What is Digg?320 Comments
- postingbh, on 11/14/2007, -10/+64Way to bring a completely unrelated and irrelevant topic like abortion into the discussion in a piss-poor attempt to label people as "liberal." Get over yourself.
- nightwing2000, on 11/14/2007, -6/+52This is the whole point of (alleged) protections like the US constitution... So you can torture if the guy is a "vicious killer". Why not if you think he might kill? What if he's commiting armed robbery and might kill? What if your definition of "kill" includes abortion? (a legitimate debate, still ongoing in the minds of the the anti-'s) Why stop there? What if he imports tons of drugs into the country, potentially killing hundreds? What if it's only a few pounds? What if he leaks state secrets to journalists, potentially putting the lives of many at risk? What if the leak comes from the VP's office....?
Either the law applies to everyone, or the chief executive, and then his minions, can make exceptions as he feels and the law has NO meaning. Where, who, and how the law applies to can only be decided by an open court in full public glare after long debate and deliberation - or else there might as well be no laws.
Keep in mind that the people claiming they were following the laws of the land (or "only following orders") were being prosecuted for crimes from 1940-45 right up until 2000 (Think John Demenjiuk and mistaken identity); Salvador Allende was being arrested a few years ago in Britain for crimes against Spanish citizens in Chile in the mid-70's, and only got off by faking demetia.
Anyone participating in torture actvity on behalf of the US government should think very carefully before travelling abroad for the rest of their life. - zomgwaffles, on 11/14/2007, -1/+37Legality has nothing to do with morals
- DreKor, on 11/14/2007, -3/+35False. If one has drowned, one has died. If one is drowning, one is dying. Should the drowning go on long enough, one will die and, thus, will have drowned. However, if the drowning is stopped and one does not die, then one was drowning but is no longer.
Arguing semantics over torture is a special kind of evil. - tucsonsun13, on 11/13/2007, -5/+33GITMO CAT IZ TAKIN DUNK BATH.
- dukeeeey, on 11/13/2007, -10/+32sounds like he has been programmed by fox news
- crackedlogic, on 11/13/2007, -2/+22whats your reporting name? What media company do you work for?
I ask so I can find out which prestigious news source you work for, and then avoid it. - rficwizard, on 11/13/2007, -1/+19It's silly to argue that waterboarding is not torture. The intent is to make the victim extremely uncomfortable so that they will do whatever it is that the captor wishes them to do. That is torture. How is this not obvious?
The argument that "these are bad people, so it is OK" ignores two important characteristics of the American idea:
1) People should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and
2) Cruel and unusual punishments should not be used.
So until the captives are found guilty, they should be considered innocent. After they are found guilty, they should still be protected from torture.
It sickens me that there is actually a debate about this in America. It's strange that those who most wish to appear to be American patriots so little understand what America is about. - toddwdraper, on 11/14/2007, -5/+23I have a proposition for anyone trying to claim waterboarding is not torture. Volunteer to have it administered to yourself.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -4/+19That is a red herring. Life is not an episode of "24" and the scenario you are talking about has not happened and is not likely to happen.
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/13/2007, -0/+14Logical Fallacy alert! Ones position on abortion cannot impact their argument on water-boarding. Also, there could be and are people against both. And, the scale of an action does not impact its ethics or legality. Killing one person,no matter how much you rightfully hate them, is still just as illegal as anyone else.
Also, I can respect breaking the law for mission critical exceptions. In fact, this is the actual reason that the pardon exists! People seem to forget that... - shykofsky, on 11/14/2007, -6/+19It feels really sad that we as human beings even consider this something to debate about. Clearly interrogating someone while they are bound and suffocated is evil and wrong. It is a sickness and a numbing of people that even allows us to 'discuss this in a civilized forum' such as Digg comments. The stopping of crimes against each other as humans can never progress by perpetuating further crimes. Whether this technique fits the precise description or torture is ludicrous. Clearly it causes immense suffering and we know that making someone suffer for their wrongs does not move us towards peace in any way whatsoever.
- DreKor, on 11/13/2007, -2/+15Given your ridiculous scenario, most people probably wouldn't "sit there and quietly ask him" anything. You're right, they would probably try to beat it out of him. And, thankfully, that would be illegal. What happens when the guy doesn't answer? What happens when he lies to you to make the pain stop? What happens when you spend the last few minutes before the attack chasing red herrings? What happens when he can't tell you because he doesn't know? The answer is, you go to trial for violating international, and hopefully federal, law.
- dagnabbit, on 11/13/2007, -3/+16The 'reply' button isn't so scary after all. You should try using it, if you can figure it out.
- cybermort, on 11/13/2007, -0/+12Legality should be founded on human rights, justice and equality. Morals change with times, religion and individuals.
