It's not about sympathy. It's about law. Part of being the bigger person is doing the right thing when everyone else wouldn't.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Then why did Bush grant terrorism suspects Geneva Convention rights?

Because of people like you who can't understand the differences. So instead of having to hold the hands of people like you he did the easy thing so he could get on with the job he needed to do.

And detainees are not the same as POW. See people like you are not intellectually honest enough to see that and Bush needed to get past people like you to do his job.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Then why did Bush grant terrorism suspects Geneva Convention rights? Detainees? Prisoner of War? Tomato, Tomata...

If they were entitled to those rights, then they would not have to be granted, now would they? Bush didn't do that until 2006. He didn't have to do that. Also, the acts in question happened before that.

There is a huge world of difference between a uniform soldier fighting on the battlefield for his country and these terrorist scum that wear no uniform, bear no allegence to any country, that hide amoung the civilian popluation and that target civilians. Can you make that distinction or are you too deep into the rhetoric to see that?

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: 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.

Moral superiority has nothing to do with it, especially since if you actually read the Geneva convention, you'll realize that it doesn't apply to other guys. As was previously stated, they don't wear a uniform nor represent any army. So using that as a basis is moot, as it doesn't apply. And even if they were to be considered a "power" as described by the article, it wouldn't apply to them:

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

So, unless the convention allows for the sawing-off of civilians heads or any of the other torture methods used on civilians and military alike, I'd say it doesn't apply to them, and therefore doesn't apply to their treatment. Which means there is no breaking of any laws set forth by the convention. Aside from the backwards connection of moral superiority and the law, that's all moot since it doesn't apply.


Aside from which, why bring the "law" into it anyway, as it's irrelevant to your position? You've been using the "law" all along as the reason for your position. So now the truth comes out that you feel it's just "wrong". Given that you aren't actually basing your position on the law, then why rely on it to support your position?

Simple, we didn't, at least in the opinion of the legal counsel advising the President at the time. The detainees were not entitled to the rights under the Geneva Convention for a number of reasons.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: 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)

If these people were American citizens, would we allow these methods to be used in acquiring intelligence? Should we have used these methods on Timothy McVeigh to determine if he had information regarding other acts of home-grown terrorism? Or would it not be acceptable because he was an American citizen?

Just curious other's feelings. I have my own thoughts

I'm quite certain that John McCain has stated quite clearly that he feels waterboarding is torture, no I don't have a link and don't know how to embed it in my reply even if I did. I would like to see an analysis of the information extracted by this method, what percentage was anywhere near correct or even useful? The problem is, after several buckets of water and having the wind knocked out of you as well, some people will reach their limit and say what you want to hear, or what they think you want to hear. They will implicate others and provide information that seems plausable but is almost impossible to verify through other means. Real terrorists on the other hand have been trained, they know what will be done to them, they have their own form of SERE training, and they have surprisingly little useful information anyway because they take "need to know" to a whole new level. I don't feel sorry for them, but why turn extensively trained and educated people into sadists for no good reason. Can you imagine interrogating people day in and out for years using these methods? There is where you will find the real casualties.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: It's not about sympathy. It's about law. Part of being the bigger person is doing the right thing when everyone else wouldn't.

Applying Morality, to Survival is a difficult thing.

I'd much rather be alive, than to be dying knowing that at least the world will seek justice for my gruesome death.

quote Originally posted by Grandaddy84SE: I'm quite certain that John McCain has stated quite clearly that he feels waterboarding is torture, no I don't have a link and don't know how to embed it in my reply even if I did. I would like to see an analysis of the information extracted by this method, what percentage was anywhere near correct or even useful? The problem is, after several buckets of water and having the wind knocked out of you as well, some people will reach their limit and say what you want to hear, or what they think you want to hear. They will implicate others and provide information that seems plausable but is almost impossible to verify through other means. Real terrorists on the other hand have been trained, they know what will be done to them, they have their own form of SERE training, and they have surprisingly little useful information anyway because they take "need to know" to a whole new level. I don't feel sorry for them, but why turn extensively trained and educated people into sadists for no good reason. Can you imagine interrogating people day in and out for years using these methods? There is where you will find the real casualties.

