Who Would Jesus Torture?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Sadism makes them feel good? Revenge against foreign invaders? Who knows?
Or perhaps because they realized that not every human being on the planet reacts in exactly the same way to being tortured or seeing their friends tortured. If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Not likely. The other 9 would give plenty of information, none of it good. The one who did give "a little useful information" likely will give a lot of bad information as well. Good luck with all the wasted resources trying to figure out which is which. If we continue to use torture we will be using it for the same purpose it has always been used - and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions. Of course this pointless argument about torture's effectiveness completely ignores the fact that it is completely illegal and immoral.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I don't recall it working very well when the North Vietnamese used it against Americans, so I doubt it would work very well when Americans use it against our foes.
If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
why did they keep doing it?
You mean you haven't experienced having someone completely at your mercy, to do with as you wish, to see the abject fear in their eyes, to ... ? Ooops! :-O Seriously, there is that element. Can one torture, or water-board, objectively?
Bob Emmett
-
Oakman wrote:
I'm sorry Ed. let me put it another way: Approximately 25% of all Americans are against torture under all circumstances. The rest might disagree about what circumstances warrant it, but that just arguing about the price, not whether or not to pay for it. It doesn't matter whether they go to church a lot, a little or never, the results are the same. The CNN article is bs.
Yes, the CNN article is BS (Honestly! Would he have posted it otherwise?). But then, there's a touch of BS in your response, too, as the meaning of 'torture' has lately been under tortured by the Hate-America-First crowd and you are playing with that "definition" of the word/concept.
Ilíon wrote:
the meaning of 'torture' has lately been under tortured by the Hate-America-First crowd
And not just lately. When the Japanese were the "Hate-America-First crowd", they had the temerity to include water-boarding in their secret War Service Guide, as Item No. 3 in the list of official tortures. Worse still, they implied that the "victims" might suffer, by drawing attention to the importance of minimising the disturbance caused by their screams - as if!
Bob Emmett
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If only one in ten gave up a little useful information, it was all good.
Not likely. The other 9 would give plenty of information, none of it good. The one who did give "a little useful information" likely will give a lot of bad information as well. Good luck with all the wasted resources trying to figure out which is which. If we continue to use torture we will be using it for the same purpose it has always been used - and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions. Of course this pointless argument about torture's effectiveness completely ignores the fact that it is completely illegal and immoral.
oilFactotum wrote:
and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions.
Doesn't the law actually say that Bush is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
and was used by the Bush administration - to extract false confessions.
Doesn't the law actually say that Bush is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yes, what is your point?
-
Yes, what is your point?
Your comment about Bush speaks to your true concern for the law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Your comment about Bush speaks to your true concern for the law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yes I am concerned about the rule of law. And the previous administrations lawlessness should continue to be exposed.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
What was George Washington's response to the horrendous acts committed by the British? Who were among many things, quartering Americans. Its not rhetorical although I know the answer. But, torture was very much against what the founding fathers practiced.
No, they just forced everyone who disagreed with them to flee their new country or face hanging. Wow, were those great guys er whut?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
A very enlightening discovery reading George Washington's words on the issue. Side step it you may, but the truth sticks. They were adamantly against torture. And cite a reference if you're going to deny that.
This statement is false
I have'nt denied anything. But I can tell you this much with absolute certainty, their troops were torturing the hell out of everyone they came across that they did not particularly care for, and the command structure was doing precious little to stop it. The frontier during the American revolution was one of the most cruel and barbaric places in all of history on all sides, Patriots, Tories, British, Indians, all of them. These were people who tortured just for the fun of listening to others scream.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I have'nt denied anything. But I can tell you this much with absolute certainty, their troops were torturing the hell out of everyone they came across that they did not particularly care for, and the command structure was doing precious little to stop it. The frontier during the American revolution was one of the most cruel and barbaric places in all of history on all sides, Patriots, Tories, British, Indians, all of them. These were people who tortured just for the fun of listening to others scream.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Troops deciding to torture on their own and our position as a country are two very different issues. I am speaking to the latter.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Troops deciding to torture on their own and our position as a country are two very different issues. I am speaking to the latter.
Well who is disputing anything then? Do you think Washington would have been comfortable with Lincoln's abuse of the constitution? Of Wilson's use of sedition laws, of FDR's imprisoning the Japanese and spying on German citizens, or dropping nuclear bombs on hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children? No one is suggesting that Bush's actions are not worthy of disdain from those who are worried by it. The problem is the effort to characterize it as the greatest abuse of human rights in our history. It simply isn't. Not by any stretch. I fully believe that Washington, being a rational human being, would have considered Bush actions completely justified all things considered. The only legitimate question is whether or not those actions were taken in a valid attempt to defend the lives of American citizens. And yes we need a serious investigation to determine that. If it was, than that is a compltely appropriate reason to break some silly little law. Any good leader would do the same.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Troops deciding to torture on their own and our position as a country are two very different issues. I am speaking to the latter.
