Finally, a conservative who remember Patrick Henry.

That marks the first time I have ever agreed with Maggie Gallagher about anything.

But, but, what about our resolve!?

Bravo.

Now, watch as she gets lambasted by the rest of the knuckle dragging armchair Torquemadas of the right.

So her point is torture is wrong, but who the hell knows what "torture" means.

Go NOM on a cock Gallegher.

Okay, now that makes sense. We all will die, but only a select few of us get to be tortured beforehand, my remorse and empathy go out to those who are. Cause not all of them will be criminals =\

What about the torture you go through when you, your husband, and sons get blown up, but not actually killed?

DamnYankees: Finally, a conservative who remember Patrick Henry.

This.

I'd rather face danger than damn myself seeking safety.

Think she'd change her tune if it was just her kids that get blown up?

This is the essence of my questions surrounding the debate. I don't know what torture is, either. Well, I do; but I'm not clear on what isn't torture.

Would I want to be water boarded? No. Is water boarding torture? I don't know. Obviously, the lack of consent to physical coercion puts it in a class outside of mere interrogation. But is the psychological harm increased by some (essentially) non-permanent coercive techniques greater than just locking someone up in a room and yelling at them for hours on end? I would think that the essence of the issue would be the lack of freedom, lack of control, lack of choice in the proceedings, while many of the techniques being employed are just in aggravation of that. Whereas a blowtorch to the flesh or electrodes to the genitals or the old bamboo slivers under the fingernails take on a whole new dimension. Or perhaps that's just rationalization.

Understand, I'm against torture, and am not trying to be an apologist for anyone's behavior. I'm fairly liberal and voted for Obama. I'm just having a hard time seeing this issue in black and white.

ApocoLypstick: Think she'd change her tune if it was just her kids that get blown up?

When you change your tune because of the emotional response of a terrorist attack... isn't that the definition of being terrorized? As in, letting the terrorists win?

So all of you who agree would rather have your entire families blown up rather than torture someone? If that ever happened, you are damn sure that i would torture the fark out of anyone who was going to blow my family up.

rjpaquin

Mock executions are specifically defined as torture in international law. Waterboarding induces a fear of death.

It's torture.

Black and white.

Done.

You'll note that the torture apologists have moved on from their original argument: Remember we started with "we don't do it", then we went to "It isn't torture" now they are at "it is torture but it's OK because it works".

These are the only people for whom I support the death penalty.

Bloody William: ApocoLypstick: Think she'd change her tune if it was just her kids that get blown up?

When you change your tune because of the emotional response of a terrorist attack... isn't that the definition of being terrorized? As in, letting the terrorists win?

I think the point is that it's easy to be all tough and say "go ahead, kill me or my family," but if you were actually presented with the choice, you'd likely rethink your stance.

The whole "easier said than done" thing.

cK-MidnightFreak: So all of you who agree would rather have your entire families blown up rather than torture someone? If that ever happened, you are damn sure that i would torture the fark out of anyone who was going to blow my family up.

HOLLYWOOD: "We found the terrorist mastermind! We know the bomb will go off within the hour! If we torture him, we can find out where the bomb is and how to defuse it! Torture is the only way!"

REALITY: "We have a ton of different stories and a ton of potential terrorists in custody. We have reason to believe that an attack is coming, but we don't have a timeframe or anything more specific than that. If we torture any of these guys, they might send us on a wild goose chase, or they might genuinely not know anything. We have an entire arsenal of other intelligence and interrogation techniques we can employ both on the prisoners and in the field to find more information about this attack."

Tigger: rjpaquin

Mock executions are specifically defined as torture in international law. Waterboarding induces a fear of death.

It's torture.

Black and white.

Done.

You'll note that the torture apologists have moved on from their original argument: Remember we started with "we don't do it", then we went to "It isn't torture" now they are at "it is torture but it's OK because it works".

These are the only people for whom I support the death penalty.

So you went from "I'm against the death penalty" to "Well it's okay if I dislike the person." Not much different.

REALITY: "We have a ton of different stories and a ton of potential terrorists in custody. We have reason to believe that an attack is coming, but we don't have a timeframe or anything more specific than that. If we torture any of these guys, they might send us on a wild goose chase, or they might genuinely not know anything. We have an entire arsenal of other intelligence and interrogation techniques we can employ both on the prisoners and in the field to find more information about this attack."