I could not have said it more eloquently.
Perfect.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: I am pretty much alone here

Only becouse I had to go to work.
We are both saying the same things in slightly different ways.

But I feel you.
It does feel lonely when you are 1% against 99% on a subject that can allow the other side to question your loyalty to your own country.
I mean, don't people think I WANT to be proud of how we treat ourselves & others?
I love this country.
I hate terrorists.
I do not want this country to fall.
I want us to be the light that others follow.
If what we do is right, no need to hide, lie, or cover it up.

The way we treat our enemies now, will not stop enemies from doing stuff in the future, no more then the death penalty stops murder.

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

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.

Your argument is based on a double-standard.

I find it disconcerting that you so easily discount the islamo-fascists' blatant disregard for human life, but get so worked-up about the methods we use to try to combat them. Do you want the islamo-fascists to be defeated, or are you more concerned about putting on a good face for the rest of the world as we go down in flames?

In order to defeat them, we could squeeze a few islamo-fascists for information so we can make surgical strikes with minimal collateral damage, or we could forget about getting good intelligence and just carpet-bomb the place. Sure, some terrorists are going to suffer torture. But thousands, if not millions, of innocent people's lives will be spared because we didn't have to bomb them back to the Stone Age just to kill a few terrorists.

So really, which is the greater injustice?

quote Originally posted by Xanth: Applying Morality, to Survival is a difficult thing.

Agreed, if indeed our survival is dependant on our Morality, or lack thereof.

quote Originally posted by Xanth: I'd much rather be alive, than to be dying knowing that at least the world will seek justice for my gruesome death.

W.W.G.D. - What Would Gandhi Do?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: The way we treat our enemies now, will not stop enemies from doing stuff in the future, no more then the death penelty stops murder.

I see it in that the Death Penalty stops murder, because that person is no longer capable of doing it again. Statistics wouldn't really show that, since there is no way of knowing how many more people an executed man might have murdered.

Giving a serial killer the death sentence to end his killing spree, reduces murder no? There probably is a statistic out there for how many people get out of jail on Parole, then kill again, or how many murderers kill other inmates.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: W.W.G.D. - What Would Gandhi Do?

I'm guessing he would die a gruesome death.

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

quote Originally posted by Xanth: I see it in that the Death Penalty stops murder, because that person is no longer capable of doing it again. Statistics wouldn't really show that, since there is no way of knowing how many people an executed man might have killed. Giving a serial killer the death sentence to end his killing spree, reduces murder no? There probably is a statistic out there for how many people get out of jail on Parole, then kill again, or how many murderers kill other inmates.

I think you know from my whole post I was refering to deterrents.

Since we and our system makes mistakes, and since we can not live with killing even one innocent man, I think the best we can do as a fallable people, is lock them up, and keep them locked up.

But one way or the other, you lock one down or kill him, more will fill his place.
You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things, no matter what or how many examples to make to them.
Becouse even good people can turn bad on a dime.
The supply will never run out, no matter how many you kill.
You may even be making more.

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

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: But I feel you. It does feel lonely when you are 1% against 99% on a subject that can allow the other side to question your loyalty to your own country. I

Where did I, or anyone else, question your loyalty to your country?

I never saw that happen. Perhaps there's a conflict within yourself that makes YOU question it?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by afRaceR: If these people were American citizens, would we allow these methods to be used in acquiring intelligence? Should we have used these methods on Timothy McVeigh to determine if he had information regarding other acts of home-grown terrorism? Or would it not be acceptable because he was an American citizen? Just curious other's feelings. I have my own thoughts

I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up yet: Hostis Humani Generis......meaning 'enemy of mankind'. These people should be considered enemies of the entire world. It doesn't matter where they were born or what taxes they have paid. If you are an enemy to every person in the world, then you do NOT have rights, laws, or privileges.

