I don't understand when people say that waterboarding is "stooping to the level of the terrorists."
First of all, torture, by defintion, does not include murder. Terrorists commit murder. And on what basis do people believe the U.S. is standing on higher moral ground?
At the end of the day, you have to make calculations based the number of lives saved versus the number of lives taken. Supposed the U.S. had a terrorist whose knowledge would have led to the prevention of 9/11. I would say waterboarding is justified to save the lives of 3,000 American civilians. I would say killing 10,000 terrorists justifies saving 3,000 American lives.
Our objective in the war on terror is to prevent another 9/11.
It is difficult for me to listen to those on the other side of this debate. Terrorists are waging war against American civilians. They are trying to kill us--all of us, no matter what our views on torture are. They don't care. I think some of us are very removed from the real world that we miss what is at the core of these issues.
2007-12-12 17:29:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by ctown 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Waterboarding is illegal under the Geneva Accords, and therefore under United States law. Any person who commits any form of torture has committed a federal felony, despite a convoluted justification by the White House. Under Alberto Gonzalez's memo on torture, breaking fingers is not torture. Bamboo shoots under the fingernails is not torture. Ripping out teeth with pliers is not torture. Electrocuting genitals is not torture. So, if waterboarding is not torture under the Gonzalez memo, shouldn't we be allowed to do all these other forms of interrogation? What's next? Disapearing people? Ooops, too late. Presidential authority to assassinate any person he feels like? Ooops, too late again. Violating the US Constitution, the very thing the president and all members of the US armed forces have sworn an oath to reserve, protect, and defend? Oops, too late there, too.
The ends justifying the means is a very slippery slope.
Are there reasons for NOT committing torture?
First off, the standard Jack Bauer justification has not happened in all of recorded history. The "if we don't get the information RIGHT NOW, there will be a catastrophe" argument is a bald-faced attempt to use fear to justify anything. It is the argument of fear, and an argument that has no bearing in reality.
Secondly, the Communists, the Gestapo, the Viet Cong, and the Empire of Japan all stated in their field manuals that torture is NOT an effective means of gathering intelligence. Should we believe those who were most experienced with torture and its results? They knew, from experience, that any person, placed under enough pain, will admit to ANYTHING in order to make the pain stop. The US is in Iraq right now because the president had the "confession" of an al Qaida operative who was tortured into saying Saddam Hussein had contact with al Qaida. There was no such contact.. The interrogations by US forces of WWII war criminals gained far more information over a game of chess than down the barrel of a gun.
Thirdly, the US loses a great deal when we use torture. We lose the moral high ground. The war on terrorism is a war of IDEAS. The war on terrorism cannot be won through military victories. That can only forestall any attacks, and no defense is EVER 100% effective. The only way to WIN the war on terrorism is to take the teeth out of the extremists. Only when the extremists' message has no attraction will the US be safe from terrorism. By using torture, we lay directly into the hands of the terrorists. We give credence to their message, that the US hates Islam, and that the only way they can defend themselves is through terrorist attacks against the US and our allies.
So, aside from violating our own laws and the foundations of our government, producing bad intelligence, and strengthening the terrorists, then I guess torture is fine.
2007-12-11 13:55:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by CJR 2
·
4⤊
3⤋
Then they better do some waterboarding on Bush and Cheney and the rest of the neo-con scumbags, because they're the real terrorists, boyo. Those so-called "Al Qaeda terrorists" cutting off heads all work for them, and have been for years.
9/11 was an inside job, and the ONLY reason the US Military is over there f-cking around in the Middle East is to suck up all their oil. It's time people turned off the mainstream propaganda you like to call news and do some real research. Then you'll find out what the hell is REALLY going on.
2007-12-11 21:20:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jesus Murphy 3
·
0⤊
4⤋
Look, nobody wants another 9/11 and in a perfect world (which it isn't) torture would be fine. But you can only torture someone long enough before they tell you what you want to hear. You think they're being honest when you're torturing them and shouting at them? All they have to say is "yes, it's true" and makeup whatever lie they have to for it to end. That doesn't even include the possibility that these terrorists are telling the truth but we're just not listening to it, we think they're lying and low and behold another attack happens.
