Serious Business

Clickly me.

Then clickly me for an interesting read about waterboarding.

I really dont care what they did in my book we should use more torture. Im sorry but sometimes torture is just needed really.

I really dont care what they did in my book we should use more torture. Im sorry but sometimes torture is just needed really.

If they were waterboarding our soldiers, would you want them tried war criminals?  What would be a fitting punishment?

I really dont care what they did in my book we should use more torture. Im sorry but sometimes torture is just needed really.

If they were waterboarding our soldiers, would you want them tried war criminals?  What would be a fitting punishment?

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
                               -Thucydides

i think that is what he is saying.  we do it because they can't do shit to us.  we torture them because its "needed," but when they torture american soldiers, they are just barbaric savages.

the question i ask is this: needed for what?  to what end?  to save one life?  to save ten?  ten thousand?  where do we draw the line?  torturing brown skinned foreigners is easy.  what happens when its an american citizen? how long before its you or me?  there are some things that we can just plain never, ever do because they are wrong, and they are always wrong.

Call me a hippie if you want, but I think intentionally making a living thing suffer is always wrong. I think our founding fathers were right to make it illegal, and I think we were right in choosing to sign the Geneva Convention. I think going back on that is among the most despicable things our nation has done, and I'm ashamed of my country because of it.

Dave is absolutely right here. It's easy as he'll to say it's ok to do it to them to protect us. They aren't even real anyway. Not to us at least. They're way over there.
But what happens when it's us being tortured to protect us? If timothy mcvaughy had blown up the Oklahoma city federal building during the bush administration, what kind of power would big brother have? He's already got the right apparntly to watch every fucking thing we do from every crossroad and street corner.
Excusing extreme measures to protect us from them only strengthens the ability to protect us from us one day very very soon.

Dave is absolutely right here. It's easy as he'll to say it's ok to do it to them to protect us. They aren't even real anyway. Not to us at least. They're way over there.
But what happens when it's us being tortured to protect us? If timothy mcvaughy had blown up the Oklahoma city federal building during the bush administration, what kind of power would big brother have? He's already got the right apparntly to watch every fucking thing we do from every crossroad and street corner.
Excusing extreme measures to protect us from them only strengthens the ability to protect us from us one day very very soon.

Yeah, that is a good point. Allowing our government to break the law in "extreme" cases opens the door for them to break other laws and become less choosy about why they do it. It's just a line that should never be crossed. Crossing it is more likely to compromise our freedom than protect our lives. And personally, I think protecting freedom is more important than protecting lives. Not that we shouldn't do both, but when it comes down to it, give me freedom or give me death.

Dave is absolutely right here. It's easy as he'll to say it's ok to do it to them to protect us. They aren't even real anyway. Not to us at least. They're way over there.
But what happens when it's us being tortured to protect us? If timothy mcvaughy had blown up the Oklahoma city federal building during the bush administration, what kind of power would big brother have? He's already got the right apparntly to watch every fucking thing we do from every crossroad and street corner.
Excusing extreme measures to protect us from them only strengthens the ability to protect us from us one day very very soon.

Yeah, that is a good point. Allowing our government to break the law in "extreme" cases opens the door for them to break other laws and become less choosy about why they do it. It's just a line that should never be crossed. Crossing it is more likely to compromise our freedom than protect our lives. And personally, I think protecting freedom is more important than protecting lives. Not that we shouldn't do both, but when it comes down to it, give me freedom or give me death.

and thats where i come down on the gun control issue.  they may be right that the proliferation of guns will cause more deaths.  and i am saddened by those deaths, but if that is the price of freedom, so be it.

and thats where i come down on the gun control issue.  they may be right that the proliferation of guns will cause more deaths.  and i am saddened by those deaths, but if that is the price of freedom, so be it.

I agree here, too. Though, I do think people should be required to take a comprehensive course on gun use, care, and safety before they are allowed to own one. I'd love to see that... I'd love to pay taxes for that, if it meant every American could take the course as often as they wanted.

Call me a hippie if you want, but I think intentionally making a living thing suffer is always wrong. I think our founding fathers were right to make it illegal, and I think we were right in choosing to sign the Geneva Convention. I think going back on that is among the most despicable things our nation has done, and I'm ashamed of my country because of it.

I agree that we shouldn't go back on commitments that are made, and that waterboarding is an extreme measure. What would be the benefit if waterboarding prevented a major attack? But in an ever increasingly globalized world, what image does that give us, or how can we be certain that we get good information? The Geneva convention however, specifically states that a prisoner of war does not have soldiers rights if he does not fight in a nationalized army with a uniform, if that nation does not have a unified leader, or if the nation has more than one army. It's not a pretty thing, and maybe should be revised, but we signed it and regardless of our thoughts on the waterboarding issue, the Geneva agreement was not violated in this way.

Call me a hippie if you want, but I think intentionally making a living thing suffer is always wrong. I think our founding fathers were right to make it illegal, and I think we were right in choosing to sign the Geneva Convention. I think going back on that is among the most despicable things our nation has done, and I'm ashamed of my country because of it.

I agree that we shouldn't go back on commitments that are made, and that waterboarding is an extreme measure. What would be the benefit if waterboarding prevented a major attack? But in an ever increasingly globalized world, what image does that give us, or how can we be certain that we get good information? The Geneva convention however, specifically states that a prisoner of war does not have soldiers rights if he does not fight in a nationalized army with a uniform, if that nation does not have a unified leader, or if the nation has more than one army. It's not a pretty thing, and maybe should be revised, but we signed it and regardless of our thoughts on the waterboarding issue, the Geneva agreement was not violated in this way.

Are soldiers the only ones that are protected from torture by the Geneva Convention.... Even if that is the case, torture is against our own laws. And selectively abiding by our laws shouldn't even be a consideration. Citizen or not, where our laws can be applied, they ought to be.... At least in cases of human rights. Besides the strictly religious reasons, our enemies wish our destruction because often times we've given them a reason to. Being cruel and hypocritical doesn't help our cause. We will not wipe out our enemies...ever. A war against terror is impossible to win because it only incites more terror. The only way to truly win is to get our enemies to be our friends. That's my opinion, and I admit it probably sounds idealistic...but it seems like the most logical conclusion, given the factors I see.


On a side note... would anyone be willing to waterboard me? I want to know what it feels like. I've wanted to know for a long time, and I've studied it with the intention of trying it and also doing it on someone who asked me to waterboard them.

On a side note... would anyone be willing to waterboard me? I want to know what it feels like. I've wanted to know for a long time, and I've studied it with the intention of trying it and also doing it on someone who asked me to waterboard them.

I advise against this.  Having said that, I'm interested to know it turns out once you've done it anyway.

On a side note... would anyone be willing to waterboard me? I want to know what it feels like. I've wanted to know for a long time, and I've studied it with the intention of trying it and also doing it on someone who asked me to waterboard them.

I advise against this.  Having said that, I'm interested to know it turns out once you've done it anyway.

Why do you advise against it?

I'm pretty sure I could torture a stranger, but not a friend. I guess that's just one of those questions in life that you think about. Like back in high school when a veagan friend of mine was trying to get me to "the dark side" and asked me if I would have any moral drawbacks if I had to slaughter my own food. After I thought about it, I realized hell yeah I could kill an animal if it meant I could eat it. Killing it for no purpose might be difficult. Then I began to question cannibalism, but that's another story.

Why do you advise against it?

Do you mean aside from the obvious risk of physical and/or psychological damage?