Wow...

 

The torture described in the article was for no other reason than to humiliate and prolong the agony of a very cruel and painful death for innocent unarmed victims by evil men who were clearly not God's children.

 

The so called "torture" of waterboarding to cause fear and intimidation (without an intent to cause lasting harm, maiming or death) to evil men intent upon killing more innocent people for the purpose of extracting valuable information from them that can be used to thwart the actions of other evil colleagues also intent upon killing innocent people is so completely different I can't even begin to comprehend a point of view that attempts to equate them.

 

Isn't John McCain against waterboarding?

 

I understand what you are saying, but I can't comprehend a point of view in which one denounces torture with one hand and implements it in another. Why is it wrong for our enemies to use torture but fine for us to do so?

 

Let me add that of course I think that what happened in India is horrible.

I understand what you are saying, but I can't comprehend a point of view in which one denounces torture with one hand and implements it in another. Why is it wrong for our enemies to use torture but fine for us to do so?

 

Let me add that of course I think that what happened in India is horrible.

 

:thumb: Torture is inhumane and illegal no matter how you slice it. What is absurd is calling one group barbaric for doing it while simultaneously justifying it for another group. It's further evidence of why we should disband the practice.

:thumb: Torture is inhumane and illegal no matter how you slice it. What is absurd is calling one group barbaric for doing it while simultaneously justifying it for another group. It's further evidence of why we should disband the practice.

 

 

I don't give a rat about the moral qualms in regards to waterboarding. My only concern is if it is effective and practical. If it is ineffective then it has no value to this country and should be discontinued as an interrogation method. If it is effective then I have no problem with using it.

I don't give a rat about the moral qualms in regards to waterboarding. My only concern is if it is effective and practical. If it is ineffective then it has no value to this country and should be discontinued as an interrogation method. If it is effective then I have no problem with using it.

 

Even from a utilitarian perspective I'm not convinced that it is a particularly desirable practice.

Even from a utilitarian perspective I'm not convinced that it is a particularly desirable practice.

Would you stand by passively and watch a woman being raped?

 

Would you simply turn away if a weaker person was being beaten by a stronger person for no reason at all?

 

If you knew for a fact that a sworn killer was in league with other sworn killers with a detailed plan to torture and horrifically kill members of your immediate family, would you not be willing to use some degree of force to gather information that would save your family's lives?

Would you stand by passively and watch a woman being raped?

 

Not analogous to torture.

 

Would you simply turn away if a weaker person was being beaten by a stronger person for no reason at all?

 

Not analogous to torture.

 

If you knew for a fact that a sworn killer was in league with other sworn killers with a detailed plan to torture and horrifically kill members of your immediate family, would you not be willing to use some degree of force to gather information that would save your family's lives?

 

And I am to assume that they would tell the truth? Particularly when time is a factor? It's a bad gambit on the risk/reward scale even before one factors in the moral qualms that have to be ignored.

I don't give a rat about the moral qualms in regards to waterboarding. My only concern is if it is effective and practical. If it is ineffective then it has no value to this country and should be discontinued as an interrogation method. If it is effective then I have no problem with using it.

 

:thumb:

 

If it's effective, there isn't a single interrogation method I have a problem with the US using.

Not analogous to torture.

 

 

 

Not analogous to torture.

 

 

 

And I am to assume that they would tell the truth? Particularly when time is a factor? It's a bad gambit on the risk/reward scale even before one factors in the moral qualms that have to be ignored.

 

Why does morality even come in to it? I don't understand why people feel the need to bring religious and moral beliefs into political matters only when it benefits their point of view.

Even from a utilitarian perspective I'm not convinced that it is a particularly desirable practice.

 

 

If it is effective and accurate then it is desirable. If it neither of those two then I wouldn't want the U.S. using it. That applies to ANY form of interrogation whether it involves forceble coercion or not.

So our argument now becomes, "well you are right, we tortured by it was not as bad as your torture"?

 

You are compelled to love your enemy and not to return evil for evil.

 

It is amazing how you twist things to fit your viewpoint.

I'm sorry ace, but there is no way you can begin to compare the two.

:thumb: Torture is inhumane and illegal no matter how you slice it. What is absurd is calling one group barbaric for doing it while simultaneously justifying it for another group. It's further evidence of why we should disband the practice.

So is engaging in battle without a military uniform.

Why does morality even come in to it? I don't understand why people feel the need to bring religious and moral beliefs into political matters only when it benefits their point of view.

:thumb:

If it is effective and accurate then it is desirable. If it neither of those two then I wouldn't want the U.S. using it. That applies to ANY form of interrogation whether it involves forceble coercion or not.

:thumb:

Why does morality even come in to it? I don't understand why people feel the need to bring religious and moral beliefs into political matters only when it benefits their point of view.

 

Morality is necessarily religious. If our government is not moral, then there is no need for a bill of rights or any protection of individuals.

 

Nearly any theory of healthy government talks about setting up a system where morality plays a role. Government is essentially there to help individuals get along - goodness gracious, why not simply set up a fascist dictatorship and let them do what they want if morality is not involved in politics.

 

We have rejected Machiavellian tactics for a more enlightened view of good government and it is all about morality.

 

Read a little bit of Hobbes, Locke, or Jefferson. Read the Declaration of Independence even. We broke away from GB b/c they broke a moral/social contract with us. It is all about morality.

So does this mean that you all are saying that another country or group using these techniques against our captured military personel to gain information is within their rights to do so?