Waterboarding

The Case for Waterboarding
By Vasko Kohlmayer
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 29, 2006And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist's discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui's anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can't answer in the affirmative then hold your peace.

Ticomaya wrote:

Who are you talking to, DTKO?

Talk to me, why doncha?
I
C
O
M
A
Y
A

It's funny how Ticomaya has the expectation of having his requests fulfilled but has yet to fulfill the requests made of him in this thread. I don't think he should expect much until then.

Politicans with flexible ethics are not fit for their office. It speaks poorly to their objectivity.

Time for an election...
K
O

Take pacificsim for example. Very few people would leap to the assertion that violence is "good," and yet the vast majority of us can accept that violence in certain situations is acceptible.

One set of my grandparents were Norwegian immigrants and one of my great-uncles was murdered by the Mafia. How is this instructive to what I believe today?

Another set were Irish immigrants, and the lousy way in which they were treated is well established. How is this instructive to what I believe today?

We all can reach back for ancestral wrongs and lay claim to them, but is this rational?

Diest TKO wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Who are you talking to, DTKO?

Talk to me, why doncha?
I
C
O
M
A
Y
A

It's funny how Ticomaya has the expectation of having his requests fulfilled but has yet to fulfill the requests made of him in this thread. I don't think he should expect much until then.

Politicans with flexible ethics are not fit for their office. It speaks poorly to their objectivity.

Time for an election...
K
O

I figure you an only child, still living with your folks, haven't interacted much with others. I'm trying to help you out, dude. I'm giving you debate pointers, I'm trying to improve your spelling, and now I'm trying to help you figure out how to properly communicate with others.

I figure you an only child, still living with your folks, haven't interacted much with others. I'm trying to help you out, dude. I'm giving you debate pointers, I'm trying to improve your spelling, and now I'm trying to help you figure out how to properly communicate with others.

This post will be a waste of time.

Ticomaya has requested that I provide how Finn's post contained multiple strawmen. He rejected the example I gave him. He rejected it despite it being quite textbook. I will now select two more examples to illustrate the strawmen present in Finn's useless illogical post.

Quote:

Take pacificsim for example. Very few people would leap to the assertion that violence is "good," and yet the vast majority of us can accept that violence in certain situations is acceptible.

This is pure strawman because it assumes someone's position on the use of millitary power. This statement would morally/ethically equate the justification of violence of a soldier killed in battle with a terror suspect being tortured.

The issue of pacifism is introduced as a medium to introduce the idea that violent millitary actions can be justified. It assumes that the justification for one holds for the other.

My position is misrepresented because I have never advocated for pacificism. I only have advocated that the USA conduct it's behaivor under the guidelines of both national and international law.

Strawman.

Quote:

One set of my grandparents were Norwegian immigrants and one of my great-uncles was murdered by the Mafia. How is this instructive to what I believe today?

Another set were Irish immigrants, and the lousy way in which they were treated is well established. How is this instructive to what I believe today?

We all can reach back for ancestral wrongs and lay claim to them, but is this rational?

This was particular favorite of mine. I made a statement about my lineage, more specifically, my family's personal experience with the US government's use of war time justification to remove them from their homes and put them into internment camps.

Finn's examples would atempt to centralize my argument around two things...
1) Their ethnicity
2) That bad things happened to them.

Neither example he provided addresses a government action made under some war time justification. What they do however is show that bad things happen to all people. The central part of my argument is that is was a disgraceful justification on the behalf of the gevernment, and was justified by using war time fear tactics specifically the propaganda like use of the word "Spy." I have not made an argument that what happened to his ansestors (or anyone else's) was justified.

Moreover, my personal opinion is that it should be intructive on his beliefs. Further, I believe they are. Saying his ansestors were treated lousy is a judgement statement, and suggests that in fact it does factor into his beliefs. I also hold suspect that a family member being murdered by a mafia member has zero affect on his beliefs on the mafia.

Strawman.

T
K
O

Ticomaya should recall the context of those responces. Given what he was responding to, both of Finn's comments are straw. Tico is right about one thing, I don't need to include that it was my family put into camps, but it speaks to my family's initmate knowledge of the situation. There's no reason for me to really omit it either.

