Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[Stryke]

Styke

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I don't consider waterboardign torture because it (as far as I'm aware) because it does not invlove the infliction of pain.

We can play all sorts of word games with the meaning of weither its "mental" torture.

But once we go down that road...at that level what ISN'T mental torture?

I mean it is torture , the US has lowered its standards , and every time it claims it isnt torture every enlightened and intelligent person on the planet rolls there eyes in disbeleif .

I`m saying if your going to do it , be honest enough to admit youve sunken to that level .

I understand why , and am undecided wether its necessary , personally i dont think it is .

Im one of those idealist who thinks that this is in the long term a war of ideology , and that ideals and example are the true weapons we have .

and stuff like this while maybe expediant in some cases does far more harm to the cause than good . There is no high ground , it becomes a slippery slope of need , there are no hearts and minds won with this sort of tactic . And as Jim stated it gives many cause to justify there own foul acts .....

having said that , if I could save my family by extracting information in an crude way , I think I know what would happen ....

but Id admit it was what it was .

we all know the rules dont we ? , Gitmo is just as bad , no right to a trial of any sort etc etc , either shoot them as illegal combatants or try them but dont play games , there is no grey area .

[cxt]

Val

So where are you comments about beheading and serious torture?

I asked you stright out to show me where I can find all the ink you have spilled abut those issues and you have yet to post them.
The double standard here is breathtaking----rants and raves about the discomfort caused by waterboarding---but nary a peep about cutting off peoples heads.

Then you attempt to crawl out it by references to GRAVITY?

Ok, so the logic here is that more serious and more imprtant a topic the LESS it needs to be discussed???
We should not talk about cancer because "everyone" is in agreement that its bad?

I never said that the end justifies the means---I do think that certain circumstances its defensable to cause bad people some discomfort to save innocent lives.

I also think as a point of philosophy/ethics many people have not really given serious thought to own beliefs.
I still have not read any logical construct that justifes the belief that causeing evildoers some degree of pain is held to be worse that the takeing of innocent life.

No, your misreading the quote--Kindness to the cruel is not the cause of their cruelity---its an ACT of cruelity to the victems of the cruel.
Extendeing kindness to the evil and cruel is an ACT of cruelity to their victems.
Plus, as mentioned, it might well provide an incentive to the cruel since they know they will be well treated regardless of their acts.

Again Val, please read what is written---I never said the didn't waterboard McCain, I said they did that AND A WHOLE LOT MORE--MUCH WORSE THAN THAT--compartitivly the waterboarding was bush league.

But its NOT "irrlevent" in context with the larger point here--McCains torturers faced no punishement, no rebuke and no justice---they KNEW that so they felt free to torture.
Simply stamping around and saying "that was wrong" is just empty words--it prevents NOTHING, it does not stop or prevent OTHER people from being tortured.

How do you plan on stopping torture Val?

Nope, its not flawed at all---you just don't care for the implications.

We know that strenous interogation has had positve results.
In the case of the kidnapped little girl it was never tried so we don't know if it would have saved her.
Point is that it was never even TRIED---to very idea of causeing pain to an evil man was held to be more important than saving an innocent little girls life.........and I'm not sure that stance is all that ethically defensable...leaglly maybe, but ethically I'm not sure.

"makes the siutation worse"

Really--seriously?

Ok, then whom exactly were we torturing on 9/11?

The terrorists have been very clear in why they hate us--and until the very last utterly cynical and hypocritical screed---directed at people like you Val--torture was never even mentioned.

The Geneva Conventions proposed a carrot and stick approach--I think its a better idea than simple shakeing ones finger and saying "that is a no-no."

[cxt]

Styke

I don't agree that its torture--which IMO is a term that should be reserved for serious infliction of bodily injury.

Waterboarding, by all accounts, does not rise to that level---its physcial discomfort, its mentally/emotionlly stressfull--but its not serious physical pain.

And as far as "sinking to that level" I prefer to draw a hard line in that Geneva Conventions have set standards for a reason/s and if non-state, non-uniformed, terrorists don't like not having the protections of the Conventions---then they need to change their behavior.

Intersting thing about Gitmo, did you know that the relatives of some of those locked up them tried to PREVENT them being released?

Seems they belived, quite rightly, that they were much better off in US hands than being returned to their own native lands where they actually torture people and execute them for what they have done.

I don't have a problem with Gitmo, from the perspective of war, prisoners don't get to go home until the shooting stops and the peace is signed.
People captured by the Germans at the start of WW2 had no idea how long they would be locked up.

