Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Fox analyst: Americans shouldn't be above torture
rawstory.com — Americans aren't above resorting to torture to gain intelligence from suspected terrorists -- and it would be a mistake if they were, according to Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt.
charpan27- 922 diggs
- digg it
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -13/+172So, RETIRED COL... It's ok for the Enemy to Torture your troops?
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -52/+10"So, RETIRED COL... It's ok for the Enemy to Torture your troops?"
I really don't understand why that keeps being brought up. It doesn't matter what we do the enemy could not get any worse.- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -6/+76It's not about The Enemies morals and ethics, it's about the existence or non-existence of your own.
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -27/+4Oh I agree that what you just said plays a major part of this little debate, but that's not what you said in your original post.
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -3/+46Yes it is. If you consider what we do to be "Right", once we start torturing people, then torture is "Right", and it's ok for the Enemy to torture their prisoners. We *lose* the Moral High Ground, and the ability to complain about torture.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -21/+4I'd rather have the information than be able to whine to the UN/the world (who does nothing nor cares anyway) with a "clear conscience". With the knowledge that while I might have been able to save American lives at least I put no criminals in any undue discomfort.
- DocGlass, on 12/14/2007, -1/+20@Narasil
You run in to two problems with that line of thinking. First of all, not everyone we torture is a terrorist or knows anything about terrorists. The Military basically told people "we will give you $5000 if you turn in a terrorist" and they got just that thousands of "terroists" who were then sent away and tortured, many of them with no information to give. Then that person *maybe* is released with a much different view of America. I wouldn't be surprised if we create more terrorists (or at least people no thrilled with the US) by using torture
Second, what if an enemy gets hold of OUR people and tortures them? How can we denounce something we do? If we allow torture we are inevitably going to cause the torture of Americans (in my opinion). - Kizilbash, on 12/14/2007, -3/+6There is a third problem: information you get out of people by torturing them is almost always unreliable and usually useless.
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -8/+3@ DocGlass
You've got some kind of warped impression of what currently/has been/and will be happening to our people that the enemy gets a hold of. THEY ARE ALL DEAD. THEY WERE ALL TORTURED TERRIBLY AND BEHEADED OR TORTURED TO DEATH.
You also need to understand that we are not indiscriminately harshly interrogating any and all people in captivity. It's something that we've done RARELY and only under certain circumstances.
@ Kizilbash
I just think that that's BS. At times unreliable, but also at most times the info is verifiable, hardly ever useless. - Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3@ "You've got some kind of warped impression of what currently/has been/and will be happening to our people that the enemy gets a hold of. THEY ARE ALL DEAD."
The US government does not negotiate with them for the release of captured soldiers. What exactly do you expect them to do if not kill them?
You are still missing the entire point. I'll try to simplify it for you. Bush has said this is a war of 'good' versus 'evil'. He justifies the war and all the innocent people killed in it by saying that it is necessary that the US soldiers fight to destroy the 'evil people'. They are 'evil' because they torture and kill people they capture. The US soldiers are supposedly 'good' because we don't do that, thus the reason that they are justified in fighting the 'evil people'. The problem is that the US soldiers are torturing the people they capture. They are 'dead checking' wounded enemies (effectively killing their captives). They do drop huge bombs and flatten buildings with disregard for the innocent people that may be inside. They do behead people, just with a .50 cal slug instead of a sword. Here is the problem. When you go to fight a war of 'good' versus 'evil' you have to make sure you stay on the good side or else your entire justification for the war is crap. Of course all of this ignores the fact that the 'good versus evil' justification was crap from the beginning since an army on the side of 'good' would not launch a preemptive attack. Thats what 'evil people' do.
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -3/+46Yes it is. If you consider what we do to be "Right", once we start torturing people, then torture is "Right", and it's ok for the Enemy to torture their prisoners. We *lose* the Moral High Ground, and the ability to complain about torture.
- chirox901, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Congrats, 10 points to you. Now go run for president. You might be the only candidate that can put 2 and 2 together and get 4 without any decimal places.
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -27/+4Oh I agree that what you just said plays a major part of this little debate, but that's not what you said in your original post.
- pintomp3, on 12/14/2007, -3/+37how do we condemn others for doing the same things we are doing?
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -20/+2We don't. Let me repeat that WE don't.
- Trykt, on 12/14/2007, -0/+13I have no idea what you mean despite the repetition.
- Dipsomaniac, on 12/14/2007, -3/+8The US obtained convictions of torture against Japanese POWs in WWII for using EXACTLY the same waterboarding technique that the US uses and defends today.
What was that about not condemning others for what the US itself does?
- ChazHollywood, on 12/14/2007, -9/+5I didn't realize we were sawing off concious detainees heads.
- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -3/+11True, we are beating them to death. That makes us better, huh?
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/ch ...
- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -3/+11True, we are beating them to death. That makes us better, huh?
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -9/+4There is no comparison between waterboarding and what happens when one of ours gets taken prisoner. None.
- Dipsomaniac, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Wrong! There is the belief on both sides that torture is somehow morally justifiable when YOU do it, but not when THEY do it.
Both sides are equally morally culpable and bankrupt.
- Dipsomaniac, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Wrong! There is the belief on both sides that torture is somehow morally justifiable when YOU do it, but not when THEY do it.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -20/+2We don't. Let me repeat that WE don't.
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -6/+76It's not about The Enemies morals and ethics, it's about the existence or non-existence of your own.
- deeboe, on 12/14/2007, -27/+12Of course it isn't OK. Do you honestly think though, that if we announced we won't torture, the enemy would stop?
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -3/+27Are you trying to say that even though torture is wrong, America should do it because their "enemy" does it?
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -1/+24I believe he is resorting to that classic bastion of bad assumptions and false syllogism, middle school logic. Namely he has employed the "but, but, Timmy's mom lets HIM torture prisoners!" theorem. They do so we must, you know, to keep up. I mean you have got to fight fire with fire, never mind that water is SO much more effective.
- deeboe, on 12/14/2007, -16/+2No, but you cant run around telling everyone you wont torture.
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -0/+11You're right. I keep forgetting that America is now a Nazi state.
My bad. - MadKennyP, on 12/14/2007, -0/+11Right. We have to tell other countries that we will not abide by the Geneva Convention.
/sarcasm
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -0/+11You're right. I keep forgetting that America is now a Nazi state.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+21No one said it would make "the enemy" stop torturing.
A) We have the moral highground; we don't do it because we are better than that.
B) Our torturing people is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment. Not the only one, but when we treat prisoners the way we EXPECT our troops to be treated, people begin to see how bad "the enemy" is when they chop off people's heads. "The enemy" looses sympathy.
C) Torture has been proven not to get results, people will say anything just to get it to stop.
To make a further point, there is always someone out there doing something worse than what we are dong or they are doing or what so-and-so is doing. If we keep debasing ourselves to the lowest common denominator just because someone else does it then where does that leave us? - sieteRevueltas, on 12/14/2007, -2/+8What kinda ***** up world do you live in. Torture is wrong, period. And no matter what "the enemy" does, nothing warrants torture. Its sick and depraved, and if you do it you're no better than your enemy
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -3/+27Are you trying to say that even though torture is wrong, America should do it because their "enemy" does it?
- schweeet, on 12/14/2007, -9/+4Come on...why the hell can't they say these things when they have the power to accomplish something. Damnit!
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -28/+4Fight fire with fire.
- Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9End terrorism with more terrorism.. Brilliant! You should run for office!
- Elbryan233, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8That way we ALL burn. Fantastic plan.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -14/+2I suppose it would depend on if they signed the convention and how they abide by it. Otherwise it's a meaningless question.
- StealthMonkey, on 12/14/2007, -23/+8Why is this always the defense? That is such a stupid argument.
Do you think al qaeda combatant would think, "I'm going to torture this captured American because the American's torture my comrades. If only America didn't resort to torture, I wouldn't have to either. Man, it pains me to do this!"- timbellomo, on 12/14/2007, -2/+13No... but it might change the mind of a non-al Qaeda insurgent who just wants you out of their country...
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -1/+24You lot are soooo short sighted. This is not about Al Qaeda. This is about any *other* future enemies we may have. If you can't see beyond the present moment and understand the potential consequences of this for the long term future, you really just should stay out of the argument.
Who cares what fundie Moslem jihadis think? they're nuts. It's about what we represent to the rest of the world, and how we're seen. If the world has the view of Americans as a bunch of torturing, rampaging illegal warmongers, it is going to mean total lack of respect, which will be seen in future engagements with other opponents, and indeed, cause them. - MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+9Anywhere that terrorists are recruiting, what do you think they use, pictures of that guy in the hood and the wires hooked to him. Come ON... this is NOT difficult to grasp!
- IglooBurner, on 12/14/2007, -3/+30if we resort to torture just like the enemy has, what makes us any better than them?
we want to rise above... to be a better people, morally. thats the difference between civilization and barbarians.- patrickxbateman, on 12/14/2007, -10/+2We need to use any means necessary to save American lives. If this method is the only way that we can get that information, then I think it is ok. I'm sure if we could talk it out of them we could, but something tells me they don't respond to a sit-down.
- fenghiskhan, on 12/14/2007, -5/+1Just wanted to say you shouldn't have gotten dugg down. I think people disagree with you, but I don't see why that should lead to a negative rating. It's not like you were being an ass about your opinion. Personally, I disagree with you only because we are trying to be a leader of democracy and we tell people we don't torture. The minute we stop telling people that torturing is wrong and we stop invading countries because we're trying to be "role models" for democracy, that's the minute we can even contemplate "sinking to their level" and performing torture. That and we'd have to back out of any international convention that we signed saying that we wouldn't torture, for legality's sake, not exactly out of principle.
