TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Shock jock who supported torture changed by being waterboarded...
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Is your name really quintin?  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo sure, i guess. i fail to see the point though. i've been volunarily tazed and voluntarily pepper douched. both immensely more painful and torturous than waterboarding could ever be. (try having capsicum spray wash down to your ballsac in the shower after trying to get it off you) you don't see Krypton's faux righteous indignation in a thread everytime that happens to someone. see Krypton and other young and cool liberal douchebags like him use this as a POLITICAL statement not some holier-than-thou moral proclamation, although that would be the impression they want to convey to you. no, to them internally it's a political invective that reflects their irrational hatred of a certain previous administration and has no basis in real law. Mankow, within seconds of the procedure, apparently got right back in his little DJ chair and continued along his daily business. he wasn't injured. he wasn't disfigured. he suffered no long term or short term ill effects. basically, he wasn't tortured. he said he was because he has no idea what REAL torture is. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton If could count on one hand all the things wrong with this statement... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo knock yourself out, dipshit |
oh shit, my ratings are down, I better roll with the rest of the media!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i can totally dig your beliefs. they're sound and grounded in good intentions. and in a perfect world they're completely plausible. however, i think it doesn't do Obama any credit to flatly believe that when push came to shove he would forego all the enhanced interrogation techniques that had been previously deemed legal just to please half of the nation to let a handfull of American's face a violent death. IOW he would waterboard. i have no doubt in my mind if he were unfortunately given the option. little of what Obama has said during his presidency does not come with an expiration date, and a mere Executive Order prohibiting such means very little when his own party that has complete control of government has so far refused designing Federal statute prohibiting such. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I can't believe you'r repeating this tripe when Opus already handled it in the PDD. We are bound to abide by the Geneva Conventions, our own domestic law on torture, and the Supreme Court decisions. These set a legal precedent. It is more than just an 'executive order'. It is against the law. There is no need for some 'federal statute'. It's legal precedent. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss And this dismantles Opus' and your "legal precedent" argument. http://article.nationalreview.com/?...zk2ZDMwNGRmMDQ= |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Yea...right...I'm going to listen to a website whose blog is titled, "Liberal Fascism". Not to mention the completely erroneous conclusions derived from such a retarded article. Water boarding is psychological torture. PERIOD. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss The article is actually titled "On Torture, Holder undoes Holder." It was written by former NY Assistant U.S. State's Attorney Andrew McCarthey... he lead the prosecution against the 1993 WTC bombing suspects Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, and also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He's also the director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center for Law and Counterterrorism. Sorry if I put more stock in the legal knowledge of that guy over Krypton the 21 year old glowsticker. You're terrified to realize that he makes more sense than you do. Read the article, as painful as it may be. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by yukii *ahem* 22 yr old. well 17sss- what do you suggest is the answer to everything? i just want to know really bad. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss The article is actually titled "On Torture, Holder undoes Holder." It was written by former NY Assistant U.S. State's Attorney Andrew McCarthey... he lead the prosecution against the 1993 WTC bombing suspects Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, and also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He's also the director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center for Law and Counterterrorism. |
| quote: |
| Sorry if I put more stock in the legal knowledge of that guy over Krypton the 21 year old glowsticker. You're terrified to admit that he makes more sense than you do. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton AND? I don't care who wrote it. |
| quote: |
| Yea right. Is that all you'v got? We should end the debate now... |
| quote: |
| Torture, however, is not a general-intent crime. It calls for proof of specific intent. As I recently recounted, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals explained the difference in its Pierre case last year: to establish torture, it must be proved that the accused torturer had �the motive or purpose� to commit torture. Sharpening the distinction, the judges used an example from a prior torture case � an example that thoroughly refutes Holder�s attempt to downgrade torture to a general-intent offense: �The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.� To state the matter plainly, the CIA interrogators did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so. The law of the United States holds that, even where an actor does inflict severe pain, there is still no torture unless it was his objective to do so. It doesn�t matter what the average person might think the �logical� result of the action would be; it matters what specifically was in the mind of the alleged torturer � if his motive was not to torture, it is not torture. One might have expected Holder to know that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss The objective/intent was to obtain information, NOT to inflict lasting physical or mental harm. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the law. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by yukii there's a 50/50 chance that information is even correct when you're torturing- what gives? |
