Conservative media's take on torture: A laughing matter
SUMMARY: Numerous conservative media figures have downplayed, mocked, and jeered the notion that the use on detainees of harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the recently released Justice Department memos constitutes torture.
Following President Obama's release of four previously classified Justice Department memos that had authorized the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees -- including "stress positions," "cramped confinement," "sleep deprivation," and "the waterboard" -- numerous conservative media figures have downplayed, mocked, and jeered the notion that those practices constitute torture. For instance, during the April 17 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted: "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh."
Media Matters for America has previously noted that Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, submitted written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that stated that waterboarding can cause "[l]ong term effects includ[ing] panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]," and said it poses a "real risk of death." Moreover, Media Matters documented that a Department of Defense official concluded that the combination and duration of multiple interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, prolonged exposure to cold, sustained deprivation, and waterboarding constituted torture.
Listed below are further examples of conservative media personalities making light of the idea that such practices constitute torture:
- During the April 16 edition of CNN's No Bias, No Bull, convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy compared the proposed technique of placing a detainee who "appears to have a fear of insects" in "a cramped confinement box with an insect" to his appearance on a game show, stating, "I went through worse on Fear Factor."
- During the April 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox contributor Mike Huckabee mocked the same proposed technique, saying: "Look, I've been in some hotels where there were more bugs than these guys faced." Huckabee went on to state that under the Obama administration, "We're going to talk to them, we're going to have a nice conversation, we're going to invite them down for some tea and crumpets." Co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "That usually works with your kids, too, right? When they're in trouble for something, they just tell you everything." Co-host Steve Doocy then joked, "Mr. Moussaui, it's time for you over in the time-out chair."
- During the April 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough commented that "if putting a caterpillar in a box will save your child, that's OK." Later, Scarborough stated: "Yeah, you know, millions of people are dead, but I feel good about myself -- we didn't put caterpillars in people's boxes." Scarborough went on to say: "God, I go through torture everyday."
- During the April 17 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said: "I just slapped myself. I'm torturing myself right now. That's torture according to these people."
- During the April 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Karl Rove equated presidential candidates' campaigning to sleep deprivation of detainees, saying of the CIA: "They authorized up to several hundred hours worth of sleep deprivation. They used it three times for a total of 96 hours. Remember when Bob Dole ran for president, and said that he was going to campaign nonstop for 96 hours? Do you remember when Al Gore was campaigning and said he was going to campaign for two days straight? Both of those men were, according to the left, torturing themselves by engaging in sleep deprivation."
- During the "Panel Plus" segment of the April 19 edition of Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol argued: "I'm not confident that forswearing the use of the techniques is prudent." Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume went on to characterize the technique of throwing detainees against a false wall as "very controlled," while host Chris Wallace called the technique "fairly cautious and careful."
- During the April 20 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade commented that he "feel[s] better" knowing that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was "waterboarded 183 times."
- During the April 20 edition of his show, Limbaugh stated that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture."
They must think 1984 is a comedy.
To quote my oldest son, "People who adore Ayn Rand are people who don't understand George Orwell."
How true.
I like that one. Thank your son for me, I'm going to use that somewhere along the line.
That's a good one.
Institute of what?
D'ya suppose his head scarf is trying to keep his brains from leaking out? Too late...
I think that sign should read, "Ayn Rand Institution."
is your son about six years old?
You have a smart son.
The dirty secret is that Orwell wound up sounding more like Rand than anyone likes to remember.
And I understand Orwell VERY well. That's why he's no longer a hero in my book.
>>They must think 1984 is a comedy.
Springtime for Winston Smith!
1984 points out the inherent failures of socialism.
It is not a comedy.
Huckabee should just keep his yap shut. Unless he wants to be the Scumbags for Jesus Candidate next time.
Why is it so easy for these cretins who've lived their lives in comfort to say what is and what is not is an appropriate tactic when dealing with an enemy?
And they're all self proclaimed Christians too I'd bet.
WWJT?
That's the bitter irony of it. Gee, what middle eastern man was tortured by the ruling elites and jealous priests? Wonder how many of these so-called Christians crucify him now under the same rational used by the first bunch? "Whatsoever ye do to the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto me."
Yeah, and those torturers were liberals. Keep that irony in mind as you think about that fact.
HUH? The Romans were liberals?
Pro homosexuality, pro incestual relationships, pro drug use, pro alcholism ... Do you want me to continue? You name an immoral act and they promoted it. Didn't they even want a vial criminal released instead of Jesus?
Umm Floyd, you really must get a grip. Really. But back to reality; torturing people is not how Christ would have you behave. If you deny that, you deny Him. Period.
mary59---If you deny that, you deny Him. Period.
I wouldn't go as far as believing that, but Jesus wouldn't want us torturing people. Now, can you show me what Jesus considers torture? Give me some PROOF that Jesus says waterboarding is immoral, do you have a verse where Jesus condemns waterboarding? You know, if you can't prove Jesus says waterboarding is immoral, then we have the same problem ... I can't show where Jesus says homosexuality is immoral, either. However, I can show where God says homosexuality is immoral, can you show where God says waterboarding is immoral?
How about, umm, the golden rule? Do unto others as you would do unto yourself?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to torture myself.
Well, how does that NOT apply to homosexuality, then? If you can't show Jesus said torture was bad, then you can't say Jesus was against it. Because, using your 'Jesus would think torture is wrong' logic is no different than my logic on the immorality of homosexuality. If you have no versus saying torture is wrong then you have nothing!
I'll pray for you. Search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life. Yet you leave the spirit and even the letter of the law, and forget mercy and compassion. You are truly a lost soul.
I take it you have no verse? You say Jesus 'spirit of the law' say homosexuality is ok, but you say His 'spirit of the law' concerning torture is not. I don't think I'm the lost one. I fully understand what Jesus meant by human compassion, you do not. Provide a verse where Jesus says torture is immoral. Otherwise you are a hypocrit. And, Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrits, didn't He?
How does torture fit into human compassion?
It doesn't. So, you will have no problem providing the verse that Jesus says torture is bad. Provide it please.
I think the verses that deal with turning the other cheek and treating the least among you is the way you treat Him suffice.
If they don't, how specific do you expect Jesus to be?
So, what you're saying is that Jesus never said torture was wrong? Just like He never said homosexuality is wrong, yet the implication is there. Some just choose to ignore one implication and demand strict following of the other. Sounds mighty hypocritical to me.
Personally, I think both are wrong. How about you? However, I don't think having a bug in the same room as me is torture, some wack-a-doos think it is. Are you one of them?
Did Jesus say that internet porn was wrong? I think that waterboarding is torture, I think what has been described as walling is torture and I guess I am not getting your point here. Why compare torture to homosexuality? Could you show me a verse where Jesus implies homosexuality is nearly as bad as violence?
friedbergboy1422---I think that waterboarding is torture,
and that is your right to have that opinion. I think homosexuality is wrong. I compare the two because it was mentioned (by mary59) that torture is anti-Christian, so I wanted clarification. Can you do that? I provided the verse where Jesus says sexual immorality is wrong, now you provide the verse where Jesus says torture is wrong. Put up or shut up.
Its a false equivalency, Floyd. If waterboarding was not considered to be torture by our government, we never would have prosecuted the Japanese for it. Jesus condemns acts of violence, not acts of love.
friedbergboy1422---Jesus condemns acts of violence, not acts of love.
you say that but can't provide any proof of that Jesus says torture should be condemned. Not a well played arguement.
Well, then, I guess you think Jesus doesn't condemn human smuggling either, eh because he doesn't specifically mention it?
Floyd, if the "turn the other cheek" and peaceful messages of dealing with conflict are not a repudiation of torture, I'm not sure what you're looking for.
Brabantino says Obama ordering the killing of 3 pirates is ok, yet you say Jesus teaches the message of peace when dealing with conflict. How do you feel about Obama NOT turning the other cheek and ordering the murder of 3 innocent men?
Not sure how I feel about war of any kind, Floyd. I just pray for good judgment of our leaders.
that wasn't war. That was simply our leader ordering the killing of 3 innocent men.
Do you believe that the Somali pirates were innocent, Floyd?
That isn't for me to decide. However, if they weren't innocent, then we should shoot that last one, also. Do you agree? Or should we give him his day in court? Time to make a stance... do we shoot them or give them justice? Balls in your court now.
I think the SEALS did what they had to do and I trust their judgment. I wasn't there and if there was any way to arrest them peacefully, I trust they would have done that.
