Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

radarman wrote:

I consider myself to be a fairly devout Christian, and I most certainly do not approve of torture. I can't explain why so many others do, save that it may have something to do with the fact that the US waterboarded primarily "evil, Muslim darkies" - not "good, white Christians".

It has nothing to do with "evil, Muslim darkies" - I do not believe America is a Christian nation (not anymore) so it also has nothing to do with "good Christians of any color".

It has to do with people who were directly involved in planning the massacre of hundreds if not thousands of people, attacks not yet carried, and their unwillingness to disclose details necessary to stop those attacks.

That's what makes them evil, not their skin color or religion, and their refusal to disclose the evil and twisted plans they beyond a shadow of a doubt were involved in is the only reason I support the extreme measures taken to extract that information.

In a black and white world there are no shadows.

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

My personal reason for not having my panties in a wad over the extremely limited use of waterboarding is not religious in origin.

I've always felt that beliefs in one area should inform your beliefs in another. And vice versa.

They do not conflict.
Just like your belief in evolution does not conflict with your religious views, despite the fact that many christians claim they do.

Last edited by resedit (2009-05-03 4:48 pm)

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

so the ends justify the means?

In some cases yes.
Firing a firearm at a person is justified under certain conditions. I doubt many disagree with that.

Another example - most of us with taking money earned by some members of society to pay for what other members can not afford. That is ends justifying the means.

Last edited by resedit (2009-05-03 4:56 pm)

resedit wrote:

jkahless wrote:

So basically, if they're evil, we can be evil too, but only to them.  Gotcha.

Nope - not what I'm saying at all.

Ok, so torture is acceptable treatment of a captive then, it's not evil.  I think there's a few folks you guys have executed for torture then that you'd better issue retroactive pardons too.  After all, I'm sure they thought their victims had valuable information that would save soldier's lives.

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

so the ends justify the means?

In some cases yes.
Firing a firearm at a person is justified under certain conditions. I doubt many disagree with that.

There's a reason "torture" is a distinct word from "interrogation." Just like "killing" and "murder" are also distinct words.

murder, like torture, is not justifiable, by definition.

And just like the other thread, this is where we have a disagreement.

I don't believe it to be torture.
It has no long term physical effects, in does have immediate psychological effects but they can be avoided by providing the information during the interrogation before it ever gets to that point.

Water boarding should never be done as punishment, it should never be done for a fishing expedition, it should only be done when other methods have been exhausted, only done under oversight, and only done when there is absolutely no question to the matter of the individual withholding critical information necessary to save innocent lives from an attack the prisoner is involved with.

That is how it was done.

Now if you want to talk about the sleep deprivation and other things, I do think those tactics were sometimes used as a fishing expedition and would like to see what kind of oversight existed there and under what conditions it was done under.

Absolutely necessary? Absolutely no question?

How many terrorist plots did we foil by water-boarding Zubaida? Not Even One

CIA officials initially believed Zubaida was an al-Qaida ringleader and that information he divulged after being water-boarded would prove crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. Both assumptions were wrong. Zubaida wasn't even an official member of al-Qaida. While he did possess some very useful information about al-Qaida's membership, most of it was obtained before he was water-boarded. The leads he provided later were almost all dead ends that wasted agents' valuable time and resources.

Farmerkev wrote:

jkahless wrote:

resedit wrote:

And just like the other thread, this is where we have a disagreement.

I don't believe it to be torture.
It has no long term physical effects, in does have immediate psychological effects but they can be avoided by providing the information during the interrogation before it ever gets to that point.

According to US law "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

I think the bolded section is pretty clear cut and dried.

Yes, very clear.
Minor pain and suffering is A-OK.

Bwaaahahaha!  Mr Al-Assaad, we're going to make you slightly uncomfortable until you tell us where the bomb is!  See this thermostat?  I'm setting it 5 degrees colder than you like it!  And I'm putting Star Trek Enterprise on loop on that TV there!  Soon your will will crumble!  [sings]Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you. Never gonna make you cry...[/sings]

jkahless wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

jkahless wrote:

According to US law "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

I think the bolded section is pretty clear cut and dried.

Yes, very clear.
Minor pain and suffering is A-OK.

Bwaaahahaha!  Mr Al-Assaad, we're going to make you slightly uncomfortable until you tell us where the bomb is!  See this thermostat?  I'm setting it 5 degrees colder than you like it!  And I'm putting Star Trek Enterprise on loop on that TV there!  Soon your will will crumble!  [sings]Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you. Never gonna make you cry...[/sings]

Hey, I'm a big pussy. Pour lemon juice in a paper cut and I'd be singing like a canary.
Sturner on the other hand is a tough sob. He eats broken glass to add roughage to his diet.

resedit, are you trying to get this thread locked?

jerwin wrote:

resedit, are you trying to get this thread locked?

No.
However, like the other thread, there are no new arguments on the water boarding issue.
My only reason for participating was the insane idea that people who don't see things your way must be due to theological reasons.

That's not the cases, at least with me, as evidenced by the fact that I have not used any theological positions to support my position, and there are plenty holy rollers who take your side of the issue.

Whether it is justified or not - that's probably going to be a polarizing issue like abortion and the death penalty where it is extremely rare to convince someone to switch perspective on the issue.

The reason for bringing up gay marriage was just to make a point - a legal definition is almost never universally agreed upon, and even when people think it is, interpretation of a legal definition is almost never universally agreed upon.

If a constitutional amendment defined human life beginning at conception, would you then accept that definition and decide abortion is therefore murder and wrong and all abortion doctors should be prosecuted?

I highly doubt it.

I believe torture is wrong, just as the pro choice movement believes murder is wrong.

Where I draw the line for what is torture is different from you, just as where the pro choice group draws the line for what is a human life is different than mine.

It's fine and even healthy to discuss where the line should be drawn, but I do not think it fair to characterize me as a monster because my perspective is different than yours, just as it is not fair (and would not be tolerated here) for me to characterize pro choice supporters as monsters because they don't see things from my perspective.

Does that clarify things a bit?

It's fine and even healthy to discuss where the line should be drawn

I'm also willing to admit I may be wrong about where that line should be drawn.
I don't think I am, but I am not God - I am human and therefore fallible.

Alien wrote:

So, kev, gonna lock this one, too?

I double-smurfing-dare you.

.tsooJ

I stand by to learn from your fine example on how to run a forum.