Posted on 05/22/2009 9:54:15 AM PDT by Paul46360
Watch a radio host get waterboarded.
Enter WATER in the box.
“You post was the typical emotional whining of a self-important self righteous shallow thinker who obviously thinks he’s holy and that if he pontificates his holiness everyone will recognize his brilliance, drop at his feet, weep, beg for forgiveness, and recognize that the peaceful world that he lives inside his mush-filled skull is is the holy land where all good men should reside.
You didn’t deserve a different response.
The rest of us recognize that we live in a hard and difficult world where our enemies are duplicitous, have no “better angels” to appeal to, and are not at all interested in responding with Christian kindness. No offense, but we have no problem recognizing our enemies and doing whatever is necessary to neutralize or eliminate them.
Now go away. Your fantasy world whining self-righteousness bores me. If I wanted to treat myself to that insipid slop I’d dial in Obama. He wallows in it and dishes it even more and better than you do.”
Tell you what, let’s put religion completely aside here. But I am going to need you to lift your knuckles off the ground, pick up a history and/or government book or two and learn something. Calm your macho, manly, “Let’s kick some ass doods” attitude and think like a civil person for a second.
I assume you agree that we have one hell of a document called a Consitution and it should be adhered to at all cost. Additionally, I assume as a patriot you are for the rule of law and respect the authority of the court system that was constructed and exercises its power by the authority established by the founders.
In light of this, let us review:
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This has been reaffirmed many times by the Supreme Court with the following just a sample of findings.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972):
The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
“A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958):
“The Eitght Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
My input: Meaning we can morally evolve as a society. At one point in the history of this continent, burning a suspected witch was seen as morally justified, as was slavery, but we have advanced from that from a moral standpoint.
It can be argued easily that waterboarding is unconstitutional.
To the hipocrasy of waterboarding by the United States.
1901 - Major Edwin F. Glenn receives court martial and convicted for waterboarding in the Philippines during the Spanish American War. Sentenced to 10 years hard labor.
Teddy Roosevelt orders the court martial of General Jacob H. Smith for waterboarding in the same war and dismisses the general.
World War II:
Eight Japenese Kempeitai are convicted for waterboarding soldiers and are executed by the United States.
Vietnam:
Soldier court-martialed and dishonarably discharged after conviction for waterboarding a Japenese prisoner after the American public sees it in a newspaper.
So if you believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, military tradition of the decency of the United States and moral progression of human beings, then you cannot jusify, as a nation, the use of torture.
When you are in battle, you shoot to kill and you bomb to destroy and their may or may not be collateral damage. That is expected, that is war. But when you have an unarmed and confined prisoner, regardless of his inherently evil acts, civility kicks in and you get back into civil mode.
But go back to your Rambo and Commando movies and continue to live in your brainless “kick-ass” world. Ours needs less of your line of thinking...step aside as we progress into a greater humanity.
Define “this power”.
Given your previous poorly-reasoned arguments, I doubt what you have just asserted about me is true.
This is nonsense, they were executed for murder. I don't have time now to deconstruct the rest of your crap but maybe tomoorow night.
“This is nonsense, they were executed for murder. I don’t have time now to deconstruct the rest of your crap but maybe tomoorow night.”
Yes, they committed many atrocities. But why according to the Tokyo Trials reports was waterboarding at the top of the list in the list of atrocities. Also, are you aware that some Japenese soldiers were sentenced to hard labor solely for waterboarding and no other atrocities?
Regardless, I think the evidence placed before you shows that the United States has a history and has set precedence in both the civilian legal and military forums that waterboarding is torture and the arbiters and actors of the torture deserve punishment upon conviction.
Here, pick up one of these books if you want to see the United States’ historical view of waterboarding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East#Books
Please note you did NOT answer my question. In any case, I will try to get us back on track to good manners and proper debate protocal by answering your question.
In the hands of political actors, including of course our current commander-in-chief, power can be roughly defined as the authority to use force, fraud, or confiscation of wealth to achieve certain goals. Polticians who have this power will always be tempted to abuse it, especially if it unchecked. Granting the arbitrary power to torture (or order ehnanced interrogation if you prefer) s especially dangerous, especially when given to a man who loves the exercise of power down to his very soule(in this case Obama).
