PDA

View Full Version : What's worst? Being killed or water boarded?



mikesilvia
05-08-2011, 06:54 PM
I'm curious how the Democrats feel about this.

Everyone was up in arms when Bush was water boarding terrorists, but when Obama sends in SEALs with an order to kill and not capture, there is no issue at all (with actual celebration).

So, is it fair to say that Democrats are for murdering terrorists vice water boarding?

reggie_miller_fan
05-08-2011, 09:33 PM
I'm not a democrat but i think torture is worse then killing someone. Death would be easy compared to continuous torture.

tutall
05-08-2011, 09:50 PM
Worse for who? I would say killing is worse for us as we can get no information from him now... not that he is likely to talk anyways but in this specific situation I think the order to kill was the best one... Having an alive Bin Laden I dont think could turn productive in any way... If you are asking me whether I would rather be killed or tortured... Depends on what my life would be like after torture.... If it was a be tortured then go back to my family it is one thing but being tortured day after day with no chance of release just kill me

mikesilvia
05-08-2011, 10:08 PM
I'm not a democrat but i think torture is worse then killing someone. Death would be easy compared to continuous torture.

I agree if you are talking about real torture. I can promise you if you ask anyone who has been water boarded if they would rather die or be water bordered, they would choose water boarding. I'm willing to bet that most Americans that were tortured in Vietnam (like John McCain), if they would repeat the torture they went through or die, they would choose life.

I'm willing to bet that 99 our of 100 people in the world would choose water boarding over death.

INTIMADATOR2007
05-09-2011, 12:07 AM
I cant for the life of me understand why the Democrats are so against waterboarding .Other than a political advantage somehow.
Can it kill you? yes, if they didn't stop pouring the water . But in every instance of the way we waterboard they are Trained doctors,lawyers ,physhcologists,and every proffessional there that one would need to NOT DIE. You think when Mc Cain was held hostage they had a team of professionals there to assist ...No .He's lucky they didn't be-head him, as they do our people they hold in jails/camps . Waterboarding clearly help find Bin-Laden and should be done to any enime combantant we have at quantonimo or any other military jail. Heck, I say waterboard the democrats in whasington for what they have done to this country ...Just kiddin for legal reasons ..lol..

It would have been nice to see what else we could have gotten out of Bin-Laden by waterboarding him a few times . Then put the Bullet in his Head !

Aikman_TheGreat
05-09-2011, 03:35 AM
When I think of "torture", I think of something from a Saw movie, or cutting a finger off every hour you dont talk or give information that I want.

habsheaven
05-09-2011, 08:51 AM
Torture is WRONG, there is no grey area involved. Killing OBL (unless it was justifiable self-defense) was WRONG, again no grey area. He was entitled to a DUE PROCESS and an eventual HANGING just as much as Hussein was.

mikesilvia
05-09-2011, 10:07 AM
Torture is WRONG, there is no grey area involved. Killing OBL (unless it was justifiable self-defense) was WRONG, again no grey area. He was entitled to a DUE PROCESS and an eventual HANGING just as much as Hussein was.

After days of searching I finally found someone consistent on this!

While I'm fine with water boarding and killing UBL, it's refreshing to find someone on the other side that is consistent. I've been pulling my hair out chatting with people that are against water boarding but fine with the UBL killing!

angel0430
05-09-2011, 11:34 AM
I am fine with both of them. IMO, this terrorist do not deserve to have a fair trial or fair tratment. They do not care when they kill people. Why should we?

habsheaven
05-09-2011, 12:08 PM
I am fine with both of them. IMO, this terrorist do not deserve to have a fair trial or fair tratment. They do not care when they kill people. Why should we?

That could be said for any murderer. Where do you draw the line? We should care because we are supposedly better than that.

mikesilvia
05-09-2011, 01:08 PM
I am fine with both of them. IMO, this terrorist do not deserve to have a fair trial or fair tratment. They do not care when they kill people. Why should we?

Here is my thought on this.

I think "enhanced interrogation" and "assassination" should be a President's tool.

For example, UBL? Assassinate and/or enhanced interrogation is fine. He is an admitted terrorists and the proof of his acts are there.

A guy caught on the side of the road planting a EID? enhanced interrogation if there is video proof. Witnesses are not enough or there will be abuse of power (i.e. a soldier "thinks" that is the guy who planted the IED).

Obviously, there MUST be a huge amount of proof like admitting their acts (UBL and 9-11), video (guy seen planting an IED), etc.

angel0430
05-10-2011, 10:32 AM
I get your point. I didn;t see it that way. But you have to go on a case by case basis.

habsheaven
05-10-2011, 10:56 AM
I don't think using torture is ever a "case by case" decision. It is either RIGHT or it is WRONG. Ends cannot justify means, EVER. For those that think it can, what is your opinion on American soldiers being tortured by their adversaries? Are you all okay with that?

mikesilvia
05-10-2011, 03:21 PM
I don't think using torture is ever a "case by case" decision. It is either RIGHT or it is WRONG. Ends cannot justify means, EVER. For those that think it can, what is your opinion on American soldiers being tortured by their adversaries? Are you all okay with that? I don't think you are getting my point.

