Torture Debate on Fox and friends. hee hee

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I'll go ahead and step in it now.

Any person that claims they would not waterboard someone in hopes of saving innocent lives is one of three things. 1. A liar 2. A coward 3. Ignorant. Mostly #3.

If the burden of the decision to waterboard were dropped in your laps (with real lives on the line), it's hypocritical to act as if you would emphatically say no. Even if it is against the law.

Too many people are spewing all this rhetoric about waterboarding thugs when they have no idea what's at stake. It's a little different than deciding what's for supper.

Some of you anti enhanced interrogation people should run for some kind of office in hopes of becoming President some day. We need people like you in the Oval Office making sharp, quick decisions with your nads like mountains. You sure make it look easy, rared back on your laptop judging such tough decisions.

It's untelling what I'd do to some thug if I thought it would save innocent lives. I'd hold a torch to myself if I thought it would save lives, much less some terrorist that would kill our children if he had the chance. Wouldn't you?

I wanna puke!

Puke, if you must. I feel the same way when people automatically think that torture bears the truth.


I guess the old saying, "what would Jesus do?" no longer applies. I seriously doubt that He would have waterboarded anyone, nor would He be for it. And I doubt that anyone would call Him a liar, a coward, or ignorant.

Sometimes enhanced interrogation techniques will bear the truth.

To think anyone on earth could do what Jesus would do in all cases is also ignorant. Maybe you can compare your life with his. Maybe you don't, but the rest of us fall short.

Can you honestly tell me that you would never harm anyone in any way if you thought there was a chance it would save 300 innocent lives?

I'm sorry, if you answer no, I'm going to spew supper.

I would have no problem personally using deadly force to stop someone that was in the act of committing a violent crime against someone else. I'm pretty good with my .38 special. Without going into too much detail, I know the threat of someone getting six holes in their mid-section kept someone I know from making a very, very bad decision.

Torture is a whole other issue. It does not provide consistantly accurate information from those that are being tortured.

Additionally, if it were Americans that were undergoing such acts, we would certainly call it torture. For us to use these methods legitimizes their use against us.

Lucas McCain wrote:

There are plenty more links... I just used that one so I would not be accused of only including right leaning links.... Bush attorneys got the definitions of what is and is not torture changed and "enhanced methods" were approved by congress... A little tricky but some times things need to change for the security of our country...

Where, specifically?

Ja'far wrote:

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

How did Congress approve the methods in 2002? The World Socialist Web Site hyperbole you linked only refers to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which did not strengthen the legality of torture but reaffirmed the Common Article III definition, which specifically designates torture as a war crime.

From the "Prohibited Conduct" section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

(A) TORTURE.—The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

Thanks.. I was looking for that part.. (other than pain or suffering incidental to LAWFUL sanctions)Enhanced methods that include water boarding were lawful

Lucas McCain wrote:

Thanks.. I was looking for that part.. (other than pain or suffering incidental to LAWFUL sanctions)Enhanced methods that include water boarding were lawful

Incidental is the key word in that sentence. Where, specifically, is waterboarding made legal?

Anyone want to know examples of torture? Cutting off a persons head is torture, Beating American prisoners is tortue, leading ones own people/citizens in to mass graves and executing them is tortue, "gassing" multitudes of people is tortue. These are just a few of what our enemy did.

So, waterboarding is not torture........that interrogation tactic saved countless American lives. I get sick to my stomach listening to all the bleeding heart liberals cry torture.
Would some of the ones that are opposed to it rather see more Americans die opposed to waterboarding terrorist that tried and did kill Americans? Should the answer be yes then that is all I need to know..... (we need a puke icon)

(Other definitions of torture)......listening to Nancy Pelosi, Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Al Gore and countless other spineless lawmakers in D.C. today. Although not lawmakers...NBC news/MSNBC are as sickining as it gets (along with being flat out liars) to listen to.
Acording to the new numbers/ratings for prime time news programs it is pretty much clear that hardly no one is watching them either.......Fox News tripled MSNBC as far as viewers in every time slot. CNN even wiped up on them (NBC/MSNBC).

