quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Part of being the "better" person is playing by the rules. It's why police have limits. It's why government has limits. It's why our military has limits. Sure everything would be easier if no one had to play by the rules, but then what do you have?

Wrong !
They are called rights, not limits. The military has rights/limits because they adhere to the Geneva Convention. They do play by rules but, ..., I am not letting you bring a gun to a knife fight.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: CIA agents "training" is not published.

The report on the use of the SERE training applied in the real world was published.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: You want to define what "type" of person they are while forgetting they are still a person. You claim superiority when you talk like that.

Well, I have no shame in claiming superiority to the kind of people we were in combat with.

They will hide among the population endangering innocent lives while in combat. We won't.
They will send innocent people with explosives toward our soldiers. We won't.
They will hack someone's neck until the head is severed. We won't.

PERSONALLY I'm not claiming superiority. It isn't an arrogance thing, either. On an individual PERSON basis I am worth no more than one of them.

On a BEHAVIORAL level it IS different.

I claim a culture that places limits where we do as superior to a culture that places it where they place their limits.

I know they are a person. So we draw a line on what we will do to them.


Regarding living after being tortured. I never intimated it didn't exact a psychological toll. Hmmm. John McCain is probably the most famous U.S. brutal torture victim. I'm sure he had a psychological toll. In spite of that, I'm quite confident if you asked him, he was glad he came out of it alive and gladly would accept the psychological toll in return for that life.

And so would many others. Some would not.

If you think that the majority of people would rather have just been killed than live a life after being waterboarded, I honestly believe you are going to be strongly in the minority.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Wrong ! They are called rights, not limits. The military has rights/limits because they adhere to the Geneva Convention. They do play by rules but, ..., I am not letting you bring a gun to a knife fight.

You guys are funny. We're talking about treatment of prisoners. Not a fight. A prisoner doesn't have a knife or a gun. Pick a thread direction and STICK WITH IT.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Dude, c'mon. Are you kidding me? Do you mean to tell me that if some guy walks up to you and sucker-punches you in the head you aren't going to use whatever tactics you have available to win that fight? Or are you going to stick to some moral code while he bashes your head in with a 2x4 because you somehow think doing so makes you better than him? Good plan, we'll note YOUR moral superiority on your gravestone. Got newz for ya bubba, I don't want to be morally superior, I want to win.

You just changed the argument. You started with "if they could do this, they WOULD do this" then migrated to "they did this." I can only reply when you have a clear direction of where you want the conversation to go.

For starters, I have a problem with words like "fair" and "rules" when in comes to physical conflict, but that is another thread in itself. You do what it takes to win or you end up a loser.

It is an interesting debate on treatment of prisoners. In the case of an army (individuals) marching to the command of their government, who actually has a physical place on the globe to defend, I can see some kind of agreement on humane treatment.

I do not think any of this should even remotely apply to these rouge factions of countryless lunatic killers. In this case I am all for torturing their terrorist asses for what ever useful information we might extract and then discard them in an unmarked mass grave. Do I like the idea? get exited? hell F'ing NO! I do not consider myself "pro torture" but I do think there IS a time when it and other extreme behavior is appropriate.

Yes, I admit I am putting people in a category that if you like, makes them less human to me to as you will, justify the violent response. This is the same thing most of us do when comparing what you would be willing to do to a "fellow human" in a fist fight with some jackass over something stupid (which it always is) or fighting off a mugger or a robber or a rapist from harming your loved ones. We categorize people everyday to justify our positions, be it criminals or union monkeys or inept politicians and their followers.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: For starters, I have a problem with words like "fair" and "rules" when in comes to physical conflict, but that is another thread in itself. You do what it takes to win or you end up a loser.

If we do what it takes to win then why not nuke the whole area? Wouldn't we win?

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: You just changed the argument. You started with "if they could do this, they WOULD do this" then migrated to "they did this." I can only reply when you have a clear direction of where you want the conversation to go.

OK, fine. How is the fact that they would do it if they could irrelevant? You do realize they've demonstrated over and over their willingness to do whatever it takes to win, right? Do you suppose that while they find it OK to saw the head off of some civilian contractor, they wouldn't drop a nuke on your house if they had the technology?

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: You guys are funny. We're talking about treatment of prisoners. Not a fight. A prisoner doesn't have a knife or a gun. Pick a thread direction and STICK WITH IT.