ACTUAL REALITY: We invaded an irrelevant country based on lies and now we're going to look really farking dumb. Let's save face by torturing some people until they say Saddam was linked to 9/11.

Fact Man: I think the point is that it's easy to be all tough and say "go ahead, kill me or my family," but if you were actually presented with the choice, you'd likely rethink your stance.

The whole "easier said than done" thing.

Exactly, thank you for saying this. She seemed kinda blase about seeing her family harmed.

My point is I would willing die for either of my children, but if you where to harm one of them I would gladly rip your toenails out with my teeth if that's what it would take to keep them safe.

cK-MidnightFreak: So all of you who agree would rather have your entire families blown up rather than torture someone? If that ever happened, you are damn sure that i would torture the fark out of anyone who was going to blow my family up.

So logically we should torture every single prisoner just in case they have that magical timely info that could save some lives.

So you went from "I'm against the death penalty" to "Well it's okay if I dislike the person." Not much different.

I'm against the death penalty except in the case of war crimes. Pretty simple. What the merry fark are you on about?

Tigger:

These are the only people for whom I support the death penalty.

Seriously. So people who murder others or perform other heinous crimes against humanity do not deserve to be put to death. ONLY people who inflict some varying amount of physical or psychological pain on another in order to obtain information to potentially stop a disaster? Sounds about right..... in bizarro world.

Fact Man: Bloody William: ApocoLypstick: Think she'd change her tune if it was just her kids that get blown up?

When you change your tune because of the emotional response of a terrorist attack... isn't that the definition of being terrorized? As in, letting the terrorists win?

I think the point is that it's easy to be all tough and say "go ahead, kill me or my family," but if you were actually presented with the choice, you'd likely rethink your stance.

The whole "easier said than done" thing.

Oh, I won't lie. In a very personal, very certain situation, I will not hesitate to attack, kill, do whatever terrible things are necessary and damn the consequences. I'll face them when I know those I care about are safe.

The problem is that situation doesn't farking happen. There is no ticking time bomb and NOT ENOUGH TIME. There is no doomsday device with a big glowing timer on it and there is no red wire to cut with two seconds left. There is no genius mastermind who will give us that crucial answer with minutes to spare, letting us save the day as the music reaches a tense crescendo. That is a farking fantasy.

What we do have are a farkton of suspects and a farkton of potential threats. We also have a farkton of methods that aren't farking torture that are quite effective in both getting information from prisoners and finding information through standard intelligence practices.

This argument presents the falsest of dichotomies, straight out of the glow of a television screen.

Tigger: So you went from "I'm against the death penalty" to "Well it's okay if I dislike the person." Not much different.

I'm against the death penalty except in the case of war crimes. Pretty simple. What the merry fark are you on about?

I don't understand that second sentence. But,as for the first sentence, I'm against torture, except with terrorists. Is that not simple as well?

Fact Man: Tigger: So you went from "I'm against the death penalty" to "Well it's okay if I dislike the person." Not much different.

I'm against the death penalty except in the case of war crimes. Pretty simple. What the merry fark are you on about?

I don't understand that second sentence. But,as for the first sentence, I'm against torture, except with terrorists. Is that not simple as well?

Meant I don't understand the last sentence*

Seriously. So people who murder others or perform other heinous crimes against humanity do not deserve to be put to death. ONLY people who inflict some varying amount of physical or psychological pain on another False premise goes herein order to obtain information to potentially stop a disaster? Sounds about right..... in bizarro world.

Bloody William: Oh, I won't lie. In a very personal, very certain situation, I will not hesitate to attack, kill, do whatever terrible things are necessary and damn the consequences. I'll face them when I know those I care about are safe.

The problem is that situation doesn't farking happen.

That's the problem with the people, on either side, that say you can't think that way and that you HAVE to be absolutely on one side or the other. either it's RIGHT or it's WRONG, you can't have both ways.

Bullshiat there is gray no matter what you think or believe.

Tigger: Seriously. So people who murder others or perform other heinous crimes against humanity do not deserve to be put to death. ONLY people who inflict some varying amount of physical or psychological pain on another False premise goes herein order to obtain information to potentially stop a disaster? Sounds about right..... in bizarro world.

How is that a false premise?