There's a reason why we don't torture! Get rid of the patriotless act and give us back the Geneva Conventions!
2007-12-11 13:23:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Randy C 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
It takes a lot of "what ifs" to justify this procedure.
IF there's pertinent information that this interviewee happens to know but won't divulge, and IF there's a terrorist attack looming in the immediate future and IF there's absolutely no other way to get the information and IF every other technique has failed...
Then okay, use it.
Frankly, though, I'm tempted to agree with John McCain on this one (and that's a rarity!)-- he said, "It's not about who they are, it's about who WE are."
There's something to be said for the moral high ground.
Incidentally-- CJR articulated what I meant a lot more clearly than I did.
2007-12-11 14:28:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lanani 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Dates back to the 1500s you say??? Hmmm
Waterboarding won't prevent another 9/11 will it. It'll just provide some d**ckhead with a moment of sadistic revenge.
I see you equate them with Al Qaeda at the end....that's no co-incidence you know.
But hey, you guys still go in for the electric chair and we've all seen what a wonderful deterent that is....how many school shootings is it now...? But what the hell, fry them anyway. Nothing like a bit of revenge is there......
You should be careful what you wish for...
2007-12-12 05:01:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
as in all forms of torture, the idea is to make the person so scared or out of their wits to tell you anything, and the fact is, they will tell you anything, anything they think you want to hear Torture is never justified and there is no proof it will give you accurate results human rights are something westeners like to think are important and the use of torture on a human being, no matter how much we may dislike them, is complete hypocrisy. It is acts like this that propogate terrorism - not stop it
2016-04-08 21:51:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everyone believes they are fighting for a just cause and that the enemy is evil. The Al Qaida terrorists are fighting the American Nazis. But those doing the fighting are largely pawns in a game that is played by the world's wealthy-elites as they maneuver to claim valuable resources, markets and trade routes for profitable exploitation. In fact, their is a book on global goals and conflicts written by Zbigniew Brzezinski called The Grand Chessboard. They with the massive wealth are the kings and we are but their pawns.
Torture and war, quite obviously, are barbaric. In the Junius Pamphlet, Rosa Luxemburg argues that the choice facing humanity is one of socialism or barbarism: “We stand today ... before the awful proposition: either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture, and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetery; or, the victory of socialism.”
In the early stages of the 21st century, the choice before us is even starker — without socialism, our children and our children's children will find themselves in a vast cemetery, a brutal world where Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay serve as models for the treatment of human beings, where environmental catastrophe is inevitable, and where the finest products of human culture are sold off to the highest bidder.
Rosa Luxemburg's words at the end of the Junius Pamphlet read, “This madness will not stop, and this bloody nightmare of hell will not cease until the workers of Germany, of France, of Russia and of England, will wake up out of their drunken sleep; will clasp each others hands in brotherhood and will drown the bestial chorus of war agitators and the hoarse cry of capitalist hyenas with the mighty cry of labour, `Workers of all countries, unite!'”
2007-12-11 13:40:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mencken 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I say, 'board-em.'
Being unconditionally kind is great, but Idealism is not the human way (just look at history.) When it comes down to it, we're all just self centered animals working towards survival.
Perceived threats are just as good as any, and will never go away; there will never be a shift in global consciousness, and people will continue thinking the same way they were 2000 years ago.
Moral high ground? give me a break. Kick me in the groin because someone told you I called you a sissy, I'll kick you back a little lower a little harder. Waterboarding is nothing close to beheadings and mutilations.
Go back to looking at coffee shop art and sipping mochas. Seriously.
2007-12-11 14:09:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by bablshams 3
·
3⤊
3⤋
You're correct. War IS hell. If it gives us the answers we need to saves a multitude of lives, then I'm for it. I'm sure they warn the detainee beforehand, so they have a choice...cooperate, or not. I don't believe in torture and withholding important information at the risk of many lives is torture in itself. Getting to the root of serious intelligence to save lives is the lesser of the two evils.
2007-12-12 05:44:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by CharJ, 6
·
2⤊
2⤋