GITMO to close within a year, so I'm hearing.

Help Support The Pipe:

lap

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
13,248
One guy,

The right wing media haters have been out in full affect. Limbaugh saying he wants Obama to fail. I remember when people spoke out against Bush he called them treasonous and said they had Bush Derangement Syndome.

Lap,

I wasn't comparing us to the Nazi's. I was making a point that in the past when waterboarding and other "harsh" techniques have been used that people have held them accountable. So you think its ok to hold other people responsible, but not ourselves?

Pool,

My argument with you is the same as Lap. We have always prided ourselves in being better than the enemy. They are going to do horrible things, they're terrorists. That's what they do, they try and intimidate through fear and hate. We shouldn't stoop to that level. If we do we are no better. You can't win the ideological war by adopting their practices.
And we are still better despite waterbaording, sleep deprivation, loud music, cold temperatures, putting women's underwear on their heads, and making them be naked. Those are not horrible things especially when you compare them to what the Nazis, imperial Japan, ethnic cleansing, or terrorists did.

We do these things AND are still better than them. We are not just trying to win an idealogical war here. We are trying to save American lives.

By the way, there are certain Obama policies that I want to fail. I don't see anything wrong with that. The difference with Bush as that people just hated him, period. We don't hate Obama, we just hate his ideas.
 

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
And we are still better despite waterbaording, sleep deprivation, loud music, cold temperatures, putting women's underwear on their heads, and making them be naked. Those are not horrible things especially when you compare them to what the Nazis, imperial Japan, ethnic cleansing, or terrorists did.

We do these things AND are still better than them. We are not just trying to win an idealogical war here. We are trying to save American lives.

By the way, there are certain Obama policies that I want to fail. I don't see anything wrong with that. The difference with Bush as that people just hated him, period. We don't hate Obama, we just hate his ideas.
I've never been waterboarded (I'll not answer as to whether or not I've ever had women's underwear on my head). However, I'm quite sure that anyone who has would define it as torture.

Playing devil's advocate; What is it that makes us better even though we say that it's OK to do these things?
 
Last edited:

lap

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
13,248
I've never been waterboarded (I'll not answer as to whether or not I've ever had women's underwear on my head). However, I'm quite sure that anyone who has would define it as torture.

Playing devil's advocate; What is it that makes us better even though we say that it's OK to do these things?
I'm sure that people who have been subjected to other uncomfortable measures such as loud music, cold temperature, sleep deprevation, etc will also tell you that is torture as well.

We are better because we don't subject ourselves to maiming, beheading, tar and feathering, pulling nails, cutting off fingers, toes, ears, branding, rape, sodomy, death squads, quartering, burning, etc.
 

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
I'm sure that people who have been subjected to other uncomfortable measures such as loud music, cold temperature, sleep deprevation, etc will also tell you that is torture as well.

We are better because we don't subject ourselves to maiming, beheading, tar and feathering, pulling nails, cutting off fingers, toes, ears, branding, rape, sodomy, death squads, quartering, burning, etc.
I'm sure we could find people who say that sitting in seat 27B from EWR to LAX is torture too. That's not what I'm getting at though.

You have listed a number of horrible things that we don't because we are better. Do you realize that John Woo and the Justice Department rewrote the guidelines for what the US considers to be torture a few years ago? Would it be appropriate for the government to use some of the things that are in the newest set of guidelines (including waterboarding) on you or someone in your family if they were thought to be terrorists?
 

lap

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
13,248
I'm sure we could find people who say that sitting in seat 27B from EWR to LAX is torture too. That's not what I'm getting at though.

You have listed a number of horrible things that we don't because we are better. Do you realize that John Woo and the Justice Department rewrote the guidelines for what the US considers to be torture a few years ago? Would it be appropriate for the government to use some of the things that are in the newest set of guidelines (including waterboarding) on you or someone in your family if they were thought to be terrorists?
Then what was your point? That anything can be defined as torture? That suspected terrorists should just be asked to sit in 27B from EWR to LAX while being interrogated? Or that we should ask the suspected terrorist what they think is torture first and make sure we don't do that to them? My point is that there is a real clear line between water boarding and the rest of the things I mentioned.