I personally think that these people should be tortured first and then killed (not sprinkled with water and then detained). But this might be a slippery slope...who falls into the category of Hostis Humani Generis??

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I think you know from my whole post I was refering to deterrents. Since we and our system makes mistakes, and since we can not live with killing even one innocent man, I think the best we can do as a fallable people, is lock them up, and keep them locked up. But one way or the other, you lock one down or kill him, more will fill his place. You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things, no matter what or how many examples to make to them. Becouse even good people can turn bad on a dime. The supply will never run out, no matter how many you kill. You may even be making more.

This is NOT about deterrance. This is about acquiring needed intelligence to save lives. It is not about revenge. It is about acquiring intelligence to save lives. This is not about hatred. This is about acquiring intelligence to save lives.

I would never support these tactics for vengance, punishment, or deterrance. I do support these methods to acquire the information we need to keep even worse things from happening.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by dsnover: A prisoner at Gitmo was held on TV and had his throat slit, broadcast for the world to see. Wait, no, that didn't happen to one of them... it happens to regular civilians, reporters, and military.

That's what I was thinking. Although I don't condone torture, I don't see any other "players" worried about the rules. If you don't want to get burned, don't get near the stove!

quote Originally posted by jstricker: This is NOT about deterrance. This is about acquiring needed intelligence to save lives. It is not about revenge. It is about acquiring intelligence to save lives. This is not about hatred. This is about acquiring intelligence to save lives. I would never support these tactics for vengance, punishment, or deterrance. I do support these methods to acquire the information we need to keep even worse things from happening. John Stricker

Yeah, I somehow got off track and onto the death penality.
But I disagree with you somewhat.
I think a little of it IS about revenge & hatred.
And pleasure.
Some of those guards that took those pictures were getting pleasure from what they were doing.

It not uncommon or unheard of to derive pleasure from degrading others you deem below you.
Just look around here.

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

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I think you know from my whole post I was refering to deterrents. Since we and our system makes mistakes, and since we can not live with killing even one innocent man, I think the best we can do as a fallable people, is lock them up, and keep them locked up. But one way or the other, you lock one down or kill him, more will fill his place. You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things, no matter what or how many examples to make to them. Becouse even good people can turn bad on a dime. The supply will never run out, no matter how many you kill. You may even be making more.

I realize the statement is made with regard to deterrents, however when used that way it ignores what actually gets done.

Equally, I realize the possibility of making more enemies. This does not convince me however that a known enemy should be left to be.

If you're attacked, do you leave him alone for fear that his relatives may get angry at you or do you take him down?

If they feel you should have simply laid down and died, then let them feel that way.

A Victim should not have to be treated as the Aggressor for responding to an attack.

Edit: Didn't mean to get so off topic. I'll stop discussing here.

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

The point is this - they are at war with us.

They attacked us.

They killed innocent civilians.

They captured and beheaded innocent civilians.

They gloat about these actions.

Taking the 'higher road' under these circumstances is the path of fools and cowards. And elected "American Idol" politicians.

Are our new 'leaders' so foolish as to think that this type of castration of our intellegence community and military will serve to protect Americans?

Or any of the other infidels these terrorists have sworn to kill?

If you are not one of the jihadists, they want you dead, and will do everything in their power to make that happen.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Taking the 'higher road' under these circumstances is the path of fools and cowards.

Well, I guess I can add that to the list of things I have been labled here, for my beliefs.

quote Originally posted by Xanth: Equally, I realize the possibility of making more enemies. This does not convince me however that a known enemy should be left to be.

Nor I.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Well, I guess I can add that to the list of things I have been labled here, for my beliefs.

Boonie,

You know as much as I argue with you, rice, and others here about these things, I fully recognize that WE NEED YOU FOLKS!

Why?

Simple. You're that little guy sitting on our shoulders whispering in our ear, reminding us of what we should aspire to, even when we know and hate the fact that we cannot be that person.