I shed no tears for them being in prison--if they want to go home then they should be begging their buddies to end hostilites.

[Valkenar]

Without the quotes I find it hard to follow what you're responding to sometimes, but I'll do my best.

So where are you comments about beheading and serious torture?

I asked you stright out to show me where I can find all the ink you have spilled abut those issues and you have yet to post them.

And I said straight out that I don't waste my time posting what everybody knows. It's very simple. There is no point in saying "beheading is bad, they shouldn't do that to us" because everyone already knows that and agrees. There is a point in saying "water boarding is bad, we shouldn't do that to them" because not everybody agrees.

We should not talk about cancer because "everyone" is in agreement that its bad?

We can talk about how to prevent cancer, but there's no point in talking about whether cancer is a good thing or not. Nobody thinks cancer is desirable, so it would be completely stupid for me to go around saying "Hey guys, cancer is really bad we should really cure/prevent it". I mean.. duh, of course cancer is bad. It would be as stupid to come on here saying "hey guys, karate is fun, we should do karate." I don't speak out against beheading because it's completely redundant. There's nobody who disagrees in any substantial way. We can talk about karate and issues therein, but there's no point in advocating working out.

The same cannot be said for torture. I'm saying "Hey guys, we shouldn't torture people" and you disagree, thus forming the basis for an intelligent discussion.

I never said that the end justifies the means---I do think that certain circumstances its defensable to cause bad people some discomfort to save innocent lives.

How is that not the end justifying the means? The end is "saving lives" and the means is "causing bad people some discomfort" You are saying it's defensible. How is that different from "The end (saving lives) justifies (is defensible in these circumstances) the means (causing bad people discomfort)" In this very sentence you area almost explicitly saying "the end justifies the means"

Are you saying that because of the "certain circumstances" clause that it's not an end-justifies-means argument?

I also think as a point of philosophy/ethics many people have not really given serious thought to own beliefs.

I agree with that. Are you saying that I haven't given thought to my own beliefs. This isn't something that's worth debating, but you happen to be wrong on that, I think about this stuff quite a bit.

I still have not read any logical construct that justifes the belief that causeing evildoers some degree of pain is held to be worse that the takeing of innocent life.

Ultimately, that argument is a red herring. In the abstract I'll agree that causing pain is preferable to losing life. But in practice, that's not the situation. You can never be remotely sure that you're going to save an innocent life by torturing someone.

I have a question for you. If a thief dies in the hospital, is it okay to take their organs against their will and give them to "good" people? (Whatever you consider makes for the "best" sort of person, maybe nobel winners, the pope, whoever) I would say no, because even though you can say that the overall outcome might be positive, it's just not right. In the same way, I believe it's just not right to torture people.

No, your misreading the quote--Kindness to the cruel is not the cause of their cruelity---its an ACT of cruelity to the victems of the cruel.
Extendeing kindness to the evil and cruel is an ACT of cruelity to their victems.

Well, I guess this is just a difference of opinion. I simply disagree with your ethical evaluation. Why do we give people on death row a last meal? I think mercy is a virtue. What good does it do the victims of the cruel to see great cruelty inflicted on victimizers? So they can get some feelings of vengeance? Personally, I think the desire for vengeance is one of humanity's worst instincts. It does nothing good for anyone, and reinforces tendencies to take pleasure in the misfortune of others. We'll never completely get rid of something so ingrained, but pandering to it is a bad idea, as far as I'm concerned.

Again Val, please read what is written---I never said the didn't waterboard McCain, I said they did that AND A WHOLE LOT MORE--MUCH WORSE THAN THAT--compartitivly the waterboarding was bush league.

Yes, fine, I acknowledge this. Now please acknowledge my point that McCain calls water boarding torture. He calls it torture, and as you helpfully point out, he was afflicted with water boarding along with other techniques. He puts water boarding in the same category as those other techniques. What is your explanation for why he says this if it's not true?

How do you plan on stopping torture Val?

There's no easy solution here, there's no one-stop shopping for your torture-prevention needs. Stoking the fire with torture of our own isn't going to help though.

Nope, its not flawed at all---you just don't care for the implications.

Did you not read, not understand or just not care to respond to my points? I explained why it was flawed. If you're going to say that it's not flawed, shouldn't you at least refute my point?

We know that strenous interogation has had positve results.

Yes, and we know Pol Pot was a bad man. But it would've been wrong to murder him at age 12. You can't use post-hoc knowledge to justify an act that was wrong on the face of it at the time you had to make your decision.

