waterboarding - what say you?

[Digger]

Is it moral?

[Conrad]

If you have proven guilt. Yes... against terrorists.

When they break laws of general warfare we need to also.

[Steve]

I honestly don't know enough about it to say whether it's "torture" or not. :shrug:

[creepycrawler]

I honestly don't know enough about it to say whether it's "torture" or not. :shrug:



X2....Does anybody know for sure exactly what it is?

[jredmond]

I would say no since the UN views this as torture and I think it is immoral for us to tell everyone else to live by the UN's definition of torture but we don't have to. It is one of those grey areas that could bite us in the arse later. If this would not cause such a problem internationally for us then I would say yes since I don't think waterboarding is morally wrong or torture.

[creepycrawler]

I would say no since the UN views this as torture and I think it is immoral for us to tell everyone else to live by the UN's definition of torture but we don't have to. It is one of those grey areas that could bite us in the arse later. If this would not cause such a problem internationally for us then I would say yes since I don't think waterboarding is morally wrong or torture.


If the UN was worth a shat, I would agree with you. As it stands, I don't give a shat what the UN says.

[jredmond]

If the UN was worth a shat, I would agree with you. As it stands, I don't give a shat what the UN says.

I don't think the UN is worth a shat but I think working with the UN will help with international relations.

[Jeffro600]

Its torture...pure and simple! Torture is defined as causing agony or suffering. Waterboarding chokes off the air supply, creates the feeling and fear of drowning and can cause lasting physical and emotion problems and even death. Yeah, id call that torture.

Guess the Geneva Convention doesnt mean dick to these guys... :shrug:

[Steve]

Guess the Geneva Convention doesnt mean dick to these guys... :shrug:

If the Geneva Convention specifically mentions waterboarding, let's see the quote please.

[Jeffro600]

If the Geneva Convention specifically mentions waterboarding, let's see the quote please.

It covers all forms of torture...dont see why water boarding would not be considered torture... :shrug: Causing pain, suffering and the fear of death...how exactly is waterboarding NOT torture???

(Article 17 of Geneva Convention III): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

[Cresso]

From Howstuffworks.com (http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm):
Water boarding as it is currently described involves strapping a person to an inclined board, with his feet raised and his head lowered. The interrogators bind the person's arms and legs so he can't move at all, and they cover his face. In some descriptions, the person is gagged, and some sort of cloth covers his nose and mouth; in others, his face is wrapped in cellophane. The interrogator then repeatedly pours water onto the person's face. Depending on the exact setup, the water may or may not actually get into the person's mouth and nose; but the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water seems to be secondary to the psychological experience. The person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face.


My opinion would depend mostly on this question: Are we okay with other nations using waterboarding on our guys?

[LONEWOLF]

Like the other countries really give a rats arse to the Geneva Convention, I am so sure our enemies they follow the rules, as they drag the bodies down the street. Oh wait, isn't the saying All's fair in love and war? It is WAR, we don't have to be gentlemanly about it.

[newracer]

Does the Geneva Convention allow decapitation and mutilation of bodies?

[creepycrawler]

I don't think the UN is worth a shat but I think working with the UN will help with international relations.



I wish I could believe that but the fact is that certain 3rd world countries hate us. They hate us reguardless of the fact that we send more money to help them than anybody else. They don't hate us because of what we do or don't do. They hate us because of who we are. Some hate us because we are prosperous. Some hate us because we all don't bow down to alla. Nothing we do to "be nice" to them is going to stop them from hating us.

[jredmond]

I wish I could believe that but the fact is that certain 3rd world countries hate us. They hate us reguardless of the fact that we send more money to help them than anybody else. They don't hate us because of what we do or don't do. They hate us because of who we are. Some hate us because we are prosperous. Some hate us because we all don't bow down to alla. Nothing we do to "be nice" to them is going to stop them from hating us.

This is very true. I also think many countries hate us because we try to make the world live by rules that we wont follow. For example we were all pissed that China shot down a satellite but a couple of months later we shoot one down.

If we could stop being hypocrites more of the world would like us. It will just take a while for some countries to accept that we have changed our ways. I wish we would stop sending other countries so much money especially the ungrateful ones.

[DaJudge]

It covers all forms of torture...dont see why water boarding would not be considered torture... :shrug: Causing pain, suffering and the fear of death...how exactly is waterboarding NOT torture???

(Article 17 of Geneva Convention III): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Now go look up the Geneva Convention definition of 'prisoner of war' and discover that these guys aren't POWs. Does that change your mind?

Like the other countries really give a rats arse to the Geneva Convention, I am so sure our enemies they follow the rules, as they drag the bodies down the street. Oh wait, isn't the saying All's fair in love and war? It is WAR, we don't have to be gentlemanly about it.

Most COUNTRIES abide by the Geneva Convention. Somali warlords, Iraqi insurgents, and Al-Queda guerrillas are not countries, are not signatories of the Convention, and are not POWs when captured. We, on the other hand are signatories and have agreed to be bound by it. The question is should we voluntarily bind ourselves to follow it even if it is not technically binding in this case?

[1BGDOG]

Like the other countries really give a rats arse to the Geneva Convention, I am so sure our enemies they follow the rules, as they drag the bodies down the street. Oh wait, isn't the saying All's fair in love and war? It is WAR, we don't have to be gentlemanly about it.

But are we morally "better" than our enemies?

[ColoradoXJ]

war sucks. war with warlords and non-governmental groups sucks more.

this is like the question of unfair treatment in prison... you broke the law, you go to jail as a punishment. in this case, you went to WAR with us, killed our soldiers, and then got caught... :shrug:

i wouldn't want it to happen to our soldiers, anymore than i want it to happen to them, but the fact of the matter is that it is happening, just like our soldiers are being killed in ALL sorts of horrible ways... at least we aren't decapitating them and hanging the bodies from bridges :shrug:

[creepycrawler]

war sucks. war with warlords and non-governmental groups sucks more.

this is like the question of unfair treatment in prison... you broke the law, you go to jail as a punishment. in this case, you went to WAR with us, killed our soldiers, and then got caught... :shrug:

i wouldn't want it to happen to our soldiers, anymore than i want it to happen to them, but the fact of the matter is that it is happening, just like our soldiers are being killed in ALL sorts of horrible ways... at least we aren't decapitating them and hanging the bodies from bridges :shrug:


Yup.

[Steve]

It covers all forms of torture...dont see why water boarding would not be considered torture... :shrug:

...insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Jail is certainlyl "unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment" so is that torture too?