The shooting isn't for punishment. It's to end the threat. It's not like Obama ordered them shot even if they surrendered or something.
Do you really think anyone believes that you would accept Obama doing nothing about that situation and letting the captain die?
Give us all a break, please.
what ever happened to negotiations? They could have given them what they wanted and have them release the captain. But ... noooo
Floyd, do you believe Obama should have paid a ransom for the captain's release?
Yes, do you prefer murder over negotiations?
You conservatives are so tough on crime.
Define murder, Floyd. You seem to be amenable to torturing people before their day in court.
that is too funny. You have no problem with murder, yet can't stand torture. Then say I feel the other way. too funny!
Murder is the killing of an innocent person. If you believe the pirates did nothing wrong, then it was murder. If you think it was self-defense because they had one of our men, that's a different story. I wish it could have been resolved peacefully, but I will defer to the judgment of our military.
Again, define murder, Floyd.
friedbergboy1422---but I will defer to the judgment of our military.
Except when Pres Bush orders that military to do their job?
friedbergboy1422---Again, define murder, Floyd.
the killing of innocent lives with no remorse. That's my definition, maybe not anyone elses. Pink Floyd had a song called 'Dogs of War' where they said "dogs of war don't negotiate", is that what is happening with our new administration? Sounds a lot like the last one. Which, BTW, all of you whined about (and continue doing so).
I should say "ordered" instead of "orders".
According to the Geneva Conventions, Bush ordered torture. We tried and convicted and sentenced Japanese soldiers who waterboarded our soldiers to 15 years of hard labor.
I don't fault the military for following orders. I fault Bush for ordering them to break international law.
Bush ordered the torture? So you are the only one in America who seems to know that for fact? Why don't you provide proof of that one? I'll bet there are a lot of hypocritical left wing wackos who want that information. Please provide actual proof, this time. Not like the proof you brought for Jesus saying torture was wrong (which you never brought).
His administration certainly seems to have ordered the torture:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
From the article:
"The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist."
Jesus is anti-violence and anti-hate, you know that.
That's assuming that pirates are men of their word, for one thing. And since when do we give hostage-takers what they want?
I really haven't seen any criticism of this from either side. I think you're reaching.
The assumption is there because they've been doing this for years. Can you provide a recent case where the pirates killed their hostages when they didn't get what they wanted?
If they're refused what they want, then letting a hostage go would be disastrous. It would put them in jeopardy of capture and would show that they're bluffing when they make threats.
And what are you supposed to do after attempting negotiations?
The district commissioner of Somalia's central Mudug region said talks on freeing Phillips had gone on all day Saturday, with clan elders from his area talking by satellite telephone and through a translator with Americans, but collapsed Saturday night.
It's not like negotiations weren't attempted, Floyd. It's also not like they were boy scouts. They were criminals threatening a life.
so being a criminal and threatening lives gives our leader permission to have them killed? What about giving them gas so they aren't stuck in the ocean, that would have taken the 'desperation' aspect out of the negotiations. There were so many options before killing them, Obama acted awful quickly to get another kill under his belt.
Sounds a lot like a situation the last president was in and the left wing wackos say he was unjust for doing what you say is expected.
If you hold up a bank and end up taking hostages, the police will take you out if they have a clean shot. This really isn't that radical of a concept.
The action wasn't that quick. Negotiations went on for at least a day, as my link says.
What situation are you talking about with Bush?
Wow! A whole day? What took him so long to order the killings?
I am guessing he wanted to be sure that there was no peaceful resolution. He wanted to be careful and saw shooting the pirates as a last resort. What did Bush do with Somali pirates? Do you remember his stance?
Giving the negotiations a chance to work, which is what you wanted. When the negotiations broke down, what other option was there?
That isnt the point Brabantio. How is it that waterboarding to obtain information in order to possibly prevent an attack considered wrong, yet killing 3 people who have harmed no one is just fine? Oh sure, they might have killed the captain, just as captured insurgents might have information that could expose an impending attack somewhere in the world, an attack that might kill hundreds or thousands of people. From a moral standpoint the two are at the very least the same exact situation. And keep in mind, this is not a criticism of Obama's decision - I agree with it just as I believe that waterboarding and sleep deprivation are OK under the right circumstances. BUT it does expose a flaw in the "values no matter the cost" reasoning of some, which completely ignores reality and its vast expanse of grey areas that are neither black nor white.
But i will tell you why killing the pirates is ok - Obama's name is inextricably attached to the event.
There is a Scripture verse about PMS, though. In one of the Gospels it clearly states that "Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way to Jerusalem."
That's hilarious! You know when mamma ain't happy.....ain't nobody happy!
So then you DID mean the Romans. They however ONLY crucified Jesus because the Sanhedrin and Herod told them too. They didnt care beans about Jesus.
I dont think homosexuality is immoral but pro child molesting is a CONSERVATIVE value not liberal. Here is a list of 40 or so GOP pedophiles. YOU guys are sick twisted perverts and you just like to project your sickness onto liberals
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
Well, yeah, who did you think I meant? They are the ones who tortured Him, aren't they? You are following along, aren't you?
solon---I dont think homosexuality is immoral
I don't expect you to.
And of course you oh so deftly sidestepped the child molestin' part. How about answering that one or does that hit a tad too close to home perhaps?
and you are sidestepping proving Jesus said torture is wrong. Answer that one. After all, this thread is about torture not molestation (of course I didn't mention molestation, unless you include it with all the other liberally acceptable stances).
Excuse you. As was mentioned earlier, child molestation is a conservative value. The list provided by solon proves it.
Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. He preached pacificism. You are so far off base that I doubt you have ever actually read the Gospels. Jesus was a radical liberal; he hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes and he advocated equality for women. These ideas were all ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT. He did not, ever, anywhere, advocate violence. He abhorred the status quo and the way the established authorities dealt with, for example, sacrifices at the Temple. It was the established authorities that didn't like what he said, the CONSERVATIVE establishment. The Romans only cared about him because they viewed him as a political threat, it had nothing at all to do with morality.
The very best thing I can say about you is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Not LIBERAL you liar. CONSERVATIVE that list was of REPUBLICANS. Jesus said if you do it to the least of them you do it unto me. You are a joke. No logic whatsoever. Nothing but incoherent ranting and dribbling from you. I will no longer waste my time it is clear you have NO idea what you are talking about
I'm glad to hear you won't continue conversing. You aren't very good at it anyway. You seem to lose track of what is being talked about and can't hold a desent conversation. It's good you're gone.
You know, that's a good point. Clearly all liberals are "pro incestual relationships," not to mention "pro drugs" and "pro alcholism [sic]" I totally forgot I'm supposed to support that.
Thanks.
PS Do you even think for a little bit before writing these posts? Just a tiny bit?
I believe everyone enjoys a good alchol now and again...
Make mine an 80 proof Wild Turkey bourbon!
Oh, good lord. I figured you might go here, and you did. This is a moronic point, and I hope you know that. I mean, first of all, name me one single liberal who promotes incestual relationships. Seriously, what could you possibly drudge up? Evan Baygh? Actually, the Bible kinda promotes incestual relationships, which is a little ironic. Remember that part where Lott's daughters decide to bang him? Also, I'm pretty sure Jerry Lee Lewis voted Republican, so you may not want to go the incest route. :)
So yeah, leaving aside your horrible bastardization of "libruls", there is one piece of your diatribe worthy of comment. The idea that Romans were somehow "pro-homosexuality". That's a weak attempt to put a modern spin on something that wasn't really relatable at all to the era it's from. They weren't really "pro-homosexuality". They just had gay sex. They didn't really have a concept of this moral predicament about it. Most people in the Roman Empire were actually bisexual and had relationships with men and women. The ancient Romans were about as "pro-homosexuality" as my cat was before he got neutered and took to molesting his brother.
Brian was not a criminal, just a very naughty boy according to his mum.
Yes please explain, are you saying the Romans were liberals???
Yes, he is, because no conservatives have ever been incestuous, gay, alcoholics or drug users or for any of those things either. Its only us permissive liberals (sarcasm off).
You really don't understand what "liberal" means, do you?
What passage in the Bible mentions that the path to inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven is via Gitmo? Any Bible scholars here?
Maybe the same passage that says homosexuality leads you to the Kingdom of Heaven, also.
A little homo-phobic, eh? Give us a scripture from the Gospels; you know, JESUS, saying anything about homosexuality....