You didn't address the problem that you can never be sure that torture will help, you're only hoping that it'll work. I never said that it's impossible for torture to be effective. Only that it's impossible to know that it will be effective. The hypothetical makes the assumption that success is guaranteed, which is unrealistic and why I say it is flawed. Do you not see that the distinction between assurance of success and chance of success is important?

At what percent chance is it worth torturing someone to save a life?

Ok, then whom exactly were we torturing on 9/11?

They had other reasons to hate us. Now we've added one more. I don't see how that benefits us. Are you trying to suggest that the situation could not get worse? That's absurd. It's not like every person in the middle-east hates us. Worst-case is that every man woman and child in the middle east hates us with the same passion that the terrorists do and we've alienated all our allies. We're not there yet. Adding more reasons for the average person to hate us and giving more reasons for our allies to distance themselves from us is not going to help any.

The Geneva Conventions proposed a carrot and stick approach--I think its a better idea than simple shakeing ones finger and saying "that is a no-no."

Well, carrot and stick is all well and good, but there's more to life than logistics. I'm not willing to quietly accept my country doing immoral things in my name, even if I believed it might be effective in some way. If the only reason for acting morally is as a tactic to manipulate people, well that's not much of a morality. All it is is a strategy.

[Stryke]

I don't agree that its torture--which IMO is a term that should be reserved for serious infliction of bodily injury

How conveniant for you , Im sure a couple days of physchological torture would change your mind , are you sure it wouldnt ?

I don't have a problem with Gitmo, from the perspective of war, prisoners don't get to go home until the shooting stops and the peace is signed.
People captured by the Germans at the start of WW2 had no idea how long they would be locked up.

interesting use of words, prisoners and war ... Im fine wih all the things you mentioned , you just have to give them prisoner of war status .

but just my ideals , is no refelction on my feelings on the war in general , just what I consider a few mistakes on the ethical and moral front against terror .

[Seth Rosenblatt]

but I don't think simply concentrating our vinegar more and more is going to help us catch these flies, either.

apparently, though, more vinegar is exactly what we need!

joking aside, the lengths that some people will go to in the hopes of justifying the behavior of king george and his court is anything but funny.

there is conflicting evidence as to what the torture of Abu Zubaydah actually accomplished: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 51_pf.html
not to mention: http://www.newsweek.com/id/74317

but that's okay, right? because it's not torture, is it, cxt?

[cxt]

Stryke

Maybe it would---point being however I don't consider it torture---heck a good uechi class probably causes more physical pain.

And like I said before, if were going to consider the mental and emotional stresses invloved as "torture" what would that LEAVE OUT??

What ISN'T "torture" by the standard of mental/emotional stress???????

Its a slippery concept, the Founders actually wrote a bit about torture--they were against BTW, but what they considered the lines to be drawn is waaaayyyy past the "comfort zone" of modern peoples.

Its like "free speech" the concept as invisoned by the Founders was freedom from GOVEREMENT persucution....private citizens could legally shoot you in the face for saying thing that offended them

Point being that standards change--and IMO they have shifted to far, when mental and emotinal stress is viewed the same way as hooking wires to your balls and running electiric current thu you.........I just don't think they are the same.

The guys in Gitmo are not POW's--not by Geneva Convention standards--but if they were, there best bet would be to hope their buddies ceased hostilites so they could go home----if it was safe for them to do so.

Again, if they wish to be treated as such the onus is on THEM to behave as such.

IMO if you refuse to follow the dictates of warfare--such as they are--then you have no room to bitch, moan and whine when you are denined the benefits of the same set of rules.

[cxt]

Val

Ok so you have never spoken out on the evils beheading captives or buring children alive as an example of what happens to those that cooperate with the west.
But you have plenty of time to wax wroth about the evils of waterboarding.
Daniel Pearl and the victems of 9/11--not time to take up their treatment.
But plenty of time to spend on some mass murdering relgious zealot is treated???

Have you ever heard the phrase that "silence is agreement?"

If you won't stand up and condem it when and where it rears its head its no wonder that people don't take you seriously when you wish to single out the west for you wrath.

No I'm saying that "the end justifies the means" doesn't qualitfy it ENOUGH.
And IMO it needs to quaified.

I think that you seriously belive that causeing non-permanent, temporary, pain to evildoers is WORSE on a ethcial/moral scale than saving innocent lives you clearly have NOT given it much deep thought.

