Waterboard Feinstein!

[seer]

So does that make you a traitor for attacking Obama?

No. I'm not putting American lives at risk.

[seer]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the retreat into private opinion.

Treason: The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.

So yes, I think that Feinstein is aiding the enemy with this report.

[Mountain Man]

Nope. Try again.

How did it not answer your question? You asked how it would make our troops any more of a target if the information was already common knowledge. Well, it's because this report seems intended to deliberately enrage enemies of the US with Feinstein herself suggesting that potential for increased danger is the price we must pay for our actions.

[Mountain Man]

So just out of curiosity, is there any thought given here for the greater good? Let me give an example from the game Dragon Age: Origins.

The world is being threatened by demonic creatures called the Dark Spawn. Now in order to combat the Dark Spawn, a man named Duncan must recruit Grey Wardens in a secret ritual where potential recruits drink a mixture of Dark Spawn blood which gives them the ability to sense and effectively fight the creatures. The reason the ritual is kept a secret is because there's a good chance that drinking the mixture will kill you, and the Grey Wardens don't want it to become common knowledge lest it scare away volunteers and leave humanity defenseless. During one particular ritual, there are three recruits. The first drinks the mixture and immediately dies an agonizing death. The second panics and refuses to drink, preparing to run away back to his family, but Duncan pounces and puts a sword through his gut before the recruit can take a step. The secret is safe, and the third recruit survives to become a Grey Warden.

So knowing what's at stake, did Duncan do the right thing? Were his actions justified because they served the greater good?

[seanD]

Perhaps. Let me put it this way - if I could save your life and the life of your family by water-boarding a jihadist I would do it. Then you can be safe while men like me get our hands dirty to keep you that way.

We're not talking about you though. We're talking about the authorities that rule over us to make that decision, like Obama and Kerry. Suppose he wasn't a brown skinned Muslim overseas. Would you feel that way if they were a US citizen (not a farfetched scenario, being that we now allow the executive branch to enact executions and assassinations of US citzens they deem as terrorist threats) dubbed "domestic terrorist" by the CIA or State Department; someone like say McVeigh or even a professed Christian militia like a member of hutaree. Would you be okay to allow government that decision?

[seer]

We're not talking about you though. We're talking about the authorities that rule over us to make that decision, like Obama and Kerry. Suppose he wasn't a brown skinned Muslim overseas. Would you feel that way if they were a US citizen (not a farfetched scenario, being that we now allow the executive branch to enact executions and assassinations of US citzens they deem as terrorist threats) dubbed "domestic terrorist" by the CIA or State Department; someone like say McVeigh or even a professed Christian militia like a member of hutaree. Would you be okay to allow government that decision?

I would be less accepting of doing this to an American citizen, we have Constitutional protections. Though Obama recently droned two American citizens (which I guess is OK with the liberals). But we are speaking of enemy combatants who are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions.

[seanD]

I would be less accepting of doing this to an American citizen, we have Constitutional protections. Though Obama recently droned two American citizens (which I guess is OK with the liberals). But we are speaking of enemy combatants who are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions.

But you can see where it can easily become a potential slippery slope?

[seer]

But you can see where it can easily become a potential slippery slope?

Well I don't know anyone on my side of the debate suggesting that we could or should waterboard citizens. Though Obama thinks it is perfectly fine to kill American citizens outright.

[seanD]

Well I don't know anyone on my side of the debate suggesting that we could or should waterboard citizens. Though Obama thinks it is perfectly fine to kill American citizens outright.

Never say never. I would imagine US polls would have been astoundingly against any type of human torture under any condition prior to 911. Traumatic events have a way of dramatically altering views and opinions and even one's rationality, and there is no guarantee that there won't be another event like 911 or the Oklahoma City bombing in the future. Fortunately for us, there was no discussion among government officials about torture of domestic terrorist suspects at the time of the Oklahma City bombing, but now that door is open.

[seer]

Never say never. I would imagine US polls would have been astoundingly against any type of human torture under any condition prior to 911. Traumatic events have a way of dramatically altering views and opinions and even one's rationality, and there is no guarantee that there won't be another event like 911 or the Oklahoma City bombing in the future. Fortunately for us, there was no discussion among government officials about torture of domestic terrorist suspects at the time of the Oklahma City bombing, but now that door is open.

Well the well known liberal attorney Alan M. Dershowitz does make a good case for Torture Warrants.

http://www.alandershowitz.com/public...ewarrants.html

[claymore]

From what I understand the United States didn't gain any reliable information from these methods.

Torture is wrong. It doesn't produce reliable information. When people are being tortured or aggressively interrogated they will say whatever it takes to stop the torture. Often times they will just confirm whatever the interrogator want to hear, even if it is not the truth.

[Mountain Man]

People keep saying that torture doesn't produce reliable results. Do we know this? Those involved with these interrogations say they did get useful information. If an interrogator isn't getting useful or reliable info then he's doing his job poorly.

I also wonder what people consider to be "torture". Is it only things like water boarding that are morally offensive, or does it include all things classified as " torture " like sleep deprivation, or spraying them with ice cold water?

[pancreasman]

Torture, as I understand it, is against US law. Should the perpetrators be prosecuted? Or, in situations of national security, is the rule of law (a value which, when we fight, I assume we're fighting for) not applicable?

[Darth Executor]

From what I understand the United States didn't gain any reliable information from these methods.

Torture is wrong. It doesn't produce reliable information. When people are being tortured or aggressively interrogated they will say whatever it takes to stop the torture. Often times they will just confirm whatever the interrogator want to hear, even if it is not the truth.

Thank you, it's not like this drivel has been said already in the last 14 pages or that it's the same boilerplate BS that shows up in virtually every torture thread.

[Mountain Man]

How long do you think someone is going to keep giving false information if all it does is guarantee another trip to the waterboard table? I would say twice, at the most.