[DaJudge]

I honestly don't know enough about it to say whether it's "torture" or not. :shrug:
Wikipedia has a pretty good article about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding). Their summary:

"Waterboarding is a form of torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) that consists of immobilizing a person
on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trendelenburg_position)
position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.
[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-EbanVanityFairWB1) Through forced suffocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffocation) and inhalation of water, the subject
experiences the process of drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning) and is made to believe that death is
imminent.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-WhiteWAPostWB_110807) In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward,
waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_reflex).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-ABCNewsWB_110807) Although
waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the
risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_damage) caused by oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_deprivation)
deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against
restraints, and even death.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-HRW_open_letter_WB) The psychological effects on victims of
waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-NY)

Waterboarding was used for interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation) at least as early as the Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)
Inquisition[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-NYTimesWB_110707) to obtain information, coerce confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_confession), punish, and
intimidate. It is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities,
including legal experts,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-HRW_open_letter_WB)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-JuristPittWB_100807) politicians, war veterans,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-DN.21_WB_110507)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-NW_WB_110507) intelligence
officials,[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-0) military judges,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-CaL_WB_110507) and human rights organizations.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-HRW_WB_110507)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-AI_WB_102607) In
2007 waterboarding led to a political scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandal) in the United States when the
press reported that the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) had waterboarded extrajudicial prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_prisoners_of_the_United_States)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-ABCNewsWB_112905)
and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-NYT_WB_100407) The CIA
has admitted waterboarding Al-Qaida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaida) suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed),
Abu Zubaydah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah) and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahim_al-Nashiri).[16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#_note-1)"

[jtw2]

I don't recall these asshats as being signitors of the Geneva Accords.

[DaJudge]

I don't recall these asshats as being signitors of the Geneva Accords.
As I noted in post #16. :flipoff2:

[jredmond]

war sucks. war with warlords and non-governmental groups sucks more.

this is like the question of unfair treatment in prison... you broke the law, you go to jail as a punishment. in this case, you went to WAR with us, killed our soldiers, and then got caught... :shrug:

i wouldn't want it to happen to our soldiers, anymore than i want it to happen to them, but the fact of the matter is that it is happening, just like our soldiers are being killed in ALL sorts of horrible ways... at least we aren't decapitating them and hanging the bodies from bridges :shrug:

Just because anouther country does something to us does not mean we should do it first. The "they did it first" exuse didn't even work that well for me when I was a little kid.

[creepycrawler]

As I noted in post #16. :flipoff2:


Don't blame Jeff for missing that. Lots of people pass right over your posts due to having their eyes burned out so many times by looking at them. :flipoff2:

[creepycrawler]

Just because anouther country does something to us does not mean we should do it first. The "they did it first" exuse didn't even work that well for me when I was a little kid.

I don't think that coloradoxj was saying that at all. I think he was pointing out the fact that even if we do waterboard, it's still much less gross than what they do to us.

[jredmond]

Most COUNTRIES abide by the Geneva Convention. Somali warlords, Iraqi insurgents, and Al-Queda guerrillas are not countries, are not signatories of the Convention, and are not POWs when captured. We, on the other hand are signatories and have agreed to be bound by it. The question is should we voluntarily bind ourselves to follow it even if it is not technically binding in this case?

We should voluntarily bind ourselves to follow the Geneva Convention in all conflicts. It is a set of rules that we expect others to follow so we should follow those rules ourselves.

[ColoradoXJ]

Just because anouther country does something to us does not mean we should do it first. The "they did it first" exuse didn't even work that well for me when I was a little kid.

that's not the excuse i'm using... it's not a 'who did it first' question, it's a 'what do we do in response' question.

i didn't say it was right, but keep it in perspective. and these people who are SO against it, why aren't they over harrassing those who murder and mutilate our troops about 'equal rights' and 'humane treatment'?? :shrug:

[creepycrawler]

We should voluntarily bind ourselves to follow the Geneva Convention in all conflicts. It is a set of rules that we expect others to follow so we should follow those rules ourselves.

No offence intended & I certainly hope you didn't, but if you had loved ones that were blown up in the towers, would you still feel the same way?

[jredmond]

I don't think that coloradoxj was saying that at all. I think he was pointing out the fact that even if we do waterboard, it's still much less gross than what they do to us.

True the torture many be less brutal but just because the degree of torture we are comitting is to a much lower degree does not make it any more justified.

[jredmond]

No offence intended & I certainly hope you didn't, but if you had loved ones that were blown up in the towers, would you still feel the same way?

No offence taken. I didn't have any loved ones in the towers on 911 but I don't think I would feel any different if I did. I am very for the fair treatment of everyone and believe that just because who we are fighting didn't sign the same treaty as us does not mean we should treat them any different. I think emotions should play no role in punishment for any crime.


that's not the excuse i'm using... it's not a 'who did it first' question, it's a 'what do we do in response' question.

i didn't say it was right, but keep it in perspective. and these people who are SO against it, why aren't they over harrassing those who murder and mutilate our troops about 'equal rights' and 'humane treatment'?? :shrug:

What we do in responce should not be "a they did a horrable thing to us, so we nolonger have to play by the rules" responce. Also the people that are SO against it are not going over there because they don't want to die. The insurgents would just drag them behind cars too and they know that.

[ColoradoXJ]

I think emotions should play no role in punishment for any crime.

i agree, but are you not human just like the rest of us?

[jredmond]

i agree, but are you not human just like the rest of us?

how did you know:D

[CannonBall]

It's turture, whether we should use it or not is the issue at hand here. "If it saves one life" has never been a good argument imo, I can tell you, if someone is doing that crap to me, I'll tell em whatever they want to hear, whether it's true or not.
-nate

[Tom N]

So what is the point of it if you can just use drugs like sodium pentothal to get the same info? Somebody gets off on pointless cruelty? It's nicer than chopping fingers off? I don't get it. Shoot them in the kneecaps if your point is to be cruel. Does waterboarding give you more deniability than drugs? Seems weird to me.

[Jeffro600]

True the torture many be less brutal but just because the degree of torture we are comitting is to a much lower degree does not make it any more justified.

This was exactly my point...which i guess only a few seemed to pick up on. :shrug:

A prisoner of war in my eyes, is someone who is caught, during wartime as an enemy, regardless of their nationality, race, beliefs or whatever, and deserves ethical treatment...no matter what their group of people may have done.

Us torturing them, in any form makes us no better than them.

[Knuckelhead]

Bring this back...

Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.

Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
http://westerndefence.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-to-stop-muslim-militants.html
Put a pigling on every flight so the terrorists know that they have to die with one.
How about using pig piss on the water board?
Terrorists rights? In a pigs eye!
Don't like it? Too bad...:cool:

[al24]

General 'Black Jack' Pershing vs. Muslim Terrorists

Netlore Archive: Did U.S. General 'Black Jack' Pershing rid the Philippines of Islamic extremism in 1911 by executing a group of Muslim terrorists and burying them in a grave filled with pig's blood and entrails?


Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Sep 2001
Status: False


Variant #1:
Email example contributed by T. Braquet, 21 Sep 2001:
HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS...... it worked once in our History...
Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.



Variant #2:
Email example contributed by K. Hanson, 3 Dec 2002:

A True story about General "Black Jack" Pershing.
Born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, Mississippi
Died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.
1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 Awarded rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from active duty
Education: 4 Years-West Point
One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it's interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.
So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.
The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.
They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world.

Comments: I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of "Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing," to find out if there's any truth to the above, and he responded via email that in his opinion the story is apocryphal. "I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," Vandiver responded. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."
Similarly, I been unable to find any evidence corroborating the claim that Muslims believe that "eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell." It is true that Islamic dietary restrictions, like those of Judaism, forbid the eating or handling of pork because pigs are considered unclean. But according to Raeed Tayeh of the American Muslim Association in North America, the notion that a Muslim would be denied entrance to heaven for touching a pig is "ridiculous." A statement (http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB%5F41/4278%5F41.asp) from the Anti-Defamation League characterizes the claim as an "offensive caricature of Muslim beliefs."

[Budman]

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): Waterboarding: Don't knock it until you try it.

X2....Does anybody know for sure exactly what it is?

I do.

It covers all forms of torture...dont see why water boarding would not be considered torture... :shrug: Causing pain, suffering and the fear of death...how exactly is waterboarding NOT torture???

(Article 17 of Geneva Convention III): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

See below

Now go look up the Geneva Convention definition of 'prisoner of war' and discover that these guys aren't POWs. Does that change your mind?



Most COUNTRIES abide by the Geneva Convention. Somali warlords, Iraqi insurgents, and Al-Queda guerrillas are not countries, are not signatories of the Convention, and are not POWs when captured. We, on the other hand are signatories and have agreed to be bound by it. The question is should we voluntarily bind ourselves to follow it even if it is not technically binding in this case?

Thanks for catching this DaJudge.

This was exactly my point...which i guess only a few seemed to pick up on. :shrug:

A prisoner of war in my eyes, is someone who is caught, during wartime as an enemy, regardless of their nationality, race, beliefs or whatever, and deserves ethical treatment...no matter what their group of people may have done.

Us torturing them, in any form makes us no better than them.

What a POW is in your eyes is not really relevant here. In order to be afforded the protection of the Genevia convention you have to quaqlify. Part there are many things that make you qualify, and seval levels of protection. One of the first things you have to do is wear a uniform and fight under the flag of your nation. These guys (none of them) are doing this, so they get none of the protections of the GC.



Bring this back...

Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.

Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
http://westerndefence.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-to-stop-muslim-militants.html
Put a pigling on every flight so the terrorists know that they have to die with one.
How about using pig piss on the water board?
Terrorists rights? In a pigs eye!
Don't like it? Too bad...:cool:

The source of this is undetermined, but I can tell you that there has been Islamic extremists in the PI for many many years.

[Knuckelhead]

The source of this is undetermined, but I can tell you that there has been Islamic extremists in the PI for many many years.

1911 + 50 years = 1961. That leaves 47 years open...

[al24]

Looks like it was a conventional battle that broke the back of the Muslims.