- Speed, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Two problems:
1. Information gained from torture is often inaccurate and instead leads us on wild goose chases.
2. It's morally wrong. We, as a society, can't claim to be better than the enemy while using their tactics. - Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Any means necessary to save American lives... does that include not sending them across the world to fight a war for the benefit of the economic elite?
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1If you can think of nothing other than the fact that we may waterboard people that makes us better than terrorists/shira law islamists I would suggest you have a little more thinking on the subject to do.
- Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Why don't you enlighten us to the things that the evil terrorists do that the good western forces have never done?
- Narasil, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1I wasn't talking about just armed forces nit wit.
- Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Why don't you enlighten us to the things that the evil terrorists do that the good western forces have never done?
- patrickxbateman, on 12/14/2007, -10/+2We need to use any means necessary to save American lives. If this method is the only way that we can get that information, then I think it is ok. I'm sure if we could talk it out of them we could, but something tells me they don't respond to a sit-down.
- burketthumor, on 12/14/2007, -3/+9Why don't we just cut to the chase and legalize and televise torture across the world. Is that the kind of society you want to live in Col. Jerk?
- Fizox99, on 12/14/2007, -10/+3This is probably unpopular, but here goes:
Theory is nice...in theory. I am more concerned with pragmatism and reality. The only fair way to look at this situation is to ask yourself "If my son/daughter/spouse/mother/father were about to be murdered, would I waterboard someone (causing non-physical and non-permanent harm) to get the information"? I don't mean this as an attack on anyone, but rather a question that I think each and every one of us should ask ourselves.
Yes, there should be a limit to "torture." Where exactly, I am not sure. Personally, I don't think waterboarding is, but I respect the debate over the term. Regardless, it "has prevented dozens of attacks" says a former CIA officer that has personal qualms with the practice. He noted that each instance (3 total) has been recorded, medical professionals were always around, and that the subject was never physically harmed and that the technique only lasted ~30 seconds.
Would you prevent multiple 911's where thousands of Americans lost their family members for a few instances of waterboarding? Would you prevent your own family from dying by using it?- Ozymandias42, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Yeah...that's *****. Your language suggests that we should make the comparison of "multiple 9/11s vs.feeling bad for torturing some terrorist," pick the option that's better (which is obvious), and be done with that. This ridiculous oversimplification of the debate is exactly the sort of thing there's too much of today.
Here's a better (and far more interesting) question. If your daughter were about to be murdered, would you waterboard that same daughter, knowing that there was only maybe a 1% chance of saving her and a 99% chance she'd be killed after the waterboarding anyway?- JacobVorpahl, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Perhaps I'm missing something.. why would I waterboard the daughter I'm trying to save? Just to kill her so someone else doesn't or something like that? Please educate me because I don't follow your logic.
- Fizox99, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Your comment does not hold because we are not waterboarding an innocent to save an innocent. We are waterboarding a murderer to save the victim. Unless you are prepared to morally equate a murderer and a victim because they are "people" while disregarding their intentions and actions, then your logic is fallacious.
- Ozymandias42, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5Ah, so waterboarding is okay because these are bad people? That makes waterboarding a punishment. Which means that we'd need to be sure they're guilty. If only we had some way of ensuring their guilt...hrm...like...some sort of place where everybody could go and present their arguments to unbiased third parties in accordance with some sort of basic rules of fairness.
- Narasil, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2If they wanted such considerations first they should be fighting to preserve such considerations instead of a bankrupt 14th century barbaric political system. Secondly if you want to target civilians and hide behind and among the innocent as part of your strategy then you should be prepared to take it like a man when you're caught instead of bitching up and whining for a lawyer. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
- cjhowe, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6There is a difference between individuals and a government that is supposed to be representative of the people. As a people we should not hold one life above another. All men are created equal. If a government can not convince a jury of someone's guilt, it should not be able to restrict their personal freedoms. Now, if an individual wishes to hold one life above another's, that's acceptable only if that individual is willing to accept the consequences of his actions. Think Jack Kevorkian. Here's an individual that has assisted in the killing of at least 130 individuals. He held one life above another's. However, he accepted the consequence for doing so. If an interrogator wishes to hold the lives of thousands of Americans above an individual, he should be willing to accept the consequences for doing so. Or if a certain president gave a military command to do so, he should be willing to accept the consequences. You should thank him for saving the lives of thousands of people, but you should be thanking him while he is in prison.
- Fizox99, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I agree with your statement if we are talking about killing an individual to prevent the deaths of others. However, on the subject waterboarding I do not agree, because we are causing no physical harm while fulfilling the moral obligation to save innocent lives. We aren't waterboarding one innocent to save thousands of innocents, we are waterboarding the potential murders of thousands of innocents to save those innocents. It isn't a straightforward comparison of one person vs. another, because they are the ones trying their hardest to murder people. Their intent alone vastly reduces the respect they receive. They are not soldiers, not civilians, they are murders who can/have given up information about their plots after a few seconds of fear, discomfort, and non-physical damage interrogation.
- cjhowe, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1If the "detainee" isn't in the act of harming someone and he has not been charged with a crime, much less been found guilty of a crime, how are you determining that he is not "innocent"? You pick someone up who lives in a war zone because some "informant" fingered him and all of a sudden you have the right, as a representative of a people, to hold his value beneath another's? Heaven forbid anyone ever falsely accuse you of something.
- Fizox99, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1@ cjhowe:
There has been no report of them waterboarded. Per the testimony of the CIA analyst: waterboarding is the most extreme thing we do, there have been three instances, and each one revealed valuable intelligence than helped prevent "dozens" of attacks. Waterboarding is the exception, not the rule. Your comment illustrates the world of theory that does not apply to reality. Even if you are right, and it has happened to a few "innocents," does that mean that it shouldn't be done seeing as how no physical harm occurs and it absolutely has saved many many American lives?. Either way, I see where you are coming from, but it is simply does not ring true. - cjhowe, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1@ Fiox99
All men are created equal is a first principle. If a people abandon their first principles and demote an individual below all others without due process, then it has no principles. If we as a people lack principles, there is no need for government to protect any freedoms as we would have devolved to the law of the jungle.
- Fizox99, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I agree with your statement if we are talking about killing an individual to prevent the deaths of others. However, on the subject waterboarding I do not agree, because we are causing no physical harm while fulfilling the moral obligation to save innocent lives. We aren't waterboarding one innocent to save thousands of innocents, we are waterboarding the potential murders of thousands of innocents to save those innocents. It isn't a straightforward comparison of one person vs. another, because they are the ones trying their hardest to murder people. Their intent alone vastly reduces the respect they receive. They are not soldiers, not civilians, they are murders who can/have given up information about their plots after a few seconds of fear, discomfort, and non-physical damage interrogation.
- Speed, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2The problem is both sides are looking at this with a black/white perspective. Life isn't black and white. On principle, the government shouldn't be in favour of torture. If there is a ticking timebomb 24-esque scenario, then yes, maybe torture would be acceptable. However, those types of scenarios are almost never present. A more realistic scenario where the government tortures is there a person who MAY have some knowledge that COULD possibly help out in some future situation. In that case, then I don't think torture should be acceptable.
And waterboarding is torture. It's simulating drowning, and often that person doesn't know it's only a "simulation". And while it may not cause physical problems, it can cause some serious mental problems. Not being able to breath is pretty friggen traumatic.- edmcguirk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1It's not "simulated drowning", it's actual drowning using a method that is relatively easy to reverse.
I certainly think that one of the key methods of waterboarding is not to tell the victim that we are going to save him after we drown him.
Even after being revived once or twice there is no way to know that the end result will not be death if the right information is not supplied.
The implication of death is a key component of torture. Another key component is pain which waterboarding also supplies.
Too bad there is no word in English to indicate the difference between torture to obtain vital information and torture simply to inflict maximum pain on somebody you don't like.
Torture might still be wrong but it would make the argument more sensible.
- edmcguirk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1It's not "simulated drowning", it's actual drowning using a method that is relatively easy to reverse.
- Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2You are 'concerned with reality' and then go and say that the only fair way to assess the justification of torture is with an improbable, loaded, hypothetical question... What happened to your concern for reality? It seems to disappear pretty quick. If you want reality from a hypothetical questions, at least make the questioned framed in a plausible situation. The question should be, "If I had a suspicion that my son, daughter, spouse, mother or father was about to be murdered, would I waterboard a person who I suspect is involved (very likely causing severe trauma and possibly death) for a chance at getting information that may be of some use?"
If your answer is no, then Jesus and Ghandi would be proud of you. If you answered yes, then the CIA may like to speak with you about an employment opportunity.- Narasil, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1We didn't ask them not to wear uniforms and ignore the convention. They have, and as such have injected the need for us to not always be sure about who we suspect and who we don't. Instead of asking us to follow rules which will make it all but impossible to win against people who employ such tactics maybe you should ask them to start playing by the rules you seem to cherish.
- Ozymandias42, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Yeah...that's *****. Your language suggests that we should make the comparison of "multiple 9/11s vs.feeling bad for torturing some terrorist," pick the option that's better (which is obvious), and be done with that. This ridiculous oversimplification of the debate is exactly the sort of thing there's too much of today.
- LastVisibleDog, on 12/14/2007, -7/+3Ok has nothing to do with it - they do. Some of you lefty loonies are very naive
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Righty loons,Inbreeding bush worshipper.
