|
|
#51
11-07-2007, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan have the same rights in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen? No U.S. citizens needn't give up the right to a lawyer or other rights. I'm not even implying that. Again we're getting into the legal status of enemy combatants. Unless I missed something that's something Congress hasn't asked Mukasy too much about yet. [/ QUOTE ] padilla didn't, was tortured, and charged after 4 or 5 years of captivity and the judge said, hey, we wait until monday if a guy is arrested on friday, this is comparable ... model for the future. 
|
|
#52
11-07-2007, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For those who think it is ok for us to waterboard people, is it ok for other countries (read: countries run by brown people) to torture Americans if they are in danger? Say American officers were captured by Iran, who are right now probably pretty worried about getting bombed the [censored] into the stone age by us and want to learn more. But I mean, it wouldn't have lasting psychological effects of course. Fair game? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Is Al-Qaeda enemy combatent different from a soldier in the Iranian Army or a soldier in the U.S. Army? I think the administration would argue that indeed they are and that the Geneva Convention applies to the soldiers in uniform and not necessarily to the enemy combatent. Maybe the legal scholars will weigh in. Seems like a question that Mukasy should answer and elaborate on, not sure if he was asked in the hearings. [/ QUOTE ] So basically, we are allowed to do it to Al Queda because they are "enemy combatants", but no one is allowed to do it to our soldiers? How much do incidents like Abu Ghraib (and all the other, non-photographed times we have tortured people) undermine our ability to claim protection for our soldiers under the Geneva convention? The whole idea of "enemy combatants" has always struck me as absurd with stuff like this. As a civilized country which claims to espouse freedom there should be a line in the treatment of people that you do not cross. Whether or not you are allowed to waterboard someone should not depend on what uniform they have on or where they were born. You have either judged it as acceptable, or judged it as heinous and barbaric.
|
|
#54
11-07-2007, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] When your sister can't get out of NYC and Mohammed el-dirtbag knows where the dirty bomb is, if you tell me then that its still wrong to torture i'll believe you all. Till you have a personal stake in it you don't have a clue what your real philosophy is. [/ QUOTE ] This type of scenario is presented in political debates and I think it’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Here is the problem with this from a logic standpoint. The dudes who set up a bomb probably spent months if not years planning the attack. Their lives revolved around this goal. Are you telling me that someone who is this driven will actually tell the truth and screw up all of his work because he gets a little beaten up? I think not. I can’t imagine torture working at all against people who don’t seem to care about their lives very much. [/ QUOTE ] If you don't retreat to the position that all politicians (or the Administration) are liars, then George Tenet was very clear that extreme interrogation of khalil Sheikh Mohammed saved American lives. Until someone proves that to be untrue, torture can work.
|
|
#55
11-07-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't retreat to the position that all politicians (or the Administration) are liars, then George Tenet was very clear that extreme interrogation of khalil Sheikh Mohammed saved American lives. Until someone proves that to be untrue, torture can work. [/ QUOTE ] colin powell said he was sure wmd's were in iraq, so by your logic ...
|
|
#56
11-08-2007, 03:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
This is not completely true even though proponents like to claim it is. Waterboarding can cause plenty physical harm as well as death. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, and you CAN choke to death eating doritos. Doesn't make it cruel and unusual.
|
|
#58
11-08-2007, 04:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is not completely true even though proponents like to claim it is. Waterboarding can cause plenty physical harm as well as death. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, and you CAN choke to death eating doritos. Doesn't make it cruel and unusual. [/ QUOTE ] No one's forcing doritos down your throat against your will, are they? That someone could be stupid enough to try and equate the two is mind boggling. And plz to be 'splaining how waterboarding is fine and dandy now when we have punished foreign and domestic soldiers for its use in the past.
|
|
#59
11-08-2007, 04:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
No one's forcing doritos down your throat against your will, are they? That someone could be stupid enough to try and equate the two is mind boggling. [/ QUOTE ] Anything done improperly can cause, as you say, "plenty of harm and even death". Doesn't make it cruel and unusual. Is that plain enough for you to understand?
|
|
#60
11-08-2007, 05:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What About Mukasy\'s Position on Waterboarding?
[ QUOTE ]
Are interrogations supposed to be pleasant? How do you personally know if waterboarding has been effective in foiling terror attacks? As far as I know, John McCain doesn't interrogate captured jihadists. Waterboarding doesn't cause physical harm. Just scares the hell out of you. If a terrorist has bad dreams because of it, I'm fine with that. Though I think it's more likely his dreams would be haunted by the innocent people he has killed. [/ QUOTE ] The situation I was attacking was the stupid idea that you can get information out of people through torture to stop a terrorist attack that will happen in a few hours. Its not gonna happen. The best thing to do is to use actual reliable information to try and pinpoint where the bomb could be and to get people out. Torturing people wont do anything at all. [ QUOTE ] How do you personally know if waterboarding has been effective in foiling terror attacks? As far as I know, John McCain doesn't interrogate captured jihadists. [/ QUOTE ] Because as I said people can lie. How many of those leads are you going to chase? Its a lazy way of doing things. The correct way is to actually investigate a situation and find out information that you know is rock solid. Torturing people leads mostly to dead ends. Most of these guys arent thinking of living after being captured they are ok with death. Seems pointless to stoop down to their level and torture them. My thoughts are simple, dont play their games. Let the captured prisoners rot in a cell for the rest of their lives if they are found guilty of crimes and dont stoop down to their level by resorting to torture. This ensures that when they capture some of us they might show some restraint and not torture them and also makes them more likely to talk. If you treat them like any other prisoner and they rot in a prison for a couple of years some if not most will realize that this will be the rest of their lives and they will try to make it as comfortable as possible, which means talking. These guys want attention above all else nothing will piss them off more than being treated like any other prisoner. If you torture people you help feed the myth that Americans are evil and actually help those guys get more recruits and grow. There seems to be no positive aspect of using torture and a lot of negatives. I still dont get why its even an argument.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