The battle of Bagsak had its beginnings several months before the actual assault of the crater. The mountain peak had been for some time the rendezvous of the outlaw element of all of the southern islands, and the big problem the Americans faced was that of getting the women and children off the hill before the final clean-up was made.
So long as the Moros saw that the American troops were inactive and in barracks many of the women and children would be sent down to work in the fields, but at the first suggestion of an American expedition all of the non-combatants would be recalled to the mountain. As General Pershing had stated, when the Moro makes his last stand, he wishes his women and children with him. The Moros kept a very close check on General Pershing, for every visit of the General to Jolo was the signal for a stampede to Bagsak. Pershing soon discovered that the taking of Bagsak without the slaughter of women and children would have to be an undertaking planned with the greatest secrecy. In planning the campaign, Pershing exercised rare judgment.
To begin with, he kept his plans absolutely to himself, not even confiding in his closest officers. On June 5 he sent a telegram to the commanding officer at Jolo calling off all field operations and ordering the troops into barracks. Four days later he announced publicly that he would visit his family at Camp Kiethley in Mindanao and with that apparent plan in mind he sailed from Zamboanga on the evening of June 9. When the transport Wright was well out of sight of Zamboanga the course was changed and the ship picked up the 51st Company of Scouts at Basilan, proceeding on to Siasi to load the 52nd Scout Company.
With lights out and the smokestack muffled, the Wright then crept into Jolo harbor late on the night of June 10. The maneuver was wholly unexpected and the General found the American soldiers at a moving picture show. The call to arms was sounded and in an incredibly short time the troops were en route to Bagsak.
All of the forces were concentrated at Bun Bun on the beach and by five o'clock in the morning the advance on Bagsak had begun.
The mountain crest was defended by formidable cottas crowned by the stone fortress of Bagsak at the summit. Supporting the main cotta were five subsidiary forts admirably located for defensive purposes. These five cottas, namely, Pujacabao, Bunga, Matunkup, Languasan and Pujagan, were grouped about the huge stone fort of Bagsak in such a manner that a simultaneous assault of all of the cottas was necessary in order to prevent a great loss of life on the part of the attackers.
The American force was divided into two wings and very explicit attacking directions were issued. The right wing, consisting of the 8th Infantry and the 40th Company of mountain guns, was under the command of Major Shaw, and its objective was the cottas of Languasan and Matunkup. The left wing, composed of the 51ist and 52nd Companies of Scouts and a mountain gun detachment, was under command of Van Natta, and were ordered to attack the cottas of Pujacabao and Bunga. Pujagan and Bagsak were to be taken after these assaults had been successfully executed.
After a heavy preliminary shelling by the mountain guns, the columns moved to attack. While the attack was in progress, Captain Moylan was ordered with the 24th and 31st Companies of Scouts, to take a position on the south slope of Bagsak to cut off the retreat of the Moros, Captain Nicholls led his company against Matunkup, which fell at noon of the first day's fighting. In taking Matunkup, the attacking force was compelled to climb a sheer cliff one hundred feet high, pulling themselves up the precipice by clinging to vines, while in the face of a heavy fire. There were eight casualties in the American force before the summit was finally gained. Captain Nicholls then led his company on to the cotta of Pujacabao, the men opening up on the Moros at close range and then dropping within the cotta walls to battle hand to hand.
The terrific shelling Pujacabao had received from the mountain battery had eliminated many of the Moro defenders. Amil, the Moro leader, was severely wounded by a shell fragment, whereupon he retreated to Pujagan, where he was killed the following day.
The cotta of Languasan was captured without difficulty with a loss of one man, but the American forces had eight casualties during the period of Moro counter-attacks made in an effort to recover the fortress.
With three of the cottas in American hands, the surviving Moros retreated to Bagsak, Pujagan and Bunga and the first day's operations came to an end.
On Thursday, June 12, the American forces poured a continuous fire from rifles and mountain artillery upon the cottas of Bunga and Pujagan, and there was a great deal of skirmishing. The Moros began a series of rushes upon the American troops holding Languasan. The Mohammedans would rush out in groups of ten to twenty, charging madly across 300 yards of open country in an effort to come hand to hand with the Americans. Amil, his son, and the Data Jami led three of the attacks; in each instance, the charging Moros were accounted for long before they reached the American trenches. It was during one of these charges that Captain Nicholls was killed by a bullet through the heart from a high-powered rifle.
The American forces holding Languasan were subjected all day long to a merciless fire from the cotta of Bunga. Notwithstanding the aid of the mountain artillery, the American forces were unable to capture any of the Moro positions during the fighting of the second day.
On the morning of the third day Captain Moylan was ordered to take the cotta of Bunga. The capture of this fortress was absolutely necessary in order to secure a position from which the tremendous stone cotta of Bagsak could be shelled. Captain Moylan took Bunga after a five-hour attack, which was supported by sharpshooters and artillery. Among his casualties was one man who was cut in two by a barong. The balance of the third day was devoted to hauling the heavy guns up the steep slope of Bunga.
On Saturday morning, the fourth day of the battle, Captain Charleton and Lieutenant Collins were sent with 51st and 52nd Companies and a detachment of cavalry to reconnoiter the rim of the crater and to find a position from which the infantry could launch a final assault on Bagsak cotta. The rest of the day was devoted to digging the troops in, in a position about 600 yards from the Moro fort, while the mountain guns fired constantly into the cotta.
Sunday morning brought preparations for the final assault. The mountain guns opened up for a two-hour barrage into the Moro fort, and at nine o'clock in the morning the troops moved up the ridge for the attack. The heavy American artillery shelled the Moros out of the outer trenches supporting the cotta of Bagsak and the sharpshooters picked them off as they retreated to the fortress. After an hour's hard fighting, the advance reached the top of the hill protected by the fire of the mountain guns, to a point within seventy-five yards of the cotta. To cover that last seventy-five yards required seven hours of terrific fighting. The Moros assaulted the American trenches time after time only to be mowed down by the entrenched attackers.
General Pershing came in person to the firing line early in the attack, exposing himself to the full fire of the cotta. At 4:45 in the afternoon, the American forces were within twenty-five feet of the cotta. The Moros realized that their time on earth was short. They stood upright on the walls and hurled their barongs and krises at the troops beneath them, wounding four of the attacking force.
At five o'clock General Pershing gave the order for the final assault, and standing within twenty-five feet of the walls he watched Captain Charleton take his men over the walls and the battle of Bud Bagsak was won. Thirteen men were lost in the final assault.
About 500 Moros occupied the cottas at the beginning of the battle of Bagsak and with few exceptions they fought to the death.
With this battle, the organized resistance of the Moros was broken and the episode of "Kris versus Krag" came virtually to an end. There were a few more minor battles, but never again did the Moros place a formidable force in the field against the Americans. The Mohammedans fought a grand fight at Bagsak against superior weapons. They showed the Arnercans, as they had showed the Spaniards, that they were not afraid to die.

[Tom N]

Thank You Mythbuster 24! :rolleyes: (too dang long once again)

[Whitey]

Dang good recollection of events Al. :D

[al24]

Dang good recollection of events Al. :D
I did the best I could repeating what you told me about you're first hand experiences there.

[Whitey]

I have many, many vivid memories of first hand experiences that I want to share.

Ah, not right now, maybe after I'm dead. :thumbsup:

[pineneedle]

My Dear Friends,

I think that dajudge's comments have been the most germane thus far. He sets out the legal issues quite clearly, and so, it seems to me, further pursuit of that line of inquiry is pointless.

Perhaps I can add another dimension, the ethical dimension, to this discussion. It is ethically naive to say that causing another human being pain and suffering constitutes torture. Good parenting, dentistry, and all manner of medical procedures cause pain and suffering. Yet we would not call drawing bone marrow, for instance, a form of torture. As a result, it seems obvious that causing pain and suffering is ethically neutral.

So we have to inquire beyond the simple matter of causing pain. The specific difference between legitimate and illegitimate causation of pain, is the goal that is aimed at. If, for example in dentistry, the goal is the healing of some form of dental disease, we would call the act involved "right." If, on the other hand, a boy pulls on a girl's hair in order to make her scream and cry, we would call the act "wrong." In both cases someone caused pain to another person; so, the simple matter of causing pain and suffering is not the reason to call an act right or wrong.

A more difficult matter, however, is the determination of the ethical character of the aim or purpose that is the desired outcome of causing pain. The pain of dentistry inflicted as a condition of curing dental disease is transparently a "good" aim. However, the matter becomes murkier we consider the causing of pain in order to obtain important military intelligence. Military intelligence, on its own, is neither good nor evil, ethically speaking. It becomes good or evil as a function of the conflict in which the belligerents are engaged. Obviously, German torture of Allied soldiers in order to obtain military intelligence could not be ethically justified because the Germans were engaged in an unjust war. I realize that I have not provided proof that the Germans were engaged in an unjust war. That would require a discursion into Just War Theory. However, as a matter of discussion, I presume that most of you will concede that the Germans were engaged in an unjust war. Hence, since their war-making was unethical, any acts undertaken to advance their war aims were unethical by extension. So, their intelligence gathering was ethically wrong, and any pain and suffering caused to Allied soldiers was wrong by extension.

At this point, we need to notice that the Geneva Conventions proscribe all such acts performed by any belligerent on any enemy combatants in any war. This is really a practical and prudential judgment. The matter of the determination of the justice or injustice of a given war is almost always too complex a question to be settled in the heat of battle. Better, then, to proscribe all "torture," obviating the need to make judgments about the justice of a war, which judgments, as a practical matter, usually cannot be made until well after the cessation of conflict.

Finally, one must keep in mind the distinction between matters of personal morality and questions of objective ethics. Strictly speaking, people are "good" or "bad." Their acts are "right" or "wrong." A good person is one who generallly tries to do what he thinks is right. Thus, his intention is the specific difference between him being a good person and a bad person. If he intends malice, he is malicious. If he intends well-being, he is good. However, his acts have to be judged quite apart from his intentions.

Acts are either conformable to or discordant with human nature. Simply intending a good outcome does not make one's actions necessarily right. When pre-contact aboriginal people euthanized their elders as a matter of maintaining their subsistence economy, they are still killing innocent persons, and that is always wrong. In such cases we have the odd situation (caused by the great power of enculturation) that a man could be good while doing the wrong thing.

But I have gone on too long already. I justify this gassy post by noting that questions such as the original question posed in this thread are very complex. One must set aside his emotional and cultural biases and think dispassionately and critically in order to come up with a "reasonable" opinion.

Pineneedle, the Windy One

[DaJudge]

Text: Bush on Veto of Intelligence Bill
Published: March 8, 2008

Following is the text of President Bush?s radio address to the nation for
Saturday, as released by the White House.

Good morning. This week, I addressed the Department of Homeland Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/homeland_security_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org)
on its fifth anniversary and thanked the men and women who work tirelessly
to keep us safe. Because of their hard work, and the efforts of many across
all levels of government, we have not suffered another attack on our soil
since September the 11th, 2001.

This is not for a lack of effort on the part of the enemy. Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) remains
determined to attack America again. Two years ago, Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
warned the American people, ?Operations are under preparation, and you
will see them on your own ground once they are finished.? Because the
danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the
tools they need to stop the terrorists.

Unfortunately, Congress recently sent me an intelligence authorization bill
that would diminish these vital tools. So today, I vetoed it. And here is
why:

The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools
in the war on terror ? the C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) program to detain and question key
terrorist leaders and operatives. This program has produced critical
intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks. The program
helped us stop a plot to strike a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned
attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane
and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles, and a plot to crash passenger
planes into Heathrow Airport or buildings in downtown London. And it has
helped us understand Al Qaeda?s structure and financing and
communications and logistics. Were it not for this program, our intelligence
community believes that Al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in
launching another attack against the American homeland.

The main reason this program has been effective is that it allows the C.I.A.
to use specialized interrogation procedures to question a small number of
the most dangerous terrorists under careful supervision. The bill Congress
sent me would deprive the C.I.A. of the authority to use these safe and
lawful techniques. Instead, it would restrict the C.I.A.?s range of acceptable
interrogation methods to those provided in the Army field manual. The
procedures in this manual were designed for use by soldiers questioning
lawful combatants captured on the battlefield. They were not intended for
intelligence professionals trained to question hardened terrorists.

Limiting the C.I.A.?s interrogation methods to those in the Army field manual
would be dangerous because the manual is publicly available and easily
accessible on the Internet. Shortly after 9/11, we learned that key Al
Qaeda operatives had been trained to resist the methods outlined in the
manual. And this is why we created alternative procedures to question the
most dangerous Al Qaeda operatives, particularly those who might have
knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland. The best source of
information about terrorist attacks is the terrorists themselves. If we were
to shut down this program and restrict the C.I.A. to methods in the field
manual, we could lose vital information from senior Al Qaeda terrorists, and
that could cost American lives.

The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation
method, as some have implied. Instead, it would eliminate all the alternative
procedures we?ve developed to question the world?s most dangerous and
violent terrorists. This would end an effective program that Congress
authorized just over a year ago.

The fact that we have not been attacked over the past six and a half years
is not a matter of chance. It is the result of good policies and the
determined efforts of individuals carrying them out. We owe these
individuals our thanks, and we owe them the authorities they need to do
their jobs effectively.

We have no higher responsibility than stopping terrorist attacks. And this is
no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record
of keeping America safe.

Thank you for listening.

[pineneedle]

My Dear Friends,

Rereading my previous post, I now realize that I left the conclusion to be inferred by the reader; however, to avoid any confusion, perhaps I should state the conclusion which my discussion was intended to warrant.

The causing of pain as a means of obtaining information ("torture"), in my view, is not ipso facto unethical. The "right" or "wrong" of such acts depends upon the ethical value of the purpose that the acts serve. If it is a good and noble purpose, it seems to me that such acts are permissible (with certain reservations). If the purpose is base and corrupt, then such acts are unethical.

A possible classical objection that might be raised against my view is that "The end does not justify the means." The ethical logic of this objection is that you may not do wrong even though good may come of it. However, this objection does not apply to my argument because I have shown that the causing of pain (means) is not inherently wrong.

Kudos to dajudge for running the text of Bush's speech. In my opinion, future history will show that this was a wise and an ethical decision by the President.

Pineneedle

[Digger]

Text: Bush on Veto of Intelligence Bill
Published: March 8, 2008

Exactly why I posted the poll.. While congress seems against it, barely, the whitehouse is in favor. Just wanted to see what the great minds of CO4x4 thought on the matter.
I don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' here. In an extremist Muslim's mind, he is doing 'right' by killing infidels. Yet our 'right' says he is committing terrorism. Is merely a point of view.

If waterboarding is the extremist we get and can glean good information to keep hundreds or thousands alive and harm free... by all means make that fooker think he is going to drown.

[CLYDE]

Uhm, whats the issue here?? Must be the Indian in me, but as far as I am concerned, I think the bastards are getting off light. Anything that aids in the EXTERMINATION of the extremists has a nod by me.

[Juzzme]

Its not far off from the school yard bully "white washing you ."
substitute the water and rag/plastic for snow .

[Sound_Man]

Moral? Are you kidding? Is there morality in a roadside bomb, in a Hasidic law or Sharia law? How about the morality in a street fight or get this, in a war? Wars are fought to be won. The cost of war is lives, the lives of those willing to do what is necessary to defeat an enemy. For some reason there are some in this country that find it necessary to impose their views of morality in war. There are no morals in war there is a winner and a loser. For some reason someone thought we should have ?rules? that we follow in war. I don?t understand why anyone would want to have rules in war, there are none in a street or bar fight and when you are fighting for your life as a soldier the last thing on your mind is rules, the only thing is eliminating your enemy. There are brave men and women that have their hands tied with ?rules? that could have ended this war already. Those that are behind the lines fighting the fight of information gathering have to follow the ?rules?. Our enemy doesn?t have any rules in the fight but we do. Who thought it was a good idea to limit the means in which we gather information that saves lives or can determine the outcome of a skirmish, fight, battle or a war? If someone broke into your home with the intent of harming you or your family should we sit and talk to them, be nice, be compassionate or use every means possible to eliminate them?
The question of morality in waterboarding may cross some peoples minds and come off as something that is harmful or as torture. To me it is something that may strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, it may prove fruitful in gathering information that will save lives and should be carried out s often as possible on those that may have information that will save lives or bring an end to the war we are in. Put it on PPV and see how much money could be made. I wish we would hear more like this from the rule makers. ?What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ni**ers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', ragh**d? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass.?

If I offended you I don?t care, I hope I did and I hope you think about our son?s daughter?s mothers and fathers that are fighting for you to be able to spew your crap about morality in war. Turn off your TV and stop watching what the media is feeding you. Support those that are willing to fight and die for you with every single means possible. Let them do the job they are trained to do and win without hesitation.

[CLYDE]

Glad to see Im not the only one who thinks the way I do. Shit heat up the pokers, I have eyes, and other soft body parts to burn off of these murdering pieces of human waste.

[Oscar]

I go with "all is fair in love and war"

[Juzzme]

I was at safeway the other day when timmy some ladies 5-7 year old kid was running a muck in the store .

"stop that timmy"

"timmy NO"

"timmy get over here or so help me....."

"What your gona hit me (doing a little dance ) idont thinks so. " timmy said

timmy and the terrorists know what we can and cant do . the police have necessary force the military needs the same .

[Grant]

I seem to remember, in an early debate against Romney, McCain saying he was against waterboarding and any other form of torture.

[CLYDE]

what does McCain have to do with this?? this is not an election issue, this is a current event.

[DaJudge]

what does McCain have to do with this?? this is not an election issue, this is a current event.
The torture he received from the North Vietnamese gives him every right to make his opinions known on the topic.

[TheCopperCowboy]

6 years ago isn't "current".

CIA Says Used Waterboarding Three Times
By Randall Mikkelsen
Reuters

Tuesday 05 February 2008

Washington - The CIA on three occasions shortly after the September 11 attacks used a widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding, CIA Director Michael Hayden told Congress on Tuesday.

"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them.

Critics call waterboarding a form of illegal torture. Congress is considering banning the technique.

Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.

He said waterboarding has not been used in five years but was used then because of concerns of imminent catastrophic attacks on the United States and because authorities had limited knowledge of al Qaeda.

"The circumstances are different than they were in late 2001, early 2002," Hayden said.

He told reporters later that the interrogations of Mohammed and Zubaydah were particularly fruitful.

From the time of their capture in 2002 until they were delivered to Guantanamo Bay prison in 2006, the two suspects accounted for one-fourth of the human intelligence reports on al Qaeda, Hayden said.

Although some analysts have questioned Mohammed's credibility under interrogation, most of the information was reliable and helped lead to other al Qaeda suspects, he said.

He told the committee he opposed limiting the CIA to using interrogation techniques permitted in the U.S. Army Field Manual, which bans waterboarding. CIA interrogators are better trained, and it works with a narrower range of suspects in its interrogations, he said.

Hayden said fewer than 100 people had been held in the CIA's terrorism detention and interrogation program, with fewer than one-third of them subjected to any harsh interrogation techniques.

A senior intelligence official said after the hearing that it was unclear whether the CIA could legally use waterboarding in the future, given changes in U.S. law. The Bush administration says it neither uses nor condones torture.

The CIA said in December that it had destroyed videotapes depicting the interrogations of Zubaydah and Nashiri, prompting a Justice Department investigation

[CLYDE]

Mc is entitled to his opinion. I dont really see the relevance tho, as it was out of left field. Figured he was trying to tie it into the election debates that we are so fond of lately.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Mc is entitled to his opinion. I dont really see the relevance tho, as it was out of left field. Figured he was trying to tie it into the election debates that we are so fond of lately.

Yeah, that's weird. Seems like it happens every 4 years. :D

[CLYDE]

Ken? do you really believe that the CIA and other covertops personnel arent still using the technique? If its effective, its still being practiced, and will continue to be unless its banned, and even then we wont know that it isnt still being employed by our people.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Ken? do you really believe that the CIA and other covertops personnel arent still using the technique? If its effective, its still being practiced, and will continue to be unless its banned, and even then we wont know that it isnt still being employed by our people.

In all seriousness, if I'm ever behind a locked door with this bunch, I will be dancing and singing to whatever song they're playing. Real life 101. :cool:

[CLYDE]

ok just checking :flipoff2:

[Gags]

What's interesting is the most effective way of gaining information is not through torture but getting the person being questioned to trust you. The most effective Nazi interrogator would befriend the person he wanted information from through casual conversation, food and wine. By using troture you cannever be sure the information is correct. Further more we should be setting the example for the rest of the World to follow. Damn, Canadian goverment lists US as a place were you might be tortured.

[Sound_Man]

What's interesting is the most effective way of gaining information is not through torture but getting the person being questioned to trust you. The most effective Nazi interrogator would befriend the person he wanted information from through casual conversation, food and wine. By using troture you cannever be sure the information is correct. Further more we should be setting the example for the rest of the World to follow. Damn, Canadian goverment lists US as a place were you might be tortured.

I agree but I don't think we can sit around and sing kumbaya or share a bottle of even your finest wine with our current enemy.

[scottycards]

Mc Cain shared his views on waterboarding during his 60 Minutes interview last evening.

IMO, there's pretty much no one else out there who is more qualified to speak on the subject of torture, having BTDT.

He said it's flat-out torture. Then he went on to mention how the USA successfully prosecuted it as torture after WWII with regards to the Japanese.

So I guess it's not a crime if we're doing it, but if others are doing it to us, it's a crime. Sounds about right.

Excellent info here, for those interested in our "do as we say, not as we do" attitude with regards to waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html

[Gags]

I agree but I don't think we can sit around and sing kumbaya or share a bottle of even your finest wine with our current enemy.

Maybe keep them drunk and high the whole time.

We cannot condone or perform acts torture...We may want to but we lose the any sense of moral highground. What and who do we want to be as a Nation? Justice must prevail.

Anybody see the letters Rumsfeld signed concerning this topic? I was a bit shocked how easy it was for him to "take the gloves off."

I think I saw them in "why we fight" or "ghosts of abu ghraib."

[Gags]

Mc Cain shared his views on waterboarding during his 60 Minutes interview last evening.

IMO, there's pretty much no one else out there who is more qualified to speak on the subject of torture, having BTDT.

He said it's flat-out torture. Then he went on to mention how the USA successfully prosecuted it as torture after WWII with regards to the Japanese.

So I guess it's not a crime if we're doing it, but if others are doing it to us, it's a crime. Sounds about right.

Excellent info here, for those interested in our "do as we say, not as we do" attitude with regards to waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html


This "do as we say, not as we do" is a problem. "No justice no peace."

[CannonBall]

My Dear Friends,



The causing of pain as a means of obtaining information ("torture"), in my view, is not ipso facto unethical. The "right" or "wrong" of such acts depends upon the ethical value of the purpose that the acts serve. If it is a good and noble purpose, it seems to me that such acts are permissible (with certain reservations). If the purpose is base and corrupt, then such acts are unethical.

Pineneedle

The biggest flaw with this statement is that ?good and noble? are not objective words.

A good reason is to you may not be for me. If we are trying to find out where a terrorist cell is, most on ?our side? would agree that was good, but at what point does the information no longer become worthy of the ?torture? being performed?

Furthermore, most people performing torture likely wouldn?t be able to do it if they didn?t feel they were doing it for a good cause, so by your definition, most torture is ethical in the eye of the torturer. On the other hand, the one being tortured would almost assuredly think the reasons for torture were corrupt, thus making it wrong. The Nazi?s more than likely thought their torture was justified; as would any of America?s enemies in the past wars the US has fought.

I?d like a clearer definition of torture than one based on a subjective view of the reasons for torture. This sounds a lot like ?if we do it, it?s ok, but if they do it, it?s bad.?

-Nate

[scottycards]

Taxi to the Dark Side.

Won the Academy Award for best documentary. Check it out, Gags.

http://www.taxitothedarkside.com/

[Gags]

Taxi to the Dark Side.

Won the Academy Award for best documentary. Check it out, Gags.

http://www.taxitothedarkside.com/

I'm going to check it out.

[Sound_Man]

So it is ok to shoot a guy in the street or stab him with a knife or blow his ass up from 30,000 feet but you can't put water in his mouth.....

[Loki]

Deciding Right or Wrong in many cases comes down to the perspective of those involved, and their belief system.

I think its wrong that our Country is even put in the position of deciding whether this is ethical or not. But Islamic extremists thru their actions and threats of continued hostility towards the citizens of our county, make this a necessary evil in My opinion.

Will we ever really know that, these questionable practices bear fruit that saves innocent lives? Maybe not, but I do trust my government when it says that the terriorists that receive this treatment are far from innocent.

:usa:

[DaJudge]

So it is ok to shoot a guy in the street or stab him with a knife or blow his ass up from 30,000 feet but you can't put water in his mouth.....
That is correct because the first 3 examples involve effective combatants and the last is a PRISONER.

[Sound_Man]

That is correct because the first 3 examples involve effective combatants and the last is a PRISONER.

Come on now, we all know they are in the desert and they are thirsty... We are just lending a hand.. :D

[scottycards]

Jokes about torture are so funny............that I forgot to laugh.

[pineneedle]

My Dear CannonBall,

I am glad to see a response to my post. Your note is very thoughtful. However, I think that you may have missed my point about the difference between ethics and morality. In my post (near the end) I point out that at the level of personal morality, it is entirely possible for a person to do something wrong while under the impression that he is doing something right. I gave the example of indigenous people euthanizing their elderly. I agree with you that such an example would be entirely a matter of subjectivity, and the judgment of conscience.

However, my point about the ethics of torture is that causing pain to another person is not, ipso facto, torture. When a person kills an assailant in justifiable self defense, is he torturing him? Obviously not. Is he causing him pain? Obviously so. The reason I made this point was to clarify much of the preceeding discussion, which seemed to be making the naive assumption that causing pain and suffering to another person amounted to torture. Precision in the use of language and clarity of ideas is always useful in discussions of this type. I look forward to any rejoinder you might have.

Pineneedle

[Waifer2112]

I go with "all is fair in love and war"

I've had my mind changed! Since it's "all fair", I won't get worked up when our guys and gals get beheaded, or tortured, or really, anything else. I'll just expect that kind of stuff from now on. :rolleyes:

[Steve]

After reading the entire thread I'm still on the fence as to the original question. :shrug:

However, my point about the ethics of torture is that causing pain to another person is not, ipso facto, torture.

The reason I made this point was to clarify much of the preceeding discussion, which seemed to be making the naive assumption that causing pain and suffering to another person amounted to torture.

Pineneedle

Excellent points. :thumbsup: If causing any pain is torture, the sherriff in AZ would be torturing his prisoners, which courts have ruled he's not, and which many of this board have expressed admiration and support for.

[CannonBall]

I?m an engineer so bare with me on these philosophical issues. I believe I did use morals and ethics interchangeably, which is a faux paux amongst philosophers.

Honestly, I think we?re in agreement that causing pain is not necessarily torture, and that the circumstances dictate whether or not torture has occurred. It just seemed to me that your argument didn?t actually do anything to clarify the issue. It was more a commentary on previous posts and pointing out that killing in self defense is not torture, etc. I guess I was expecting a less ambiguous definition of torture after such a verbose post. It seems easier to define what is NOT torture.

There are many examples of indigenous tribes performing acts that by western standards are morally wrong, but said acts are within their appropriate social conduct, even virtuous. This just goes to point out that there are not universal morals, so to define torture by using an ambiguous term leads to an ambiguous answer. Personally I think waterboarding falls under torture as defined in the documents referenced in the post.

-Nate

[Gags]

Wasn't waterboarding developed during the Spanish inquisition?

[DaJudge]

Wasn't waterboarding developed during the Spanish inquisition?
See post #21. :flipoff2:

[Dave McDonald]

Wasn't waterboarding developed during the Spanish inquisition?

I thought it was developed on Huntington beach when a surfer broke his board in half, and continued riding the front half on his belly. I don't see water up yer nose and friction burns from the beach as torture really, just the result of riding a really killer wave all the way to shore.

War is a nasty thing. It calls into play all the worst that exists in humans, and all the best. It can bring out both in the same person at the same time. An act of war can be called evil or courageous - it depends on which end of the barrel you're on. Perspective is everything.

Here's the way I see it. Waterboarding doesn't cause lasting physical damage. It probably leaves emotional scars, but that depends on the subject. In my mind, it's a bad thing. I doubt that I would have it within me to do that to another human.

I thank God that there are people on our side that do have it within them to waterboard someone until they gain information that'll save lives on our side. I suppose a good example of this is from 'The Replacements". The QB just got his bell rung by the psychotic defenseman. The coach says "Just be glad he's on your side".

[pineneedle]

My Dear Nate,

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. Again, I think that your post is both reasonable and measured. I share your view that we agree more than we disagree. I am sorry that my post seems verbose. Sometimes, when dealing with technical matters, it is impossible both to be clear and also to be succinct. I am sure you encounter the same difficulty in engineering.

I suppose that my reason for dissecting the assumption of the previous posts, namely, that causing pain amounts to torture, was the simple fact that such a notion is so common. I felt that it was useful to attack that assumption in order to nudge the discussion in a more fruitful direction . If I was needlessly verbose, please excuse me. Since you press me to say what torture is, in addition to saying what it is not, let me offer the following for discussion. I define torture as either the causing of pain in another for its own sake (sadism), or the causing of pain in another for the sake of an unethical purpose. I would offer as an example of the first case the practice, very common in history, of skinning victims alive simply to see them suffer. I would offer as an example of the second case the extraction of military intelligence, through the use of pain, for the sake of an unjust war by a corrupt regime.