And I do think that if a family member is a suspected terrorists they should use water boarding on them.
 
Last edited:

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
Then what was your point? That anything can be defined as torture? That suspected terrorists should just be asked to sit in 27B from EWR to LAX while being interrogated? Or that we should ask the suspected terrorist what they think is torture first and make sure we don't do that to them?

And I do think that if a family member is a suspected terrorists they should use water boarding on them.
Lap, I've read many of your posts and you're obviously a smart person but you have got to be kidding me. If the government says that your daughter is a suspected terrorist then you would say "waterboard her".

I'm sure that you realize that our constitution is not meant to protect us from Osama or Saddam or Hitler. It's meant to protect us from our government. If we're not careful we are going to throw away all of the things that make this country great in the name of "The War On Terror".

How do you suggest we stop our slide down the slippery slope?

"We suspect that Greg Stone has some information relating to a possible terrorist attack. Bring him in for waterboarding!" Sounds melodramatic but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Are you familiar with a guy named Stephen Hatfill?
 

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
By the way Lap,

How do you know that there is a clear line between the things that you mentioned and waterboarding? Have you been waterboarded? Have you conducted any "Advanced Interrogation Techniques"?
 

lap

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
13,248
Lap, I've read many of your posts and you're obviously a smart person but you have got to be kidding me. If the government says that your daughter is a suspected terrorist then you would say "waterboard her".

I'm sure that you realize that our constitution is not meant to protect us from Osama or Saddam or Hitler. It's meant to protect us from our government. If we're not careful we are going to throw away all of the things that make this country great in the name of "The War On Terror".

How do you suggest we stop our slide down the slippery slope?

"We suspect that Greg Stone has some information relating to a possible terrorist attack. Bring him in for waterboarding!" Sounds melodramatic but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Are you familiar with a guy named Stephen Hatfill?
Let me start off by saying that a lot of what I say on the politics section is just exaggeration for flame sake.

With that said, there are other parts of the constitution that would not allow government to continue with arbitrarily declaring John Doe to be a terrorists. If the government started doing that there would be another revolution. Its like the slippery slope argument about the patriot act. The government can see what books you checked out at the library and what not, yet we still live in a free society. That is why I'm not concerned with your premise of a slippery slope, yet. To me, water boarding is no where near the level of the things I've mentioned. Its not a slope or any slippery surface. Its a line line drawn that we haven't passed.

By the way, the constitution was also written to "provide for the common defense."

By the way Lap,

How do you know that there is a clear line between the things that you mentioned and waterboarding? Have you been waterboarded? Have you conducted any "Advanced Interrogation Techniques"?
We are not talking about techniques that mame or in any other way physically harms suspected terrorists. That is the line I'm talking about. Water boarding and everything else I've mentioned does no permanent physical harm unlike the other list I wrote. I don't need to be water boarded or physically tortured to know the difference.
 
Last edited:

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
I'm sure that people who have been subjected to other uncomfortable measures such as loud music, cold temperature, sleep deprevation, etc will also tell you that is torture as well.

We are better because we don't subject ourselves to maiming, beheading, tar and feathering, pulling nails, cutting off fingers, toes, ears, branding, rape, sodomy, death squads, quartering, burning, etc.

You're getting into the situation of moral relevance. How can you do that and be conservative? Isn't torture, torture? So now we have to break things down into lesser degrees of torture? Bush already tried to do that with his administrations definitions.
 

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
Let me start off by saying that a lot of what I say on the politics section is just exaggeration for flame sake.