- Sell, on 12/14/2007, -4/+3These particular terrorists do not belong to any government so they are not protected by the Geneva Convention. They are fair game in his eyes.
- Neo31rex31, on 12/14/2007, -4/+0If they use those methods on us, i am more than DAMN happy to impose the same on them. This country has become too pacifistic because of your libs.
- BobOki, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Being better than your enemy does not mean that just becuase they do it means we should. I would have thought you knew that by the time you were 10 or so.
- shcon, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I'd rather have our troops water-boarded then have their heads chopped off one at a time until one of the soldiers still alive finally gives in. Water-boarding is horrible yes, but there are worse forms of torture.
"There is a difference though between water-boarding and castrating someone with a jagged bread-knife. I can think of much MUCH worse forms of torture, the kind where you WANT to be dead after they're done. Water-boarding may be horrible for the 30 secs it takes for most men to break... but I think its much preferable.
If you consider how long we keep most terrorists, and the horrible conditions we keep them in... some might say it would be more humane to just force the information out of them, then move them to a more hospitable environment.
They're kept in a permanently lit room, playing loud white noise, shackled to a bolt in the floor, with nothing but a mattress to sleep on and a bucket to poop in. That in itself is pretty bad torture. I would rather be water-boarded after a couple of days than have to live through several months of that. Honestly. I know of one person in particular, but I'm sure many others have tried to commit suicide after a few months of living in those conditions. (BTW the detainees are never told why they are being held, or how long they will be held.)
I think torture is horrible, which is why I think a minute or two of water-boarding is ok if it actually works quickly. As I said above, the sooner the CIA can be sure it has everything, the sooner they can be moved into better cells."
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -52/+10"So, RETIRED COL... It's ok for the Enemy to Torture your troops?"
- Rotzooi, on 12/14/2007, -40/+18Republicans have the right to torture anyone they damn well please. This shouldn't be an issue, really.
- Delphium226, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Loving the sarcasm.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3People are so emotionally charged (accident? No) that it's difficult to realise that was sarcasm. The fact that you were dug down is great evidence of how fear prevents humans from thinking clearly and critically.
- tylerjames, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Of course it's difficult to realize that it was sarcasm. There are enough people on these threads, and no doubt a great many more elsewhere, that feel exactly as Rotzooi has parodied (at least I hope it was parody).
- pehpsi, on 12/14/2007, -11/+42Wow, a Faux News analyst saying these types of things? The sun rising tomorrow is going to surprise me as much as this did. And the look on his face is because Bill O is under the desk giving him the 'Clinton Special.'
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -2/+32Why is Fox News allowing people on air to publicly advocate the commission of Violent Felonies under US Law?
- chris9902, on 12/14/2007, -1/+21Because Fox News is just toeing the Bush administration's line. People will now think it's no big deal, that it's the right thing to do and that it works.
Lets show them some video of an American troop being tortured and see how funny it is to them then.- cmulle2, on 12/14/2007, -8/+1Torture is not funny and nobody has ever said it was. It is a necessary evil in any conflict or war. If you think that our measures of torture are anywhere near our enemies, you sadly mistaken. If you don't remember, when we finally find our troops, They're DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!
By the way the taping of us torturing the enemy was never intended to be broadcast to the WORLD for the purpose of PROPAGANDA.- Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Another big difference that you fail to see is that when they enemy captures a US soldier, they are actually a US soldier and not some random guy turned over for a ransom. Also, you 'big difference' is not such a big difference since the people we capture don't usually get out alive either.
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Why do republicans hate america?
- cmulle2, on 12/14/2007, -8/+1Torture is not funny and nobody has ever said it was. It is a necessary evil in any conflict or war. If you think that our measures of torture are anywhere near our enemies, you sadly mistaken. If you don't remember, when we finally find our troops, They're DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!
- chris9902, on 12/14/2007, -1/+21Because Fox News is just toeing the Bush administration's line. People will now think it's no big deal, that it's the right thing to do and that it works.
- LiquidIse, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Dugg for clinton special
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -2/+32Why is Fox News allowing people on air to publicly advocate the commission of Violent Felonies under US Law?
- pehpsi, on 12/14/2007, -9/+72Hey douche-bag, two wrongs STILL don't make a right!
- martalli, on 12/14/2007, -7/+5Three wrongs make a right
- deeboe, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10...and three rights make a left.
- JacobVorpahl, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1But you'll be a street behind your turn.
- martalli, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1forgot my /sarcasm tag...I guess it wasn't obvious, and that might be the saddest part of the position we are in nowadays.
- echo2501, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3it's base 3?
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3ahh so we torture twice? First time it's wrong, second time and we're good again.
*this statement was made in pure silliness, wouldn't want it to be taken too seriously
- deeboe, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10...and three rights make a left.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -19/+3Might make it a tad right if you were able to save a million civilians from a well placed fission bomb. The world we live in is filled with shades of gray, when you get a little older you might come to realize this more.
- cndc, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Perhaps such extreme and unlikely circumstances would be taken into account when the torturer was on trial.
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+8I wonder if you'd be so philosophical while being waterboarded.
- Phillco, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10This situation you describe, the clock ticks on a nuke as we hold a suspect in our custody who can reveal the location of the bomb, is often used as a justification for torture. These situations hardly ever transpire and this is simply a rhetorical device that ratchets up the fear factor when discussing torture. Lets be reasonable, torture does yield information but it is not reliable information.
- Dipsomaniac, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2These situations hardly ever transpire *(meaning have never and foreseeably will never)...*
THIS. I just thought that deserved emphasizing.
- Dipsomaniac, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2These situations hardly ever transpire *(meaning have never and foreseeably will never)...*
- Dipsomaniac, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10Oh, jesus.
TORTURE DOESN'T WORK. It is NOT DEPENDABLE. Stop watching '24' and engage your brain.- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -1/+0Republicans cant do that,They need an invisible boogeyman to live thier worthless xenophobic lives.
- vade79, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7A world of fear like that isn't worth living in. Stop treating theoretical threats as things that are likely to happen...this fear-mongering has obviously worked on so many people. We are becoming more like Nazi Germany was and less like America....and so many blind people don't see it.
- Speed, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6Maybe when you grow up, you'll realize the world is not 24, and random soldier 37 isn't Jack Bauer, and the Bush Administration is neither the Palmer Classic, Palmer 2.0 nor the Logan Administration (ok, maybe a little like the Logan Administration).
And it should be noted that in 24, despite using torture, nukes have gone off twice, nerve gas has been deployed a number of times, a horrible virus was unleashed in a crowded hotel, and a nuclear power plant melted down.
- martalli, on 12/14/2007, -7/+5Three wrongs make a right
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -53/+14I think it's perfectly normal, when dealing with Al Qaeda, for there to be a desire to use any and all manner of heightened interrogation techniques. This is an enemy that not only has killed 1000's of innocent and unsuspecting civilians, but demonstrates and states their desire to kill many many more in cold blood. Any and all prisoners taken by them are mutilated and then executed or tortured to death. Getting information out of them without leaving any lasting painful injuries seems pretty merciful to me.
- Terr01, on 12/14/2007, -2/+33Problem being that virtually all of these people are only suspects. Something like one single person Guantanamo was captured in battle, most of the rest were turned over by bounty hunters when we made the bounty high enough to feed whole villages for a year.
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -7/+2"most of the rest were turned over by bounty hunters when we made the bounty high enough to feed whole villages for a year."
Well I don't know that that is true but it might explain why THEY WERE NOT WATERBOARDED. As far as I understand it 3 people were waterboarded. 3. All high level enemy combatants.- Terr01, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5Wrong. You actually mean:
"Unnamed sources said the CIA waterboarded 3 top suspects, and the CIA had no official comment."
It does not mean "only the CIA waterboarded", and it does NOT mean "The CIA did not waterboard anyone else"!
When they say, EXPLICITLY, that "Only 3 people have been waterboarded by the US government", then you'd be right. But they haven't. They say something else, and rely on a bunch of Republican boosters to say the rest so that they don't exactly lie.
- Terr01, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5Wrong. You actually mean:
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -7/+2"most of the rest were turned over by bounty hunters when we made the bounty high enough to feed whole villages for a year."
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -3/+30What you need to do, blackhawk919, is Amend the Constitution to eliminate the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantees of Due Process for ALL PERSONS, not just Citizens.
The Framers were very clear, and until and unless you succeed in modifying those Amendments, you are advocating not just an Unconstitutional Act, but Federal Crimes under several sections of the US Code.
The Framers were brave enough to accept the risks of Freedom and Liberty -- namely that OTHER PEOPLE have Freedom and Liberty. Whenever someone advocates violating the Law and Constitution to assuage their insecurity, they only prove they are not as brave as the Framers, and unworthy of the Gifts of Liberty.- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -14/+2Our constitution does not apply to foreign citizens.
- kingkilr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10It does if they are on US soil.
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1The Oath to support and defend the Constitution and Obey the Laws of the United States wears off if they leave US Soil?
- nblsavage, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8where does it say that?
- MadKennyP, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Actually, the Constitution is a document meant to set forth the rights of the Government. If the Government is barred from doing something, it is barred. Plain and simple.
- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4You don't understand the Constitution.
- kingkilr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10It does if they are on US soil.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -14/+2Our constitution does not apply to foreign citizens.
- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -2/+19I think it's perfectly normal, when dealing with the United States military, for there to be a desire to use any and all manner of heightened interrogation techniques. This is an enemy that not only has killed 1000's of innocent and unsuspecting civilians, but demonstrates and states their desire to kill many many more in cold blood. Any and all prisoners taken by them are mutilated and then executed or tortured to death....
----
***** you. Torture is always wrong.- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -13/+1Torture is not wrong if it saves the lives of enough people.
Lesser of two evils.- rayraym0fucka, on 12/14/2007, -8/+2Torture is wrong, and immoral - but yes I agree it should be allowed in the event it could save thousands of lives.
I don't like the idea that we torture people and treat em like animals (whether they act as animals or not) but I would hate to see a lot of people die and one of the things that could have prevented it been making someone stand in a cold room with water up to their ankles for a few days. - MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9Nice straw man. Torture has been proven to be ineffective.
Wrong is wrong, plain and simple. - MadKennyP, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5I see. So we should only stand up for our moral values and uphold the Geneva Convention in cases where it's easy to do so. Maybe that should apply to all our morals and laws.
- Elbryan233, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2The lesser of two evils is still evil. Aren't we fighting evildoers? What makes us better than terrorists if we torture people and kill civilians just like our "enemies"?
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Agreed,NeoConservatives are the real evil
- Phrag, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Since we don't yet have the ability to see the future, how can you justify doing something wrong today with something good that may come of it tomorrow? Should we torture everyone so that some day we can say, "Well, torturing ninety nine innocent people sure was wrong, but that one that we tortured who told us something that saved the lives of one hundred and one people makes it all ok since it is the lesson of two evils."? The huge problem with the lesser of two evils idea is that it assumes there are only two options. In your case, you assume that the options are torture and stop innocents from dying or not torture and let innocent people die. This is not true at all, especially for the US. We (supposedly) have the most wealth and technology in the world. We have spy satellites and UAV's. We have a large military with weapons that are the best in the world. Do you really think that, with all their resources and wealth, the US could not protect their country without resorting to torture? I find that completely absurd. If we stopped focusing on being an imperial, global power and focused on actually securing the US, the idea that torture is necessary would be laughable.
- rayraym0fucka, on 12/14/2007, -8/+2Torture is wrong, and immoral - but yes I agree it should be allowed in the event it could save thousands of lives.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -13/+1Torture is not wrong if it saves the lives of enough people.
- bahamutxd, on 12/14/2007, -2/+20You forget that we are a country. We are not a band of militants. We should be above torture.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+7That only makes you just as bad as they are. It's as simple as that.
- Delphium226, on 12/14/2007, -3/+4Yet still you voted for Bush, the man incapable of capturing the leader of Al-Qaeda. What the ***** is wrong with you?
- bolognium, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Exactly - just like back in the days of witches.. we should be able to dunk people until they're close to being dead and hey, if they don't admit to being a terrorist or give any information, let god sort em out..
the problem is that people who aren't meatheads realize that torture is ineffective - they'll be more willing to admit whatever you want them to admit if you torture them.. the information is not reliable.
- Terr01, on 12/14/2007, -2/+33Problem being that virtually all of these people are only suspects. Something like one single person Guantanamo was captured in battle, most of the rest were turned over by bounty hunters when we made the bounty high enough to feed whole villages for a year.
- egbert, on 12/14/2007, -8/+85Repost of comment from the website:
So here we are, a nation of laws, and we have on mass media a former military person making statements, the results of which contribute to the normalization of torture.
Torture is an international crime. Torture violates our international treaties. People who do this are indicted as war criminals. After WWII military brass were EXECUTED for ordering that their adversaries be tortured.
But now, there's a myth afoot that "terrorists" are a special breed of stubborn people who won't succumb to ordinary interrogation methods, who won't succumb to normal prosecutorial tools. Why? Because the US is now the top dog of the New World Order. The US can frame the 911 false flag operation as the gateway to being so god-damned special, it doesn't have to honor basic human dignity and respect.
When there's no check on the behavior of the powerful, the powerful lose their grip on respectability, and only fear and hatred define the character of our country.
All of us ought to be ashamed and outraged. We are paying taxes for this mutilation and murder. We have no determination whether the people whom our government tortures are, indeed, guilty of anything. NO EVIDENCE. We have proof that many of the people whom we've tortured are innocent of any crime. Yet our money pays for this cruelty and inhumanity.
Where's the political opposition? Where, indeed. Pelosi and Reid couldn't be better "whine and roll-over" opposition party leaders if they were picked by the neo-cons themselves. And we're stuck with these gutless wonders for yet another year.
On You Tube, there's an Australian documentary film called, "Fool Me Twice". It's an examination of several so-called "terrorist attacks" in the past several years. I urge all of you to watch this film if you want to gain a new perspective on how many terrorist attacks are planned, and by whom.
And then, or course, there's Naomi Klein's bombshell, "The Shock Doctrine." Must reading.- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -31/+9You reference to 911 being a false flag operation takes any credibility you may have had away IMO, but to anyone else that's reading -
When faced with the fact that 1000's of innocent civilians or more could be killed in a successful terrorist attack I think it would be morally wrong to not use the most effective way to prevent that from happening. If that means that our agents in the field have to take someone down by force then that's what they need to do. If they can get information out of someone in captivity then that's what they must do. The less brutal they can be while still accomplishing their goal the better, but it needs to be effective. Personally I really don't care if they can accomplish interrogations through a good cop bad cop technique or if they can hook electrodes up to the guys head and extract the info directly. It just needs to be effective. If someone comes up with a nicer way to interrogate a high level Al Qaeda member that works better than waterboarding I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that.- maxtangent, on 12/14/2007, -6/+25Nice Straw Man. Torture does NOT work. At what point can you be certain the victim isn't saying ANYTHING to get it to stop?
You clearly know little about effective interrogation techniques, because a good interrogator has no need for torture - because it DOESN'T WORK.- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -8/+2Well I don't necessarily lump the way we implemented waterboarding in with what I consider to be the torturing of prisoners of war and I don't think there needs to be a study to prove its effectiveness. It's effective, very obviously effective. Not perfect no, nothing is. If they were trying to get a confession I'd say your right. Anyone might admit guilt if that's what it takes to make the treatment stop. It was not used for confessions (as far as I understand).
- maxtangent, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3You clearly don't think my question needs to be answered either. How do you know the VICTIM isn't just telling you what you want to hear and at what point do you decide he knows nothing (if he is innocent)?
How many innocent people is it alright, in your book, to torture in order to find one guilty person?
Whether you think there needs to be a study done or not, I want to see the effectiveness proven versus standard interrogation techniques.
And why is today's use not comparable to torturing prisoners of war? Are they not prisoners of the ridiculously named 'war on terror'?
- maxtangent, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3You clearly don't think my question needs to be answered either. How do you know the VICTIM isn't just telling you what you want to hear and at what point do you decide he knows nothing (if he is innocent)?
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -8/+2Well I don't necessarily lump the way we implemented waterboarding in with what I consider to be the torturing of prisoners of war and I don't think there needs to be a study to prove its effectiveness. It's effective, very obviously effective. Not perfect no, nothing is. If they were trying to get a confession I'd say your right. Anyone might admit guilt if that's what it takes to make the treatment stop. It was not used for confessions (as far as I understand).
- mikelieman, on 12/14/2007, -4/+25"When faced with the fact that 1000's of innocent civilians or more could be killed in a successful terrorist attack I think it would be morally wrong to not use the most effective way to prevent that from happening."
So, you're saying "The Ends Justify The Means". Which is a fine example of Moral Relativity.
Of course, the question becomes, "Who is the judge of what is 'Good'"? *YOU*? *Congress*?
What should we, then have done do to prevent the deaths of a million innocent Iraqi civilians, dead since the Invasion began?
What would you say to the Iraqi who uses your own argument against you for their own justification of guerrilla war?- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -13/+1Moral relativity is a good thing, the world is not black and white.
- kingkilr, on 12/14/2007, -3/+7Do you know what moral relativism is? It means if I think it is right it is ok, so if I think murder is cool, thats my decision and I can proceed at my own discretion.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -2/+4That's not moral relativism.
Moral relativism is the opposite of moral absolutism.
Moral absolutism: killing is wrong.
Moral relativism: killing is wrong, but justified in self-defense.
What you described is the absence of morality.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -13/+1Moral relativity is a good thing, the world is not black and white.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Do you realize how many things that we do every day, pose a much greater threat to us than a terrorist attack? Start with driving to work every day.
- Speed, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2"I think it would be morally wrong to not use the most effective way to prevent that from happening"
I agree 100%. However, torture is not the most effective way to prevent it from happening.
- maxtangent, on 12/14/2007, -6/+25Nice Straw Man. Torture does NOT work. At what point can you be certain the victim isn't saying ANYTHING to get it to stop?
- Xill, on 12/14/2007, -3/+14That is one of the best comment I've ever had the chance to read on Digg. I wished everyone would wake up and start researching, reading. People are brainwashed everywhere, they lost their sense of morality.
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8Good, except for the bit about 9/11 being a false flag op. Even if you believe it was, you must admit the reasoning is still sound if some crazy Arabs did it. It doesn't need to be prompted by a vast Zionist conspiracy for the resultant torture to be wrong.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14"Torture is an international crime."
And war is ok? I think this entire issue is besides the point. It's basically saying: "killing people (including hundreds of thousands of civilians) for political goals is OK as long as you don't inflict pain on prisonners of war".
Torture is bad but war is worse. So it changes nothing. With or without torture, America still killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, displaced millions, injured millions, destroyed a country for MADE UP REASONS.
