Alleged Immorality of G.A.s

[Mordecai]

If you don't know the difference between a volunteer training program and what the Bush administration did to kidnapped prisoners, there is not much hope for you.

I guess there's not much hope for me. Am I going to hell? Perhaps you can guide me with you vast wisdom to help me understand the difference.

...and water boarding is listed as torture...

It's listed as torture, huh? So a list makes something evil and defines it for everyone, everywhere? That's brilliant moral philosophizing. I forgot to check the list. Or perhaps it's The List. I'm sure the most brilliant linguists and philosophers of morality collaborated on The List, which you studied thoroughly, so you'd know to tell me there is no hope for me. That's mighty kind of you to warn me, based on The List of what is True.

Got any quotes or something from The List, at least or at a minimum, from the court ruling, where it says torture? Was the court the Supreme Court who officially ruled water boarding to be torture? If so, the President had some seriously incompetent lawyers. Plus, the military has been defying them for who knows how long, by water boarding our own troops.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

Whether you are going to Hell or not is far above my pay grade. But if you are like most of us mortal humans you do have the opportunity to repent.

Do you usually engage in such sophistic arguments?

[Mordecai]

Do you usually engage in such sophistic arguments?

The only sophistry here is the suggestion that there is a vast difference between what we did to our own troops and what we did to a couple of Al Qaida. You said "water boarding is listed as torture." We did, in fact, water board our own troops and have been for a very long time. Period. By your own "list," we tortured our troops, but you are quick to excuse that. So we're allowed to "torture" our troops but not Al Qaida, huh? Yeah, that sounds reasonable. In order to engage in a reasonable and fair-minded debate, you've got to respect your own definitions and be consistent. Otherwise, that really is sophistry. I was just sarcastic, personally. That's not sophistry.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

If you don't know the difference between a voluntary training program(SERE) and the kidnapping and torture of prisoners, then there isn't much hope for you.

[Mordecai]

If you don't know the difference between a voluntary training program(SERE) and the kidnapping and torture of prisoners, then there isn't much hope for you.

Wow, so now they're kidnapping Al Qaida? They didn't apprehend them. They kidnapped them? Wow.

If you can find someone reasonable to debate with me on this, they might actually change my mind. You can tell I'm reasonable by the reason in my arguments, which shows there is always hope. For you, on the other hand, I don't know what to say. You apparently are the Expert on water boarding. Can't you at least take responsibility for your own arguments? You insist water boarding is torture. Period. But we've been water boarding our troops for decades as part of training. So torture is wrong and illegal. We tortured, by your own definition, our own troops. For you, that's still fine.

Sounds to me like you judge based on whims and knee-jerk reaction and not reason. How can anyone engage in a rational debate with you and expect you to listen, when you can't even keep your arguments internally consistent?

[semlogo]

I guess there's not much hope for me. Am I going to hell? Perhaps you can guide me with you vast wisdom to help me understand the difference.

It's listed as torture, huh? So a list makes something evil and defines it for everyone, everywhere? That's brilliant moral philosophizing. I forgot to check the list. Or perhaps it's The List. I'm sure the most brilliant linguists and philosophers of morality collaborated on The List, which you studied thoroughly, so you'd know to tell me there is no hope for me. That's mighty kind of you to warn me, based on The List of what is True.

Got any quotes or something from The List, at least or at a minimum, from the court ruling, where it says torture? Was the court the Supreme Court who officially ruled water boarding to be torture? If so, the President had some seriously incompetent lawyers. Plus, the military has been defying them for who knows how long, by water boarding our own troops.

People have been successfully prosecuted for torturing via waterboarding. Should we ignore the rule of law?

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

You honestly don't know the difference do you?

Water-boarding is torture, it is also a serious capital crime under international and US law. Under the SERE program volunteers voluntarily agreed to be water-boarded knowing full well that they will not be deliberately hurt and or be killed as a result of the training. What the Bush administration did was kidnap citizens of a foreign country(With no expectation of no harm or death) and torture them to obtain information. Those actions constitute a War Crime punishable by death.