I'd imagine that the psychological effect on Mancow would have been quite different if he weren't able to tell them to stop whenever he wanted.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Is that the statistic? 50/50? Well, if you ask George Tenant, the CIA director appointed by Clinton, even he said the information obtained by waterboarding KSM and the other 2 people lead to more real, valuable information on their plans and Al Qaeda than anything the FBI, CIA, and NSA had COMBINED. Even if it didn't fit within the legal boundaries, which it does, I see no issue doing that to a guy who bragged about beheading journalist Daniel Pearl with a knife so dull, it took a while to saw it off. |
i dont want my gov torturing people- forget laws & legal boundaries, what happened to the respect & morals of being a fucking fellow human being?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss You should care who wrote it... the person writing it and their credentials gives the level of credibility and knowledge to what they're saying. |
| quote: |
| Well, we should. Because you obviously didn't read or understand the difference between specific intent vs. general intent, which is the basis for the legality of waterboarding. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is... the law is very clear: |
| quote: |
| With a general intent crime, "To find guilt, all the jury (the �neutral trier of fact�) has to determine is (a) that you knew what you were doing (i.e., you intended to shoot the gun or rob the bank � you didn�t do it by mistake), and (b) the result was the logical outcome that anyone who performed such an act should have expected." |
| quote: |
| And that's the point... you're going based on what you think the logical result of the action of waterboarding is, not the legal definitions. The objective/intent was to obtain information, NOT to inflict lasting physical or mental harm. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the law. Like the other poster said, Mankow was back in his chair 10 minutes later doing his program. Are you telling me he has endured psychological damage? |
Thats much how this thread is.
i think he should've done it 183 times & then sat back on the chair
different outcome perhaps?
It's the difference between voluntarily holding your hand over a flame for as long as you can and having someone much stronger than you hold your hand over it for the same amount of time, except while they're doing it you have no idea when they'll let you go.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by yukii i know torturing KSM lead to valuable information, but the question i find myself asking is, should we really sink down to their level? ffs, i couldn't watch the daniel pearl vid- if they want to play the game dirty then let them i dont want my gov torturing people- forget laws & legal boundaries, what happened to the respect & morals of being a fucking fellow human being? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Is that the statistic? 50/50? Well, if you ask George Tenant, the CIA director appointed by Clinton, even he said the information obtained by waterboarding KSM and the other 2 people lead to more real, valuable information on their plans and Al Qaeda than anything the FBI, CIA, and NSA had COMBINED. Even if it didn't fit within the legal boundaries, which it does, I see no issue doing that to a guy who bragged about beheading journalist Daniel Pearl with a knife so dull, it took a while to saw it off. |
| quote: |
| [T]his is my opinion, even though they [the detainees] were giving information and some of it was useful, while we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link � there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton That's great. Doesn't make the article any more right. |
| quote: |
| Right, water boarding some one 183 times does no psychological damage. If we wouldn't do it to our own citizens, then we shouldn't be doing it to anyone, and then claim we hold the moral high ground. |
| quote: |
| "if the attorney general truly believes �waterboarding is torture,� he must also think we torture our own Navy SEALs and other special-operations personnel when we waterboard them as part of their training. |
| quote: |
| we�re doing something for training purposes to try to equip them with the tools to, perhaps, resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There is not the intent to do that which is defined as torture � which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm. It�s for training. It�s different. |
| quote: |
| Look at the torture statute (Sections 2340 and 2340A of the federal penal code) and try to find a �training� exception. There isn�t one. What removes an act from the ambit of torture (besides lack of severe pain) is intent. Lungren pressed this point, and Holder admitted that the training was �not torture in the legal sense because we�re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.� Intent, he acknowledged, was the key question. Then, Lungren pounced. The CIA interrogators who questioned top al-Qaeda captives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah intended no more harm to them than Navy instructors intended to their SEAL trainees. In fact, we know that the CIA went to great lengths, under Justice Department guidance, precisely to avoid severe harm. Their purpose, Rep. Lungren observed, was to �solicit information,� not to inflict torture. Holder was trapped. |
| quote: |
| Bullshit. We charge people all the time for doing things they didn't "intend" to do. |
| quote: |
| I'm going on the fact that water boarding is torture. PERIOD. If it was so useful, then the police should use it when they question suspects. I'm sure this country will be a much better place. |
| quote: |
| Mancow was water boarded for what...2 seconds? No surprise he was back in the chair. Is that really that surprising to you? Not to mention the fact that such an argument in no way justifies water boarding. A dj gets back on the air after a 2 second water boarding. Big whoop...Maybe if they did it for 1 minute, then he'd be crying his heart out. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss "It must be understood that a Prince cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state." You should read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.