Posted on 04/27/2014 9:25:04 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) defended the controversial enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding this weekend, and implied that the practice would still be commonplace “if I were in charge.”
“They obviously have information on plots to carry out Jihad,” she said at the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting on Saturday evening, referring to prisoners. “Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”
There is a false assumption in your questions. It’s an Either/Or fallacy to think that water-boarding is the only option. I do not believe this form of interrogation is the only option.
I’m not willing to resort to such tactics in order to gather information because I believe there are other ways of gathering intelligence.
I plan to engage in a lengthy discussion with my sibling, a retired soldier who enjoyed a long and distinguished career in the corp, concerning this topic.
“Ask yourself this question: If one of your loved ones was being held by some psychopath, who threatened rape, torture or murder and police had one of his/her accomplices. Time is running out to save your loved one a gruesome death. To what level would you authorize the police to extract information from the accomplice that might save your loved one?”
Excellent hypothetical. Frankly, I don’t know the answer to that. My first reaction would be to use whatever method’s necessary in order to extract information.
It’s seems rather cut-and-dry, but I don’t know if it’s that simple. What if the authorities have the wrong person, and this individual doesn’t know anything? The possibility’s disturbing.
Mongrel dogs that believe murder and genocide must be utilized to advance their faux-religion, do not warrant any consideration or concern from me.
you aren't because you are a weak. Real mean do what is necessary to defend people like you.
A Quote from Orwell fits you.
it was "grossly obvious" that "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.
Please stop your sanctimonious blathering. You sound like leftist snob.
I digress, your logic far exceeds my professional experience.
You’re right. My link is screwed up.
I don’t care.
Well, I was going to thank you for a civil dialog involving a controversial topic. You were accommodating, and I do thank you for reserving any ad hominems until that last post. Your comments/questions were informative and I appreciate it.
I entered the discussion knowing that I’d be criticized and slandered for my opinions.
As I stated earlier, I don’t believe this issue is an easy one to tackle. Although, I will say this. There are some on this thread who have made the mistake of assuming that I would somehow resort to interrogating a suspect using a wet noodle or something. That would be an inaccurate assumption.
Man she hit the nail on the head!!! I lika that!
I was civil to you. Just stating the obvious. You have a distorted perception of waterboarding , and to most, perception is reality.
You will not accept any contrary argument, even from people experienced in it.
In response to my hypothetical scenario, you stated what if the accomplice was the wrong person, it frightens me. Yet I explained what waterboarding was, and its temporary effects. Residual effects of waterboarding are benign, yet your reasoning is skewed by your misperception.
At worst the “wrong person” would be pissed off,with no injuries or lingering psychological issues. How then could you justify not using the method if a loved ones life is on the line?
You know what real torture is? Being forced to listen to the song “muscrat love” over and over again while locked in your cell.
That's the beauty of it! Waterboard them enough, and they'll confess to anything! Real efficient.
Waterboarding is waterboarding. Is it, or is it not, "torture".
Personally, I find it impossible to consider waterboarding as torture, since:
1. We do it to our own. And we wouldn't submit our own troops to torture, would we?
2. There is no intent, nor risk, of killing -- or even maiming -- the subject. The threat is totally psychological. In my view, torture is a process that either maims or kills its subject.
“You will not accept any contrary argument”
Not entirely true. My hesitation of considering any specific alternative is motivated by my lack of experience or knowledge of the various methods used. I understand-to a certain degree-by way of books, film, as well as documentaries, but this amounts to a cursory knowledge. I do not question your experience in this field.
“At worst the “wrong person” would be pissed off,with no injuries or lingering psychological issues.”
This statement is a lightbulb moment for me. It has clarified your point, and has enabled me to examine this from a different perspective. I appreciate your civility and patience that others were not so willing to grant.
In closing, I’d like to say that if my children become testy I threaten to play Muskrat Love. Straightens them out every time.
Thank You
Best Regards,
TJI
A helpful post. Thank you
’ I don’t believe that we, as a nation, should water-board anyone.’
As a nation I think we should water-board ISLAMIC TERRORIST. They and their ISLAMIC BUDDIES flew planes into building, killing over 3,000 INNOCENT AMERICANS.
Water-boarding is much TO GOOD for them, they should be set afire and “fried” alive just like the poor Americans that were jumping from the world trade center buildings...!
Water-boarding is nothing but play-ground antics compared to being “fried” alive....!
In interrogation, you don't bother asking questions you can't verify.
"You're the wrong person? You weren't in the warehouse at 2pm? Where WERE you, then? Who was with you? Who can vouch for your being there? Where do they live? How long have you known them?"
You keep asking questions, and keep going back to prior questions. Under stress, it's hard to remember the lies you told, and keep them straight. If you're lying, your answers won't stay consistent. When your answers show discrepancies, if a car was red the first time you answered but now it's blue, they know you're making up a story.
Thank you for the helpful example.
TJI
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.