On second thought, you can't, so don't change the subject from torture being anti-Christ, anti-humane, anti-life.
mary59, if you don't believe in the entire Bible, you don't believe in any of it. So, if you're going to nit-pick only the Gospels then you deny the rest of the Bible. Do you only believe in the 4 Gospels? Or, are you catholic and have 'added' to the Bible and have 5 or 6 Gospels? You must have one skinny Bible if all you believe is 4 books.
If you whine about Jesus saying this or that, then He most definately has plenty to say on homosexuality because Jesus is God and God wrote the Bible. Just like the 10 commandments. Oh, wait, Jesus doesn't mention all 10 in the Gospels, so you don't follow all 10, do you? Which ones do you ignore, being the good Christian you are?
God didn't write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible, and then later, leaders of nations decided what to put in said Bible.
Jesus is not God. Jesus was the son of God.
Are you sure you're a Christian? Do you follow the entire Bible? I'm betting that you don't. Do you wear clothes made of different materials? If so, death for you!
Are you going to sell your daughter into slavery? Because, according to the Bible, that's all well and good.
Do you eat shellfish? Again, if so, God will smite you to death.
Oh, good, we have a Biblical expert. Please point out the verse that says torture is wrong. Also, please point out the verse where Jesus says torture is wrong. Oh gosh, you can't find them? Well, I guess Jesus isn't against torture, then.
I suspect that "Floyd" is just saying stoopid stuff to get a rise out of people. Otherwise, he's just psychotic/compulsive. And still angry because he thinks that Opie and his friends stole his barber pole.
I believe Jesus says you the way you treat the least among us is the way you treat him.
What does he say about torture, specifically? You constantly said He was in favor of homosexuality because He never "said" anything against it, how about torture? Does He say anything about torture? Give me a verse, please.
What does the sentiment that friedberg cited apply to? For any possible behavior you could ask for something specific, so logically that principle doesn't apply to anything at all.
Why did Jesus say it, then?
Floyd, even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, Jesus tells you to love the sinner and hate the sin. He also asks judge not yest ye be judged, does he not?
Do you believe that women are meant to obey men? After all, that's in the Bible. Jesus told us when confronted with violence to turn the other cheek, do you do that?
Jesus didn't preach on modern societal ill, Floyd, but I bet He would have a problem with you lying about Cindy Sheehan and calling her violent, just my guess.
I don't claim to know all of Jesus' thoughts, but I do know that he commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that the way we treat the least among us is the way we treat Him and that He told us to turn the other cheek. Where does torture fit into Jesus' wonderful message of love?
Apparently extrapolation is not something in Floyd's purview.
Well, to be fair, he did extrapolate that counter-protesters to Cindy Sheehan whom Cindy believed would harm her (they didn't) meant that Cindy had engaged in violent protests from a link last week. So, he can do it falsely.
I said Sheehan participated in protests that were violent. Where is the lie? You have no interest in being fair, stop your whining.
With all the proof of the words of Jesus, where did He say torture was bad. Please provide the verse.
I can't believe I am even going to engage this, but I must. So, you believe that Jesus was FOR torture because in your book - which has been rewritten and re-translated several times - he did NOT say it WASN'T so? That's nifty.
I did not say that. I believe torture is wrong. I also believe homosexuality is wrong. Both are insinuated to be wrong in the book you don't approve of, yet homosexuality is approved by liberals because Jesus doesn't say it is wrong. Yet, those same liberals are against torture using Jesus's words to back them up. Where did He say either was wrong or right?
I just spoke to Jesus and he specifically told me to tell you to get a clue.
I don't approve or disapprove of any books. I am an adult. I read books. I am not against torture because Jesus told me so. I am against torture because it is wrong. Surely, you don't need Jesus to tell you everything that is right or wrong. By that logic, you would believe that anything that is supported in the Bible is right? I think if you actually read the Bible rather than quote verses you will find there are all kind of objectionable beliefs supported by the Bible. I can list many of them if it would help you come to terms with your belief system.
Yes, please list them. I know of no objectionable beliefs taught in the Bible.
You support death for a woman who does not cry out while being raped?
Death for a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night?
The Bible explicitly endorses forms of slavery. Do I really need to go on? This is all pretty much just in Deuteronomy. The list can go on and on. Once again, you should read the Bible sometime and not just quote verses.
You did not merely say that Sheehan participated in protests that were violent, you said she engaged in violent protests, to quote YOU:
"Posted by Floyd in reply to JLyons
hypocrisy. It's ok to violently protest a just and legal war, but it is imeasurably incomprehensable to protest excess taxation.
Posted Thursday April 16, 2009 9:21:04 AM EDT / Flag this comment "
http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200904150033
The link you provided in that thread said nothing of the sort. The link you provided said that Sheehan chickened out of that specific protest. From your link:
"Cindy never got out of her car at Bryant Park. She has since made unsubstantiated allegations of “threats” as her reason for high-tailing it away from counter-protestors waiting to see her at Bryant Park."
More from your link:
"An organizer for the counterprotesters said there was never any threat of violence."
More from your link:
"Cindy doesn’t like being questioned and has now flung undocumented�accusations of intimidation and violence far and wide�against my fine city." But there was NEVER ANY VIOLENCE in her protest.
From: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/07/20/cindy-sheehan-chickens-out-in-charlotte-blames-police-vets/
If you believe your link, there was NO VIOLENCE at that protest whatsoever. The blogger was claiming that Sheehan slandered his city when she made those claims!
Honestly, Floyd, just because Jesus didn't explicitly mention torture doesn't mean he doesn't think violence is wrong. Do you expect the Bible to cover specific situations that might not have been easily discrenable 2000 years ago?
get over it. you obviously can't read. the post says "violently protest" where is the connection that I said she violently protested? Look, just because you couldn't prove your point in that thread doesn't mean I will continue it here. This thread is on torture, not Sheehan, so stick with the program.
You either misunderstood your link or are lying, which is it? Yes, the link says you wrote that we were hypocrites for thinking it was ok "violently protest" the war, but not to protest taxation. What did you mean by that?
I did prove my point in that thread. You provided no evidence of Cindy Sheehan being involved in violent protests and the link you provided actively promoted that there was no violence by ANYONE, not Sheehan, not those protesting against her, no one, at the protest in question.
You brought Jesus into this thread, Floyd and said that Mary denied Him by her behavior. I was just pointing out where you, at best, stretched the truth or misunderstood a blog, or at worst, lied.
friedbergboy1422---You brought Jesus into this thread,
no, mary59 did. Please try to get your facts straight. Still no verse that shows that Jesus said torture (specifically) is wrong. If you can't do it, just say so and I'll accept that.
Jesus condemns violence. Sorry, you're right Mary brought Him into this, you just are the who we should rely upon for meaning in the many ambiguities of the Bible.
So bring a verse that says that. Are you afraid of going to the Bible to look for something? You keep demanding proof from me (already provided), yet refuse to offer any of your own.
Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
And then there's this:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html
I was given the parameter of Jesus saying it. Let's stick within the parameters agreed upon. Besides, what blood is shed during waterboarding? What blood is shed during loud music or sleep deprivation? Try again
You provided your own interpretation of the Bible, Floyd, not proof.
I provided a quote and my opinion. The quote speaks for itself. I speak for my opinion. Which means you got nothin!
Your quote spoke of sexual immorality, not homosexuality. You were the one who defined homosexual behavior as immoral, not Jesus.
Still waiting for you to apologize for accusing me of calling you a homophobe and to stop lying about Cindy Sheehan.
I'm going to apologize for nothin. so you'll keep on waiting.
If you think homosexuality is moral then you've got your head screwed on wrong. But, that's your choice. Homosexuality is clearly defined as sexual immorality in other parts of the Bible.
So, lying is ok for you and making false accusations, in your mind, is Christian? Ok. I know gay Christians. You make the claim that Jesus said homosexuality is immoral, yet have not shown where he said that. Now, you are changing the argument, why?
I never called you a homophobe, Floyd.
I have not lied and I have not made a false accusation. You not remembering that it happened does not suddenly make it not true. Try thinking about how many people you call homophobe for being anti-homosexual lifestyle. Don't blame me when you do it so often you can't keep track of it.
You said I called you a homophobe. I did not. I have not called anyone a homophobe, Floyd. You said Sheehan "violently protested" the war. She did not.
Ha. You said I called you a homophobe repeatedly. I did not. You said I was gay. I am not. You repeatedly lied about Cindy Sheehan. You also think Jesus would be ok with torture. You are lying.
Still waiting for you to show the violent protests Sheehan particpated in. Tell me you misunderstood the article and I'll accept that.
I wouldn't go giving old Floyd too much credit just yet. There is a difference between extrapolation and just making crap up. ;-)
friedbergboy1422---Floyd, even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, Jesus tells you to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Which I agree with completely. However, when I say that you twist it into me being a homophobe. Which is where your judgement statement comes into play. Are you being judgemental or me?
Show me where I called you a homophobe.
So the two completely self-contradictory versions of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis are both the literal truth?
I have to stop replying to him; he's either just baiting "libruls" or is a psychopath. Maybe both. Time to get out the holy hand grenade...
you won't reply to me, because (if you're Christian) you can't answer my questions. If you're not, then you don't want the rest of your friends to know the charade you've been promoting.
"If you don't believe in the entire Bible, you don't believe in any of it."
Apparently you are in favor of selling your children into slavery (Exodus 21). You also believe that wearing clothes made from two different kinds of thread (poly/cotton blends) are an abomination (Leviticus)--just as is eating shellfish or being homosexual. Anybody who works on the Sabbath should be put to death. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean, so you can't play football. Slavery is OK as long as you don't enslave people from the same nation you live in. Remember WHY Lot was a virtuous man--he gave his daughters to strangers to rape. Don't forget that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount in one Gospel and the Sermon on the Plain in another. The Disciples listed in the Gospels don't match up, neither does Jesus' lineage. The birth narratives are different.
Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus, despite your lunatic ravings, was INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. I pity you with your bizarre idea of what the Bible says.
Why would I support selling my children? I'm not Jewish. If you know anything about the Bible there are sections where it speaks to and about certain people. But, being a left wing wacko, I don't expect you to know anything about religion. But, it was a good try at exposing. You must like to expose. Many of you left wing wackos are that way.
You really are lost. It's so pathetic it's almost sad.
It's really simple. There are two types of people. Type 1 believes that living in a free society comes with risks. But those risks are worth it because of freedom you have. Type 2 believes that the perception of safety is more important than freedom so they are willing to give up or take away freedom from others. What the Type 2s fail to realize is they will never really be safe so they are destroying freedom for nothing.
Another one of the risks is making mistakes and coming clean about it later. Conservative media sees us as a nation of wimps. Thus all the tough talk and knee jerk patriotism. yet when the going gets rough, trashing freedom and enforcing denile is the name of the game.
What conservative media? Fox? That's the only network that provides any balance to the conversation.
How is protecting our country and its citizens by interrogating terrorists "trashing freedom"? Their freedom, maybe...but not ours. The terrorists do not care about my freedom. Nor yours.
And there's no denial. We didn't behead any prisoners. We didn't sever a limb. We made them lose sleep. We do that to Navy Seals during training. Big deal. They lived. WITH ABSOLUTELY NO LASTING PHYSICAL EFFECTS! If the terrorists have psychological effects...too bad. They wanted to kill and terrorize my fellow Americans! They forfeit their protection as soon as they chose to harm others for their ideals.
Aside from empty rhetoric and straw man arguments, does anyone on this thread have real arguments against the ACTUAL techniques employed?
Yes, the techniques used were torture. We, as a moral society, and a society of laws, say that torture is illegal. What part of that don't you understand? And yes, some people who were interrogated did die. So because we don't behead people, it's OK to torture them?
The terrorists don't care about our freedom, you're right about that. They don't care that we're a free society. Their grievance, if you can call it that, is that the US interferes with the Arab/Muslim world. I guess you believed the hype when you were told that they hate us because of our freedom. They don't.
If you want to be the good guy in this situation, then you don't torture people. Experts on interrogation have said for years that torture doesn't work. It normally does not provide actionable intelligence.
Again, the techniques employed are not absolutely labeled torture. There is not book that says this is, and that isn't. Its YOUR OPINION that it is, and its my opinion that it is not. They were not harmed, or killed (please, provide facts to your statement...I'm interested why you believe we intentionally killed terrorists being held prisoner).
If the "experts" you refer to could please explain why the techniques used recently provided so much information (look in the news, the CIA released the memos of information learned), I would appreciate it. I think that is a 100% biased view. For every expert you refer to that says it does not work, I can find an equal number that say it does. Who wins...?
Well I say...the terrorists will NOT win. And, if it takes interrogation to ensure that, so be it. I will NOT protect the comfort of someone intent on killing me and my family. Their lives are NOT IN DANGER. If you believe otherwise, prove it.
And I have no idea what you refer to with the freedom thing. I know why terrorist want to kill me...because I don't have their beliefs. They have made that amply clear. Educate yourself on their history, beliefs, and teachings, and do not rely on progressives that hate their own country more than the terrorists.
Why did we sentence the Japanese who performed waterboarding to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding our soldiers?
here here
There is a third type. Those that will do, and have always done, what is necessary in a time of war. I am just glad you guys were not around when the tough call had to be made to drop the bomb to end world war II!!!!
I am just YOU guys werent around during the Revolutionary war. Our socieity would have made the Nazis look like they were run by Ghandi. You would have chanted the war the war then it would have been torture, summary executions and NO ONE would know the REAL meaning of the word values
Read this and get back to me
Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp
And who do you think it was that "cut" the lines in which Obam's own man says it provided useful info, and that he would not fault those who made the decisions?? Looks like a lot of LIBERAL mis info here, and outright lies and deception on the part of the lefties. How typical.
What it looks like to YOU doesnt mean much to rational people. OK and that would be a good point against someone arguing that torture NEVER produces high value information. I am talking about values. So you answered my point about apples with a story about oranges and that is supposed to mean WHAT? Oh that you dont UNDERSTAND the concept of values typical rightwingnut no decency
As usual, you cant handle the fact that these techniques were valuable, and saved American lives. Call them toture or whatever you like. The simple fact is they were used against those that want to harm and kill Americans, and I for one will lose no sleep over that, and suffer from no moral dilemas.
Pity. You should. The fact is that you should lose sleep over that. Evolve, for the sake of your soul.
I believe he likes the sensation of scraping his knuckles.
YOU cant handle the FACT that you have no decency and couldnt care LESS about American values. The Germans and Japanese could have used the same exact rationale to torture OUR people. The Japanese DID and we prosecuted them. Even the Nazis didnt torture our soldiers. When were they PROVEN in court to be criminals? Oh they werent so they are just ACCUSED of that and thats good enough all it takes is the accusation. BUT WAIT what about Maher Arar. He was NEVER accused of wanting to hurt anyone. We only thought he MIGHT know who did. What about the guy we picked up in Macedonia abused for weeks then realized we had the wrong guy he just had a similar name? Of COURSE you have no moral dilema. You have no CONCEPT of morality.
We have also sent innocent people to prison in this country, and i have no doubt we have executed an innocent person as well. Of course that is horrible, and we should do everything in our power to prevent it. It does not however stop us from sending people to prison, nor should it stop us from gathering info from terrorists in order to save american lives. We do the best we can, and we pray we are right. We do what we have to do, as best we can, to protect our country. If that means we cross a line you are not comfortable with, than so be it.
THOSE people were convicted in a court of law and according to our constitution and consistant with our values. Sure mistakes are made. That isnt relevant. OUR constitution says NO cruel or unusual punishment. It also says NO ONE is guilty of a crime until it is shown in a court of law. Therefore you cannot PUNISH people until that is proven in a court of law. Torturing people is a direct violation of those constitutional precepts and therefore a direct violation of American values. You know having values and morals means NOTHING when it is easy. When it comes at no cost. IF you are willing to cast those values and morals away for expediency or for your safety you never had them in the first place. I dont WANT our country to be one without values and morals. I dont want us SEEN that way, I dont want us to BE that way. Honor is a gift a person gives himself also a country and it is silly to think that gift comes with no cost. What you are saying is you arent willing to pay that cost and THAT seems to be our major point of disagreement.
solon---THOSE people were convicted in a court of law and according to our constitution and consistant with our values. Sure mistakes are made. That isnt relevant. OUR constitution says NO cruel or unusual punishment.
Uh, whose constitutional rights are we protecting? Ours or theirs? We captured these people on the field of battle while they were trying to kill our men and women. They have NO constitutional rights. The only rights they have is to food, water and a place to live while we wait for the war to end.