And to say that torture prevents terrorism is just plain stupid. Torture and war are why there is terrorism. 911 would not have happened if you didn't have military bases in Afghanistan and if you had just left them alone. Leave them the ***** alone and you solved all your problems. Torture, threaten and kill and you'll get more attacks.- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6Military bases in Saudi Arabia was one of the major factors. Having infidel troops in the 'sacred' Moslem holy lands was the pisser for the fundie jihadis, not having bases in Afghanistan.
- Sell, on 12/14/2007, -3/+2Apparently none of you retards have heard of the Geneva Convention. You must to have declared ties to an established and recognized government before you are protected by the "treaties" you refer to. WWII = Multiple recognized countries
Now = US warring with outlaws- sibhod, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4So since we removed Iraq's government, we don't have to treat them as humans?
The Geneva Convention protects human beings. If you're trying to delve into semantics to support inhumane treatment of fellow humans, you are disgusting and terrible.
- sibhod, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4So since we removed Iraq's government, we don't have to treat them as humans?
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3What crime did Iraq commit?
- Danfischer81, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Great Comment - Thank You.
I want to second that "The Shock Doctrine" is required reading by all of us. If nothing else, we must be ready when they come to take advantage of us.
- blackhawk919, on 12/14/2007, -31/+9You reference to 911 being a false flag operation takes any credibility you may have had away IMO, but to anyone else that's reading -
- GA16Lucino, on 12/14/2007, -6/+62"good men have to know how to do bad things to do good."
Flawless logic.
We need to torture people to keep people from torturing us!
wtf?!?!- an0nymous, on 12/14/2007, -4/+18Character Name: Col David Hunt
Alignment: Chaotic Lawful
Quirks: Gaping *****, amorality, inability to understand golden rule- Ozymandias42, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Chaotic lawful isn't an alignment. Chaotic and lawful are on opposite ends of the same axis. He's probably lawful evil, like the bureaucrats of hell.
- RadicalEdward, on 12/14/2007, -2/+11Torturing for peace is like ***** for virginity
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -4/+3Dude, I totally banged this chic till she was a virgin again, which was like totally rad, because when we did it again it was like... you know bangin a virgin.
- impei, on 12/14/2007, -2/+10Once you understand that 'we' are the good guys and therefore everything we do is 'good' it is much easier to understand.
- yoyar, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10Such statements are truly Orwellian.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Once good men do bad things they are no longer good.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2And he doesn't even understand how rediculous his statement is.
- an0nymous, on 12/14/2007, -4/+18Character Name: Col David Hunt
- RobsaysHello, on 12/14/2007, -6/+11Please tell me his middle initial is K.
- wonderchemist, on 12/14/2007, -6/+31No, we should. Some things are worth dying for, and I think the fundamental rights outlined in the 8th Amendment is one of them. Saying we shouldn't be above torture is the same as saying we shouldn't be above suspending the US Constitution if it keeps someone from getting killed.
- Waiting2awake, on 12/14/2007, -1/+20Shhh, they aren't up to that step yet. You are giving away the plot.
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+16It is a fantastic comparison, and you can already hear people laying the grounds for this sort of reasoning with the tried and true line "The constitution isn't a suicide pact!" The fact is, that it is. People fought and died for the ideals of this nation, not just the plan of government, but the rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments. The United States of America is (or was) an ideal, and if we forfeit those ideals on the grounds of defending this country and her people, then America is over and there is nothing worth defending. The great experiment has failed.
- kingkilr, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7***** 'em, the constitution isn't negotiable either.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8Well said. Previous generations were not afraid to sacrifice lives for the freedoms we enjoy today. We must not be afraid to make those same sacrifices for future generations. At what cost do we save a few lives now vs. preserving the future of freedom in this country, and the future of the ideals that our country was founded upon? Unfortunately, those who now hold power are all too willing to throw out freedom in exchange for supposedly saving a few lives today. It goes to show why these men are nothing more than hollow shadows of the great men who founded our nation, and I thank god every day that none of these turkeys were around in 1776 and 1787.
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1The turkey is a noble bird....
http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/turkey.html
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1The turkey is a noble bird....
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Excellent comment. Why is it that so few understand this?
- Delphium226, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8The Constitution is the point. It's what makes/made the US great. There is no other point.
- Glugory, on 12/14/2007, -6/+50Who the ***** is that stupid blond bimbo!? "It (waterboarding) works! What more is there to discuss?" she says. How about we discuss my foot up your ass you stupid *****! ***** amazing propaganda.
- chris9902, on 12/14/2007, -2/+39lets waterboard that bitch and see if she can tell us where Osama is.
What you don't no? ***** you. more. still don't know? you're lying. more.- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+11BAD NEWS: yeah... we waterboarded her and she didn't know where Osama is...
GOOD NEWS: But, we did find out she was a witch!- ocellnuri, on 12/14/2007, -1/+13She's a duck!
- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7she turned me into a newt
- mbelrose, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6...I got better.
- mbelrose, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6...I got better.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+11BAD NEWS: yeah... we waterboarded her and she didn't know where Osama is...
- ohplease, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3Rape gets me laid, what more is there to discuss?
- chris9902, on 12/14/2007, -2/+39lets waterboard that bitch and see if she can tell us where Osama is.
- PSWTyrant, on 12/14/2007, -6/+15If this is acceptable to the majority of Americans I think will be looking to immigrate soon. Torture is patently un-American.
- Waiting2awake, on 12/14/2007, -3/+13Unfortunately so is America itself seemingly these days.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9No it isn't. Let's not overstate this. America is currently run by a dominant MINORITY of physical and moral cowards. They talk loud and say nothing. They have taken over and been promoted far, far above their ability, and it shows. But the majority of Americans are still good people who don't really want to torture or kill anyone, nor wage war to force other countries to embrace their system of government, etc. It is just that these people have been denied the truth, and don't know what is really happening, what their illegitimate government is doing in their name. The American people are still, for the most part, good. They just have to kick out all the *****.
- GhengisKhan, on 12/14/2007, -2/+8emigrate not immigrate.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -9/+3Please do, I wish you pussies would leave.
- cndc, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8... and you would be left in a cesspool of religious bigots, neoconservative hawks and a failing economy. Say goodbye to the academics, the creative class and the majority of your tax revenue. Good luck.
- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7"Pussy" is only an insult to people who think vaginas are disgusting.
- technoredneck, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Come now, I'm gay and wouldn't resort to such third-gradery.
- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Not sure what your being gay has to do with this. In any event, I'm not sure exactly what's so "third-grade" about the comment. I'm simply pointing out to tychoides that the insult "pussy" isn't going to have much of an effect on the anti-torture crowd, since the vast majority of them don't share tychoides' loathing of the human vagina.
- technoredneck, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Come now, I'm gay and wouldn't resort to such third-gradery.
- Delphium226, on 12/14/2007, -2/+7I wish you Bush ***** would put your ass where your mouth is and sign up for a tour.
- Zippo, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4It's people like you that are destroying the US.
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1And i think you bushies should be sent to gitmo,See how waterboaring works yourselves seeing as it 'Isnt torture',right?
- fack0, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1Bye :D
- NotAChickenHawk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3Yeah, all those cries of "If you don't like America, then leave!" sound a lot more like "If you do like America, and believe in the Constitution, then leave!".
- Waiting2awake, on 12/14/2007, -3/+13Unfortunately so is America itself seemingly these days.
- antoniuk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+17My right to bear arms and free speech should give me the right to say I want to shoot you in the stomach to watch you slowly bleed to death. But want and act are two different things so my frustrations at feeling inadequate to change the horrendous apathy of this country are placated by being an anonymous arrogant prick on digg.
Good day sir- machinesbreathe, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Hey, at least there IS a forum like this where one can vent and exchange polemic amongst a radiant spectrum of perceptions and ideals.
- ohplease, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0actually you dont have the right to say you want to shoot me in the stomach and watch me slowly bleed to death. That's called a death threat and believe it or not are illegal. I can't imagine why.
- DiggasWAttitude, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12Merry Christmas!
- brownr21, on 12/14/2007, -8/+1X-mas.
- WaltDismal, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4X-mas? Santa is a mutant? It all makes perfect sense. No wonder he can speed around the world in one night, slide down and up chimneys. He's Magneto hiding behind a beard.
- Elwood19k20, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5There isn't anything wrong with saying Christmas, just don't print it on my food or money as some other (imo) inappropriate things have been and still are today. I am Athiest, but I still celebrate this time of year. I put up a tree, hang lights, buy gifts, call friends and familty, etc. I even call it Christmas, I just celebrate it for slightly different reasons.
Now if someone were trying to force a tree up my rear and make me sing oh holy night, then I might get upset, but for now I still enjoy this holiday..... the best things in life are those that come naturally and are not forced upon you. If only everyone understood that simple concept. - chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2And a happy Kwanza to you too, sweetie.
- brownr21, on 12/14/2007, -8/+1X-mas.
- omnithought, on 12/14/2007, -5/+24Sorry, but I'm not dumb enough to take advice from a constipated-looking, Sam the Eagle wannabe Faux News *****.
- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Do *NOT* sully the good name of the Muppets by comparing one of them to somebody on Fox News!
- tybris, on 12/14/2007, -2/+37It always surprises me how evil evil people look. The world's like one big comic book.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8I agree. I think the nastiness and negativity inside of them, over the years, alters their appearance on the outside to reflect the gnarled, ugly nature of their souls. Just imagine how ***** ugly some of the right wing trolls on digg must be. :|
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7The power of the Dark Side is a corrupting one....