One of the differences between "us" and "them", I honestly believe, is THEIR little guy on THEIR shoulder is telling them "Go ahead and chop off his head, Allah will reward you!!!". I don't know of anyone that relishes the idea of waterboarding or any other type of cruelty (although I'm sure there are some people like that, cruelty exists everywhere, but that's not what we're talking about). Some of us think it has been necessary to stop even greater evil. Others don't think that way.

A while back I mentioned to you either in PM or in a thread that your pacifist nature was something I admired about you and hope never changes and I truly mean that. It doesn't mean you're not a patriot, or that you don't love your country. It means you look at things differently than others and that really is not a bad thing.

So keep on sitting on my shoulder. Keep reminding me which path is the high road. I'll always aspire to take it, but there are going to be times I'm not going to be able to do that to keep evil from causing my country even grater harm.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by scottrinne: I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up yet: Hostis Humani Generis......meaning 'enemy of mankind'. These people should be considered enemies of the entire world. It doesn't matter where they were born or what taxes they have paid. If you are an enemy to every person in the world, then you do NOT have rights, laws, or privileges. I personally think that these people should be tortured first and then killed (not sprinkled with water and then detained). But this might be a slippery slope...who falls into the category of Hostis Humani Generis??

Great question! Who will have the power to declare who the enemy is? Elected officials? A new czar? Nobody liked it when Bush declared Saddam the enemy of the US. We gave him the power and people are still arguing if he was justified in his decision. So do we continue to let other people tell us who are enemies are? Where does it stop?

And would these intelligence gathering techniques violate the 8th amendment of the Constitution if used on American citizens?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Boonie, You know as much as I argue with you, rice, and others here about these things, I fully recognize that WE NEED YOU FOLKS! <snip> John Stricker

Y'know John, I read your comments and it got me to thinking. You're right about some things, but the one thing that comes to mind is that the world is full of exiled pacifists. Sure, it's admirable that they can remain passive in the face of adversity, but ultimately they need us warriors to protect them from those who would do them harm. I don't consider their paths to be in any way superior to mine, and I really have no desire to be anything but what I am. We all have a place in this world. But let's face it, if a pacifist were to truly stand in the face of hostility, they would be cut down, obviously. "Passive to the end" Having said that I realize that all of my impatience and aggravation arises from those who would do nothing to protect themselves enjoying the protection of the warriors, yet complaining about the methods used to ensure that protection.
I've been trying to figure out why I'm so emotional about this topic, and your comments helped me to be able to figure it out, so thanks for that.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Y'know John, I read your comments and it got me to thinking. You're right about some things, but the one thing that comes to mind is that the world is full of exiled pacifists. Sure, it's admirable that they can remain passive in the face of adversity, but ultimately they need us warriors to protect them from those who would do them harm. I don't consider their paths to be in any way superior to mine, and I really have no desire to be anything but what I am. We all have a place in this world. But let's face it, if a pacifist were to truly stand in the face of hostility, they would be cut down, obviously. "Passive to the end" Having said that I realize that all of my impatience and aggravation arises from those who would do nothing to protect themselves enjoying the protection of the warriors, yet complaining about the methods used to ensure that protection. I've been trying to figure out why I'm so emotional about this topic, and your comments helped me to be able to figure it out, so thanks for that.

I don't believe I said the pacifist life folks "superior". They are balance. We all need balance and when you look at this from a societal and sociological point of view, these cries are a very important part in maintaining this balance.

Consider this. Without these cries of outrage (whether you agree with them or not) would this debate even be occuring? I think not. Now ask yourself is this debate is necessary? I think it is. Without it, we may very well end up being a society with rules like that of Al Quaeda or the Taliban, where only absolutes exist. I don't think a society of pacifists would last very long at all. Nor do I think a totalitarian and brutal society will last very long. Society needs this balance and we're lucky to live in a country where these "lines" we should or should not cross are actually open for discussion.

John Stricker

Subjects like this make for lively debate, it's good to share opinions and debate the moral and legal implications.

But the fact is we do not know for sure what we would do in a certain situation unless we were thrust directly into the middle of it. If there were direct implications and we were privy to all the details our opinion or actual actions may be different from what we think they would be.