As for Finn addressing those who object to the "ostensible dark behaviors of humanity," this directly speaks to it being a strawman because it extends the discussion beyond torture, and extropolates that the conclusion that we must make for war itself is the same conclusion we must make for torture.

Step up an argument which can be easily won and extrapolate a conclusion on a seperate issue. Strawman.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Ticomaya should recall the context of those responces. Given what he was responding to, both of Finn's comments are straw. Tico is right about one thing, I don't need to include that it was my family put into camps, but it speaks to my family's initmate knowledge of the situation. There's no reason for me to really omit it either.

As for Finn addressing those who object to the "ostensible dark behaviors of humanity," this directly speaks to it being a strawman because it extends the discussion beyond torture, and extropolates that the conclusion that we must make for war itself is the same conclusion we must make for torture.

Step up an argument which can be easily won and extrapolate a conclusion on a seperate issue. Strawman.

T
K
O

Finn didn't distort, exaggerate, or misrepresent your position. No straw man.

And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist's discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui's anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can't answer in the affirmative then hold your peace.

Ask a soldier: "We may stop a giant terror plot by torturing a person with waterboarding, but it's illegal. You can save a lot of lives if you get the information from him. You can be a hero. However, in doing so, you violate international law and will most likely surrender your freedom and possibly your life. Will you do it?"

Finn - If you didn't use strawmen so liberally maybe you wouldn't have it shoved in your face so much. I had very little trouble shredding them, but they are legion in number it seems sometimes. I guess from the tone of your post your prepared to answer to three strawmen I took time to point out, and perhaps the ad hominem attack on my age.

Diest - Look to your own admonitions for advice. I have no intention of engaging in a rock throwing contest with you. I responded to your prior arguments. Respond to mine with substance and not blather or don't.

Tico's article wrote:

And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist's discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui's anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can't answer in the affirmative then hold your peace.

The answer is No, No, and No. Holding my peace is very easy concidering that the "discomfort," "anguish," and "pain" we would choose to inflict on criminals is cruel and unusual. It only takes a second for us to lose everything this country is about. The article Tico presents isn't an argument for waterboarding, but and argument for torture. In the argument itself it admits to the pain a person endures.

I'd ask the author if they would prosecute a enemy soldier for torturing a US troop. What would they say when the enemy soldier said that it was worth it because they got valueable information? Would the author be so understanding? Would all be fair in war? I don't have to worry about holding my peace, but I worry about those who support torturing another human being.

Nobody is surprized that waterboarding works. Nobody is surprized that many methods of torture work. This is not up for question. We have international law which we must abide, and despite the effectiveness of the method, it's still illegal.

Waterboarding works! Great, now whose ready to answer to the consequences for violating international law?

Ask a soldier: "We may stop a giant terror plot by torturing a person with waterboarding, but it's illegal. You can save a lot of lives if you get the information from him. You can be a hero. However, in doing so, you violate international law and will most likely surrender your freedom and possibly your life. Will you do it."

If they are willing to answer to the consequences, let them torture the person.

Make no mistake, America is not above the law.

T
K
O

Diest - Look to your own admonitions for advice. I have no intention of engaging in a rock throwing contest with you. I responded to your prior arguments. Respond to mine with substance and not blather or don't.

I appreciate your defense of my posts Tico, and I suspect that it had as much to do with your disdain for the incessant cries of "Strawman!" by feeble debaters, as appreciation for my arguments.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I appreciate your defense of my posts Tico, and I suspect that it had as much to do with your disdain for the incessant cries of "Strawman!" by feeble debaters, as appreciation for my arguments.

Indeed, Finn.

Tico certainly didn't come here to make any of his OWN arguments.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Tico certainly didn't come here to make any of his OWN arguments.

T
K
O

Strawman ... ad hominem.

That he cannot is obvious, that he refused to try reminds me of childhood experiences wherein one kid called out another and the other responded, "I would fight you but I'm afraid I would kill you." All of us circling the opponents knew who won and who lost without the need of a punch being thrown.