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2yeah... now he just needs a voice like Cobra Commander
- FutureCowboys, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2The bigger problem is when they look so nice and normal and above reproach.
- alistorian, on 12/14/2007, -2/+16'..and we definitely shouldn't be above over throwing corrupt governments.' Oh wait I mean ENEMY governments.
- nastronomical, on 12/14/2007, -29/+6Whoa the Digg cowards are out early today. hey guys...leave defending America and making hard choices up to men, you go play with your PS3 and be keyboard warriors ok!
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12"You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." -- George W Bush
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Could you provide a citation for that? I would love to know when and where he said it, because it just sounds so much like him.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3I don't know... sounds a little too clever if you ask me... plus it's hard to tell if there are enough "ums" and "uhhs" and long uncomfortable pauses.
- andycr512, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Perhaps he memorized it as a modification to what happened here... http://youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2nice icon
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Google it. He said it during a speech he gave at a Gridiron club dinner in Washington in 2001.
Naturally it was one of his hilarious little "quips" in the same vein as "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator", but there's a lot of truth in jest.
- insllvn, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Could you provide a citation for that? I would love to know when and where he said it, because it just sounds so much like him.
- Acewrap, on 12/14/2007, -4/+18Hey, Nastro, quit jerking off to your mom's undies and get your ass down to the recruiting station. They're looking for you.
- GhengisKhan, on 12/14/2007, -18/+2Well said nastronomical. dugg.
- technoredneck, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8Why are you sitting here at your keyboard agreeing with him, rather than signing up?
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -3/+14When are you signing up, coward?
- chubbybubba, on 12/14/2007, -17/+2@ nastronomical You said it right. These Digg crybaby wankers whine while our soldiers and innocents are getting their heads sawed off. It all stems from their blatant racist arrogance that somehow they should be a shining example of human purity. Digg cowards, stfu.
- mengland, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6This is Amurica!
And if ya don't like it, ya can git out! - GamerzCorner, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9@nastronomical
So I'm a coward because I think for myself. take every point into consideration. and come up with a rational educated opinion. And you are a model of courage, because you are to afraid to even think for yourself.
...I could be wrong but I believe it is you who is the coward. - MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9hey nastronomical - leave reading, thinking and the interwebs to smart people; go back to chuggin' down a six pack before noon and beating your wife... and maybe later you can monkey around with that pickup on cinder blocks outside your trailer.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4I can just hear it "once the people see someone getting their head cut off, we can get them to do whatever we say". Oh yeah, screw the Constitution, someone was beheaded.....
This is no different than the way Islamist Fundamentalists get their people to hate Americans. - bolognium, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1nah, we'd rather use techniques that work.. not leave it to slimeball meatheads who think only in "fight or flight"...
try evolving.. but then again - you are probably the type that doesn't believe in evolution
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12"You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." -- George W Bush
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -4/+19My guess is that Colonel David Hunt is motivated largely by an overwhelming feeling of genital inadequacy.
I've considered his ideas and opinions... Perhaps he'll listen to mine when I tell him to shut up and ***** off.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -4/+4He was tortured for a year. Real torture, not waterboarding. So was McCain (2 years).
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+10Then he should know better.
His argument has the same moral value as someone arguing that they committed a mugging because they were mugged themselves a few years back and they really needed the cash.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -8/+2No. His argument would be that mugging people works because he got mugged and lost his wallet.
His argument has nothing to do with morality. And in a context of war, I think that's correct. War can't be moral. It just can't.- andycr512, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4If war isn't moral, why aren't we just dropping nukes on Iraq and Iran and calling it done? Ah, because we have moral standards and believe that that much innocent killing is... You guessed it... Immoral.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Well the official answer: because you need to restore peace in Iraq before leaving and because this war was somehow justified (just pick one of many excuses they talked about for invading Iraq from WMD to freedom).
My answer: to allow the spread of fundamentalist islam and promote the return of the second coming of christ. I do not believe in God and I am not religious, this is what "they" believe.
Many of America's leaders, including many Christian leaders, are Zionists. Zionism includes the belief that jews should return to Israel and have their own state (this is a CHRISTIAN belief that was made popular among jews after the second world war).
But the point of this is not to allow an oppressed people the power to govern itself. It's to fulfill biblical prophecies.
The first step was Afghanistan. This will explain why (indirectly of course):
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/jews.ht ...
The next step was Iraq:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-s ...
And now, they are after Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
This is a very good paper on Zionism:
http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/czdefine1.html
The point of all of this: Armageddon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
Messed up, huh?
- GamerzCorner, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6Then even still his argument is flawed...
because torture doesn't work! if you kidnapped me from my home, put me in a cell in Guantanamo, and tortured me on a daily basis I would tell you anything you WANTED to hear...
And this is not a theory or even argument. this is a fact and there research to prove it.
And as a side note mugging people only "works" if you don't get caught...if you do...you pay the consequences...think about it - robberry, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6"His argument has the same moral value as someone arguing that they committed a mugging because they were mugged themselves"
Or a child molestor who excuses his behavior by pointing out that he himself was molested as a child. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -3/+4Getting caught or not, you still got the wallet.
And torture works. It's not about getting information. It's about control. This is where they lie. They justify it by saying it helps to get information that could potentially save lives. But it has little to do with getting information.
We're talking about the most advanced interrogators in the world. They have everything at their disposal including enduced hypnosis, drugs, sedatives, etc. If they want specific information, they will get it in less than an hour.
The real point of torture is to break the person. Not to get information right away. You break the subject until he starts to experience something that is in between the Stockholm syndrome and accute depression. The subject no longer understand what is true and what is not, what he is fighting for, where he is, etc.
Then you can use this subject any which way you want. He'll tell you everything about anything deliberately. He no longer belongs to any group, he's just a broken mind.- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4"he's just a broken mind."
And you are just a criminal. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2What's the difference between a criminal who kills and tortures people and a criminal who just kills people?
Either way, he's going to hell.
- chicofaraby, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4"he's just a broken mind."
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -8/+2No. His argument would be that mugging people works because he got mugged and lost his wallet.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8It appears he suffered permanent psychological damage, then. That would explain his irrational argument.
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+10Then he should know better.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -4/+4He was tortured for a year. Real torture, not waterboarding. So was McCain (2 years).
- jawdog, on 12/14/2007, -6/+11...according to Fox News military analyst Max Headroom
- machinesbreathe, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2He certainly looks stiff enough. Must've sat on a Kumquat without bothering to look.
- fuckinhell, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Don't insult Max that way. Max was cool.
- nexmachina, on 12/14/2007, -8/+3Americans aren't above torture, but when you do it in ex-soviet republics, no americans there huh...
- slois50, on 12/14/2007, -4/+7They do it, so we should do it. Or some other lame excuse.
- Th3Hamburgler, on 12/14/2007, -2/+19Someones been watching too much 24.
Hey if it works for Jack Bauer its gotta work in the real world right?- JimmyIkon, on 12/14/2007, -9/+1Watch the news lately? It worked on abu zubaydah, as admitted by a ex cia agent, who's a dem to boot.
- BEloftyIRONS, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3I do watch the news. It did work in that situation and saved lives. But it doesn't make it right. Taking away our rights would make it easier for the government to catch terrorist. That isn't right. Is it? It is always harder to take the high road. Would I torture someone to save my family or friends? Yeah I would. But that wouldn't make me right. I should suffer the consequences for my actions. It should never be legal to torture anyone.
- JimmyIkon, on 12/14/2007, -9/+1Watch the news lately? It worked on abu zubaydah, as admitted by a ex cia agent, who's a dem to boot.
- ejpusa, on 12/14/2007, -3/+11I think when we start torturing the kids, wow, that's going to be so cool! Wonder how Fox will explain that one? (O' wait, I think we already have?). Water boarding a 7 year old, hey what the heck? WHY NOT Colonel Hunt? If we can get info to save lives, does it really matter?
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4If we start torturing people at FOX will they finally admit just how full of ***** they are? I mean, since they are not above torture I would assume they would be okay with that.
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0Nope,Not even then.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4If we start torturing people at FOX will they finally admit just how full of ***** they are? I mean, since they are not above torture I would assume they would be okay with that.
- DeFex, on 12/14/2007, -5/+10C
ol. David H
unt. - johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -21/+4So what all you people are saying is you would rather take the enemy and put them in a cushy prison with cable and good food and pay millions of dollars keeping them alive and giving them a better life then many Americans have while we could be getting useful information out of them one way or another? Wait, we do that with our own criminals who do not deserve the breath they breathe never mind cable tv , why not do it with everyone else's as well.
- mtjohnson, on 12/14/2007, -4/+13Please don't breed.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -7/+0Wow, because I don't agree with your liberal form of thinking you attack me personally. That is why I hate people (left or right) who are unwilling to have a rational debate about a topic. Instead I should just believe everything anyone on my side say and if someone disagrees with me I will not have an actual argument to come back with, I will just tell them not to breed. This just shows your vast lack of intelligence, education, logic, or interpersonal skills. This is what is wrong with this country today, people who will not think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
- Elbryan233, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2No, you're getting attacked personally because you're a moron. The kind of ignorant crap bubbling out of your brain and onto the internet isn't worth giving consideration to, let alone crafting a well thought out, debate-worthy response to. You aren't smart, you aren't clever, and you certainly aren't relevant. Please die in a fire.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -2/+0But yet, here you are responding to me. I guess we see how far up the evolution ladder you have climbed then if what is bubbling out of my brain and onto the internet isn't worth giving consideration to and here you are doing just that. And yet again attacking the person you don't agree with. How does that even make you remotely sound intelligent if you can't speak facts but instead just spew filth.
