You are killing me.

 

Blair's comment that you posted was not intentionally omitted by me my fine little friend if that it what you are insinuating. Frankly the quote you added was not pertinent to the discussion I was then involved in; to wit: whether waterboarding yielded reliable information?.

 

It is pertinent to the discussion on whether the negatives outweigh the positives of waterboard. Do you agree with me that such is where the discussion should turn and we should stop arguing about whether it yields reliable info and whether our use of waterboarding induces our enemies, whom otherwise would not use waterboarding, to use waterboarding?

 

In otherwords: are you finally going to quit playing the Socratic method law professor asking questions and start participating in the discussion?

 

For all, let me clarify. The part about some of the facts being omitted was not aimed at posters but , rather, at news sources (or is it now infotainment?) who we rely on for our information.

 

In otherwords: are you finally going to quit playing the Socratic method law professor asking questions and start participating in the discussion?

 

Secondly, my method gives you plenty of reasons to pontificate which you do so well. I just tee them up for you.

On a somewhat related note, if you have to waterboard one guy 80+ times is it really effective?

If it gets information that saves lives there's no question in my mind about it.

No, but this is a country founded on Christian principles. We believe in due process to justice, not an eye-for-an-eye justice.

 

An eye for an eye? More like an eye for a couple hundred or few thousand eye's. Shoot I'll do the torture myself if it means saving INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES. Honestly IMO, once you become a terrorist ready to take innocent lives, you become inhumane and deserve to be treated as such.

Is the only reason we don't torture because we expect our enemies not to? No.

 

No it's because there are too many flaming liberals that get all up in arms once we starts denying terrorists their "rights".

Since the debate seems to have shifted to "should we do it" on ethical/moral grounds versus "reliability or helpfulness," let me state my opinion then.

 

I'm against it. I'm a Christian. In the context of my faith vision I can not endorse a practice that dehumanizes, destroys and inflicts carnage on an individual for any means or reasons. Sorry. I don't demand others of faith to have this opinion but I do and that's where I will stand.

How about this one?

 

20 years from now you have a child working as a soldier in a forward area. There is a chance that an attack on his/her unit could result in him/her being captured. Could that future enemy follow our lead and torture that child to obtain wanted information from him/her?

 

If anyone on here honestly thinks that us not practicing torture techniques for interrogation purposes will somehow equate to future enemies not using them as well then they are extremely naive. War is not a game with rules to be sharply followed or monitored, War is a mission, an objective(for both sides), not a PR tour on "Look How Good We Are".

If anyone on here honestly thinks that us not practicing torture techniques for interrogation purposes will somehow equate to future enemies not using them as well then they are extremely naive. War is not a game with rules to be sharply followed or monitored, War is a mission, an objective(for both sides), not a PR tour on "Look How Good We Are".

 

So, we don't lead by example then?

So, we don't lead by example then?

 

No. Leading by example would mean we're assuming the others will follow, I for one don't believe that to be true at all in regards to this matter.

Since the debate seems to have shifted to "should we do it" on ethical/moral grounds versus "reliability or helpfulness," let me state my opinion then.

 

I'm against it. I'm a Christian. In the context of my faith vision I can not endorse a practice that dehumanizes, destroys and inflicts carnage on an individual for any means or reasons. Sorry. I don't demand others of faith to have this opinion but I do and that's where I will stand.

 

And that is a very fair and understandable position to take even if I may disagree with it. I certainly can appreciate a person having the position that you do.

So, we don't lead by example then?

 

I don't know if its a leading by example issue or not. If we as a nation feel that it is simply wrong, we should not do it regardless of whether we feel others will follow our lead or not (I certainly don't feel that terrorists would follow our lead. We don't intentionally try to kill innocent civilians as part of our military tactics. That has not stopped terrorists from intentionally killing civilians).

It isn't about setting an example it is about being the people we say we are.

 

At the end of the day we simply the sum of our actions. If we torture we are torturers.

 

If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family you are still a thief. Righteous and justified as the action is to you personally, it doesn't change the fact that you have compromised long and widely held principals.

 

Torture didn't win the Civil War, WWI, WWII, or the Cold War. We didn't need it then and we don't need it now. We are better than that.

It isn't about setting an example it is about being the people we say we are.

 

At the end of the day we simply the sum of our actions. If we torture we are torturers.

 

If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family you are still a thief. Righteous and justified as the action is to you personally, it doesn't change the fact that you have compromised long and widely held principals.

Torture didn't win the Civil War, WWI, WWII, or the Cold War. We didn't need it then and we don't need it now. We are better than that.

 

You are SO RIGHT!!

 

Killing more of them than they could handle won those conflicts. That is so much nicer and setting a great example. We really are a society that is built on justice and respect of human life.

 

Sherman's March to the Sea, gassing German soldiers on the Western Front, Dresden, Wurzburg, Monte Cassino, the firebombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fields of claymores from Korea, the napalming of jungle villages in Vietnam are all SO much more morally defensible than waterboarding.

 

What was I thinking?!? American principles have always been that killing someone is so much more morally acceptable than harming them or messing with them psychologically to get information. Even though a war is the most immoral act that human beings can be involved in it is important to think we are more moral than the other guys. After all we are ending lives for a good reason, they are just doing it because they are the bad guys.

You are SO RIGHT!!

 

Killing more of them than they could handle won those conflicts. That is so much nicer and setting a great example. We really are a society that is built on justice and respect of human life.

 

Sherman's March to the Sea, gassing German soldiers on the Western Front, Dresden, Wurzburg, Monte Cassino, the firebombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fields of claymores from Korea, the napalming of jungle villages in Vietnam are all SO much more morally defensible than waterboarding.

 

What was I thinking?!? American principles have always been that killing someone is so much more morally acceptable than harming them or messing with them psychologically to get information. Even though a war is the most immoral act that human beings can be involved in it is important to think we are more moral than the other guys. After all we are ending lives for a good reason, they are just doing it because they are the bad guys.

Not saying actions were right, but we weren't torturers, today we are.

 

Furthermore we have progressed from total war, chemical weapons, firebombing and napalm use. We don't do that anymore because we saw a need to be better than that. The bringing of torture is a back step in our defense for basic human treatment.