Besides, you contradict yourself in your own statement. Whose "values" determin what "cruel or unusual" are? If by "our values" you mean our elected officials then they are being treated accordingly. If by "our values" you mean conservatives then they are getting off easy. If by "our values" you mean liberals then they should be given a male room-mate for each male prisoner. Each of us has different "values". Personally, I don't think being in the same room as a bug is cruel or unusual, but if you scaredy cat liberals can't handle that tough situation, then I can see you would think it is cruel and unusual to be in the same room as a bug. And to think, some of you claim to be veterans of wars. How did you ever get through war if you are scared of little bugs?
Get well soon, and good luck with your treatments. You certainly follow the commandments of your leader (General beelzebub)
I really, really hate apologists for torture. It's quite un-American, really.
I'm not apologizing for it. I question your hypocrisy concerning Jesus's lack of stated stances on homosexuality and torture. You say he supports homosexuality and denounces torture, yet makes no statement concerning either. But, Jesus has a lot to say about hypocrits.
And bearing false witness against your neighbor.
How specific are you asking Jesus to be?
I've always wondered about Jesus' stance on frequent flyer miles.
How about his stance on rank stupidity? ;-)
He's got a special bible where it says, "Blessed are the stoopid, for they enjoy basking in the glow of their imaginary intellects..."
Ha! Well played!
As specific as you demand Him to be concerning homosexuality. Does He ever 'say' either torture or homosexuality is immoral?
What did Jesus ever say that could possibly address homosexuality? It's a consentual act, while principles that denounce doing harm to others would apply to torture.
That's what I'm asking for. What did Jesus ever say that could address waterboarding? What harm (physical, mental) comes from that? Please say mental.
If you admit that it does any sort of harm, then I don't know how you believe that it's consistent with the teachings of Jesus. You were already given "That which you do to the least of us..." and you wanted specifics. Now you want to know what he could say that could address torture. Obviously that quote can apply to torture.
What principle did Jesus ever state that would condemn homosexuality, specifically or not?
Mark 7:20-23 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
What do you think Jesus meant by "sexual immorality"?
What do you have to suggest he means homosexuality? He could mean molestation, promiscuity, rape, or incest.
You seem to be resting your argument on pure assumption. Since you consider homosexuality immoral, that must be what Jesus meant as well.
We don't know and it would be foolish of us to guess. It could mean pre-marital sex. It could mean sex without love. It could mean beastiality.
that's right, it could mean a lot of things. You consider beastiality to be sexual immorality? How about molestation? or any of the other things brabantio listed? I would consider all of them AND homosexuality. Are you seriously trying to justify your sexual preference of choice simply because it isn't mentioned by exact word? If so, provide the verse where it specifically says torture is immoral. If you accept generalizations for torture, then you are being hypocritical for not accepting generalizations for homosexuality. And, we know what Jesus thinks about hypocrits. He specifically mentions them. Are you one?
There's nothing that suggests homosexuality is something Jesus considered immoral, though. There is no generalization there, since it relies on your personal opinion. Torture is clearly something harmful, which is not consistent with Jesus's philosophy.
prove it. provide the verse that says Jesus thinks torture is harmful. Use waterboarding as an example. No physical harm, only mental. Is that what Jesus meant by harmful, if something is mentally harmful? Give some proof. I provided what you asked for, now provide proof of what you claim Jesus said.
Um, Floyd? The whole idea behind torture is that the person will give information to stop the torment. Whether that torment is psychological or physical, it hardly seems like something Jesus would approve of.
I guess we're supposed to believe "turn the other cheek", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but if someone might possibly be remotely connected to a terrorist then Jesus would approve of them being tortured. You seem to think Jesus was a hypocrite.
I'm glad you brought terrorists into this. Do you think we are wrong to go after Osama bin laden? Do you think we were wrong for entering WWII? What about the 'turn the other cheek' statement in relation to those acts?
Should we allow terrorists to terrorize because Jesus said not to defend yourself?
I didn't say we should allow terrorists to do anything. Turn the other cheek doesn't apply to pursuit of justice, and torture isn't pursuit of justice. I'm not sure how you can imagine that an attack on our country can go unanswered either. That's clearly not a justification for torture either, since torture is supposed to be preventative, not retribution.
brabantio---Turn the other cheek doesn't apply to pursuit of justice, and torture isn't pursuit of justice.
Yes it is. Every bit of info we get that leads to the ceasation of terrorist activities proves it.
You can't use information gained from torture to obtain a conviction. Besides that, damage to our image only promotes terrorist recruitment, so I'm not sure how you imagine it accomplishes "ceasation".
Maybe not in court, but we can stop actions from occuring on the battlefield with information we obtain. Maybe when the second set of defense dept memos are released we will see what was stopped. If we stopped another 9/11 would that change your mind about torture? What if we stopped several 9/11's because of info gathered. Would it make a difference then?
You would have to prove that torture was the only way to accomplish that, and that interrogators were 100% sure that the subjects had vital information. That's a pretty tall order.
Torture works on 24 because the person being tortured is always a villain with the key piece of information, and they conveniently provide that information in time. Real life isn't as scripted.
Well then, it sounds like we agree. If torture is the last chance to get information and it is 100% acurate then torture is OK. Thanks, I wish it hadn't taken so long to get to this point.
If it's the only way, I said. It's a fantastic scenario that doesn't justify any general principle.
right. so you approve of torture if it's the only way and 100% accurate. I feel the same way. I don't want to torture every goat-hearder we pick up from any given country, only the ones who will tell us what we need to know to save lives.
I'm not sure those parameters have ever been met, much less that everyone we torture meets them. Note the word "fantastic", as in "like a fantasy".
right, the key is you don't know. But, that isn't stopping you from saying torture is wrong in every case.
I'm saying some fantastic scenario doesn't justify the concept of torture. It's also not a matter of trust where "I don't know" defaults it into something acceptable. If people can justify such actions, they should do so in court, and I would expect an extremely high standard to be met at the very least.
Why is a homosexual act between two people who love each other immoral? I am straight, Floyd, please don't assume things you know nothing about.
Torture is violence, Floyd. Is it not?
If you must call someone a hypocrite, please learn how to spell it. I am not a hypocrite, Floyd, I am merely someone who aspires to do the right thing. I have friends who are homosexual and Christian. They have told me that they never "chose" to be outcasts in society and called "immoral" by those claiming to have a better understanding of a book written to convey love, understanding and peace, not hatred and judgment.
friedbergboy1422---Why is a homosexual act between two people who love each other immoral?
I don't know. Ask Jesus. He's the one who says it is.
friedbergboy1422---If you must call someone a hypocrite, please learn how to spell it.
shut up. you ain't my dictionary.
friedbergboy1422---Torture is violence, Floyd. Is it not?
not always. waterboarding isn't violent. Neither is placing a bug in the same room as you. Both are considered torture. How, pray tell, is placing a bug in a room being torture? How is that violent?
What definition of "torture" relies on "violent"?
Excuse me? The verse you provided did not show that Jesus said that homosexuality is immoral.
Waterboarding is violent, Floyd, at the very least, psychologically:
"That is the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Give me more details on the insect thing which you think is harmless. If it wasn't meant to be harsh, why would something so harmless be used? How would placing a harmless insect with someone cause them to cough up answers unless it was fear based and therefore, not harmless?
We prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding, why?
friedbergboy1422---Waterboarding is violent, Floyd, at the very least, psychologically:
does that include placing a bug in the same room as the suspect? How is that torture. How about loud music, how is that torture?
BTW, I'm not accepting your reasoning for waterboarding. Lingering effects aren't the same as broken bones or cut skin or electricutions.
That's a self-defeating argument. Lingering effects are worse than effects that heal up and go away.
Sleep deprivation is torture. Have someone keep you up for 96 or so hours and see if you disagree.
what lingering effects are from loud music? Or bugs in the room? How are they torture?
You were talking about the lingering effects of waterboarding. I'm not sure if sleep deprivation has lingering effects or not, it's still torture.
why would it be torture if there aren't any lingering effects? I see you keep ignoring the bugs/loud music tortures. Why is that? If you're going to claim torture, you should set a better criteria than "I don't like it".
Try reading the definition of torture. Mental and physical anguish are both listed. I don't know what the circumstances are for the "bugs" part, but the loud music is sleep deprivation. That's mental anguish. It goes far beyond "I don't like it".