You're saying you only support the death penalty against people who torture criminals, not for a criminal that tortures an innocent person.

I'm against torture, except with terrorists. Is that not simple as well?


terrorists is an insufficiently specific term thus making this argument rather useless.

But if you're pro war crimes that's cool.

Bloody William: ApocoLypstick: Think she'd change her tune if it was just her kids that get blown up?

When you change your tune because of the emotional response of a terrorist attack... isn't that the definition of being terrorized? As in, letting the terrorists win?

Stop clouding the issues with logic.

Bloody William: cK-MidnightFreak: So all of you who agree would rather have your entire families blown up rather than torture someone? If that ever happened, you are damn sure that i would torture the fark out of anyone who was going to blow my family up.

HOLLYWOOD: "We found the terrorist mastermind! We know the bomb will go off within the hour! If we torture him, we can find out where the bomb is and how to defuse it! Torture is the only way!"

REALITY: "We have a ton of different stories and a ton of potential terrorists in custody. We have reason to believe that an attack is coming, but we don't have a timeframe or anything more specific than that. If we torture any of these guys, they might send us on a wild goose chase, or they might genuinely not know anything. We have an entire arsenal of other intelligence and interrogation techniques we can employ both on the prisoners and in the field to find more information about this attack."

Way to take this out of context. I was referring to TFA and what the author said about her family, not torture as applied to every possible scenario.

Fact Man: But,as for the first sentence, I'm against torture, except with terrorists. Is that not simple as well?

It's simply stupid. It only makes the other terrorists hate us more. Just hang them like common thieves.

It would also help if the people tortured had actually had trials wherein they were determined to actually be terrorists.

Tigger: war crimes

Tigger: is an insufficiently specific term thus making this argument rather useless.

Yep.

How is that a false premise?

You're saying you only support the death penalty against people who torture criminals, not for a criminal that tortures an innocent person.

Because you made assumptions about the reason for torturing that have turned out to be untrue.

And yes I believe that state sponsored crimes that are part of the national apparatus are worse than individual crimes. This is why genocide is considered to be worse than just killing a load of people because you're insane.

cK-MidnightFreak: Bloody William: cK-MidnightFreak: So all of you who agree would rather have your entire families blown up rather than torture someone? If that ever happened, you are damn sure that i would torture the fark out of anyone who was going to blow my family up.

HOLLYWOOD: "We found the terrorist mastermind! We know the bomb will go off within the hour! If we torture him, we can find out where the bomb is and how to defuse it! Torture is the only way!"

REALITY: "We have a ton of different stories and a ton of potential terrorists in custody. We have reason to believe that an attack is coming, but we don't have a timeframe or anything more specific than that. If we torture any of these guys, they might send us on a wild goose chase, or they might genuinely not know anything. We have an entire arsenal of other intelligence and interrogation techniques we can employ both on the prisoners and in the field to find more information about this attack."

Way to take this out of context. I was referring to TFA and what the author said about her family, not torture as applied to every possible scenario.

Well, I'm sorry for responding to your response to a hypothetical with a response to a hypothetical.

Tigger: I'm against torture, except with terrorists. Is that not simple as well?

terrorists is an insufficiently specific term thus making this argument rather useless.

But if you're pro war crimes that's cool.

So you're 100% sure what a war crime is, but not what a terrorist is? Both have definitions, and both are filled with gray areas.

Tigger: war crimes

Tigger: is an insufficiently specific term thus making this argument rather useless.

Yep.


Are you arguing that there isn't a massive body of international law that defines law crimes including a number of treaties to which this country is signatory? or that a similar body of legislation and precedent exists for the term terrorism?

Barbigazi: cK-MidnightFreak: So all of you who agree would rather have your entire families blown up rather than torture someone? If that ever happened, you are damn sure that i would torture the fark out of anyone who was going to blow my family up.

So logically we should torture every single prisoner just in case they have that magical timely info that could save some lives.

Yes, that is exactly what i said. Torture anyone and everyone, even those not connected with the situation. Try sticking with the theme of the article.

Are you arguing that there isn't a massive body of international law that defines WAR crimes including a number of treaties to which this country is signatory? or that a similar body of legislation and precedent exists for the term terrorism?

stupid typo

Tigger: How is that a false premise?

You're saying you only support the death penalty against people who torture criminals, not for a criminal that tortures an innocent person.