I'm not talking about cutting of fingers and breaking toes with mallets. I'm talking about sleep deprecation, water boarding, etc and I'm talking in rare cases. As I've said, we are also talking about UBL, people planting IEDs, etc.

In your case you are talking about an American soldier that has done nothing illegal. A terrorist breaking the Geneva convention and targeting civilians is different than a U.S. solider supported by the legal Iraq government that has done nothing wrong. Beheading a U.S. soldier or cutting off fingers in torture. Sleep depriving or water boarding a terrorist caught on video or one that admits with his own free will that he is a terrorists is different. Hopefully, you see the difference. Terrorists torture anyone the capture and I'm talking about water boarding 0.01% of them.

mrveggieman
05-10-2011, 03:31 PM
I don't think using torture is ever a "case by case" decision. It is either RIGHT or it is WRONG. Ends cannot justify means, EVER. For those that think it can, what is your opinion on American soldiers being tortured by their adversaries? Are you all okay with that?

Torture happens more than we would like to think. If the police can "interrogate" the average joe to confess a street crime imagine what the fed gov't would do on a matter that involves national security. It's not just the United States any country would do that if they felt that it was in their best intrest to do such. As far as weather or not I like it, I hope and pray that I nor anyone I know is never tourted but it is what it is.

mikesilvia
05-10-2011, 04:10 PM
For me, if you have someone like Bin Laden who has sworn to destroy America and is trying to force Islam on our way of life, water board away. Find out where all his minions are and if you have irrefutable proof that they are terrorists and have committed crimes water board and sleep deprive them.

I'm not talking about water boarding people that "may" be guity. I'm talking about self admitted or 100% irrefutable proof. For example, Hitler, UBL, Saddam, etc. Can anyone say that these guys are not 100% guilty of extreme crimes?

AUTaxMan
05-10-2011, 04:53 PM
I don't think using torture is ever a "case by case" decision. It is either RIGHT or it is WRONG. Ends cannot justify means, EVER. For those that think it can, what is your opinion on American soldiers being tortured by their adversaries? Are you all okay with that?

Never?

habsheaven
05-10-2011, 07:40 PM
No, never! Everything in life is a matter of perspective. The perspective of the torturor will always justify the torture. Those people following UBL, Hussein, The Taliban, Hitler, etc. etc. all had/have their own perspective. Do you actually think any of them thought/think they themselves were/are EVIL? The acts you and I see as EVIL they truly see as necessary in fighting on the side of GOOD. Just as the West thinks they are on the GOOD side when they bomb foreign countries.

greg271126817
05-10-2011, 07:46 PM
When I think of "torture", I think of something from a Saw movie, or cutting a finger off every hour you dont talk or give information that I want.
I would prefer we got him alive, tortured him like the movies for about 10 years, then kill him off. Let him suffer just like the families of everyone who lost loved ones in 911 and any other terrorist situation has done and is still doing. I dont care if its cruel and unusual. Thats the way i would have handled it if possible. Like me or hate me for it. i dont care. He was responsible for a lot of horrible things and horrible things should have happened to him before he was killed!

AUTaxMan
05-10-2011, 07:49 PM
No, never! Everything in life is a matter of perspective. The perspective of the torturor will always justify the torture. Those people following UBL, Hussein, The Taliban, Hitler, etc. etc. all had/have their own perspective. Do you actually think any of them thought/think they themselves were/are EVIL? The acts you and I see as EVIL they truly see as necessary in fighting on the side of GOOD. Just as the West thinks they are on the GOOD side when they bomb foreign countries.

If the ends never justify the means, does that mean that we are never to take into consideration the consequences of our actions?

habsheaven
05-10-2011, 08:28 PM
If the ends never justify the means, does that mean that we are never to take into consideration the consequences of our actions?

What are you getting at? I do not understand how you are equating one phrase with the other?

AUTaxMan
05-10-2011, 08:34 PM
What are you getting at? I do not understand how you are equating one phrase with the other?

If the ends never justify the means, then there is never any need for us to even consider the consequences of our actions. We are only to consider the virtue of our actions themselves. Whether the consequences are good or bad, it shouldn't matter. Instead, we are merely to determine whether the action itself is "right" or "wrong," and only act rightly.

This is an age-old and unsettled debate. I'm not sure there is a right answer. I just wanted your take on it.

mikesilvia
05-10-2011, 10:12 PM
I can definitely respect someone's view when they are against torture in any form or assassination/death penalty.

In a perfect world these would never need to be used. But like Elliot Nest, the only way to take down the mob is to use mob tactics. :)

habsheaven
05-10-2011, 10:12 PM
You should always consider the consequences of your actions. You SHOULD NOT excuse your actions because of the expected or desired end result. It's really a simple concept.

habsheaven
05-10-2011, 10:22 PM
I can definitely respect someone's view when they are against torture in any form or assassination/death penalty.