It says "extreme" anguish of body or mind. Sleep deprivation isn't extreme, neither is putting a bug in the room. I think some more reasonable people need to be in control, rather than the ones who think a bug in the room is extreme anguish.
You can die from too much sleep deprivation, and I believe that was one of the forms of torture used against McCain. What else would you consider to be extreme mental or psychological anguish? Anything?
did he die? How about the bug in the room? You're doing a good job of deflecting answers to questions. Is that something they teach you or did you learn that on your own? After all, you've already admitted torture is allowable, now you want to use some other criteria to determin what you've already admitted is OK?
I'm not talking about the bug in the room at all. I'm not familiar with the circumstances, as I've told you already.
I didn't say torture was "allowable".
Why don't you answer a question instead of deflecting? What would you consider to be extreme mental or psychological anguish? Be specific.
I wouldn't consider anything mental or psychological to be torture.
Do you think the 3 pirates Obama had shot would think they were tortured too much? Would he be guilty of war crimes for having them killed?
Then why does the definition list severe mental anguish as torture? Surely something must qualify, or it wouldn't be there.
I really don't care what the pirates would think. They were holding the captain hostage and killing them was appropriate action. How the hell you think this is relevant to anything here is beyond me.
The definition is there because wimpy liberals can't stand being placed in the same room as a bug and consider that torture. LOL!
Of course you wouldn't get the relevance. Since Obama is the one ordering the killing of innocent (until proven guilty) men. I imagine you think anything and everything Obama does is ok. Which would include torturing prisoners as he feels necassary.
Proven guilty? It's an immediate threat to human life. If that's supposed to prove that I'll accept torture based on anyone's personal say-so, you're out of your mind.
Well that's what you expect of our interrogators! You demand they get a 'court order' in order to proceed questioning a prisoner concerning potentially immediate danger to human lives. Yet say killing inncent men because of potential danger is perfectly ok. Wow, considering you hate torture so much, you sure have no problem murdering people.
Where did I say anything about a court order for interrogation in a matter of immediate danger?
How are people holding hostages "innocent"? By your logic, you couldn't shoot the guy who shot up half of the people at that McDonalds so many years ago because he hadn't been convicted of anything. It's perfectly reasonable to kill people who won't negotiate and who are threatening to take a life. I really don't see an argument against that, outside of the absurd use of the words "innocent" and "murder".
If the insect thing is so weak, Floyd, why did conservatives rely upon it to get information?
so you're admitting a bug in the room isn't torture? Thanks, but apparently there are left wing wackos who do (the ones in control of our government).
I didn't say that, Floyd. I asked if it wasn't harsh, why did the conservatives think it would lead to confession of intelligence information? Do you ever answer?
because you ask questions about thoughts of other people and expect ME to know their thoughts. Ask why I think it would lead to confessions and I'll tell you my thoughts. Ask me thoughts of others and I can't answer for them. Is that so hard to comprehend?
You have been putting words in my mouth this entire thread.
Really? What words did I put in your mouth? If you can't answer simple questions then why do you bother addressing something you haven't any knowledge in?
I have answered each and every one of your questions. You said I called you a homophobe, I did not. You have called me a wimpy liberal and assumed I thought that the insect thing was torture. I asked you for more information, you didn't provide it.
friedbergboy1422---I asked you for more information, you didn't provide it.
You have never ASKED me to give you any information on bugs. You demanded, I ignored your demand. Where is the verse proving Jesus says torture is wrong, that I asked for? You have avoided that question from the very beginning. Never providing one single verse that shows Jesus said torture is wrong.
I have glanced over this discussion, and just had to create an account to get in on this. First of all, you Floyd have the inclination to suggest that others arguing with you on this site are selectively interpreting passages from the Bible yet at the same time bleat incessantly about Jesus condemning homosexuality while saying that it cannot be drawn from the Bible that torture is wrong, nice job there. I suppose it would be bad if you yourself were on the receiving end of it, and if torture isn't wrong for us to commit then obviously you cannot say that those who have employed it against Americans were doing anything unjust (even though as has been stated the U.S. prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding our troops).
What passage do you want us to provide, a quote from Jesus directly stating that torture is wrong for people to commit. How moronic are you to think that countless well-known phrases such turning your cheek to your enemy and doing to others as you would want them to do unto you would not encompass the condemnation of acts such as walling, exploiting mental phobias, prolonged sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes, and waterboarding? If you believe that such a condemnation would have to be explicitly and directly stated to carry any weight you are obviously literally interpret the Bible, and if true this no doubt makes argument pointless as such people are far beyond the ability to be reasoned with as they obviously suspend the ability to think themselves.
The way you picked up on the killing of the Somali pirates as "murder" would make me think that you would have to be an ultra-pacifist, as obviously they were threatening a man's life and were about to arrive at the shore and transport him to a more secure holding cell, while rejecting the bids of negotiators. I doubt however that you would raise such objections to the occupation of Iraq, a conflict where untold thousands of civilians have been killed by both sides. This would no doubt be due to the fact that you are so blinded by your own partisanship and ability to suspend rational thought that you would probably approve of such and endeavor since a conservative presided over it.
He selectively believes in the Bible literally. He's a nut. When he is called on for believing everything the Bible says - the bad things don't apply to him.
If waterboarding doesn't have any effects, why did we charge the Japanese with war crimes for doing it?
Sleep deprivation is experienced by combat troops (and forced upon them in training situations) all across the military, and there are guidelines that dictate how long a detainee can be kept awake.
Uncomfortable? Absolutely. Torture? Not by a long sight.
Im willing to bet that our soldiers would gladly accept sleep deprivation if captured, if given a choice between that and the other alternatives that our enemies always seem to cook up. In fact, i am certain of it.
Sleep deprivation is experienced by combat troops (and forced upon them in training situations) all across the military, and there are guidelines that dictate how long a detainee can be kept awake.
Uncomfortable? Absolutely. Torture? Not by a long sight.
Im willing to bet that our soldiers would gladly accept sleep deprivation if captured, if given a choice between that and the other alternatives that our enemies always seem to cook up. In fact, i am certain of it.
Give me a broken nose or a cut any day over lingering effects. Bones heal, skin heals, lingering effects can stay with you forever.
"I don't know. Ask Jesus. He's the one who says it is." - Floyd
Doesn't that just say it all. I don't have to have any answers cause Jesus told me so. The definition of stupidity.
And, he's relying on his interpretation of what Jesus said!
He's a nut.
You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.
I'm not apologizing for it.
Yes you are. It makes you no better than your garden variety TERRORIST.
Floyd: "Uh, whose constitutional rights are we protecting? Ours or theirs? We captured these people on the field of battle while they were trying to kill our men and women. They have NO constitutional rights. The only rights they have is to food, water and a place to live while we wait for the war to end."
So tell me, when does this war end? Next year? 5 years from now? Never?
Please read (or re-read) 1984.
When we torture it reflects on us as people. Just like your insane comments reflect on you as a person. Waterboarding is something we prosecuted only a generation ago. I would encourage you to get some historical reference. We should not torture. We are above that. Most of us are, anyways.
What you do with your male roommate and your bugs is totally your business. No details, please.
Your comment about executing an innocent person was stupid for you to say, because you're making an argument for scrapping capital punishment. And we can afford to do that. There's another option there, life without parole. But you can't dump the entire prison system, because what alternative could you possibly come up with?
The same obviously goes for torture. You have other options, so they aren't necessary like the prison system is.
and you seem to have no concept of reality, which often does not allow us the comforts of absolute morality.
Funny that such a perspective could only be fostered in an environment that has been created by the same difficult decisions which you claim to be immoral and indecent.
Only in America.
Yea, pointy your the kind of guy i want with their finger on the button!! Go get' em killer!
And you are the kind of guy who would let another 911 happen, as long as we dont sleep deprive the terrorist who has the info to stop it. I for one am more than comfortable with my stance on this issue.
Your "stance" is a fantasy. The reality is brutal and cruel, and you are cooly removed from that. Ask John McCain.
And then lets have a chat with the family members of those killed on 911. Lets see if they would have been offended had we used sleep deprivation or waterboarding as a way of gaterhing info to prevent the attack from occuring. I think many of them may have different views on this issue.
That's a strange point of view (pun intended). I come from a country when terrorist attacks are far more common than 9/11. I've lost my uncle to one. I'm against torture.
So are some families of 9/11 victims. Google it.
Thankfully you are a minority on this issue. Americans overall say we should NEVER torture no matter WHAT the circumstances
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll011709.html
Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?