A good place to begin in a study of the meaning of power are the works of Lord Acton. Of course, Acton had no conception of the tremendous rise and abuses of political power that would follow in the century after his death. Please read the following in the context of current events:
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it. "
Let me repeat my question again. Why do you trust Obama not to abuse the power to order torture and/or enhanced interogation? What checks do intend to put on him? Would you prosecute him if he abused it or kept these abuses secret, and if so, how?
So you are saying that being a Christian means you can’t believe in torture.
Then what about killing for a government? Should Christians not do that? Do you turn your cheek when your own family is attacked? Have you ever fought back to protect yourself? And again, what is torture and when does a Christian say no?
Your logic unfortunately, when applied to similar instances, leads to outcomes you probably disagree. Therefore your logic is flawed. Irrespective of what
I think about this issue.
By not standing to fight against invaders says more about you as a person than your Christian beliefs.
Have you ever heard of Thomas of Aquinas??
I don’t. There must be checks and balances on this type of thing. Absolute last resort type. For non citizens only.
I don’t like this in the hands of government. Not at all. But the question of 10,000 people or more worth less than the emotional security of one bad guy, the answer requires a certain response.
Best of the evil presented.
What the Japanese did to their POWs made even the Nazis blanch. The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners' healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded;
The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."
The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.
Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.
Or they would "waterboard" the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31765
MAJOR difference between what we did and what the Japanese did. Huge difference.
Mancow is now and always will be a pussy. Funny sometimes but stil a pussy.
Your answer completely ignores my original comment, which I will repeat here:
No one is suggesting the gov’t be given the power to do this (waterboarding) to American citizens, or even someone considered an EPW under Geneva. It wasn’t even routinely done to terrorists.
Then we get into the whole “torture is a binary thing” discussion that has been beat to death. I don’t see something that someone will do on a bet, something that we do in SERE training to our own aircrew and others, as “torture”. You do. We disagree on that. So be it.
You trying to make it look as if I approve doing this to American citizens, using long-winded philosophical quotes, is disingenuous at best.
“No one is suggesting the gov’t be given the power to do this to American citizens”
We already do it to American citizens. Our own soldiers.
Cutting off fingers and heads is torture. Unpleasantly scaring someone is not. This pious, holier-than-thou crap is so disingenuous. Those who think we shouldn’t use unpleasant scares to save American lives.... would you want the next attack stopped before your loved one has to choose between jumping to their death or being incinerated if it meant some scary water up the nose of a committed beheader?
Get real.
mmm your thinking says christianity = no torture.
Yet Christianity is built on the most cruel form of torture devised by man...ie the cross.
Hope you are wearing one around your neck
The last 9 years of my employment I worked for the two biggest "richards" in the manufacturing world. I'll take waterboarding any day......
I would do what my Irish grandparents did and move to another land.
I don’t care if i get kicked off FR...you are a pussy...now go suck your thumb and read your bible.
That is not true. See for example here:
The top legal adviser within the US state department, who counsels the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on international law, has declined to rule out the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding even if it were applied by foreign intelligence services on US citizens.
Again, I don't share your faith that the power of ehanced interrogation, even if "officially" restricted in the ways you state can be limited once unleashed. Power-hungry polticians have a strange way, as the "long-winded" Acton notes, of evading such restrictions. You keep ignoring this point, but it is crucial.
Certainly, we already have evidence that political leaders will ignore the rights of American citizens. We know, for example, that illegal "enhanced interrogation technigues" such as sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc. (though apparently not waterboarding) were used on Jose Padilla, an American citizen. We also know that Bush admininistration tried to deny Padilla the most ancient right now ejoyed by American citizens, habeas corpus.
Let's assume you are right and a miracle occurs and Obama does not overstep the power you want to give him to torture a class of non-citizens who he deems (by his own whim?) terrorists, torture is still torture. It has no place especially the hands of the president of a contry that was founded on the universal human rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence which (please note) does not specify these rights are limited to citizen.
Again, let me repeat my question for the umteenth time: why do you trust Obama not to abuse this power?
You’ve missed who’s advocating what here. You’re not a FR newb, so I guess you need some remedial thread-following instruction.
I don’t trust Obama not to abuse anything.
The idea that in wartime, everyone gets the same rights as citizens, is absolutely absurd, however. It has never worked that way.
Well...we agree that Obama can’t be trusted not abuse anything! Good. I must have missed something but when did Congress declare that it is “wartime?”
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.