Next time I'll tell you how I really feel.

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Thanks.. I was looking for that part.. (other than pain or suffering incidental to LAWFUL sanctions)Enhanced methods that include water boarding were lawful

Incidental is the key word in that sentence. Where, specifically, is waterboarding made legal?

Congress approved of enhanced methods.. Water boarding was just one of those methods.. Again I would love to know why the left is so bent out of shape over this issue.. They knew it all along... So why the uproar now???

The Drifter wrote:

Anyone want to know examples of torture? Cutting off a persons head is torture, Beating American prisoners is tortue, leading ones own people/citizens in to mass graves and executing them is tortue, "gassing" multitudes of people is tortue. These are just a few of what our enemy did.

So, waterboarding is not torture........that interrogation tactic saved countless American lives. I get sick to my stomach listening to all the bleeding heart liberals cry torture.
Would some of the ones that are opposed to it rather see more Americans die opposed to waterboarding terrorist that tried and did kill Americans? Should the answer be yes then that is all I need to know..... (we need a puke icon)

(Other definitions of torture)......listening to Nancy Pelosi, Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Al Gore and countless other spineless lawmakers in D.C. today. Although not lawmakers...NBC news/MSNBC are as sickining as it gets (along with being flat out liars) to listen to.
Acording to the new numbers/ratings for prime time news programs it is pretty much clear that hardly no one is watching them either.......Fox News tripled MSNBC as far as viewers in every time slot. CNN even wiped up on them (NBC/MSNBC).

Next time I'll tell you how I really feel.

We certainly could use a "puke" icon.

I've had the opportunity in the past few months to talk to four different former and currently American military men about waterboarding. Four out of four felt that it was torture and would not necessarily produce the truth, but whatever the torturerer wanted the tortured to say. Add John McCain to that and the former step-dad of a friend that was held and tortured years ago and that brings my current count to 6/6.

BTW, only two of those people were democrats. One other I'm not sure of.

Why, why, why.....must we concentrate on waterboarding when it has not proven to be consistantly accurate as a torture for information method?

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

You keep calling it torture...

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved of enhanced methods.. Water boarding was just one of those methods.. Again I would love to know why the left is so bent out of shape over this issue.. They knew it all along... So why the uproar now???

Everything Congress does is published. Where is this approval? I want to read it. And you would be mistaken to lump me in with partisans of either side.

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved of enhanced methods.. Water boarding was just one of those methods.. Again I would love to know why the left is so bent out of shape over this issue.. They knew it all along... So why the uproar now???

Everything Congress does is published. Where is this approval? I want to read it. And you would be mistaken to lump me in with partisans of either side.

This one explains it best http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Lucas McCain wrote:

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved of enhanced methods.. Water boarding was just one of those methods.. Again I would love to know why the left is so bent out of shape over this issue.. They knew it all along... So why the uproar now???

Everything Congress does is published. Where is this approval? I want to read it. And you would be mistaken to lump me in with partisans of either side.

This one explains it best http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Congress' knowledge of the torture that took place does not make it legal.

Congressional committees don't approve anything that's illegal.. In fact they wondered if the enhanced methods were harsh enough... Just Google "congress approves torture" for more info..

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congressional committees don't approve anything that's illegal.. In fact they wondered if the enhanced methods were harsh enough... Just Google "congress approves torture" for more info..

They didn't approve anything, they were only made aware of it, thus making them susceptible to prosecution. Congress has no executive authority. If they approved something it would be in the form of a bill with their signatures on it.

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congressional committees don't approve anything that's illegal.. In fact they wondered if the enhanced methods were harsh enough... Just Google "congress approves torture" for more info..

They didn't approve anything, they were only made aware of it, thus making them susceptible to prosecution. Congress has no executive authority. If they approved something it would be in the form of a bill with their signatures on it.

OK,, Lets try it your way.... Congress new exactly what was going on and refused to act.... Whats different now... Why the uproar now and not then???

Lucas McCain wrote:

OK,, Lets try it your way.... Congress new exactly what was going on and refused to act.... Whats different now... Why the uproar now and not then???