- capiCrimm, on 11/13/2007, -2/+14The problem is water boarding sounds like something you might do on vacation. We should just call it simulated drowning if you want to get the point across.
- Smiths, on 11/13/2007, -5/+17So you've been to Iraq? Where about? Is that where you got your worms? Too many questions?
- ironhide, on 11/13/2007, -18/+29Don't you have a clinic to bomb?
- Bleue, on 11/13/2007, -0/+11So torture is okay as long as it's not too many people, and or we think they did some very bad things? Who's the sociopath now?
And not for nothing but babies are never aborted, fetuses are. The point of argument, among those familiar with the issue, is how big the difference between a fetus and a baby is and does a fetus have right. But no one on any end of the spectrum who has any sort of brain would ever content that a fetus and a baby are one and the same. - Bleue, on 11/12/2007, -0/+11It's called the slippery slope for a reason. There are times not too long ago where torture was considered an absolute wrong. That if we ever stooped to torture they had won, that the fact that they torture and we don't if what separated them from us, whosoever the them happened to be at the time. It had been happening in private for some time, never with official support. Now it has official and even limited public support.
Playing the tape through to the end, I'm not liking at all where this is headed. - crackedlogic, on 11/13/2007, -1/+12hey, he's WORKed in the media for 34 years...he's a pro.
- Exhibitionist, on 11/13/2007, -1/+12You lost me at Illegal = Immoral.
- postingbh, on 11/12/2007, -0/+10The first problem lies in using these largely improbable hypotheticals as the basis for justifying more widespread, routine torture. The follow-up is actually validating that information is true and that it gets into the hands of the right people. Remember, the gov't knew about people wanting to fly planes into buildings months before 9/11 and despite reaching the highest levels of the gov't, the info still didn't prevent anything.
But I personally don't think people are outraged by the actual procedure of waterboarding being used by the gov't against known terrorists. Rather, I think people are frustrated with the ridiculousness of not classifying waterboarding as torture. If the gov't said, "Waterboarding is classified as torture, but we use it on a very limited basis by highly trained agents following strict protocols," there wouldn't be much to argue about. Sure, some people would be upset. But it wouldn't have made Mukasey look like an idiot.
But the gov't is locked into the phrase, "We do not torture." So instead of just classifying waterboarding as torture and moving on, the gov't has to stand by the that phrase even if it means that simulated drownings do not count. - QuickeningYak, on 11/13/2007, -1/+10More accurately:
Waterboarding ⊊ Drowning
Drowning ∆ Torture ≠ ∅
Torture ⊊ Illegal
Illegal ∆ Immoral ≠ ∅ - Authustian, on 11/13/2007, -0/+9I was going to try responding with witty derision, but after reading your comment a few more times, I think my words may have been lost on you. But here's something: Think for yourself. Question authority. To think for yourself, you must question authority. If you refuse to question what you are told, then you are mindless and should go back to watching TV, the talking heads have some more opinions for you to emulate.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 11/13/2007, -2/+11"hippy douchebags" manage to have morals that aren't comparable to that of the terrorists. Get your head out of your ass and try and take a position that would make us BETTER than the terrorists, not swimming in the same moral relativism.
- RabidAngel, on 11/13/2007, -1/+9Ah, America... where we are such "leaders" of the world that all we can do is revert to the same tactics that the "bad guys" use, like children in a schoolyard.
- Pointman323, on 11/13/2007, -1/+9illegal != immoral
- drizzlelicious, on 11/13/2007, -4/+12Correction: Waterboarding = Drowning = Torture = Immoral = Illegal
- ncc74656m, on 11/14/2007, -3/+11So perhaps we should've thrown Germans into the gas chambers, too, eh? Because they did it?
Think your simple-minded arguments through first. - reikiman, on 11/13/2007, -11/+19"If one does not die, one does not drown"... Um, often people do die completely under waterboarding. So.... I think that those on the "it's not drowning" tack are being pedantic because this technique really pushes to the edge of death.
The most alarming thing I found researching this story is the connection between Daniel Levin and the 2002 memo from Gonzales' Justice Department which gave cover for the illegal torture techniques our military is using.
Daniel Levin's memo refused to continue to give that cover, and he got canned for standing up for the truth.
The issue here is not a partisan republicin/democratic/conservative/liberal fight. The issue is about honesty, integrity, standing for truth, justice, morality, and the rule of law. The current U.S. Administration has been flouting all those things, and they must be held accountable. - robberry, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8leftykiller, nobody is saying that it's okay to go around sawing people's heads off. (Although I have no doubt that if Bush started sawing the heads off prisoners, you'd be the first in line to defend it.) Sawing somebody's head off is clearly evil, but that doesn't prove that waterboarding isn't evil. Just because you can name something more evil than waterboarding doesn't mean that waterboarding is okay. You wouldn't excuse a serial rapist who said, "Sure, I raped those bitches, but at least I'm not a child molestor!" How is your argument any different?