Call me inhuman, a criminal, whatever you like, but if I knew without a doubt that an individual was directly involved or directly associated with a group or other individual whose goal it was to kill my family, friends, or fellow countrymen, I would not hesitate to use every means within my grasp to extract what information I could.

When we try to be civilized and operate by rules and regulations in a situation that means life or death, or situation such as war where an entire population may be subject to subjugation, and your opponent has no regard for those rules and regulations, you stand the chance of losing. And if you do lose do you think your opponent will take into consideration that you fought a "fair" fight?

We should not have firebombed Dresden, or the Japanese villages, or dropped the A-bomb, that is if we are against torture. Imagine the torture of being burned alive, or suffering from a slow death due to radiation poisoning. And these incidents were on a grand scale. Basically the torture of a whole civillian population.

The fight for survival and war has never been a pretty thing and try as we might to sanatize it and make it more "civilized".......... the weaker it makes us appear to a ruthless enemy who is willing to do whatever is neccessary to reach their goal.

------------------
Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.

Posted this in the other "torture" thread, I guess Boonie quit going there so, I'll ask again here.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Boonie, Got a question for ya. Let's say that there is a gang of really badasses in your area, they are stealing, raping, murdering and kidnapping folks for ransom, they have not been prosecuted because they haven't been caught yet. They kidnap your family, you just happen to catch one of the group. Now, we all know that we should call the law and I beleive you would do that. But, he won't talk, he won't tell you or the police where or who has your family. The dead line is nearing, they're going to kill their captives (your family), is waterboarding still out of the question? You're probably a better person than I, you see, I consider all those soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as part of my family and I know the "other" side is trying to kill them, you, all of us. I also know that they won't take mercy on my or your soul, they'll carve your heart out of your chest while you watch them. That is not the reason I say waterboarding isn't torture but, knowing that our guys are protecting you, your family, all of us and the persons being interogated will still be whole makes it less than torture in my mind. Ron

If you prefer to not answer, that's OK but, I think it is pertinent. We're the good guys but, good guys don't always win.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Posted this in the other "torture" thread, I guess Boonie quit going there so, I'll ask again here. If you prefer to not answer, that's OK but, I think it is pertinent. We're the good guys but, good guys don't always win. Ron

I truely believe I can be pushed to do very horrable things.
I am not above it.
I would have no problem blowing the brains out of anyone that harmed my family, right in front of the cops, the court, and God.
BUT, that don't make it right.
It would be wrong, and I would be acting out of rage & hate.
But I would not lie about it, hide it, or try to rewrite the rules to suit me.

But I think your question is, would I torture someone to get my family back.
I have to say no.
Not torture.
I would, however, probibly beat him to death by accident, trying to get the information.
But I would be beating and screaming at him like a mad man.
I would have lost it by then, and it would not be about answers anymore.
And inadvertently, by killing him, I would have killed my own family.
I'm not saying any of this would be the way I would have it.
But it is probibly the way it would go down.

P.S. To all those who have the idea that a Pacifist would let you run over & abuse them, a kind word of advice: I wouldn't recommend it.
A lot of people have the wrong idea about certain people they label as "Pacifists".
That person you call a "Pacifist" might have been damaged a while back by something they witnessed or was forced upon them, and are holding back a firestorm with all their might.

I don't know if this has been said.

But why is it ok to kill two teenage pirates to save the life of one merchant captain, but it's not ok to do harsh interrogations to terrorist in order to save thousands of people?

quote If what we do is politically correct, no need to hide, lie, or cover it up.

Fixed it.

quote If what we do is right, no need to hide, lie, or cover it up.

Pretty sure the Muslim extremist strapping c4 on to his young daughter, the 911 hijackers, and the Timothy McVeighs of the world espoused similar lofty ideals. "Right" is a subjective ideal. Just ask Bin Laden.

quote The way we treat our enemies now, will not stop enemies from doing stuff in the future, no more then the death penalty stops murder.

