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Nuclear annihilation works too, but it doesn't mean we should do it.

We did do it, and it saved a ton of U.S. servicemen's lives.

I meant that we could cut down terrorism by annihilating everyone from Morocco to Bangladesh, but it's not a great idea.

I don't understand why conservatives get so excited when they find reasons to torture. At best it is a necessary evil--an odious proposition that should make everyone uncomfortable, especially the "government can't be trusted" set. I don't understand the glee with which this issue is embraced, or that people would go out and publicly, unashamedly argue in favor of torturing people.

That glee--that search for reasons to torture rather than reasons not to--smacks of bloodlust more than just an evaluation of anti-terror tactics.

You are so hung up on your fantasy that conservatives are warmongers that you fail to see the benefits in an enhanced method of garnering information from our enemy which causes nothing more than temporary distress.  It has no lasting impacts on the health of the subjects.  Try to put aside your prejudices against those who are out there doing the job that none of us want and think of the assholes who are now marginalized, locked up, or dead instead of out there plotting your murder.

ah297900 wrote:

See, I thought not torturing was one of those fundamental human rights that made us Americans great. Like freedom of speech, where we don't bend rules for speech we don't like, we shouldn't bend rules for people we don't like.

Your descriptions of the assholes we're torturing reinforces my point: this whole conversation is about vengeance and bloodlust rather than effectiveness. If the discussion was about whether or not it's effective, the tone would be as dispassionate as when we discuss the effectiveness of drone strikes.

I wouldn't have a problem if pro-torture people were saying "It's an ugly thing, but ugly things happen in war and regrettably it's the only way we can get the intelligence." That would be different than the tone of the conversation now. My main problem is that when pro-torture people talk about torture, it's clear that they enjoy it. That's fucked up, and that should make you nervous too.

I disagree with both of your assumptions.  First, those of us who believe waterboarding is an effective tool do not believe it rises to the level of torture.  All you need do is read descriptions of real torture to know the difference.  Second, where do you get the notion that pro-waterboard people are giddy about it?  If you read about the procedure, it is almost clinical.  I have seen nothing that would suggest it is used as punishment.  I do admit I get all warm and fuzzy thinking about how this simple procedure can be used to extract information from hard assed terrorists who would gladly die as martyrs, but can't keep their mouths shut when we run a little water down their noses.  Not because we cause them distress, but because of the ease of extracting the information.

I have spent much of the day torturing and killing kittens to convince God not to destroy the earth tomorrow. If the earth is intact and no Christians are raptured, then - clearly - my methods will be vindicated.

If I get caught by a terrorist I'd rather get my head sawed off immediately than endure what McCain or any of these guys holed up in Gitmo had to go through. No lasting health problems? Sure, if your brain doesn't count.

Dmtdust wrote:

As I have stated before, and Phreddy ignored . . .

Yeah . . .  I was going to go in-to a bit of a rant about PTSD and the long-term physiological effects of extreme stress; But, as Phred has never seemed one to appreciate logic, I decided that it was not worth the effort.

phreddy wrote:

And, ironically, Wikileaks proves it.

Before the interrogations, the U.S. knew little about al Qaeda in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Years later, the CIA and military had accumulated a large database of ongoing plots and the identities of terrorists, the WikiLeaks files show.

Completely unironically, you're so eager to vindicate torture (yes, it IS torture, get over it) that you haven't bothered to critically examine what the facts in the article actually states.  For example, the article and the Wikileaks memos show absolutely zero evidence that had we not tortured people we would not have gotten the same information.  In fact, we waterboarded KSM 183 times in one month and he didn't give us what we wanted.  In fact, the information about the courier was one of the things that KSM continued to lie about during the entire time he was being tortured.

This article also seems to completely ignore the actual timeline to make it seem like enhanced interrogations led to the outing of Bin Laden's courier, when the truth is that the name of the courier wasn't discovered until after torture was banned.

Of course, even if it was super effective, torture would be immoral.

MSG Tripps wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

immoral

I am not commenting on the effectiveness of torture.
I am wondering about your ability to judge morals.
What is your claim to be able to decide this ?

Oh, don't get started on the relativism bullshit.  I'm not even going to participate in that troll.

Last edited by tojo2000 (2011-05-21 20:57:54)

Fuck water-boarding;  molten lead gets the job done so much faster.