And you can never be sure that IT WON'T when you refuse to even entertain the thought.
Maybe it will work and maybe it won't--but that does not change the argument it just shifts the verbage to:

"Show me the ethicial construst where its more important not to cause temporary pain to evil doers than it is to pontentially save innocent lives?"

I don't know--but in context, say the theif didn't sign his organ doner card--is it "right" from a ethical standpoint to allow a little kid to die because some scumbag didn't sign his name to a plastic card????
What "rights" does a dead man have?
What "rights" does the child have to life itself.

These are tricky questions that require more than jingoism and holier-than-thou mindsets to answer.

And I disagre, I think there are circumstamces where torturing people is not only justified but depending on your ethics, it might be a demand.

I think our foes have been pretty clear in exactly why they hate us---recall that OBL was particually upset about "infidel" boots walking the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.

Personally I find it diffcuilt to ascribe rational motives to people that want to kill you over naming a stuffed teddy bear "Muhommed", rampage, riot and kill over cartoons, murder women for the "crime" of not wearing a head scarf or holding hands in public, hang homosexuals, put a death sentence on authors and film makers----and killing 250,000 Algerians for the "crime" of not being Islamic ENOUGH--by THIER defination of the term BTW.

Algerians coined the very term "Islamofacist" BTW--and they did so from bitter exeperience.

[Kuma-de]

Source: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/02/07/usdom3729.htm

Unlike the al-Qaeda fighters, detainees who fought for the Taliban probably should be accorded POW status because they fought for the armed forces of a party to the Convention, whether or not their government was recognized and whether or not their fighters respected the laws of war. The United States has traditionally accorded POW status to captured combatants fighting for enemy powers in either circumstance.

"This decision puts soldiers around the world at risk," said Roth, "especially U.S. troops who might be captured in combat."

The Taliban was NOT the legal government of the signatory country of Afghanistan, as much as Al Qaeda is for the governments of Afghanistan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, France, USA, Philippines, Iraq, et al the countries where they have their cells of terror.

The last paragraph is laughable. The risk is great for any US soldier that is captured because none are accorded the Geneva Convention rules. They are killed and paraded through the streets (Mogadishu - Black Hawk Down Incident) or never returned to their families; Like Sgt. Matt Maulpin who has been MIA for 18 months.(see link):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9928452/from/RL.2/

So the fact that we have "unlawful combatants" being treated a bit roughly to obtain secrets that have saved lives does not bother me. This is war, a reality of war. We cannot fight a PC war.

They should drop leaflets in Arabic explaining to the al Qaeda and such terrorists that they should drop their weapons and come to America (Gitmo) where they will have air conditioning, put on an average of 20 pounds due to the excellent diet, excellent health and dental care,have unfettered religious freedoms, (replace their worn Koran with a brand new version and receive a free prayer rug).


According to Peters' "Kill, Don't Capture":

http://www.theonerepublic.com/archives/ ... sKill.html

He sees things from a different perspective:

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

Peters and I agree on this point:

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

But we differ here in some respects, if someone can give up secrets as to where a ticking dirty bomb is, then water board away. (Water Boarding to me is NOT torture or we would be guilty of torturing ALL of our military that complete the escape and evasion course where they are each given the treatment)

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Torture, no! Water boarding terrorists who do not "adhere to standing conventions" only if it is going to give us actionable intelligence and save lives.

But how can we get them to play by the rules?

p.s. I was able to obtain this "Classified" clip of 2 CIA interrogators water boarding a subject. Your comments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RXTWMiBkg

[Valkenar]

Ok so you have never spoken out on the evils beheading captives or buring children alive as an example of what happens to those that cooperate with the west.
But you have plenty of time to wax wroth about the evils of waterboarding.

I explained why I don't devote a lot of time talking about beheading. Belaboring a point that everybody already understands is a waste of time. I have nothing to add to the Daniel Pearl topic because I agree with everyone that says it was a travesty. It would be idiotic to just repeat what everyone else is already saying. It's not like there's any consciousness-raising to be done here. What possible good can come from beating the same dead horse that everyone else is?

If you're just going to repeat yourself and ignore what I'm trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and believe that I only care about transgressions made by the U.S. if that's what you want to think.

Have you ever heard the phrase that "silence is agreement?"

Have you ever heard the phrase "preaching to the choir"? My silence here is agreement with the prevailing viewpoint, which is that beheading is a gruesome travesty. What else should I be saying about it?

I think that you seriously belive that causeing non-permanent, temporary, pain to evildoers is WORSE on a ethcial/moral scale than saving innocent lives you clearly have NOT given it much deep thought.