[Mordecai]

Water-boarding is torture, it is also a serious capital crime under international and US law. Under the SERE program volunteers voluntarily agreed to be water-boarded knowing full well that they will not be deliberately hurt and or be killed as a result of the training...

Interesting. So waterboarding ceases to be torture if they volunteered, huh? Source, please. Because I can volunteer to be killed and eaten, but the guy that did will still go to prison for murder and cannibalism.

Still, if we go with your reasoning, top Al Qaida did volunteer to commit mass murder and volunteered to have invaluable knowledge that we had every right to take from them. I'm going to take that to mean that they volunteered to risk being water boarded. By your criterion, that certainly makes it a lot less like torture. Then again, I don't agree with your criterion, and you really have to explain why it's legal to torture a volunteer but not Al Qaida. I'd be surprised if there's a form our special forces fill out, asking them if they're willing to be tortured.

What the Bush administration did was kidnap citizens of a foreign country(With no expectation of no harm or death) and torture them to obtain information. Those actions constitute a War Crime punishable by death.

LOL Kidnapped, huh? LOL That's hilarious. And sad.

[Mordecai]

People have been successfully prosecuted for torturing via waterboarding. Should we ignore the rule of law?

True. But the waterboarding they engaged in may have caused long-term emotional trauma. I mean, tying someone down and using Chinese water torture for 5 minutes isn't torture. But to do so for 24 hours is. You can water board and severely traumatize someone or you can do it without crossing that line. Or at least, that's what the idea was behind water boarding Al Qaida.

No, we shouldn't ignore the law. But I explained how in order for something to be officially defined as torture, you have to first define what torture is. As I explained in a previous post, the Bush administration's lawyers had some very reasonable criterion for what is and isn't torture. My suspicion is that since our special forces are subjected to water boarding as training, since they had doctors and supervision, strict guidelines to prevent excessive emotional trauma, no excruciating pain and no bodily harm, they felt it wasn't torture. I'm inclined to agree that they were reasonable to use this tactic on top Al Qaida. I haven't heard compelling arguments that torture can still be torture without excruciating pain, bodily harm or long-term emotional trauma. I mean, I think prison involves all of those things, but that's not considered torture.

Or is it? Perhaps Sometimes would say the police have kidnapped criminals and tortured them.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

Under US law you are entitled to volunteer for all types of silly and useless activities. The law won't stop you making yourself the south end of a north facing donkey. It is when someone else tries to make you one that the problems begin.

Yes it is kidnapping to take someone/anyone from where they are, or detain them, without their permission or court order to do so.

Maybe you just don't like the US Constitution all that well.

See 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments

[Mordecai]

Yes it is kidnapping to take someone/anyone from where they are, or detain them, without their permission or court order to do so...

By your definition, a police officer who catches a criminal in the act and arrests them is a kidnapper. See why you give me such a laugh?

[semlogo]

True. But the waterboarding they engaged in may have caused long-term emotional trauma. I mean, tying someone down and using Chinese water torture for 5 minutes isn't torture. But to do so for 24 hours is. You can water board and severely traumatize someone or you can do it without crossing that line. Or at least, that's what the idea was behind water boarding Al Qaida.

No, we shouldn't ignore the law. But I explained how in order for something to be officially defined as torture, you have to first define what torture is. As I explained in a previous post, the Bush administration's lawyers had some very reasonable criterion for what is and isn't torture. My suspicion is that since our special forces are subjected to water boarding as training, since they had doctors and supervision, strict guidelines to prevent excessive emotional trauma, no excruciating pain and no bodily harm, they felt it wasn't torture. I'm inclined to agree that they were reasonable to use this tactic on top Al Qaida. I haven't heard compelling arguments that torture can still be torture without excruciating pain, bodily harm or long-term emotional trauma. I mean, I think prison involves all of those things, but that's not considered torture.

Or is it? Perhaps Sometimes would say the police have kidnapped criminals and tortured them.

Why should we care what Bush's lawyers might have thought about it?