I don't know what you are asking. I certainly haven't left Congress out of my criticism of the torture regime.

The question I have is why they didn't object when they first learned of the new methods being used(in fact they were for even harsher methods)??? Why the out-cry now???

Lucas McCain wrote:

The question I have is why they didn't object when they first learned of the new methods being used(in fact they were for even harsher methods)??? Why the out-cry now???

Because they are American politicians? I don't know. What does it matter? The tacit approval of torture by some members of Congress does not make it legal. Prosecution should still take place, including those members of Congress who were complicit.

Lots of good war on terror tidbits today from Obama and Chaney.. Maybe some more good threads to debate..

Annie Oakley wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

Slip of the tongue?

Annie Oakley wrote:

I don't think that it's "obvious" that he believes that 9-11 is a conspiracy, just that by not receiving answers to some questions raises more questions for him.

I didn't understand his part on the buildings "falling at the rate of gravity" comment...as a physics teacher, maybe I am just looking at it too technically. What would prevent them from accelerating due to gravity?

What about his thoughts on waterboarding?

I'm with you. I don't know enough about such things to make judgment calls when it comes to how the buildings crumbled but I do totally understand his feelings about not getting answers. The reaction of the close-minded twit who went stomping off was typical for a lot of die hard right-wingers. They don't like to be asked questions especially when the questions make them either look stupid or wrong. Look at the Bush administration. Eight years of silence. They didn't answer questions nor did they think they had to. We are paying their salaries. They work for US, not the other way around. When we ask questions, we deserve answers. I don't think Mr. Ventura is a conspiracy nut at all. He was asking for some answers. If he received those answers then there would be no problem. The veil of secrecy around those years is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. They can answer questions without putting anyone in danger. I think they don't want to answer anything because it will come back on them and make them look bad and they use the "oh, we're protecting you" bs to avoid showing how inept they were at their jobs. I also find it totally hilarious that Mr. Cheney (who was obviously our president and not Bush for eight years) can't seem to keep his mouth shut now that his book is coming out. What happened to staying quiet for our safety Mr. Cheney? He's so full of poo, I bet his eyes are brown.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Again ,,, Water boarding is not physical torture.. It is a very extreme method but nobody died and there is no lasting physical damages like severed limbs and cut out tongues.. Again,,, No one on the left had a problem with this issue until after the elections... Why no uproar until now???

Ummm, yes, people did die. Sorry but you are wrong on that one sir.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Hats of to Fox News for allowing Jesse to share his views... Unlike other main stream news sources...

Have you been watching anything else besides Fox? Almost every single news program I have watched has people from ALL sides. If you think Fixed News is fair and balanced news...well....that says it all.

And in response to all of this...I will only say what I have said a million times before but people seem to ignore it....

We have put people to death for waterboarding us. It is considered a war crime and illegal when it is done to us. Just because Dick came up with another name for it (enhanced blah blah BS), it's still torture and was considered torture and ILLEGAL at the time we did it. There was no important information gained from the tactic and when you using it you could get people to say that they are Elvis Presley if you did it long enough. It's useless. And Annie made a good point. WWJD? It sure seems that a lot of so called Christians put aside their Christian beliefs and what Jesus taught us when they are feeling scared. You can not argue that it's perfectly legal for the US to waterboard people but it's ok for us to assassinate them if they do it to us. Not only is that unethical, it is totally conceited and ignorant.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congressional committees don't approve anything that's illegal.. In fact they wondered if the enhanced methods were harsh enough... Just Google "congress approves torture" for more info..

They didn't approve anything, they were only made aware of it, thus making them susceptible to prosecution. Congress has no executive authority. If they approved something it would be in the form of a bill with their signatures on it.

OK,, Lets try it your way.... Congress new exactly what was going on and refused to act.... Whats different now... Why the uproar now and not then???

It makes absolutely no difference. There is no statute of limitations on torture and murder nor should there be.

Not to mention that the democrats haven't been in power all that long. The republicans weren't going to go and prosecute themselves now were they? And if any democrats were a part of it, they should go down with the rest of the scumbags.