Because you made assumptions about the reason for torturing that have turned out to be untrue.

But you're against torture in any case, right? Not just for the reasons supplied that turned out to be untrue?

And yes I believe that state sponsored crimes that are part of the national apparatus are worse than individual crimes. This is why genocide is considered to be worse than just killing a load of people because you're insane.

So an interrogator waterboards a terrorist for 10 minutes = death penalty.

A murderer rapes and tortures a girl before killing her and tossing her body into a river = no death penalty

???

This entire discussion seems to rely on the argument that torture is the absolutely only way to find what is necessary to prevent disaster. It assumes that everything else we do, from surveillance to standard interrogation techniques (you know, the kind without waterboarding) have failed. Because the argument is already framed as if torture is reprehensible-but-necessary, a last resort move. I've yet to hear anyone say it should be yet another tool in the belt, on the same level as surveillance. Frankly, I hope to not hear anyone say that, because that involves crossing a line of both constitutionality and humanity.

There has to be a better way to accomplish our goals, without farking torture.

So an interrogator waterboards a terrorist for 10 minutes = death penalty.

A murderer rapes and tortures a girl before killing her and tossing her body into a river = no death penalty

The death penalty for state sponsored crimes is a deterrent because, unlike crazy people, they are more likely to be considered premeditated matters of policy.

Pour encourager les autres.

Tigger: Are you arguing that there isn't a massive body of international law that defines WAR crimes including a number of treaties to which this country is signatory? or that a similar body of legislation and precedent exists for the term terrorism?

stupid typo

And you think that definition is flawless, and correctly in black and white always applies to any and all situations? And you don't think those terms ever have been or ever will be up for debate?

For example: Let's say that these laws and treaties were amended to allow waterboarding- would you then think it was okay, simply because the laws and treaties now allow it?

Of course, this also assumes that all suspected terrorists are, in fact, terrorists, and that everyone we torture has useful information that can prevent a disaster.

What about the suspects who aren't guilty? What about the people we keep beating and freezing and drowning who simply don't farking know anything?

I love the fact that many of the people that I am arguing with this about are people that have never served a day in their life in the Military. I am not saying that people that have not served in the military cannot weigh in on this subject but if you have not served in the military should you be so quick to jump on the torture everyone bandwagon?

Fact Man: Bloody William: ApocoLypstick: Think she'd change her tune if it was just her kids that get blown up?

When you change your tune because of the emotional response of a terrorist attack... isn't that the definition of being terrorized? As in, letting the terrorists win?

I think the point is that it's easy to be all tough and say "go ahead, kill me or my family," but if you were actually presented with the choice, you'd likely rethink your stance.

The whole "easier said than done" thing.

Which is why we don't let a father of a murdered kid sit on the jury of the murder's trial.

Of course you will want to kill they guy. Of course you would want to see him hang. Of course you would want to hurt him in any way you could.

But it is a poor, emotional excuse for policy.

Fark-the-Fnord: ... be so quick to jump on the torture everyone bandwagon?

who's saying torture everyone?

I am not saying that people that have not served in the military cannot weigh in on this subject but if you have not served in the military should you be so quick to jump on the torture everyone bandwagon?


Ironically I did serve in the military and learned very early on that, even if ordered to torture someone, if I did I would be subject to court martial and possible execution.

Fark-the-Fnord: I love the fact that many of the people that I am arguing with this about are people that have never served a day in their life in the Military. I am not saying that people that have not served in the military cannot weigh in on this subject but if you have not served in the military should you be so quick to jump on the torture everyone bandwagon?

How do you feel about bleeding-heart civies who are against torture?

/Did not serve
//Respects anyone who does
///...to a point, of course. Respect the uniform, not the crazed psycho who might be wearing it, in some cases.

I think that there can be times and circumstances when torture might be warranted.

However, we should never accept torture as "usual business", it should never be openly condoned by our government, and the people that approve of it and carry it out must know that their ass would be in a sling if word ever leaked out about it.

Fact Man: And you think that definition is flawless, and correctly in black and white always applies to any and all situations? And you don't think those terms ever have been or ever will be up for debate?

For example: Let's say that these laws and treaties were amended to allow waterboarding- would you then think it was okay, simply because the laws and treaties now allow it?

Once again...said quicker and better than I could type.