With that said, there are other parts of the constitution that would not allow government to continue with arbitrarily declaring John Doe to be a terrorists. If the government started doing that there would be another revolution. Its like the slippery slope argument about the patriot act. The government can see what books you checked out at the library and what not, yet we still live in a free society. That is why I'm not concerned with your premise of a slippery slope, yet. To me, water boarding is no where near the level of the things I've mentioned. Its not a slope or any slippery surface. Its a line line drawn that we haven't passed.

By the way, the constitution was also written to "provide for the common defense."



We are not talking about techniques that mame or in any other way physically harms suspected terrorists. That is the line I'm talking about. Water boarding and everything else I've mentioned does no permanent physical harm unlike the other list I wrote. I don't need to be water boarded or physically tortured to know the difference.
Electrical cables connected to your son's testicles don't maim or physically harm. I'm sure it would hurt like the dickens and would make him say whatever it took to make it stop though.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Waterboarding is not "spraying water in someone's face". It is a technique meant to make someone believe that they are drowning, which we'd all agree would be a terrible way to go. I'm sure that it's very unpleasant otherwise why would one want to confess to something to make it stop?

And don't get me started on the Patriot Act. The government has no business looking into what books I take out at the library. Nor do they have any business listening to my international phone calls for that matter.

We as Americans believe that we are better. That we have a better country and a better society. The Patriot Act and torturing terrorist suspects don't do anything to further our "more perfect union". They harm it. The whole idea of a "War On Terror" is ridiculous. Just as the "War On Drugs is ridiculous and has been a complete failure. For crying out loud Afghanistan is exporting more heroin now than when the Taliban were in power. How's that for irony?

Don't get me wrong. UBL ought to die by American hands as should his buddies. But we ought not to screw up our country in the process.
 
Last edited:

Mitch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
5,149
Greg,
I'll second just about everything you have said on this thread. Especially your last post.


If we can't succeed in our endeavors using our own established rules, then haven't we already lost? In this particular "war," if we have to relax (especially publicly) our moral standards, doesn't that contribute to "them" winning?
 

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
If we can't succeed in our endeavors using our own established rules, then haven't we already lost? In this particular "war," if we have to relax (especially publicly) our moral standards, doesn't that contribute to "them" winning?
Well said Mitch.
 

Whirlpool

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
1,840
Most of our rules were established to deal with a "conventional" threat.
 

Whirlpool

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
1,840
.........and we were the "un" conventional ones.

Or rather, we were the ones that used unconventional means to achieve victory
Yes...we use unconventional means. If a terrorist get some water splashed on his face and he gives up some info that saves American lives...would you accept and act on that information and would you sit on it because it was taken by unconventional means?

If you seriously think our government does not do things..on a regular basis..that is not in line with what the majority thinks is right, you are fooling yourself. You enjoy the benefits of some of these operations but question those who prosecute them.

I wish someone had the sack to answer this question honestly.....

If you knew someone had information that would decide whether someone in your immediate family lived or died...what would you do? What means would you use to get that information? Would you simply ask the nicely and then move on? Think hard about it....
 

V2+15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
9,998
I wish someone had the sack to answer this question honestly.....

If you knew someone had information that would decide whether someone in your immediate family lived or died...what would you do? What means would you use to get that information? Would you simply ask the nicely and then move on? Think hard about it....
Pool...that's what the liberals fail to see. Their plan is apeasement (sp?) and then when something that DIRECTLY affects them DOES happen, they're the first ones to jump up and scream, "Why didn't somebody do something!?!?!".
 
Last edited:

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Yes...we use unconventional means. If a terrorist get some water splashed on his face and he gives up some info that saves American lives...would you accept and act on that information and would you sit on it because it was taken by unconventional means?

If you seriously think our government does not do things..on a regular basis..that is not in line with what the majority thinks is right, you are fooling yourself. You enjoy the benefits of some of these operations but question those who prosecute them.

I wish someone had the sack to answer this question honestly.....