I believe that was a METAPHOR

S: (n) metaphor (a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity)

John Stricker

Actually what we established is that you can't tell the difference between getting waterboarded and having a drill put holes in your hand.

Here is a shock for you, our interrogators are allowed to lie or even withhold information from detainees. Just because the terrorists did not know that we would not let them die does not make it torture.

Also, the differences between the SERE training and the methods used by the CIA was in frequency and in a couple of incidences the amount of water used. While they did not follow the guidelines given, that does not make what they did torture.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: From our previous discussion, you know that's not true. By our own governments admission, the technique was altered when used on combatants. And the US soldiers in SERE training KNEW they weren't going to be hurt or DIE. That's like simulating rape by dry-humping a willing partiapant.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: For starters, I have a problem with words like "fair" and "rules" when in comes to physical conflict, but that is another thread in itself. You do what it takes to win or you end up a loser. It is an interesting debate on treatment of prisoners. In the case of an army (individuals) marching to the command of their government, who actually has a physical place on the globe to defend, I can see some kind of agreement on humane treatment. I do not think any of this should even remotely apply to these rouge factions of countryless lunatic killers. In this case I am all for torturing their terrorist asses for what ever useful information we might extract and then discard them in an unmarked mass grave. Do I like the idea? get exited? hell F'ing NO! I do not consider myself "pro torture" but I do think there IS a time when it and other extreme behavior is appropriate. Yes, I admit I am putting people in a category that if you like, makes them less human to me to as you will, justify the violent response. This is the same thing most of us do when comparing what you would be willing to do to a "fellow human" in a fist fight with some jackass over something stupid (which it always is) or fighting off a mugger or a robber or a rapist from harming your loved ones. We categorize people everyday to justify our positions, be it criminals or union monkeys or inept politicians and their followers.

Your answers are honest. It is a hard question.
One could say if these things were always done in the right, it would be justified. But such as the death penalty where you could accidentally kill someone who was not guilty. This could be done to someone who knew nothing.
There really is no cut and dried answer encompassing all scenarios.

All I'm saying is to be the bigger person. Treating them like they treat us only makes us like them.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: OK, fine. How is the fact that they would do it if they could irrelevant? You do realize they've demonstrated over and over their willingness to whatever it takes to win, right? Do you suppose that while they find it OK to saw the head of some civilian contractor, they wouldn't drop a nuke on your house if they had the technology?

So how does that relate to treatment of prisoners? So they saw the head off a guy, did they win? No, they didn't. So stop drawing that conclusion.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Here is a shock for you, our interrogators are allowed to lie or even withhold information from detainees. Just because the terrorists did not know that we would not let them die does not make it torture.

Here's a shock for you, that's why they take them to international waters or a foreign nation where the rules don't apply. Of course it is speculation to wonder what happens to those prisoners, but I can guarantee you it isn't pretty.

[This message has been edited by IEatRice (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: If we do what it takes to win then why not nuke the whole area? Wouldn't we win?

Heh, pretty extreme right there. IF it was really us or them and I thought hat was the only way to win, I would have to say yes.

As far as nuking everyone to get a few rats, of course not. Though I will admit that I have thought about it, maybe even said it.
Seams maybe a bit harsh but I do put the lives of my fellow americans obove all others by far. I would be willing to sacrafice many many others to save a few of ours.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: I can only reply when you have a clear direction of where you want the conversation to go.

Did you forget your own statement? If you don't want to have the conversation, that's fine, just say so.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Heh, pretty extreme right there. IF it was really us or them and I thought hat was the only way to win, I would have to say yes. As far as nuking everyone to get a few rats, of course not. Though I will admit that I have thought about it, maybe even said it. Seams maybe a bit harsh but I do put the lives of my fellow americans obove all others by far. I would be willing to sacrafice many many others to save a few of ours.

That's the superiority complex. You think because we're "better" we get to decide how to treat the lower piss ant humans "below us" and it's okay if it's wrong or against the law. Because, after all, they're "below us."

Or course it isn't "pretty". You don't get much information out of a terrorist by giving them gum drops and lolly pops. Read the 10 methods that we used to use and you will see that they made things very uncomfortable for the detainees. The way we broke their will was in a very methodical way and it paid off.

Tell us specifically what you object to in the treatment and we can discuss it. Giving blanket statement doesn't really mean much. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the OP does not even know what waterboarding is nor the use of it in our currently military.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Here's a shock for you, that's why they take them to international waters or a foreign nation where the rules don't apply. Of course it is speculation to wonder what happens to those prisoners, but I can guarantee you it isn't pretty.

