Human rights groups miffed at Chaney

[ironglow]

  Nabob;

   ..You still are having problems sorting out the difference between " defending Americans " and " vengance "..perhaps you had best pray for real enlightenment.

   With your claims..it appears that possibly powderman and I do know a God that you don't know about !

   You talk about someone "conjuring" up a God..when and where I go to worship him I boldly approach his throne, I don't have to have someone else babble in some other tongue to "conjure" him up (Isaiah 8:19).

   Flash : Almighty, omnicient God can hear and comprehend all our feeble, human languages.. So don't come to guys like Powderman and myself, talking about "conjuring up " a God...We already know him on a personal, one-on-one basis and pray that you do also.
   
  He is exactly the God we met in Scripture...remember, we live by scripture, not some old wive's tales as told by controlling old  boys in leadership positions..

[nabob]

Yes, I think you and powderman DO know a God that isn't any God I know about. When you justify torture and humiliation of prisoners with my God's name, you profane it. The God I pray to doesn't get off on "a little called-for humiliation" the way you and powderman do.

I don't think it is God you've met on a personal basis. I think it was the usual old imposter, the father of lies.

[fe352v8]

Powderman wrote

“Revenge has nothing to do with getting information to save innocent, or American lives, no matter what it takes”.

Isn’t this saying the ends justify the means?

And who is to be the arbiter of RIGHT and WRONG, now that legal no longer has any thing to with them?

I am sure anyone can find support for their position, or at least rationalize it, from whatever belief system / religion they ascribe to for what ever action they wish to take, humanity has managed to do this with every system / religion they have ascribed to, thus I find reference to divine sanctioning of particular actions to be a rather poor justification to behave like those, that one views as in opposition to, their deity’s pronouncements.

But you are correct about it comes down to RIGHT and WRONG, and somehow I just cannot see how acting in a manner that emulates the behavior of someone that we feel is acting WRONG, somehow makes it RIGHT for us.  To do so is a rationalization

As a practical matter information has a limited useful life.  As the command and control structure of our enemy is fractured and decentralized, the low level combatants we are capturing may have information of an immediate tactical nature, but are unlikely to hold anything of strategic value.  Thus coercive interrogations carried out days, week, months, or even years after their capture are likely to result in the obtaining information, which is no longer of value in a given tactical situation.  For coercive interrogation techniques to be of maximum value, to the troops on the ground, they must be employed immediately, as was done in Viet Nam.  Of course this could lead to the same abuses that occurred there, but then it was a case of an individuals actions.  Frankly I find it more understandable when an individual engages in abusive treatment of prisoners, then when a country makes it a matter of policy.

But hey maybe it will lead to the trains running on time.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

Jon

[powderman]

nabob. You are still taking truths and statements and twisting them into something completely different, spoken like a true dumcrap.
I see no purpose in conversing with you anymore on this. No matter what Ironglow or I say, you twist words and insert your own to fit your agenda.
fe. I get your point about prisoners that have been there quite a while. Much of their info would be old news for sure. Cant remember his name but one of the top scum only lasted 14 seconds with the waterboard. He gave info that stopped EIGHT attacks before they got off the ground. Only God knows how many innocent lives were saved by making the Godless one uncomfortabke for 14 seconds. POWDERMAN. 

[Sheila]

Nabob, wether you like it or not, not only is god a loving God, but he is also a God of judgement.

[Greysky]

If an enemy combatant offers to surrender - and you accept his surrender - you automatically accept full responsibility for his welfare. He must be provided with adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical care for as long as he is held as a POW.

Torture is never an option for a decent human being to even consider using on any living creature, let alone a fellow human being. I know I could never brutalize a captured enemy soldier for any reason. And I wouldn't associate with anyone who would actually commit such a despicable act.

[nabob]

nabob, wether you like it or not, not only is god a loving God, but he is also a God of judgement.

What that has to do with anything is beyond me, unless you are somehow equating torture of prisoners with divine judgment.

Cant remember his name but one of the top scum only lasted 14 seconds with the waterboard. He gave info that stopped EIGHT attacks before they got off the ground. Only God knows how many innocent lives were saved by making the Godless one uncomfortabke for 14 seconds. POWDERMAN.

Prove it. I believe you are speaking of Khalid Sheik Muhammad. Prove your assertion that the interrogation techniques used suffocation. Furthermore, a link I've posted earlier in the thread mentioned these attacks and the infantile nature of them,  such as taking down the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch. The  people interrogating him couldn't decide if he was making that up or not because the attack described was so implausible. The link stated that the interrogators never actually found any attack to prevent, no cells to disrupt, no people to arrest. So exactly what was the usefulness of this interrogation technique? It gave us information that the interrogators did not believe and could not act upon due to the ephemeral nature of the supposed info. Yet you trump this up as a victory in the war against terror?

No matter what Ironglow or I say, you twist words and insert your own to fit your agenda.

Just as you do, guys. I've posted links that question the effectiveness of torture, that question the value of the information obtained, noted that the use of torture turns even our allies against us and is hence strategically counterproductive. You've both insisted that it "works" but have provided nothing to back that claim up. In fact, ironglow has stated that he finds the use of public humiliation of suspects just fine with him since it can help promote an attitude readjustment. Great. Now, instead of getting information, we are on board with interrogation techniques that involve public humiliation. Not in the effort to get information, but to satisfy personal needs to humiliate an opponent. Sounds to me as if we are joining the enemy, not fighting them.

[powderman]

nabob. If Ironglow and I  s p o k e  s l o w e r  w o u l d  y o u  b e  a b l e  t o  u n d e r s t a n d  u s  b e t t e r? More twisted words. POWDERMAN. 

[nabob]

I understand you just fine. I am merely showing your positions for what they are.

I see you've chosen to duck the challenge I made regarding proof of your assertion regarding the value of information obtained by questioning Khalid Sheik Muhammad. Did you not understand the post? Maybe if I typed m o r e   s l o w l y? 

How many times does this make that you've stated that you were done with this thread? Just wondering...

[fe352v8]

I does not appear that any words have been twisted, the logic behind them however is, at the very least, warped.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[ironglow]

  This reminds me of the presidential debate...when Micheal Dukakis was asked if he would defend his wife from a rapist.

  This question is about the same..Would you defend Americans from terrorists ?

   Looks like we're getting the same answers...all over again !...LOL

[fe352v8]

Using your analogy, we should use vigorous or alternative interrogation techniques on convicted and suspected sex offenders, and / or those who we suspect may have knowledge of future sexual assaults, to prevent our wives from being raped.

Your rational is solely based on THE ENDS JUSTIFYING THE MEANS

If we accept this, then we must recognize that our enemies may avail themselves of the same rational, which means that any acts of barbarity they may engage in are somehow justifiable.

Powderman wrote:

[i]“No matter what we say, you turn things around to suit your liberal agenda. You and fe harp about legal, the law, etc. At some point in time right and wrong must enter the picture. Right and wrong have NOTHING to do with legal anymore.”[/i]

Ironglow in the next post wrote:

“Amen; Powderman...”

You seem to think there are absolutes, concerning RIGHT and WRONG, if so, then the ENDS JUSTIFYING THE MEANS, cannot be a valid basis for determining behavior, to do so is contrary to their being an absolute.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

 

[nabob]

Another fascinating question: would you like to take revenge on prisoners by torturing them?

Looks like we are getting a "big yes" from ironglow and powderman.