You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. From the Philadelphia Inquirer by Mark Bowden, author of Blackhawk Down and many other works.
The Point | In defense of waterboarding
Let me start by saying that I don't
Let me start by saying that I don't like the idea of torture, I am repulsed by it. I am glad that it is illegal in this country and that people are getting worked up by the idea that our government might make it easier for it to happen.
I also think that in general torture is not effective, people will indeed tell you anything you want to hear to end the pain. I also think there are other ways to get the info you want.
That being said I also realize that we don't live in perfect world. Sometimes things like waterboarding do work. And sometimes the 'other ways' don't. Somtimes, when lives are at stake and time is a factor, roughing a guy up is what works.
And I will admit this right now: In the story he cited about the German Police Captain? I am glad he threatened that guy. If it were my daughter that some pervert had grabbed and buried alive I would do anything to make him talk.............anything.
And I would do it for your daughter or son as well.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I think Bowden makes some valid points.
Can anyone really say that waterboarding and other acts should never ever be used, even if it can prevent worse acts or save lives,
I don't think this a completely black and white area, most of the time it is, but not all the time.
Thoughts?
And lets try to get keep this civil. I doubt any one here likes or gets off on torture anymore than others would want innocent people to die because they would let terrorists go rather than make them uncomfortable.
__________________ "Most of my money I spent on drink,fast cars and women, the rest I squandered"~ George Best
Last edited by Kings Provisional; December 27th, 2007 at 01:03 PM.
I thought, after WWII that some Japanese and Germans were tried and convicted for waterboarding? If we felt it was a war crime then why do we not believe it is a war crime now?
The whole premise is immoral and ineffective. What or who determines effectiveness? The people doing the torture? Torture is a psychological tool against dissenters also.
Actually having this type of debate is in and of itself a win for the torturers. Torture is made to get confessions not information. Sick sick sick.
Last edited by go; December 27th, 2007 at 02:05 PM.
Whatever you want to give our government the green light for, just remember that you're also greenlighting that it also be done without recourse on our own civilians and soldiers when a foreign entity deems it necessary.
It's an awfully big can of worms to open up without it leading to abuse.
Whatever you want to give our government the green light for, just remember that you're also greenlighting that it also be done without recourse on our own civilians and soldiers when a foreign entity deems it necessary.
It's an awfully big can of worms to open up without it leading to abuse.
It's already done by our enemies to our soldiers and civilians whether we do it or not.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
It would suck to be the wrongly accused, wouldn't it ?
Yeah it would. That's why it's only used in cases were it has been deemed to be appropriate by people with enough knowledge and intelligence information to make that determination.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
It would suck to be the wrongly accused, wouldn't it ?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowalk
I thought, after WWII that some Japanese and Germans were tried and convicted for waterboarding? If we felt it was a war crime then why do we not believe it is a war crime now?
Possibly. But usually German and Japanese war criminals were convicted of doing lot of different actions in addition to things like water boarding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by go
The whole premise is immoral and ineffective. What or who determines effectiveness? The people doing the torture? Torture is a psychological tool against dissenters also.
Actually having this type of debate is in and of itself a win for the torturers. Torture is made to get confessions not information. Sick sick sick
Yes, it is immoral and sick. And as I have stated it is most of the time ineffective.
But you have given me a black and white cookie cutter answer. And not to offend but it seems like self rightious grand-standing. How about a real world answer?
What if, for example if it was your kid that some lowlife had grabbed and buried alive?
If the cops told you he was not talking but one of them said he was about to use the threat of torture to loosen his tongue would you tell him not to do it? Would you let your daughter possibly suffocate so you could take the moral high ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbruin152
No, no, no.
America is better than that.
Well, sometimes it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgrycan
Whatever you want to give our government the green light for, just remember that you're also greenlighting that it also be done without recourse on our own civilians and soldiers when a foreign entity deems it necessary.
It's an awfully big can of worms to open up without it leading to abuse.
I do not want to greenlight our government to torture. As I said, I am repulsed by the idea of torture.
But what I am asking is what about the situations when using questionable methods saves lives?
I admit I am being somewhat hypocritical on this, as I think it is a tough question in a very grey area.
Yes, it is immoral and sick. And as I have stated it is most of the time ineffective.
But you have given me a black and white cookie cutter answer. And not to offend but it seems like self-righteous grandstanding. How about a real world answer?
What if, for example if it was your kid that some lowlife had grabbed and buried alive?
If the cops told you he was not talking but one of them said he was about to use the threat of torture to loosen his tongue would you tell him not to do it? Would you let your daughter possibly suffocate so you could take the moral high ground?
Of course any one of us put in a room with our child on the line would use any means necessary. That doesn't make all vigilante justice anywhere close to right or legal.
The Geneva Convention that we are a part of specifically prohibits torture. If we want to claim we are "better" and "more civilized" than they are, we need to act like it.
Of course any one of us put in a room with our child on the line would use any means necessary. That doesn't make all vigilante justice anywhere close to right or legal.
The Geneva Convention that we are a part of specifically prohibits torture. If we want to claim we are "better" and "more civilized" than they are, we need to act like it.
This here is the relevant point in any debate regarding torture. We tell the world that the western democratic way of life is superior to any other system. And it is. But since it is superior to other systems and above the repressive repulsive tactics that Monarchies/Autocracies/Theocracies use... then we, as a nation, have to prove it by being above the vile tactics that we, as individuals, might approve of in very limited instances.
to argue that it's sometimes okay is to argue for moral relativism, which the conservatives like to hang on liberals as a slander for their weak will and lack of moral fortitude.
and ironically, it's conservatives now who argue that "aggressive" or "enhanced" interrogation techniques are right and appropriate because it might turn up answers.
no guarantee that the answers will be useful or even based on anything true. but there will be answers. because for the victim the point is to give up information so the torture will stop. and if you have no information to give, you make it up.
the c.i.a. and f.b.i. were both opposed to such techniques because the results are unreliable.
torture is punishable by death under u.s. law. does that make anyone rethink their position?
__________________ I'm the King of Rock & Roll. If you don't like it, you can lump it.
The Point | In defense of waterboarding 
4/10/82