No.

The people trying to KILL US are below us, not just everyone who isn't "us".

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: That's the superiority complex. You think because we're "better" we get to decide how to treat the lower piss ant humans "below us" and it's okay if it's wrong or against the law. Because, after all, they're "below us."

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: You guys are funny. We're talking about treatment of prisoners. Not a fight. A prisoner doesn't have a knife or a gun. Pick a thread direction and STICK WITH IT.

Why are we talking about prisoners ? Because we are in a fight.
Pick a thread direction and stick with it ? ROTFLMAO.
A prisoner may not have a knife or a gun but, he can have information which can kill me.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: That's the superiority complex. You think because we're "better" we get to decide how to treat the lower piss ant humans "below us" and it's okay if it's wrong or against the law. Because, after all, they're "below us."

Heh, not at all. I am a patriot and the united states and ALL my fellow countrymen (and allies) IS MY TEAM! period.

Do I think I am above, better, worth more than a scumsucking terrorist! you betcha. heh

quote Originally posted by jstricker: No. The people trying to KILL US are below us, not just everyone who isn't "us". John Stricker

Okay. How does it excuse the fact we break international law to torture prisoners? (I have been trying to ignore your posts, it becomes an never ending cycle of long posts and I am pretty much alone here)

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: How does it excuse the fact we break international law to torture prisoners?

Despite that you call it torture, it is called sovereignty.
If the law will not protect me, I will protect myself.

America should follow the treaties it has signed, if for no other reason then we can demand remittance when others do not make good on promises they made to us.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Despite that you call it torture, it is called sovereignty. If the law will not protect me, I will protect myself.

Then you should rightfully be on trial for crimes against humanity. It's why the law's exist. Ignoring them because you think it's okay isn't why we have laws. If you think the law is wrong, change it. But you are responsible for any actions you take that are against the law. Agreed?

[This message has been edited by IEatRice (edited 04-22-2009).]

What about it was naive?

quote Originally posted by jimbolaya: Daniel Pearl said he was okay with waterboarding. It was when they chopped his head off is when he thought it went to far. Real torture was reading your naive first post. Jim

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: I didn't. I asked a question of how your statement relates to treatment of prisoners.

My statement illustrates the extent to which "they" are willing to go to in order to accomplish their mission. There mission is to wipe us off the face of the planet. If we aren't willing to resort to at least similar tactics, then we can't possibly win. The only way to win is to eradicate their kind, and the collection of information is a means to that end. As long as they exist, there will always be a threat.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: What about it was naive?

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: 1. A rag is not forced down the throat during water boarding. It is placed over the head. Then water is poured over the rag. 2. This does happen to US soldiers every day as a part of SERE training. 3. It is not torture.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Then you should rightfully be on trial for crimes against humanity. It's why the law's exist. Ignoring them because you think it's okay isn't why we have laws. If you think the law is wrong, change it. But you are responsible for any actions you take that are against the law. Agreed?

Agreed. Except that I/the US should rightfully be on trial for crimes against humanity. We, even after we saw heads of our people cut off, did nothing inhumane.
Why are we not involved with international charges of crimes against humanity ?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: My statement illustrates the extent to which "they" are willing to go to in order to accomplish their mission. There mission is to wipe us off the face of the planet. If we aren't willing to resort to at least similar tactics, then we can't possibly win. The only way to win is to eradicate their kind, and the collection of information is a means to that end. As long as they exist, there will always be a threat.

Do I expect a terrorist to obey the law? No I do not, because as you explained they do not. But do I expect my country to obey the law? Yes. End of story.

You are making an accusation I have not heard before. Where are we taking these prisoners from? What ships are we doing these interrogations on?

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: We take prisoners across international borders and into international waters to torture them to avoid the transparency of Guantanamo. That is inhumane. Good question. How do you put the person on trial who runs the court? Or better yet, WHO puts the person on trial that runs the court?

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Do I expect a terrorist to obey the law? No I do not, because as you explained they do not. But do I expect my country to obey the law? Yes. End of story.

You expect your country to obey "the law" regardless of the consequences? That "the law" (whoever established those) is more important than anything else?


