celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I didn't say it was "necessary". I simply said meant that to maintain honour and prciniples that some courses of action should be ruled out even if we think this may slightly increase the risk of terrorism, as is the case in hand.
Sometimes it is better to allow some to die than engage in complete dishonour and abandon all principles and civility. Anything else is the greed of Jacobins, scheming calculators who have no time for virtue and think only in terms of the most base of factors.
Silly is not answering the simple question.Your situation was silly. I would hardly be allowed to question detainees if my family was being directly threatened nor are any of these cases in the 24-like scenrios you keep positing or implying.
All principles are personal. Countries do not have principles. Nations do not have principles. Only individuals can have principles.
Here's something you might like: Pearl Harbor. FDR knew about the attack before it happened, but he let it happen anyway (though he did prepare a little bit for it). He use this "tragedy" to change public opinion, which was in favor of the isolationists, and therefore manipulating a country's principles.
I don't like it, because it is bad history. It's even sillier than the incessant and mostly inane allusions to the TV show "24" some here use as smokescreens to dodge answering direct questions about the lives they will trade for their honor and principles.
Since when is allowing the same as necesary? It is far closer in meaning to risking than necessary. Anyway I've explained what I meant, if you want to disagree with what my posts mean when you have it from the author that is your business but it is a very way to go about debating.What you said:
Allowing some to die is not risking their death, but accepting their death. It is justifying their death.
So, yes, you DID say it was "necessary".
I would allow some risk to uphold my principles and honour and that of mynation certainly, that naturally means that a slim portion of that risk is on my own family and friends.Silly is not answering the simple question.
I shall rephrase: if you will allow some to die for your honor and your principles, will you allow family members (wife, son, daughter) to die for those principles? Just answer "yes" or "no".
:roflI don't like it, because it is bad history. It's even sillier than the incessant and mostly inane allusions to the TV show "24" some here use as smokescreens to dodge answering direct questions about the lives they will trade for their honor and principles.
:rofl
You're not folling anyone? You realise that.
Bottomline in these cases none of the situations where anything like the live or death, ticking timebomb scenarios that keep being brought up. When you imply they are and then don't like being called on it, you aren't actually folling anyone.
Since when is allowing the same as necesary? It is far closer in meaning to risking than necessary. Anyway I've explained what I meant, if you want to disagree with what my posts mean when you have it from the author that is your business but it is a very way to go about debating.
I would allow some risk to uphold my principles and honour and that of mynation certainly, that naturally means that a slim portion of that risk is on my own family and friends.
I would allow some risk to uphold my principles and honour and that of mynation certainly, that naturally means that a slim portion of that risk is on my own family and friends.
The only one who's protesting about being "called" on anything is you.....and badly at that.
"Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them." - John McCain
It deoends, if we are talking about a real 24 like situation with thousands endangered iminently and the suspect almost certainly having most of the ncesdsary info, then I probably could turn a blind eye to a few harsh techniques but other than that I could not support it. One must take utmost care that expedients are not turned into regularities.How much risk?
It deoends, if we are talking about a real 24 like situation with thousands endangered iminently and the suspect almost certainly having most of the ncesdsary info, then I probably could turn a blind eye to a few harsh techniques but other than that I could not support it. One must take utmost care that expedients are not turned into regularities.
So? It does severe, and that means very severe, mental distress. It is so distressing it did get these people to "break".It does no bodily harm for heavens sake.
Who knows. I'd expect those who did it to be prosecuted, although perhaps treated lightly, but to do it to save thousands of lives in an basically very unrealistic situation.If waterboarding is a harsh technique for getting information what technique would be acceptable for them to try?
Or at this point are we just supposed to ask nicely for information and just deal with it if they prefer not to tell us anything.
Seriously. I want to know what - beyond just asking - is an acceptable means of interrogation for the CIA when it comes to captured prisoners.
So? It does severe, and that means very severe, mental distress. It is so distressing it did get these people to "break".
The crazy thing is most folks on here are complaining about the brutality of the waterboarding but when you read about waterboarding and it's effects and then read about sleep deprivation as a form of interrogation the sleep deprivation really does sound far worse. And, it has a more lasting effect on the mind and takes longer to recover from.
As for mental distress again with the waterboarding when it is over it's over.
What have you been reading? From what I know waterboarding is extremely distressing, hence it and not was the one which worked.
The mental distress of torture is not over when the torture is over.
You've apparently already googled tons on waterboarding right? Now go google sleep deprivation. It sounds much worse no matter where you read about it.
The effects of sleep deprivation are cumulative so the longer you're kept awake the longer it is going to take for your body to fully recover. For example if you're kept awake for 3 days you still won't be normal after 1 night of sleep. Sleep deprivation can lead to psychosis. Hallucinations. Lowered immune system. The brain starts shutting down in parts. If kept up for too long you get reduced cortisol production.
It's just nasty business.
At least with the waterboarding when it's done it's done. And how long does it take?
The sleep deprivation however goes on for hours and hours and hours till the hours are days. And when it's over it takes hours and hours and days to fully recover from that crap.
Just interesting to compare the effects of the two and then listen to everyone going on about the water while few complain about the sleep thing.
So you think the terrorists who want to kill us are gonna get post traumatic stress disorder from the waterboarding?
You're talking about physical effects. You are correct. The long term physical effects of sleep deprivation are far worse than the long term physical effects of waterboarding. What is being discussed, it seems, is the mental effects of torture. Mental effects can be quite severe, irrespective of physical effects.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?