"And the meek shall inherit the Earth"

A 6' plot of it anyway--and sooner rather than later.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Boonie, You know as much as I argue with you, rice, and others here about these things, I fully recognize that WE NEED YOU FOLKS! Why? Simple. You're that little guy sitting on our shoulders whispering in our ear, reminding us of what we should aspire to, even when we know and hate the fact that we cannot be that person. One of the differences between "us" and "them", I honestly believe, is THEIR little guy on THEIR shoulder is telling them "Go ahead and chop off his head, Allah will reward you!!!". I don't know of anyone that relishes the idea of waterboarding or any other type of cruelty (although I'm sure there are some people like that, cruelty exists everywhere, but that's not what we're talking about). Some of us think it has been necessary to stop even greater evil. Others don't think that way. A while back I mentioned to you either in PM or in a thread that your pacifist nature was something I admired about you and hope never changes and I truly mean that. It doesn't mean you're not a patriot, or that you don't love your country. It means you look at things differently than others and that really is not a bad thing. So keep on sitting on my shoulder. Keep reminding me which path is the high road. I'll always aspire to take it, but there are going to be times I'm not going to be able to do that to keep evil from causing my country even grater harm. John Stricker

John,
I agree with the need for the balance between the "soldier & the poet".
I don't think a world full of just one or the other would last very long.
I also realize what I believe is very idealistic.
But I still believe in "The better angels of our nature", as spoken by Abraham Lincoln at his First Inaugural Address, no matter how improbable that is in the real World.

I thank you for your generous post.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: John, I agree with the need for the balance between the "soldier & the poet". I don't think a world full of just one or the other would last very long. I also realize what I believe is very idealistic. But I still believe in "The better angels of our nature", as spoken by Abraham Lincoln at his First Inaugural Address, no matter how improbable that is in the real World. I thank you for your generous post.

Would that be the same Abe Lincoln that was commander-in-chief during the war that cost more American casualties than all other wars combined?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I truely believe I can be pushed to do very horrable things. I am not above it. I would have no problem blowing the brains out of anyone that harmed my family, right in front of the cops, the court, and God. BUT, that don't make it right. It would be wrong, and I would be acting out of rage & hate. But I would not lie about it, hide it, or try to rewrite the rules to suit me. But I think your question is, would I torture someone to get my family back. I have to say no. Not torture. I would, however, probibly beat him to death by accident, trying to get the information. But I would be beating and screaming at him like a mad man. I would have lost it by then, and it would not be about answers anymore. And inadvertently, by killing him, I would have killed my own family. I'm not saying any of this would be the way I would have it. But it is probibly the way it would go down. P.S. To all those who have the idea that a Pacifist would let you run over & abuse them, a kind word of advice: I wouldn't recommend it. A lot of people have the wrong idea about certain people they label as "Pacifists". That person you call a "Pacifist" might have been damaged a while back by something they witnessed or was forced upon them, and are holding back a firestorm with all their might.

OK, well as I said, you're a different man than I, if I were presented with the same scenerio, my own safety and well being would be secondary to my families, beating someone to death is torture in my mind even more so than waterboarding. But, getting my family to safety would be the the ultimate goal.

Ron

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I truely believe I can be pushed to do very horrable things. I am not above it. I would have no problem blowing the brains out of anyone that harmed my family, right in front of the cops, the court, and God. BUT, that don't make it right. It would be wrong, and I would be acting out of rage & hate. But I would not lie about it, hide it, or try to rewrite the rules to suit me. But I think your question is, would I torture someone to get my family back. I have to say no. Not torture. I would, however, probibly beat him to death by accident, trying to get the information. But I would be beating and screaming at him like a mad man. I would have lost it by then, and it would not be about answers anymore. And inadvertently, by killing him, I would have killed my own family. I'm not saying any of this would be the way I would have it. But it is probibly the way it would go down. P.S. To all those who have the idea that a Pacifist would let you run over & abuse them, a kind word of advice: I wouldn't recommend it. A lot of people have the wrong idea about certain people they label as "Pacifists". That person you call a "Pacifist" might have been damaged a while back by something they witnessed or was forced upon them, and are holding back a firestorm with all their might.