Support not There are cases using torture to consider torture No opinion 1/16/09 58 40 2 Also a huge majority says waterboarding IS tortureAnd then have a chat with the families of those who killed them. You know, the ones George W. Bush spirited out of the country on planes before Americans were allowed to fly again.
Actually, that never happened. I hate to disagree with you, but that's a myth that has been perpetrated over and over again.
Thanks, then I won't use the example again. But it is a fact that George HW Bush was having a meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother (one of ObL's 52! siblings) when the Twin Towers were attacked.
You are an embarassment to all decent Americans with a concept of values and decency
The stance you're "more than comfortable with" reminds me of the judge who (in)famously said (with righteous fury, I imagine): "Find me a jury who'd convict Jack Brauer."
Um, judge, 24 is a TV show.
You make it seem like the situation is this: either we (1) torture prisoners which prevents another 9/11 or (2) we do not torture prisoners which lets another 9/11 happen. This false dichotomy is nonsense.
Hey, you know what might have prevented the first 9/11? If Bush & Condi had heeded that "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US" briefing. Too bad they couldn't have cared less at the time.
Sorry you can't equate the dropping of the bomb with torture. It was not a war crime to drop the bomb. There are rules to war and rules that govern the treatment of captives. They were not followed. So your point has no merit. The bomb was a tough call but it was not illegal. The rounding up of Japanese Americans was also a tough call that was illegal and immoral. That would be a more appropriate WWII comparison.
Hell, if they really want to torture prisoners, subject them to conservative talk radio.
I'm sure you would be so willing to accept the "risks of freedom" if you or one of your family members would have had to choose between leaping to your death or burning alive. Or maybe if the planned attacks against the west coast that were exposed with these techniques had taken place. Pouring water over the head or a caterpillar might not seem so bad after all.
Rush is right, calling these techinques torture in an attempt to bring up images of electrocution and bamboo shoots under the nails is disingenous and laughable.
The techniques cause no permanent damage, and really aren't that bad.
Well, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding because it was against international law. If an action isn't "that bad" but is illegal, should the law be disregarded?
In all honesty, they would have prosecuted captured japanese soldiers for being short if thats all they could come up with. The things japanese soldiers did to our POWs were unspeakable, and vengeance would be served no matter what. If we had used captured insurgents for bayonet practice dummies, if we had held beheading competitons, if we had used them as slave labor until they dropped dead from malnutrition and exposure, believe me i would be singing the same song that most of you are.
I think they have this B-movie notion that torture only involves things such as the tearing out of fingernails or other ripping of flesh. I'm surprised they don't use the scourging of Jesus Christ (as depicted by Mel Gibson) as the standard for torture. The reason they don't think that things such as waterboarding is torture is because, deep down, they look at torture as punishment rather than just a means of extracting information...and waterboarding isn't punishment enough in their opinion.
They probably think a dr. applies a local before tearing out that fingernail. Most right wingers I know demand it when they get their hangnails removed...
Yeah, sure, laugh it up boys.
What a bunch of morons. Don't they see, or don't they know, we, meaning the US, are supposed to be the GOOD GUYS. We allegedly invaded Iraq so that we could FREE the Iraqi people, and then we humiliated a bunch of them at Abu Gharib, killed a few more whilst questioning them. Don't these a-holes see that we've lost the moral high ground we once occupied by doing these things? Don't they also see that in the future, if and when we fight a war against an actual nation (say, Iran just for kicks) that if they capture some of our guys, they'll say, "Hey, let's torture them. They did it, so they can't complain about us doing it."
We are supposed to be the good guys, and yet, we tortured people.
I think we need to prosecute these jokers who wrote the memos, and the people who carried out the tortures as well. In the past, it didn't matter if you were "just following orders" because, guess what? You broke the law.
Lover,
First off, what happened at Abu Gharib was not sanctioned, nor was it torture. Moot point.
Second, Where do you derive that prisoners were killed during questioning? That is sensationalist crap. Provide facts, not left-wing nut conspiracy.
Third, if we do fight an actual nation, with an actual army under a common flag, then the Geneva Convention will apply. If a nation does not follow the guidelines within, there are consequences. Period.
Now, for some actual logic and intellectual honesty. The terrorists that were interrogated were NOT part of an army. They were terrorists. They demonstrated as such by beheading American citizens and posting the video on YouTube. Do you have a smart answer to that? What right did they have? What rules were they following?
We are the good guys. Posts like those on this web site dramatically distort the truth. Are you actually interested in reality? No finger nails were pulled. No lasting harm to any individual. And waterboarding is done TO OUR OWN TROOPS to prepare them.
Make no mistake about it...the VAST majority of Americans would agree that the waterboarding technique used on the terrorist that provided information that prevented a 9/11 style attack on Los Angles (read the memo if you don't believe) was absolutely worthwhile. How can anyone, ANYONE, disagree? The lives of thousands of Americans, potentially someone related to you, versus non-permanent physical discomfort to a known terrorist.
If anyone on this thread cares to debate the facts, I'm listening.
First off, what happened at Abu Gharib was toture. Mental torture. There isn't just physical torture you know. And this crap about it not being sanctioned, guess what? Doesn't matter if it was, or wasn't sanctioned, it still happened, and gave us a black eye in the Arab world. At that time, many folks believed that the US is no better than Saddam, look at what they did to the detainees/prisoners.
People have died while being questioned, and while in custody:
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
This is not some left wing loony thing. It happened.
If we do fight another nation, what is to stop them from ignoring the Geneva convention? Especially if they have not signed onto it? What kind of consequences would you think would happen? Sure, they could be indicted, and brought up on charges of war crimes at the Hague, but unless you have the actual people there, it really means nothing. We ignored the Geneva Convention, what's to say others can't following our lead?
I don't think the terrorists had any rights to behead people. You're making a strawman argument, as if me saying we should treat our enemies humanely and morally is equivalent to saying that what terrorists, or radicals do I agree with. I do not. They weren't following rules at all. But we, the USA, is a country of laws. I don't believe in this crap about doing what you need to do. I believe we have laws for a reason, and if we fail to follow them, even when others don't, that is not an excuse for, well, anything. Again, we are the good guys rememeber?
Waterboarding is done to our own troops when they go through SEER school. Pilots go through it for example, and other forces. But what happens is, they get it done once or twice, and the guys that I know that have gone through it have said, point blank, that it is torture. Even though they knew it was coming, and they prepared themselves for it, they cracked, big time, and freaked out, and even one guy, a hardcore Marine I've known for years, said he broke down crying.
I disagree. Show me a link where waterboarding prevented a 9/11 style terrorist attack. I think you're thinking about the TV show 24. I disagree because once again, we're supposed to be the moral leaders of the world, and I think that we are, but this puts a chink in the armor.
Torture apologists are disgusting and un-American. Period.
The soldiers at Abu Gharib were punished. It DOES matter if its sanctioned. Its not the policy of our country to do that. You can't possible think that the actions of a few reflect on the policies of the whole...? Murder is not sanctioned, but it happens...doesn't mean that its a policy of our government. That is progressive crap.
People did NOT die as a result of torture. That ACLU is extremely progressive and VERY anti-military. I read the link you provided...it does not in any manner say torture killed terrorists. It is simply a list of their causes of death. Many of these terrorists are animals...they want to kill people to further their cause. Of course they would kill each other. Please... Besides, do a little reading on the history of the ACLU. that is CRAZY left wing stuff. I can provide you numerous links to show how anti-American that crap is if you like.
As for the Geneva convention...you have to educate yourself. Prisoners of war MUST be under the flag of a nation to be considered part of the treaty. If another country does not follow that convention, it would not allow the US to abandom likewise. We would still be obligated to follow the law. BUT, terrorists are NOT COVERED, and therefore do not gain the same rights. Period.
Kalid Sheikeh Mohammad provided the info that prevented the LA attacks. Look it up. Google. That way you won't think its a crazy link I send. Its also in the newly released CIA memos. Again, educate yourself.
As for WB our troops...yep, it does make them break down. Its supposed to. That's the point. But, they lived. Interrogation works that way. Terrorists want to terrorize citizens, not military. They want to kill us at the mall, church, or home. They do not follow the laws of civility. I will NOT stand by and be destroyed because we want to pretend they should have more rights than I. That's crap. I will not sacrafice my security or freedom because someone in this world thinks terrorists should not be made uncomfortable.