I disagree with your whole conception of what torture is about. You think it's all about temporary pain, but I would characterize it as treatment that is damaging to a person's long-term emotional well-being. Long after torture victims have recovered physically, they still have to deal with the psychological scars. That kind of emotional trauma is what causes the real damage. Your attitude towards torture is like thinking that child molestation is about the physical pain. It completely ignores the real harm. What do you think about rape as a torture method? After all, the physical pain is only temporary.

Terrorists are people. They are human beings. You may not like that, you may want to classify them as some sort of comic-book "evildoers" devoid of humanity but that's not rational, it's not moral and it's not even practically effective. It may be emotionally satisfying, but that doesn't make it right.

[Valkenar]

So the fact that we have "unlawful combatants" being treated a bit roughly to obtain secrets that have saved lives does not bother me. This is war, a reality of war. We cannot fight a PC war.

The biggest problem I have with gitmo is that people who have no business being there are packed up and held indefinitely without charges. Not just captured "unlawful combatants"

But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

Yes, it stinks being the only morally decent party in an altercation. It's still better than letting yourself be dragged down into savagery.

But we differ here in some respects, if someone can give up secrets as to where a ticking dirty bomb is, then water board away. (Water Boarding to me is NOT torture or we would be guilty of torturing ALL of our military that complete the escape and evasion course where they are each given the treatment)

Isn't there a difference between experiencing pain and distress in a controlled environment among friends with the expectation of making it out intact and being put through the same procedure by enemies?

Torture, no! Water boarding terrorists who do not "adhere to standing conventions" only if it is going to give us actionable intelligence and save lives.

But how can you know ahead of time that the person A> has actionable intelligence and B> that torturing him will get it? If either of those turns out not to be true, then you've just tortured a person for no gain.

p.s. I was able to obtain this "Classified" clip of 2 CIA interrogators water boarding a subject. Your comments?

A couple kids screwing around, not really doing it right. Not too impressive.

[cxt]

Val

But you have to look at how its preceived---and when you only devote time and effort to the supposed shortcomings of ONE group it looks rather alot like bias and personal animus rather any actual distaste for "torture."
People can "say" pretty much anything they like---the questions is--what do they DO?

What you should be doing--IMO, is expressing at least SOME of the ire you foist on the west for waterboarding on those that commit far worse acts.
If you had railed over the torture of daniel pearl or the dunking live people into vats of acid by Saddam goons, or the hanging of homosexuals in Iran etc, then you would be on far firmer footing...but as it stands your post-hoc rationalizations for NOT doing so ring hollow....to me at least.

Then if its a question of a persons "long term emotional wellbeing" then how do we determine that?
Seriously, how can anyone possibly determine what someone threashold might be for "long term emotional well being????"

If you ask me people that can justify killing thousands of innocent people, hacking the head off a jew BECAUSE he is a jew, murdeing people because they choose not to worship as you do, hanging homosexuals and killing women for not wearing a head scarf.........etc.
Yet consider it "torture" to be touched by a women

A-Are probably not wrapped all that tight to start with.

B-Their cognative schemata differs so drastically from yours/mine that its going to be nearly impossible to bridge the gap.

C-Honestly could care less about their "long term emotinal wel being." IMO by CHOOSING to be mass murdering relgious driven facists then they have brought whatever hardship falls upon themselves.

Were not raping people as a means of gathering intel---and those that have raped are arrested, tried and if found gulity sent to jail.

The people terrorist kill, maim, torture, rape etc are "human beings" as well.
And IMO when you are kind to those that commit such cruelity you commit an additonal act of cruelity upon their victems and provide incentive for the cruel to commit MORE violence and cruelity in the future.

Think about it--if your reasoning is that by tortureing we create more hate then is not the opposite ALSO likely to be true....that assuring peopel that they will be well treated NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO--that it will lead to more savagery????

Their victems are "human beings" as well--and IMO they deserve far more than hollow words and empty platitudes.

I have no objection to the term "evildoer" either----the actions of the terrorists have placed them in that catagory--not my verbage.

[Kuma-de]

Justin wrote in his thoughtful thesis the following:

Terrorists are people. They are human beings. You may not like that, you may want to classify them as some sort of comic-book "evildoers" devoid of humanity but that's not rational, it's not moral and it's not even practically effective. It may be emotionally satisfying, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm sorry, but I cannot let a comment like this slip by without a reply. "Terrorist are people. They are human beings." Yep, they are and with that paradigm comes the assumption that they have a capacity to think beyond the "evildoers" level.