Well, that's the difference between us. You would be willing to go to great lengths to harm another in order to accomplish a goal that benefits only you and your immediate family . I (and some others) would be willing to go to those lengths and further to accomplish those goals for the benefit of others .

Brings back a question I asked a long long time ago. Where would those--who say they would fight or engage in hostile activities only if they or their loved ones were threatened--draw the line? At their nation's boundry--their state or province boundry--the next town over--the next block--down the street at one of their minor acquantices--only at their front doorstep? Fine and dandy for an individual that looks for ways to isolate themselves from violence ("doesn't personally affect me-so someone else can handle it")--constantly moving that invisible line inward I guess, but somewhere, there are those who have to try to make sure it doesn't end up on the doorstep of the protected.

The thought process that puts value on one life, but exludes all those not directly connected to one's personal life--is a mystery to me. If it were revealed, with incontrovertable proof--that a controversial procedure directly resulted in the saving of the particular lives which that individual finds most precious, I doubt he or they would complain much about it--regardless of how draconian that preemptive or interrogative procedure happened to be. Lofty ideals tend to evaporate at ones front steps like magic.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: But I think your question is, would I torture someone to get my family back. I have to say no. Not torture. I would, however, probibly beat him to death by accident, trying to get the information. But I would be beating and screaming at him like a mad man.

I keep re-reading this and even though I recoginize that Boonie is talking about losing control of his emotions, there is no way that trying to beat the information out of someone isn't torture. The truth is, waterboarding causes no permanent physical harm. I understand the desrie to protect one's loved one, any normal human would do what ever it took to accomplish this. My whole point is, we as Americans are the TARGETED family.

Now, stretch that desire to protect the family to all of us just a bit and take the emotion out of the equation, waterboarding has proven to provide "valuable" information and yet leaves no physical injuries if done correctly. Sorry guys but, I'd waterboard every friggin enemy combatant/terrorist to protect those of you that won't protect the rest of us.

I really think most of those unwilling to aggressively interrogate don't have a clue as to what defending this country takes. I'm not suggesting they aren't patriotic, only that they do not see the world as it really exists. Good guys? The Good Guys are the ones that get to write the history books because they won. If WW 2 had turned out differently, Adolf Hitler would have been remembered much differently.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Brings back a question I asked a long long time ago. Where would those--who say they would fight or engage in hostile activities only if they or their loved ones were threatened--draw the line? At their nation's boundry--their state or province boundry--the next town over--the next block--down the street at one of their minor acquantices--only at their front doorstep? Fine and dandy for an individual that looks for ways to isolate themselves from violence ("doesn't personally affect me-so someone else can handle it")--constantly moving that invisible line inward I guess, but somewhere, there are those who have to try to make sure it doesn't end up on the doorstep of the protected. The thought process that puts value on one life, but exludes all those not directly connected to one's personal life--is a mystery to me. If it were revealed, with incontrovertable proof--that a controversial procedure directly resulted in the saving of the particular lives of those that individual finds most precious, I doubt they would complain much about it--regardless of how draconian that preemptive or interrogative procedure happened to be. Lofty ideals tend to evaporate at ones front steps like magic.

I wish I'd said this! Exactly! It's not that they disapprove of the interrogation methods, they only disapprove of them outside of some invisible line. Outstanding.

Beating the information out of somebody is torture, no way around it, probably the oldest form of torture,,,,,,, next to marriage

Boonie - not an attack on you or your values, as I share those values and beliefs with you. We have that freedom as private citizens.

Our elected leaders, on the other hand, do not have the same degree of choice, as they are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and by extension, the people of the USA.

The 'moral high ground' in a situation of war is a matter of degrees. No, we don't behead our prisoners. But waterboarding? Come on, at the worst it is uncomfortable, and certainly not life threatening. And several degrees below what our sworn enemies are doing to those of us that they capture.