Well who is disputing anything then? Do you think Washington would have been comfortable with Lincoln's abuse of the constitution? Of Wilson's use of sedition laws, of FDR's imprisoning the Japanese and spying on German citizens, or dropping nuclear bombs on hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children? No one is suggesting that Bush's actions are not worthy of disdain from those who are worried by it. The problem is the effort to characterize it as the greatest abuse of human rights in our history. It simply isn't. Not by any stretch. I fully believe that Washington, being a rational human being, would have considered Bush actions completely justified all things considered. The only legitimate question is whether or not those actions were taken in a valid attempt to defend the lives of American citizens. And yes we need a serious investigation to determine that. If it was, than that is a compltely appropriate reason to break some silly little law. Any good leader would do the same.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I don't have a vendetta. My entire point here is that we as a nation do not support torture at all. And that the debate of whether waterboarding is or isn't torture is ridiculous when compared to the reality that we hung a Japanese POW for exactly that citing torture as the crime. And I dismiss your attempts to side step the issue citing moral equivalency regarding our killing the POW for torture. I cited it as setting precedence that waterboarding is torture, not as a justification for state sanctioned killing.
This statement is false
-
I don't have a vendetta. My entire point here is that we as a nation do not support torture at all. And that the debate of whether waterboarding is or isn't torture is ridiculous when compared to the reality that we hung a Japanese POW for exactly that citing torture as the crime. And I dismiss your attempts to side step the issue citing moral equivalency regarding our killing the POW for torture. I cited it as setting precedence that waterboarding is torture, not as a justification for state sanctioned killing.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
And that the debate of whether waterboarding is or isn't torture is ridiculous when compared to the reality that we hung a Japanese POW for exactly that citing torture as the crime. And I dismiss your attempts to side step the issue citing moral equivalency regarding our killing the POW for torture. I cited it as setting precedence that waterboarding is torture, not as a justification for state sanctioned killing.
And all that proves is that you do have a vendetta. Law or no law, hanging prisoners out of revenge who were probably mostly innocent soldiers following orders is worse than waterboarding prisoners to save lives. FDR was more immoral than Bush, Truman was more immoral than Bush, Wilson was more immoral than Bush, Lincoln was more immoral than Bush. It is just that simple. If you were not so fixated on getting your pound of evil conservative flesh you would appreciate that. And, sadly, your fixation is going to produce nothing more than more dead Americans and probably end up not merely exonerating Bush, but making a real hero out of him. And, hopefully, we will finally get rid of that stupid law thats causing all this unnecessary consternation in the first damn place. We are, and have always been a nation that does what ever is necessary to survive. That is what we are. So don't include me in your little morality play about what America is. We have done far worse and we will do so again, God willing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
And that the debate of whether waterboarding is or isn't torture is ridiculous when compared to the reality that we hung a Japanese POW for exactly that citing torture as the crime. And I dismiss your attempts to side step the issue citing moral equivalency regarding our killing the POW for torture. I cited it as setting precedence that waterboarding is torture, not as a justification for state sanctioned killing.
And all that proves is that you do have a vendetta. Law or no law, hanging prisoners out of revenge who were probably mostly innocent soldiers following orders is worse than waterboarding prisoners to save lives. FDR was more immoral than Bush, Truman was more immoral than Bush, Wilson was more immoral than Bush, Lincoln was more immoral than Bush. It is just that simple. If you were not so fixated on getting your pound of evil conservative flesh you would appreciate that. And, sadly, your fixation is going to produce nothing more than more dead Americans and probably end up not merely exonerating Bush, but making a real hero out of him. And, hopefully, we will finally get rid of that stupid law thats causing all this unnecessary consternation in the first damn place. We are, and have always been a nation that does what ever is necessary to survive. That is what we are. So don't include me in your little morality play about what America is. We have done far worse and we will do so again, God willing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
You're trying to find a needle in a hay stack. I have no such agenda other than to state torture as defined by US law and precedent is illegal. That's it. I never stated that hanging the POW was right. I stated that it set the precedent that waterboarding is illegal. That's it. I'm not talking about which president is more immoral than any other. I also don't have a fixation. I'm not demanding prosecution. You must have me confused with Carson or Oily. I am only stating that waterboarding by our own precedent is torture. What is so hard to understand about this single one issue statement that you need to attempt to spin a gold sweater out of a single strand of cotton? Get over it Stan. I'm not including you in any morality play. That's not my argument. I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing LAW. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. I'm willing to accept either course personally. Its a wonder that you get so worked up without comprehending what is being said to you. Stop foaming and comprehend.
This statement is false
-
You're trying to find a needle in a hay stack. I have no such agenda other than to state torture as defined by US law and precedent is illegal. That's it. I never stated that hanging the POW was right. I stated that it set the precedent that waterboarding is illegal. That's it. I'm not talking about which president is more immoral than any other. I also don't have a fixation. I'm not demanding prosecution. You must have me confused with Carson or Oily. I am only stating that waterboarding by our own precedent is torture. What is so hard to understand about this single one issue statement that you need to attempt to spin a gold sweater out of a single strand of cotton? Get over it Stan. I'm not including you in any morality play. That's not my argument. I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing LAW. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. I'm willing to accept either course personally. Its a wonder that you get so worked up without comprehending what is being said to you. Stop foaming and comprehend.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
I'm arguing LAW. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. I'm willing to accept either course personally. Its a wonder that you get so worked up without comprehending what is being said to you. Stop foaming and comprehend.
I'm not the one with a comprehension problem. You want to claim that you are merely following some kind of American tradition which our nation has always adhered to. Yet, you blithfully ignore that the real tradition endangered here is the one that has always given our leaders a huge amount of latitude in how they have chosen to defend the country. Including things that have been measurably far worse than anything Bush did, even if the very worse charges against him are absolutely true. You are doing that only because of who Bush is and what he represents. You are not some kind of paragon of American virtue regardless of how hard you try to portray yourself that way, you're just another liberal demonizing the political opposition. Not trying to help the country, but merely your own political agenda.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.