If you knew someone had information that would decide whether someone in your immediate family lived or died...what would you do? What means would you use to get that information? Would you simply ask the nicely and then move on? Think hard about it....
People who know about interrogations tell you there is no such thing as the dilemma your setting up. You've been watching too much "24". Just because you saw it on television doesn't mean its real. I know righties like to think in hypothetical situations and sometimes you can't differentiate the difference between reality and your alternate reality.

I seem to remember that after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 the United States was able to track down and catch, prosecute, and jail the perps. Clinton didn't lock down this country and try to use fear to rule. It worked. Going on a witch hunt usually rakes in people who aren't really bad guys. Besides have we caught the person behind 9-11? Didn't think so.
 

Whirlpool

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
1,840
People who know about interrogations tell you there is no such thing as the dilemma your setting up. You've been watching too much "24". Just because you saw it on television doesn't mean its real. I know righties like to think in hypothetical situations and sometimes you can't differentiate the difference between reality and your alternate reality.

I seem to remember that after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 the United States was able to track down and catch, prosecute, and jail the perps. Clinton didn't lock down this country and try to use fear to rule. It worked. Going on a witch hunt usually rakes in people who aren't really bad guys. Besides have we caught the person behind 9-11? Didn't think so.
On the highlighted post, check your facts. Who was the architect of the attack and where is he now...and how much info has he given up..and how was that info secured?

The buildings were bombed...not destroyed. How many people were killed? Then there is the Pentagon...and the those that were killed in a field in PA. The two are distinctly different. Do think Clinton would not have allowed the use of "aggressive interrogations" to get the info we needed? Really?

You and I are not aware of the intel they had after 9/11. If they would have sat on their hands and done nothing and we were attacked again, you left wing lemmings would have moaned about not doing what it took to protect the US. You cannot have it both ways...which is like the way most of your lefties take it anyway.

As for personalizing this, I knew you would not answer the question because you are afraid of the answer. You would either have to flat out lie..or be honest and then get caught in the old "Do as I say..not as I do."

As for "hypothetical" situations, guess what...you HAVE to think of hypothetical situations and train for them. I cannot believe...well..yeah I can...you even wrote or believe that. In the military, we train for hypothetical events on a daily basis...because more sweat in training means less blood in war. (Something that is foreign to you). At one point, the DoD contracted some Hollywood folks to come up with some scenarios and have the military train against them. We have to be ready for anything..ANYTHING and draw on training to counter it. You learn as you go....you adapt....and do what it takes to be victorious.

Here is a link for you Fly...they could use people like you and your money:

American Civil Liberties Union - Criminal Justice, Death Penalty, Disability Rights, Drug Policy, Free Speech, HIV/AIDS, Human Rights, Immigrants' Rights, Lesbian & Gay Rights, National Security, Police Practices, Prisoners' Rights, Privacy & Technol

The question remains unanswered.....someone want to MAN up and answer it?
 

Greg Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
588
Yes...we use unconventional means. If a terrorist get some water splashed on his face and he gives up some info that saves American lives...would you accept and act on that information and would you sit on it because it was taken by unconventional means?

If you seriously think our government does not do things..on a regular basis..that is not in line with what the majority thinks is right, you are fooling yourself. You enjoy the benefits of some of these operations but question those who prosecute them.

I wish someone had the sack to answer this question honestly.....

If you knew someone had information that would decide whether someone in your immediate family lived or died...what would you do? What means would you use to get that information? Would you simply ask the nicely and then move on? Think hard about it....
Let's move on from the "splashing water in someone's face" example. If it were that minor and inconsequential why would it be considered an interrogation technique?

As to what one would do if a terrorist had information.............
The fact of the matter is that the 911 attacks were successful not because our government was unable to aggressively interrogate or wiretap without a warrant or monitor my library habits. Those attacks were successful because we were lazy and stupid.

If you feel safer now that the government does those things and others then I'm happy for you. Although I suspect your feeling of safety is a mirage because we're just as lazy and stupid as we were 8 years ago.

Thank you for your service just the same. I mean that.
 

Latest posts

Top