By treating them nicely, as a nice human beings all we are going to receive from this is what? More TERRORISTS!!

I have advocated that folks watch this independent film "Obsession - The Fight Against Radical Islam" before they prophetically take a stand on Terrorist. We cannot cure terrorism like a disease.

You can download the entire movie (1 hour) here by clicking on "Watch on VEOHTV:

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v345689ZTcQpMCf

or watch the 39 minute abridged version here:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/pla ... =ytff-tyc7

[Bill Glasheen]

Terrorists are people. They are human beings.

... free to make their own choices, and accountable for those choices.

Case in point... A "human being" can choose to conduct an armed invasion of my home. But said "human being" will be held accountable for that choice. And the laws of Virginia permit me quite a bit of lattitude with respect to my own choices. And I don't need to bother asking questions.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Ask Sean Taylor - an athlete among athletes - the wisdom of that thinking.

I have little patience for sociopaths who want to hold me or my country hostage to the civil nature of the average man. And I don't need to mince words.

There are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheepdogs. Some of us get just a little excitable when they see the sheep getting slaughtered.



- Bill

[Valkenar]

What you should be doing--IMO, is expressing at least some of the ire you foist on the west for waterboarding on those that commit far worse acts.

Why? What's the point? Who am I informing? What can I possibly add to that discussion? What value is there in parroting what everybody is saying?

Seriously, how can anyone possibly determine what someone threashold might be for "long term emotional well being????"

Well you can't, and I'm sure some fragile people will be harmed by things that don't seem like they are that severe. I'm actually okay with that. I'm not okay with doing things that most people would agree will cause lasting harm. It's a judgement call and one I have an opinion on, but not the opinion on. From what I understand of water boarding, and how it is done, I believe it is torture.

Yet consider it "torture" to be touched by a women

I wouldn't say that being touched by a woman should be considered torture. I wouldn't being in women to touch them *as* a means of interogation, but if there are female guards, I don't have a problem with them leading the prisoners from place to place, for example. There's a pretty wide gulf between coddling and torture.

A-Are probably not wrapped all that tight to start with.

I would tend to agree, except that I don't see why that's any crazier than not going to doctors, not wanting to use modern technology, or not wanting to eat pork. None of these things make any sense to me, but I can respect that they are very important to some people.

Their cognative schemata differs so drastically from yours/mine that its going to be nearly impossible to bridge the gap.

I think that's a very dangerous assumption that causes us a lot of trouble. When you presume that you can't communicate with your enemy, the only option left is annihilation. You rule out any opportunity to do anything else. A lot of people think that way. "These people are completely alien to me, the only option I see is destroying them" I see no reason to believe that these people, as alien as their actions seem, are fundamentally different than we are.

Certainly their culture and upbringing are radically different and have allowed them to reach a state of what I would unreservedly call insanity. Still, their minds are human minds, with all the attendant motivations and instincts. It's the very same thirst for revenge that motivates them as motivates us to want to torture them. We may say that their perceptions of being slighted are misguided, but there's really less difference than we'd like to believe. That's an important lesson from WW2, if you ask me.

C-Honestly could care less about their "long term emotinal wel being." IMO by CHOOSING to be mass murdering relgious driven facists then they have brought whatever hardship falls upon themselves.

I disagree. Basic human rights are inalienable. I believe punishment can serve 3 legitimate purposes: deterrence, security or rehabilitation. I don't believe torture has an value as security or rehabilitation and any deterrant effect it may have is vastly outweighed by the drawbacks it brings. Vindictiveness and vengeance are not valid criteria for punishments, and that's the only reliable outcome I see from torture.

Were not raping people as a means of gathering intel---and those that have raped are arrested, tried and if found gulity sent to jail.

But why not, if only the physical component matters? If mental anguish isn't important, then why not rape them?

And IMO when you are kind to those that commit such cruelity you commit an additonal act of cruelity upon their victems

Are you talking about their future victims, or past victims? If someone mugs me on the street, how is it cruel to me if a stranger gives him bus fare tomorrow?

and incent te cruel them to commit MORE violence and cruelity in the future.

I think anger towards a people is a much stronger incentive than perception of weakness. The more crimes against humanity we commit, the more enraged our enemy becomes, and they then commit grievous crimes against. It's an endless cycle.

The problem has never been that they think we're too harmless.

Their victems are "human beings" as well--and IMO they deserve far more than hollow words and empty paltitudes.

What is it you think you're giving victims by torturing people?