[Mordecai]

Why should we care what Bush's lawyers might have thought about it?

Why should we care what you think about it over Bush administration lawyers? The lawyers were the experts on law that advised the Bush administration. I figure they are more authoritative than you are. Plus, if you want to judge the decision, you have to consider the position the Bush administration was in. Their experts on law determined that the type of water boarding they were doing was legal. Was Bush supposed to say something like, "Well, being a really great and wonderful guy with authority over language and morality, I'm going to arbitrarily define torture differently than my own experts on the law."

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

We give our police/safety officers tremendous latitude in the performance of their duties. Yes they may detain you for up to 72hrs without formally charging you with a crime. They may not however water-board you in order the elicit a confession of crimes.

Definition of kidnapping:

kidnapping n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal (since all kidnapping is a criminal felony) the capture usually involves some related criminal act such as holding the person for ransom, sexual and/or sadistic abuse, or rape. It includes taking due to irresistible impulse and a parent taking and hiding a child in violation of court order. An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim coupled with kidnapping can raise the degree of felony for the injury and can result in a capital (death penalty) offense in some states, even though the victim survives. Originally it meant the stealing of children, since "kid" is child in Scandinavian languages, but now applies to adults as well.

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/background_information_waterboarding.pdf

In 1983, James Parker (Texas Sheriff for San Jacinto County) and three of his deputies were charged by the Department of Justice with committing torture because of their use of water torture on prisoners. The four were convicted of

[semlogo]

Why should we care what you think about it over Bush administration lawyers? The lawyers were the experts on law that advised the Bush administration. I figure they are more authoritative than you are. Plus, if you want to judge the decision, you have to consider the position the Bush administration was in. Their experts on law determined that the type of water boarding they were doing was legal. Was Bush supposed to say something like, "Well, being a really great and wonderful guy with authority over language and morality, I'm going to arbitrarily define torture differently than my own experts on the law."

The Bush lawyers have no particular authority - they expressed the opinion that Bush wanted them to express. Case law takes precedent over the opinion of someone's lawyers.

[Mordecai]

A'right. You guys are the experts on the law and what words mean, while completely ignoring any of my points. This is not a debate on your end; it's just condescending mindless soapboxing.

[Anijen]

A'right. You guys are the experts on the law and what words mean, while completely ignoring any of my points. This is not a debate on your end; it's just condescending mindless soapboxing.

I agree. from what I have read this topic is becoming a Bush bash, Which I am certain Clinton, Obama and others has allowed it too. I do not believe water boarding is torture, that doesn't mean I want the US to do it. I wonder what Captain Moroni would feel or his Captain Lehi (I think of the scalping incident) or the choice between death or conversion. I think this is one of those subjects that are hard to answer without divine help. I can see Sometimes saints point of view and also Mordecais. and as controversial each are apart from each other I agree with both in certain areas.

[semlogo]

A'right. You guys are the experts on the law and what words mean, while completely ignoring any of my points. This is not a debate on your end; it's just condescending mindless soapboxing.

Don't get frustrated. Men were persecuted during president Reagan's administration for waterboarding. It's a crime. Bush wanted to change that, and used his lawyers to present a case for legally doing it, but the opinion of lawyers has no effect on the actual law. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

[thesometimesaint]

Anijen:

I have no intentions of "Bush Bashing". It could have been "Pfc Fred" down in the Mekong Delta for all I care.

There is NO controversy. There is NO middle ground here. Water-boarding is TORTURE. It has been recognized as TORTURE since at least the Spanish Inquisition. TORTURE and specifically water-boarding has been outlawed by the US for generations now. The US has specifically tried and executed, or given long prison sentences persons responsible for water-boarding, including its own citizens.

[Mordecai]

There is NO controversy. There is NO middle ground here. Water-boarding is TORTURE.

I've already dealt with this. You have no argument and apparently lack the capacity to move the debate forward. Pointless.

Might I also add how disgusted I am at semlogo's baring false witness aka libeling Pres. Bush. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty," instead of, "Guilty because I hate him?"

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: how'd this get political?

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff