(V): "Would you be happy to have them tortured as 'legally' sanction by the US government to find out where those kids are??"

No, I'd rather see the bus load of kids murdered. Can't have torture even if innocent people will die. Even kids. Doesn't matter. Let the kids die.

"One of your kids is a spy and gets caught. By the law of this other land, torture is allowed."

This already happens. The Taliban slices off your head. That must suck.

Artful Dodger: Ok.... so lets go back in history to past uses of water boarding and the consequences there of...

"After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the U.S. army used waterboarding, called the "water cure" at the time. It is not clear where this practice came from; it probably was adopted from the Filipinos, who themselves adopted it from the Spanish.[105] Reports of "cruelties" from soldiers stationed in the Philippines led to Senate hearings on U.S. activity there.

Testimony described the waterboarding of Tobeniano Ealdama "while supervised by ...Captain/Major Edwin F. Glenn (Glenn Highway)."[106]

Elihu Root, United States Secretary of War, ordered a court martial for Glenn in April 1902."[107] During the trial, Glenn "maintained that the torture of Ealdama was 'a legitimate exercise of force under the laws of war.'"[106]

Though some reports seem to confuse Ealdama with Glenn,[108] Glenn was found guilty and "sentenced to a one-month suspension and a fifty-dollar fine," the leniency of the sentence due to the "circumstances" presented at the trial.[106]

President Theodore Roosevelt privately rationalized the instances of "mild torture, the water cure" but publicly called for efforts to "prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future.""

"The use of "third degree interrogation" techniques to compel confession, ranging from "psychological duress such as prolonged confinement to extreme violence and torture", was widespread in early American policing. Lassiter classified the water cure as "orchestrated physical abuse",[110] and described the police technique as a "modern day variation of the method of water torture that was popular during the Middle Ages". The technique employed by the police involved either holding the head in water until almost drowning, or laying on the back and forcing water into the mouth or nostrils.[110] Such techniques were classified as "'covert' third degree torture" since they left no signs of physical abuse, and became popular after 1910 when the direct application of physical violence to force a confession became a media issue and some courts began to deny obviously compelled confessions."

"Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[117] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[38] The United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war."

"Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[122] On 21 January 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.[123] The article described the practice as "fairly common".[123] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army.[122][124] Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City.[125]"

"The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission received testimony from Charles Zeelie and Jeffrey Benzien, officers of the South African Police under Apartheid, that they used waterboarding, referred to as "tubing", or the "wet bag technique" on political prisoners as part of a wide range of torture methods to extract information.[131][132]:pp.206 Specifically, a cloth bag was wet and placed over victim's heads, to be removed only when they were near asphyxiation; the procedure was repeated several times.[131][132]:pp.206 The TRC concluded that the act constituted torture and a gross human rights violation, for which the state was responsible..."

....................Now, if all these courts and cases state that water boarding is torture and illegal, and as such a war crime......

... How can you say it is not?

(V): I don't know why you think you need to give me a history lesson. I studied war history in college. And if you look at my posts below, I refer to waterboarding as torture. And I also say it's not the perferred way. Drone strikes are better. Better to kill them first and ask questions later. At least that's the Obama Administrations current policy. Seems ok to send in the bombs but not the water. OK, I'll go along with that.

There are better ways to question a terrorist. Electric voltage to his testicles would probably get some info. I'm not sure if that's torture though. They didn't cover that one in college but Jack Bauer used it and got lots of info.

Artful Dodger: Funny... it seems the recent and past posts of you stating that water boarding was torture and you supported it's use have ''''vanished'''!!

...almost... examples encapsulated in replies..."You say its torture, I say it's not. I want my government to have in its toolbox the right, under presidential order, to use waterboarding."

You've found 'Jesus' on torture

(V): What, now you're not happy I agree it's torture?

Artful Dodger: I'm just curious over why after 3 years odd of you supporting torture, you've now developed some common humanity on the subject.

... so you are admitting you were wrong?

(V): Sure, if it makes you happy. I was wrong.

(V): Besides, I've just moved on to killing them on the spot. That seems to be OK with the liberals and the conservatives. Maybe we can let all the terrorists go (release them in the desert) and then have a hunting party. You know, like target practice.

Artful Dodger: That would be murder, and a complete loss of moral high ground...

You didn't nick the idea from a movie like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" did you?

(V): It's not murder. Murder is a legal term and if they went to a deserted island with no laws or if done in secret, it's neither legal or illegal. Also, if we just built a ship to the moon, put all the bad guys on it, landed it on the moon with a limited amount of oxygen, they'd all die and it's not against the law. Giving someone a free ride to the moon is a generous thing. Sucks to run out of oxygen but hey, the terrorists would be closer to their heaven and they could get laid that very night by one of their 72 virgins.

And I didn't watch the chainsaw thing. So you have me at a disadvantage. I don't watch that crap.

Artful Dodger: Really.... you really think that!! You'd shot someone on an island and stand face to face to their family and say ... "it's ok I didn't break any laws"..

"Also, if we just built a ship to the moon, put all the bad guys on it, landed it on the moon with a limited amount of oxygen, they'd all die and it's not against the law."

Sounds like the Nazi's excusing the gas chambers.

"and they could get laid that very night by one of their 72 virgins. "

Like Revelations promising Christians they all go to heaven, yet all the rest of the world is burning and damned!!...

"And I didn't watch the chainsaw thing. So you have me at a disadvantage. I don't watch that crap."

Not even the likes of the George Romero Zombie films?

(V): You sure go out of your way trying to protect killers. You've even admitted you'd let your own kids die rather than waterboard a suspect to find out where he's hid them. I don't share those concerns for terrorists. I'm on the side of the innocent.

BTW, you're wrong about executions for waterboarding. Stay away from those far left websites.

Artful Dodger: What ever happened to "though shall not kill". That you say it's ok to kill the terrorists just like they say it's ok to kill anyone who they see as an enemy.

"I'm on the side of the innocent."

No just on the side of what is called 'blood lust'. If you were on the side of the innocents then you wouldn't say this...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Would you be happy to have them tortured as 'legally' sanction by the US government to find out where those kids are??"

No, I'd rather see the bus load of kids murdered. Can't have torture even if innocent people will die. Even kids. Doesn't matter. Let the kids die.


It seems like you just wanna kill islamists, just like the crusaders from old!!

(V): you have a real problem telling the difference between sarcasm, tongue in cheek, and a genuine position. Miss that class in college did ya?