BTW, for those who think the people who gave the orders should be punished, but not those who carried them out, you should be aware that those who carried them out should be found just as guilty by your standards. The military does NOT automatically require one follow the orders of a superior officer, they are very specific that it has to be a LAWFUL order. SO either they didn't realize it was an "unlawful" order, or they knew and did it anyway.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: You are making an accusation I have not heard before. Where are we taking these prisoners from? What ships are we doing these interrogations on?

The CIA has had "secret" detentions programs for awhile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009...cs/22gitmo.html?_r=1
And the orders bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: You expect your country to obey "the law" regardless of the consequences? That "the law" (whoever established those) is more important than anything else?

Yes. It is the law for a reason. It's not something you comply with only when you "feel like it." If you break the law then you should suffer the consequences, surely we can all agree on that.

[This message has been edited by IEatRice (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Yes. It is the law for a reason. It's not something you comply with only when you "feel like it." If you break the law then you should suffer the consequences, surely we can all agree on that.

Even when following the law could mean the demise of the society that created it?

By the way, who established these "laws" you're talking about?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Even when following the law could mean the demise of the society that created it? By the way, who established these "laws" you're talking about?

The demise? When were we on the verge of speaking Arabic? But regardless, laws are laws, break them and expect to suffer the consequences. They are here to guarantee (or at least give reason) that if someone invaded our country and tortured our citizens, that the world would seek justice.

Part III, Section I, Article 17 of the Geneva Convention:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

[This message has been edited by IEatRice (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: The demise? When were we on the verge of speaking Arabic? But regardless, laws are laws, break them and expect to suffer the consequences. They are here to guarantee (or at least give reason) that if someone invaded our country and tortured our citizens, that the world would seek justice. Part III, Section I, Article 17 of the Geneva Convention: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

So this about legal position, and not some moral superiority? What if it weren't "illegal" as outlined in the Geneva Convention? Would you be OK with it then?

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: The demise? When were we on the verge of speaking Arabic? But regardless, laws are laws, break them and expect to suffer the consequences. They are here to guarantee (or at least give reason) that if someone invaded our country and tortured our citizens, that the world would seek justice. Part III, Section I, Article 17 of the Geneva Convention: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

We are not talking about POWs. The detainees are not protected by the Geneva Convention at all. They are not part of any armed service and they do not wear a uniform. Why do you think that spies were shot on the spot when they were found during WWII? They were not uniformed military so they were not protected by the Geneva Convention.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: We are not talking about POWs. The detainees are not protected by the Geneva Convention at all. They are not part of any armed service and they do not wear a uniform. Why do you think that spies were shot on the spot when they were found during WWII? They were not uniformed military so they were not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Then why did Bush grant terrorism suspects Geneva Convention rights?

Detainees? Prisoner of War? Tomato, Tomata...

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: So this about legal position, and not some moral superiority? What if it weren't "illegal" as outlined in the Geneva Convention? Would you be OK with it then?

People in this thread were using moral superiority as a reason to ignore the law. "They would do it or have done it to us, therefore we can do it to them."

I would not be "OK" with it if it were legal torture.

[This message has been edited by IEatRice (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: If we do what it takes to win then why not nuke the whole area? Wouldn't we win?

Because believe it or not, there are GOOD people mixed in with the terrorists, that is one of their main tactics is blending in with the good guys.

If every single man woman and child were completely deranged and would stop at nothing to kill, (i mean every single one) then yeah im sure we would have already glassed the place.

EDIT: my policy is this, if you intentions were to kill me, or someone on my side, and you acted upon that intention, then there are no rules. To save the lives of American men and women (including other soldiers), then any tactic is permissible in my book.

[This message has been edited by 4-mulaGT (edited 04-22-2009).]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for these dirtbags, especially when they were the first ones to attack us. If I was in charge, I would do whatever was possible to protect my own people from future attacks, even if it meant wiping out an entire country to save one of my citizen's life. They started it, we have to be sure to finish it. Taking the moral high road with these animals will not get us anywhere except another 9/11.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 04-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: THAT is where the debate starts. You want to define what "type" of person they are while forgetting they are still a person. You claim superiority when you talk like that.

I am superior because I would never slowly hack an animals head off with a dull blade let alone a human being. These are people that find it perfectly acceptable to walk in the middle of a crowd of women and children and set off a bomb and I'm supposed to feel guilty about the mild forms of torture we use to get information that could save our boys lives or innocent civilians lives. Sorry...I couldn't possibly care less. I show compassion for anyone who doesn't return it.