- LeeSoong, on 11/13/2007, -3/+10Middle East = Wealth = Profit = Steal it = Happy Neocons.
Iran is next. - justenough, on 11/13/2007, -3/+10The issue is more than waterboarding, it is the sanctioned use of torture by the United States government, which goes against our most basic principles as a nation. Benjamin Franklin had it right: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." This is an issue that should transcend party/ideological lines. And if we keep contributing to politicians who will not step up to stop the use of torture by our government, we are all to blame.
- inactive, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7As postingbh commented below-"the gov't knew about people wanting to fly planes into buildings months before 9/11 and despite reaching the highest levels of the gov't, the info still didn't prevent anything."
And people who torture captives are not real men...I'd argue that they aren't human at all. - dschrute, on 11/13/2007, -6/+12wow, the righties are out in full force today. "if it saves lives Blah, blah, blah.....". Shut the ***** up. Using those tactics makes us no better than the people that we are being "protected" from. Grow up.
- robberry, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8Your argument is disingenuous. (It's also ungrammatical and poorly punctuated, but that's beside the point.) Nobody is saying that it's okay for them to cut people's heads off. But waterboarding is far more vicious and cruel than your little "give them a drink of water" jab would suggest. It is a devastating torture technique, and it is a war crime. If you want to defend torture and war crimes, fine, but why not grow some balls and state this up front?
- DreKor, on 11/12/2007, -3/+9Sure you can. You only drown because you can't get air into your lungs because they're full of water. You can aspirate plenty of water in 14 seconds.
- bmclaughlin, on 11/12/2007, -1/+7It rasises the question: Why did we EVER not torture? Certainly if a handful of guys blowing up two buildings is enough to cause us to allow torture, black sites, suspension of Habeas Corpus, and Guantanomo...then why wasn't Pearl Harbor or Normandy?
I think the answer is partly because this administration pretty much did it without asking. And partly because we're simply not as strong and principled a people as we once were.
People forget that the excuses we cite today for why we want torture are no different from the excuses that were always there: We are just using them now. Holding ourselves to a higher standard just isn't important to us any longer.
Let's face it: Being American is no longer something to be proud of. The typical American is provincial, materialistic, overweight and over-indebted.
I'm sure some of you might reply, "Why don't you just MOVE?" If you think about it, you'd recognize that that's a naive question: My family is here, my friends, my job. We all have things that we don't like, and we don't necessarily upend our lives to wholly avoid any one of them.
But that doesn't mean I'm proud to be an American. I'm ashamed.
As for RobIsFunky: Don't give us this "you're not smart enough to talk about this" crap. We're citizens and this is important. If we're wrong, tell us why we're wrong. Enlighten us. But make sure you're not kidding yourself first. - mlostracco, on 11/13/2007, -3/+9Like forcing someone to actually inhale water and then draining it so they don't die (only to do it again) isn't torture. Please.
- DreKor, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7As terrible as that is, I laughed.
- zappa717, on 11/13/2007, -4/+10and you quote the media oh so well!
- wolfie8914, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7If illegal equals immoral, then smoking some ganja is immoral = wrong.
- bowens44, on 11/12/2007, -2/+8Care to provide evidence to support this assertion? Even if it were true (it isn't), the ends do not justify the means.
- Rahodeb, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8The act of being drowned is torturous, no doubt. You're being denied oxygen to the brain and it causes severe discomfort. Being electrocuted, if stopped at the right time, isn't fatal, but is considered torture. What is ironic is that if we used a taser on an enemy detainee, it would be torture, but when we do it to our citizens, it called policing.
Whether we should condemn waterboarding or not, I'm actually on the fence about this. It's the whole, if you could save thousands of lives, while inflicting this treatment to a known murderer thug. We're talking about the lives of our soldiers and citizens. Soldiers with families, people who are non-combatants. In a way, I think we are all so insulated and removed from the atrocities that it's easy to call this barbaric, however we don't seem to mind killing the same enemies by the hundreds when we find them. - woxidu, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8Not sure that Illegal = Immoral
That's a tenuous implication for sure, but the rest of it seems to hold together... - kufu91, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7it doesn't work. torture doesn't work. if you think you are drowning you will say what ever you think will save your life, truth or not. can't you get that through your thick head?
- robberry, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6What basis do you have for claiming that waterboarding is "simply a psychological trick" and not torture? And what basis do you have for claming that waterboarding will actually save lives? Do you have any actual arguments for these points of view, or do you believe them without knowing why?
- RabidAngel, on 11/12/2007, -1/+7Agreed. The foresight here is critical, and too few people seem to really have it, or even care about having it.
- mik0r, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Why don't you go sign up for a turn, and then come back and see if you can make the same claim.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 320 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is