- Elbryan233, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2No, you're getting attacked personally because you're a moron. The kind of ignorant crap bubbling out of your brain and onto the internet isn't worth giving consideration to, let alone crafting a well thought out, debate-worthy response to. You aren't smart, you aren't clever, and you certainly aren't relevant. Please die in a fire.
- bolognium, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3unfortunately, all it takes is a rocking of the hips.. that's why there's so many dumb ***** like this guy out there.
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1http://www.republicansshouldntbreed.com/index.html
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -1/+0Not republican.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -7/+0Wow, because I don't agree with your liberal form of thinking you attack me personally. That is why I hate people (left or right) who are unwilling to have a rational debate about a topic. Instead I should just believe everything anyone on my side say and if someone disagrees with me I will not have an actual argument to come back with, I will just tell them not to breed. This just shows your vast lack of intelligence, education, logic, or interpersonal skills. This is what is wrong with this country today, people who will not think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
- ussoldier, on 12/14/2007, -3/+12There's nothing cushy at all about prison. Try it sometimes. You'll quickly change your mind, and start clawing at the walls. The food... is puke... and the cable... you watch one channel on one tv with 50 creepy people with your neck craned at a 45 degree angle upward... its about as worth watching as a TV in the corner of a ceiling in a bus station. Great if you love Fox News or Wrestling.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -7/+0I'm sorry I was not talking about the high security prisons. I am talking about the ones where our nice white collar criminals go because of their nice connections for a vacation instead of being punished like they should be.
- Coven, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Even they don't have a TV in their cells. It all takes place in a community room with dozens of other inmates who are bigger than you and therefore get to pick whether you watch Montel or Springer for that 1 hour of TV viewing a day you get.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -7/+0I'm sorry I was not talking about the high security prisons. I am talking about the ones where our nice white collar criminals go because of their nice connections for a vacation instead of being punished like they should be.
- drunkninja, on 12/14/2007, -2/+10We're not saying that at all. There's a difference between punishment and torture.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -4/+0Some would like to lead you to believe that living without cable t.v. or a private shower is torture and isn't right for a person
- Urusai, on 12/14/2007, -2/+10The real, practical problem, disregarding all issues of law and individual rights, is how to define "the enemy". In the not too distant future, the definition will likely include anyone who refuses to knuckle under to the incipient American police state. Back in the day, they used to call those people "revolutionaries"; you know, the kind of folks who fought the British and wrote the Constitution. Too bad the British didn't torture more colonials, maybe we would all be Canadians today.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1I agree with you there. There is a lot that the American Government does that I do not agree with. The problem is no one today stands up to it, which is why they get away with doing whatever they want. It is not a government of the people anymore because so many people are complacent and ignore what is going on.
- fack0, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2Because you're all too busy complaining about it online and not taking action. Bury me down but I have said what I wanted to say.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -2/+0lol. You have a very good point. That is what I am saying. No one cares enough to do anything; me, you, or the next guy. We would rather bitch about it then do anything useful. Our forefathers didn't just sit around and bitch. They actually did something. That is why I hate the fact that not enough people vote. They are way too busy to waste their time trying to do something and make a change.
- fack0, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2Because you're all too busy complaining about it online and not taking action. Bury me down but I have said what I wanted to say.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1I agree with you there. There is a lot that the American Government does that I do not agree with. The problem is no one today stands up to it, which is why they get away with doing whatever they want. It is not a government of the people anymore because so many people are complacent and ignore what is going on.
- Smiths, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8Yea, that's it. Lets give them private planes, too. Maybe cells on the beach in Tahiti. Lobster for dinner every night... That's exactly what I want.
Think harder next time. - Wartyboskfapped, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7No, I think people are saying they would rather use interrogation methods that actually produce real results, instead of immoral, illegal methods that do not. Torture doesn't work as anything but a sadistic form of punishment.
- Coven, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8No. We want it first PROVEN in a COURT OF LAW that they are truly "the enemy" and not some poor schmuck that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -5/+0I will cede to your point. I agree with you that there are probably individuals in custody who should not be there. The problem with our current system is that if that were to happen in a court of law it would take so long to actually go through a trial that it wouldn't be worth it. No I am not saying lets not go to court then, I am just saying something needs to change to make things go quicker. Our systems suck, because they protect the wrong people....the people who are really the criminals.
- Coven, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5No. Our system is designed to protect the innocent (Innocent until proven guilty)
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -1/+0Yeah it would just be good if it actually worked the way it was designed to.
- Coven, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5No. Our system is designed to protect the innocent (Innocent until proven guilty)
- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -5/+0I will cede to your point. I agree with you that there are probably individuals in custody who should not be there. The problem with our current system is that if that were to happen in a court of law it would take so long to actually go through a trial that it wouldn't be worth it. No I am not saying lets not go to court then, I am just saying something needs to change to make things go quicker. Our systems suck, because they protect the wrong people....the people who are really the criminals.
- MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6Yes... by saying "Torture is Wrong" what we are saying is that we want them to live in a wonderful cushy prison with cake and gumdrops for breakfast, steak dinners every night, access to a Porsche to drive to the mall to spend their $50K a week allowance... and the chance to be the next American Idol.
get ***** moron- johnso68, on 12/14/2007, -2/+0This just proves what is wrong with society today. You can't have a logical discussion so you instead decide to resort to profanity and name calling. If maybe there was a little harsher punishment on you as a kid you would learn respect and how to treat people with it.
- maxtangent, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4"while we could be getting useful information out of them one way or another?:
You seem to be saying torture is the only alternative to getting 'useful information'.
Nice Straw Man. - jbird71, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1I had sex with your wife.
- mtjohnson, on 12/14/2007, -4/+13Please don't breed.
- chaos7, on 12/14/2007, -5/+1Brian Kilmeade is annoying
- itchie, on 12/14/2007, -15/+6We should just kill our enemies with kindness, surely they will tell us everything we need to know.
- brownr21, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1Surely people get mad at people that have done nothing wrong. Oh wait, no.
- ZomZom, on 12/14/2007, -10/+7How many people need to die so that fools can have a clear conscience?
- mtjohnson, on 12/14/2007, -6/+8Not sure, let's start with you and see how we feel after that.
- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -2/+6How many people have already died because of fools with no conscience at all?
- Azurensis, on 12/14/2007, -3/+7A country that practices torture doesn't deserve to exist.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -5/+1Then eliminate Vietnam, Russia, and countless others for starters. Get real.
- Azurensis, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Ok. I'll get right on that.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -5/+1Then eliminate Vietnam, Russia, and countless others for starters. Get real.
- Kizilbash, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5You're the fool if you think torture saves lives.
- ussoldier, on 12/14/2007, -2/+24This is already outlawed. Someone needs to be prosecuting someone.
§ 2340A. Torture
a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.- cmulle2, on 12/14/2007, -6/+0Do you think that the U.S. is the only country utiulizing waterboarding to combat the War on Terror???
- hawkspur, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Just because someone else is doing it doesn't make it right.
- blindhammer, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1No, because other countries do not have a "War on Terror."
It's like having a War on Flankers or a War on Blitzers.
- tempest69, on 12/14/2007, -1/+0Thats why a politically astute person in gitmo would outsource this sort of thing. So It's not a national, and not present in the US.
- cmulle2, on 12/14/2007, -6/+0Do you think that the U.S. is the only country utiulizing waterboarding to combat the War on Terror???
- FlaviusAetius, on 12/14/2007, -4/+15Well, I'm with Bill on this. In fact, I am so much with Bill on this that I think the term "waterboarding" should be renamed "billoboarding" in honor of our greatest patriot, Bill O'Reilly.
O"Reilly is one of the worst personalities on tv and radio. - Socolco, on 12/14/2007, -4/+20The requirement should be to water-board people who believe it's not torture then ask for their ***** opinion.
- eddy23170, on 12/14/2007, -3/+10This is utterly unacceptable...I suggest the Col. brush up on the US Constitution aka 5th Amendment....This is precisely what they were guarding against......
- cw1925, on 12/14/2007, -4/+19I have a couple of Christian friends who believe that we should "absolutely torture those sons of bitches!" It's absolutely disgusting what this country has gone to, and how far this country still lags behind what its purpose is. 200 years, 200 ***** YEARS and it still hasn't got its politics straight yet.
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9Religion has always been a useful tool for rulers to control the weakminded.
In fact, that's all it is. - MammasMilk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+5It's also disgusting what your friends are doing to their religion... gosh just the same thing the terrorists do to their religion. So sad.
- FreeBadAdvice, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3I really hope the first thing out of your mouth after their statements was "So you absolutely condone torture purely out of hatred for a people you have never met? How Christ-like of you." Something I absolutely love doing to religious people is playing the "Better Christian" by calling them on their "un-Christ-like" behavior... when they know damn well I am an atheist. : )
- hawkspur, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3"I love your Christ but I do not love your Christians, for they are so unlike your Christ" - Ghandi
- Rippleeffect, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1And I've got non-Christian friends that believe the same thing. And I have Christian friends that believe torture is immoral. Your point sir? Also, I highly doubt your Christian friends are truely following Christ is they said "bitches", but I'm assuming that was your ad lib.
- THETEH, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0Couldn't agree more, it's nausiating. So many people who call themselves Christians have no idea what Christianity truly means.
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9Religion has always been a useful tool for rulers to control the weakminded.