In a perfect world these would never need to be used. But like Elliot Nest, the only way to take down the mob is to use mob tactics. :)

I could see someone like UBL, insurgents in Iraq or the IRA for that matter all having similar thought processes. Thinking that the only way to beat them is to employ the tactics we find so unacceptable. At some point both sides of a conflict have to realize what is RIGHT and refuse to do what they know is WRONG.

In other words, they need to stop justifying their means with the result they want to achieve.

Aikman_TheGreat
05-11-2011, 05:31 AM
Had we "tortured" some of these guys that knew about Bin Laden prior to 9/11, and we could've prevented 9/11 would anyone change their mind about "torture"? The ENTIRE world changed with 9/11, not just the United States. The "torture" of one, or two, or a few people to keep 9/11 from happening would've been worth it to the U.S. and the world. These groups and people are called terrorists for a reason, they cause terror on people and nations. To torture them to get information to prevent people and nations from the terror they may experience may be called for, as wrong as it sounds.

mikesilvia
05-11-2011, 09:00 AM
I could see someone like UBL, insurgents in Iraq or the IRA for that matter all having similar thought processes. Thinking that the only way to beat them is to employ the tactics we find so unacceptable. At some point both sides of a conflict have to realize what is RIGHT and refuse to do what they know is WRONG.

In other words, they need to stop justifying their means with the result they want to achieve.

You keep confusing what America is doing. Water boarding and sleep deprivation is not beatings and cutting off heads. I truly believe there are two types of integrations; enhanced and torture.

When a U.S. soldier was captured by the Vietnamese he was clearly tortured. For example, John McCain who can't lift his arms up past his shoulders very well. Then their is enhanced interrogations that cause no long-term physical damage. No one that was water boarded or deprived of sleep has physical problems today.

When UBL's guys capture a U.S. solider they cut them to pieces. That is pure murder and torture. When we capture someone, maybe 1 out of a 1,000 we use enhanced techniques.

Do things like Abu Garab prison happen? Sure! Is it official U.S. policy? No.

So, again, in my view there is a difference between torture and enhanced interrogations.

A final question. Would you rather get captured by the Taliban or a terrorist or the U.S. Army? I think the answer is obvious because we don't torture as policy.

habsheaven
05-11-2011, 10:21 AM
You keep confusing what America is doing. Water boarding and sleep deprivation is not beatings and cutting off heads. I truly believe there are two types of integrations; enhanced and torture.

When a U.S. soldier was captured by the Vietnamese he was clearly tortured. For example, John McCain who can't lift his arms up past his shoulders very well. Then their is enhanced interrogations that cause no long-term physical damage. No one that was water boarded or deprived of sleep has physical problems today.

When UBL's guys capture a U.S. solider they cut them to pieces. That is pure murder and torture. When we capture someone, maybe 1 out of a 1,000 we use enhanced techniques.

Do things like Abu Garab prison happen? Sure! Is it official U.S. policy? No.

So, again, in my view there is a difference between torture and enhanced interrogations.

A final question. Would you rather get captured by the Taliban or a terrorist or the U.S. Army? I think the answer is obvious because we don't torture as policy.

I do not have a problem with "enhanced interrogations" but determining what is and what isn't "enhanced interrogations" may be the issue. I was under the impression that "waterboarding" is considered "torture" by most of the civilized world. I will have to check into that further.

INTIMADATOR2007
05-11-2011, 08:09 PM
I do not have a problem with "enhanced interrogations" but determining what is and what isn't "enhanced interrogations" may be the issue. I was under the impression that "waterboarding" is considered "torture" by most of the civilized world. I will have to check into that further.
How does the Canadian forces get info out of terrorist ?

habsheaven
05-11-2011, 08:46 PM
How does the Canadian forces get info out of terrorist ?

We hand them over to our American friends.:whistle:

INTIMADATOR2007
05-11-2011, 10:03 PM
We hand them over to our American friends.:whistle:

:sign0020:

mikesilvia
05-11-2011, 11:14 PM
We hand them over to our American friends.:whistle:

Ha! This may actual be the case. :)

habsheaven
05-12-2011, 12:00 AM
Ha! This may actual be the case. :)

I know we have handed a few over to the Afghans in the past. I am sure we have passed a few on to your guys too. It has caused quite a stir up here in our Parliament.

Aikman_TheGreat
05-12-2011, 05:45 AM
I know we have handed a few over to the Afghans in the past. I am sure we have passed a few on to your guys too. It has caused quite a stir up here in our Parliament.

as usual, let us be the bad guys. haha

duane1969
05-12-2011, 11:44 AM
How does the Canadian forces get info out of terrorist ?

The Canadians have a special truth serum that is great at getting people to talk more than they should and say things that they should not say...

http://www.patwreck.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Marijuana-legalization.jpg