I do understand that we are the good guys. But not all bad guys are equal. Progressives need to understand that, and accept it. Evil comes in many forms.
The soldiers at Abu Gharib were punished.
And you think they came up with their abuses sitting around the fire eating MREs? These abuses were dictated and sanctioned by higher-ups, likely all the way to the White House.
Evil comes in many forms.
One form is your being an apologist for torture.
They don't get it, magnolia. And they never will. They think America is the "greatest" because we say it is so. Or because we have the best indoor plumbing or because we have the best weapons. They will never understand that the idea of America has lit the world for the last 200 years because it is about the ideas being lived by actual people. We're not better because we can kill anyone else. We are better because we are willing to sacrifice absolute security for liberty. We make the hard decisions and choose freedoms and liberty even when it is not the easy thing to do. Especially when it is not the easy thing to do. We are better because our ideas are better. And because we live those ideals and not just preach them.
Of couse, some of them also clearly believe that God is an angry old man, single parent that wrote a book full of laws and Jewish fairy tales for us all to follow. So, they underestimate American ideals and they underestimate their own creator.
An interesting view of American history. Let me offer my own. Our country is great because of ruthless decisions made with American interests in mind. Imperialism in the 1800s, dropping the bomb in world war II, a great number of things that we have done which are arguably border line immoral. Our ideas serve, at best, as a governer on what we will do to further the interests of our country. You have simply bought into the whole freedom and liberty thing wholesale, while failing to see that almost always, american interests and prosperity are central to every decision made. Yet, here we sit today, each and every one of us benefiting from those grey area decisions.
It is easy to speak of ideas such as "values no matter the cost" when we have achieved what we have so far by making difficult choices and taking action to preserve and expand our prosperity and security.
Only the completely safe have the luxury (and perhaps the audacity) of crying "values no matter the cost!"
Since they all seem to think these things are so mild why do they think they would work to get intelligence out of anyone? And if waterboarding is such a walk in the park why haven't any of these people volunteered to demonstrate it on the air?
...183 times.
What gets me is how they're so cavalier about the brutality of these acts, while if they're as much as criticised in the press, they shriek and cry like stuck pigs and claim to be the victims of massive oppression.
The NYT feels the same...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=2&hp
I know right-wingers think the only way to have children who behave is to beat them into submission, but it actually DOES work to be friendly with both kids and suspected criminals to get them to talk.
Let me guess though that Doocy, Carlson and Huckabee were all beaten as kids and that they "turned out just fine."
I don't understand why every progressive host, when questioning supporters of torture, don't ask these simple questions:
If waterboarding is not torture, then why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers for doing it to ours in WWII?
Do you agree with George Washington, who, when confronted with the fact that the British military was torturing captured American soldiers, told his army to treat captured British soldiers with humanity?
Instead, these torture advocates are constantly let off the hook, able to spin with things like, "Well, it depends on how you define torture."
and how do the religious supporters of the republican party view this ? Do they even turn on FOX along with the 700 Club ?
The right-wingers are now peddling some story from CNS News to claim torture works but the article is too short on details and evidence. It essentially goes like this:
KSM said there would be an attack in L.A. and named some guy. That guy named some other guy. That guy then named another guy. And that guy named yet another guy and the plot was foiled.
How does one discern a plot ever existed? Will we get further details so the info can be scrutinized? Why were the interrogation tapes destroyed?
Even if torture did work--which it doesn't--that still wouldn't justify its use. It's a war crime. Period.
I think that that's exactly right.
Torture has been known to work sometimes. At other times, it has been shown not to work.
Who knows which is better? To torture innocent people, if that saves lives? Or allow for the possibility of missing some crucial information by not torturing suspects? This is, of course, further complicated by the fact that US torturing people is used as a recruitment tool.
But beyond these nuances is the simple fact that torture is a war crime.
to use waterboarding and sleep deprivation against a "suspect" is questionable and probably a bad idea. But when our government gets its hands on a high value target such as KSM, someone known to be top brass in the terrorist movement, i say bring on the bucket and the bugs.
did anyone ever asked mccain if torture worked
In his case it did. He signed a document to that effect.
Exactly. And not in some abstract, unreal sense like a conservatives like to argue it is. We signed on to this, we've held other countries to it, we have to put our money where our mouth is if we're actually going to be the broker of peace and democracy we say we are.
The Bush Administration has left us with no moral standing when it comes to telling our enemies how we expect American captives to be treated.
I don't find that prospect funny. I don't think you'll find any American soldiers laughing at it either.
You're right, captured American soldiers have been treated so well in the past, but no longer after this fiasco.
Why not listen to the ONLY politician who lived through torture - John McCain - who is against it. This reminds me of a friend who had to tell me a blow by blow account of when HE heard about the earthquake I had just lived through. Torture is wrong and illegal. Watch a documentary about the Khmer Rouge and waterboarding and then tell me how funny it is.
On June 7, 2003, NPR's Linda Wertheimer did a story about how comical it was that annoying songs were played loudly and incessantly "to break the will" of Iraqi detainees suspected by the U.S. of withholding information about WMDs. In response, I contacted NPR for an apology and the adoption of humane standards of reporting. I'm still waiting. As we know, the WMDs were nonexistent, and the abuse of the detainees was not only immoral but unnecessary. By the way, the story is still on NPR's website.
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1290449.html
And guess what? Every soldier on the FoB had to listen to it as well. If i subject myself to the same "abuse" that i am applying to you, how abusive can it really be?
By turning torture in to a joke, they are working on minimizing the horror for their audience.
This is a linguistic game for them. They like to make small acts torture and then make fun of it.
There is no one challenging these people's sick views from a moral perspective. If they are Christian, which part of the New Testament are the pulling this from? But I also wonder if the advertisers want to be associates with the sick torture jokes right before they role into a commerical.
Today on KSFO in Lee Rodgers was talking about this issue talking about how extremist Muslims do worst things then he says, "And now they are saying well water boarding, we have decided that's torture. Probably decided by some judge who has never had his own testicles dipped in a basin of cool water."
This was followed by Melanie Morgan laughing. The next commercial was Lee Rodgers reading an ad for Pro Flowers.
"We allegedly invaded Iraq so that we could FREE the Iraqi people"
I think that was reason #8 on a list of over 20.
...each of which was the only reason at the time, and the only reason we had gone into iraq in the first place.
1984 is an operations manual for the GOP and their wingnut apologists.
If any of you had to watch your loved one being beheaded on the internet or seeing them jump out of Trade Center from the 80th floor to keep from burning to death, I bet you people would have a different opinion of what should happen to these terroists.
Why do you insist on having America stoop to the level of the "evil-doers?"
Is torture supposed to be punishment or for obtaining information? It's hard to tell from your post.
It's for vengeance. Perhaps Christian 'floyd' can tell us what The Lord says about vengeance.
Yes, the people who organized the attacks and are convicted of the attacks should be punished severely. However, until there are CONVICTIONS of those responsible, those only suspected should be innocent until proven guilty, should they not?
Here's a question for you:
If you were a relative of an innocent man who was tortured by the U.S. government would you feel the same way about the United States as you currently do about the terrorists? If not, why?
You don't know me or my family or what we have been through. Please do not pretend to speak for me or mine. America is filled with stories of people who, when faced with the easy decision of vengeance instead chose justice. True heros. That's the America I want to be a part of.
Yawn ... please don't feed the trolls.
People who pontificate on end about the Bible really ought to read the thing first, preferably in Greek or Latin. And if your gonna pntificate about Roman Society you might want to do a little research there too. Romans were NOT pro-homosexuality or incest or beastiality! The very reason ancient historians make such a big deal about these acts in the history of the lives of the emporer is precisely because Romans would have reacted with horror.
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL PEOPLE!!!
They don't really want to know anything. That's obvious. And yes, we should ignore them.
So, assassinating three alleged pirates is okay... no trial... no jury... no verdict...
I thought we finally got rid of the criminal Bush regime!
Thanks for the comments!! It's amazing how people pick and choose what to use out of the misquoted/often mis-translated/much revised Bible.There are passages that support Slavery ,Sexism,Child Abuse(don't spare the Rod) by today's standard.We should know what is morally wrong based on something as simple as the Golden Rule!!Torture unto others as you would have tortured on to yourself!!!!
Christians invented the iron maiden, so i guess waterboarding wouldnt be torture by thier standards.
here's some food for thought torture defenders:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
Torture was used to try to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Do you believe in this type of torture?