- steppen79, on 12/14/2007, -3/+20I don't get it, he says its ok to torture these people because we are at war with them? Last time I checked we don't support torturing POWS, are you ***** kidding me? If we are at war with these people, how is it any different?
What the hell happened to my country?- Wenham, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Sorry dude, your country got eaten away one bit at a time. Just like mine is.
Soon both the US and the UK Govs will stop even trying to justify torture- you won't be able to talk about it as protesting means you are a terrorist now in both the UK and the US. Being a terrorist means that they will be able to torture you and your family, if they see fit, whenever they like. There is no such thing as a POW in this Fake war on Terror, hence no protection from any conventions of any kind. Good news a? I really hope the UFOs come and take me of this hateful wicked planet- I'll put a good word in for you if you like.- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1No one is as dangerous as people that have nothing left to lose. We are now those people.
- sw33tsarin, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Thanks for admitting both Governments are ***** and alot of our citizenry is being duped as opposed to the typical "AH figures those damn fat retarded Americans ***** everything up!"
- Wenham, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Sorry dude, your country got eaten away one bit at a time. Just like mine is.
- RadicalEdward, on 12/14/2007, -7/+4You look good.
col.: Drugs.. all drugs. - RyanCoke, on 12/14/2007, -5/+25Every human being should be above torture. End of story.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -10/+2My three year old used to make the same kind of argument about her bed time. It was kind of cute, she'd just stamp her feet fold her arms and say something like "one more hour" with a pouting look on her face. No rhyme, no reason, no complexity just the unshakable belief that the world revolved around her and her desires/values....sigh...
End of story.- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -3/+7You just used your three year old daughter to justify torture.
I genuinely pity your daughter, and I wish her the greatest of luck in one day finding a sane environment in which to grow.- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -3/+5"You just used your three year old daughter to justify torture."
Makes me wonder what else Narasil uses his three year old daughter for. It's clear Narasil doesn't have much of a conscience, so it's a legitimate concern.
- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -3/+5"You just used your three year old daughter to justify torture."
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1See there I though I used her to illustrate a point that in order to MAKE a valid point one had to do more than make an assertion and stamp your feet. You actually had to JUSTIFY yourself in some fashion. Sorry if you missed that NOT SO SUBTLE point.
- RyanCoke, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4I know that my "end of story" was fairly offputting; but I honestly thought that the concept of putting someone else in agony for some means was incorrect. And I feel quite strongly about it. To justify it? To justify not torturing someone? I really thought the onus was on the other side. So I guess my answer would be: hurting others is bad, we don't like it at all, so why inflict pain on someone else? And yes, I am positive I would get along fine with your 3 year old.
There are some things in this world, that I wish had no complexity. I really thought this was one of them.- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1Nice response, and you're right the onus IS on them to justify the torture (if such a thing can even be done).
And I wish this argument was simple, and easy, but it really isn't as easy as some people think it is.
Again thanks for the thoughtful reply.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -3/+1Nice response, and you're right the onus IS on them to justify the torture (if such a thing can even be done).
- RyanCoke, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4I know that my "end of story" was fairly offputting; but I honestly thought that the concept of putting someone else in agony for some means was incorrect. And I feel quite strongly about it. To justify it? To justify not torturing someone? I really thought the onus was on the other side. So I guess my answer would be: hurting others is bad, we don't like it at all, so why inflict pain on someone else? And yes, I am positive I would get along fine with your 3 year old.
- Groovemaster, on 12/14/2007, -3/+7You just used your three year old daughter to justify torture.
- floridiot2, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2I like how when I dugg you up, you had -1 diggs. Then it went to +6. There are some sick ***** out there.
- Narasil, on 12/14/2007, -10/+2My three year old used to make the same kind of argument about her bed time. It was kind of cute, she'd just stamp her feet fold her arms and say something like "one more hour" with a pouting look on her face. No rhyme, no reason, no complexity just the unshakable belief that the world revolved around her and her desires/values....sigh...
- joeanon, on 12/14/2007, -2/+20The problem isn't this simple. Sure, if the FREE WORLD depends on it, torture some soldier for info. We can all safely assume it's been done before, such as with the Nazi's and nobody is even interested in investigating that.
The problem is the US has a lot of enemies, not just terrorists. And though, they may not actively be our enemies, at any time that can change. Being a global power we also have a lot of soldiers all throughout the world.
By torturing suspected terrorists for what usually amounts to useless information we set a standard by which ANY country can interrogate.
If the US can do it, so can every other country in the world.
Considering we have a lot of secrets to keep, we are a larger target for out own 'advanced interrogation' techniques than the terrorist organization which we have mostly failed to get information from using these techniques.
Torture works, that's for sure, but do you want to torture a handful of mostly oblivious pawns in the terrorism game for low quality information KNOWING that those actions will result in US soldier also being tortured for information.
And then, when North Korea or Iran is found to have used 'advanced interrogation' against our troops, what can we really say or do about it knowing we are the ones that set the standard for modern torture.
Only a short sighted person could think the minor trade off of forced confessions is worth having our soldiers tortured under our own precedent.
The fact is, these methods are not working, they are not winning the war on terror and most terrorists are purposely not that well connected in order to prevent ANY means of interrogation from cracking their whole organization.
PLUS many of these groups are complete independent and move around constantly. The proof is right there in the years they've been doing this with very little to show and ABSOLUTELY no real progress against either the insurgency or terrorism.
We have endorsed torture... for nothing ! Now our soldier will be tortured and we are NO CLOSER to winning the supposed war on terror or Iraq. However, the damage is done and it's far too late to take back our endorsement of torture.
So America... professional athletes can't take steroids.... but we can torture terrorist SUSPECTS.
Where is the rational in morals like that ? We don't even prove they are terrorists first. They could just have been too close to the scene of the crime or have the wrong last name.
Of course, looking at the American prison system I guess we do believe in torture where we lock up weed smokers and put them in cells with serial rapists... as punishment.
Who wants to tell me getting ass raped for smoking a joint isn't cruel and unusual punishment ?- maxtangent, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Torture does NOT work. Any information gleaned is inherently unreliable because you don't know when you are being told what you want to hear.
- FutureCowboys, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Even if it did there are a few other problems such as it being wrong to begin with.
- maxtangent, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Torture does NOT work. Any information gleaned is inherently unreliable because you don't know when you are being told what you want to hear.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -23/+4So many douchebags on here to digg down, so many right people in the negatives to digg up. Tough job...
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -15/+3Please continue to digg down liberal pussies, I'd like to see how low it can go... never seen past -100 or so myself.
- Tenlow, on 12/14/2007, -1/+12So what makes me a liberal pussy? Because I think there are laws and the people we elected to enforce those laws should follow them as well? Our country was founded on some pretty cool principles. Without these laws that are now being trampled all over, you wouldn't even exist. Even if you did, you might not have the freedom to call someone a "liberal pussy" without fear of government retribution. Every time you advocate torture, you're advocating the governments right to imprison you for saying something they disagree with.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -6/+1I'm advocating the government to use torture to save the lives of our armed forces men and women and other innocent civilians. Is it a perfect method? No. Has it obtained information used to save lives? Yes.
Like I said above, the world is not black and white. The ends do justify the means, Machiavelli is right.- Tenlow, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2It's up to us to be responsible and not sink to what we perceive is their level. Leaving out all political views on the current situation, if we cannot conduct a war with dignity, we have no business outside of our own borders.
- Elbryan233, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3You might be advocating the government to use torture to save soldier's lives now, but what happens when the government decides it was "just a little bit more". It wants to torture criminals, then dissenters, then manufactured dissenters. The government doesn't willfully give up power, it just looks for a way to expand those powers. We have laws in place to protect us from the excesses of government. The moment we give up those laws, the government will rush in to fill the void. We as citizens have to be vigilant and far thinking in watching over those we designate to rule over us.
You schmuck.
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -6/+1I'm advocating the government to use torture to save the lives of our armed forces men and women and other innocent civilians. Is it a perfect method? No. Has it obtained information used to save lives? Yes.
- robberry, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5Is there a bug in Digg's software, or did you just reply to your own post?
- Delphium226, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4this ones got multiple-personality disorder. it's leader has pre-senile dementia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0vEJneflBw
- Delphium226, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4this ones got multiple-personality disorder. it's leader has pre-senile dementia.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Have you heard of Richard Nixon? You sound just like him. You would probably support him.
- Tenlow, on 12/14/2007, -1/+12So what makes me a liberal pussy? Because I think there are laws and the people we elected to enforce those laws should follow them as well? Our country was founded on some pretty cool principles. Without these laws that are now being trampled all over, you wouldn't even exist. Even if you did, you might not have the freedom to call someone a "liberal pussy" without fear of government retribution. Every time you advocate torture, you're advocating the governments right to imprison you for saying something they disagree with.
- bolognium, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2yeah...... fight the good fight man.. don't burn out that keyboard! make all who died for our liberties proud! I'm sure they'd sit on their ass and vote away just like you - a true American hero. man, they should make a statue of you, sitting there, sweating profusely as you vote like you've never voted before..
- tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -15/+3Please continue to digg down liberal pussies, I'd like to see how low it can go... never seen past -100 or so myself.
- fakingbush, on 12/14/2007, -9/+7Col. David Hunt,
remember this "shut you ***** face uncle *****......." - sizzzzlerz, on 12/14/2007, -4/+24Truly, the terrorists have won. Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans have succeeded in drawing us down to their level.
This is a sad, tragic state of affairs.<