However, I do want to point out something in your last post about indigenous peoples with which I disagree. It is one thing to say that a person can be good while doing something wrong (my view), and to say that the right or wrong of all acts is a matter of social context (your view as I understand your words). According to this view, everyone who thinks that he is doing the right thing is doing the right thing. That is Social Relativism, an ethical theory that leads to quite disasterous consequences. How, for example, can we settle an argument between an Al Quaeda type and a Westerner, when we say beforehand that both of their views are equally valid, given their respective cultures. That view amounts to saying that their differences cannot be resolved reasonably, because the reasons given for one view are not inherently better than the reasons given for the other. Thus, the only way to resolve such conflicts is force. I hope you see that such a view is self-destructive.

So, it seems to me that the thoughtful man holds that there are both the views that people hold (cultural notions) and the way things are. Sometimes the views that people hold are in accord with the way things are; sometimes they are not. For example, there is an organization called NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) that actively campaigns for the removal of all legal impediments to pedophilia. I think it is fair to say that these men think their view is right. I hope you would hold that their view is wrong. Is the view, namely, that the sexual exploitation of children is unethical, just a cultural notion? Or, on the other hand, is it not an assertion that is in agreement with the way that things actually are? I think the latter. I am interested in your thoughts.

Pineneedle

[scottycards]

Here's the way I see it. Waterboarding doesn't cause lasting physical damage. It probably leaves emotional scars, but that depends on the subject.

I thank God that there are people on our side that do have it within them to waterboard someone until they gain information that'll save lives on our side.

There are lots of torture methods that don't cause "lasting physical damage"- that's why they call it torture, and not killing or maiming.

Needles under the fingernails, electricity, burns (they'll heal, right?).

I see no way that using torture adds to the noble causes of the USA. It only fuels the fires of hatred. We're trying to show these guys that we are the good ones, here. If we engage in these practices, we're just as bad as they are. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Sound_Man]

Morals by who's standard?

Here is an example of moral behavior with a prisoner. At least I believe he is a prisoner, his hands are bound behind his back. A 12 year old is being taught how to decapitate said prisoner.

Very graphic, some would say NSFW
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188003.php

Here is an example of how US POW's are treated.
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=22366&comview=1

What about when they tie the hands of their prisoners and douse them with flammable liquid and push them in a pit that has a fire in it? Just Google that you will find the video if you want to see it.

Where are the cries of moral outrage when these things happen?

How about lets strap a bomb to a kid or a mentally disabled person and send them into a market.

I could go on and on about this. My sentiment is that if water boarding does not kill them and does not damage them in any physical way have at it. I would prefer that they do things that would make it so they can not go to their god when it is all said and done but that would hurt someones feelings. Feelings and morals in war... :rolleyes: We are not at war with a country, as far as I can tell it is a militia for a religious group. We are fighting a groups belief system. Their beliefs are not the same as ours so they want us dead, thats all there is to it. They attacked our country enough times all over the globe and we have a CINC that had enough and had the balls to do something about it. Now lets tie the hands of the ones with the balls to fight them in their back yard instead of in our streets at home. :shrug:These prisoners don't have a country to sign a treaty with or that sets forth rules for them to follow. They follow the guidance of religious nuts and distorted interpretations of their bible the Koran.

When you have seen the spoils of war and what humans are capable of doing to one another over a belief and not an action maybe then, just maybe those with feelings and morals will look away while men and women with the ability and courage to keep this country free and safe do their jobs.

I am done with this thread.

[denverd0n]

I see no way that using torture adds to the noble causes of the USA. It only fuels the fires of hatred. We're trying to show these guys that we are the good ones, here. If we engage in these practices, we're just as bad as they are. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Well, I generally agree... Except with your second and third sentences. I don't give a good crap what the rest of the world thinks about us, least of all the bastards that we're at war with. I do care, however, that this lowers us to their level. We are better than this.

If you rationalize atrocities on our side then you have absolutely NO room to complain about atrocities from their side!

[scottycards]

I can't control what the bad guys do. To think we can is insane. They can set people on fire, strap bombs to them, whatever they please. We need to face the fact that we can't control them 100%- not now, not in the past, and not in the future.

We can control what we do, and abide by a code of conduct that represents what we, as a country, stand for.

That's why I'm against torture. Our country does not stand for the idealology behind torture, and therefore I don't think we should engage in it.

To me, it's very simple.

But it's also good to see the thought process that some go through to justify it. I'm glad this topic was brought up.

[CannonBall]

Pineneedle, are you paid by the word? I?m just razzing you about your verbosity, because I do enjoy your posts.

I agree with sadism being a form of torture, but when it comes to the ?extraction of military intelligence? for the sake of an unjust war by a corrupt regime? I find that to be subjective. Many people see our war against terrorism to be just, while others see it as you described it (whether you were referring to Iraq or not, it could apply to a number of past regimes, Spain, England, Germany, to name a few). That point, I believe, is why this thread has reached 3+ pages with no clear answer.

You ask, how we can settle a disagreement between a westerner and Al Qaeda? Some believe we can not, because the two cultures simply don?t even agree on the terms in which they disagree, some believe the only way to have peace is for one of the two to cease to exist. I would give an argument between a new-world creationist and an evolutionist as another example, being unable to agree on basics of their arguments makes any progress impossible. I believe that a reasonable resolution between the west and islamo-fascists is not possible and as you concluded, the only resolution, unfortunately, is force. I see that the views are self destructive, and perhaps a peaceful means to coexist will be discovered. A possibility is for America to not maintain any presence in that region of the globe, but that brings up more ethical dilemmas unrelated to this post.

On your last point, I agree that certain ethics are universal, but I don?t think it applies in the case of determining what is or is not torture.

-Nate

[scottycards]

How does it go? Don't wrestle with a pig? The pig enjoys it, and you only get dirty.

Kinda sums it up, in a simplistic way.

[pineneedle]

My Dear Nate,

Again, thanks for the thoughtful note. I guess that we have spent a couple of cans of whup-ass on this dead horse, so probably time to let it go. Maybe we can engage in other discussions over other issues at some other time. For my part, I have enjoyed talking with you.

Pineneedle

[Budman]

I can't control what the bad guys do. To think we can is insane. They can set people on fire, strap bombs to them, whatever they please. We need to face the fact that we can't control them 100%- not now, not in the past, and not in the future.

We can control what we do, and abide by a code of conduct that represents what we, as a country, stand for.

That's why I'm against torture. Our country does not stand for the idealology behind torture, and therefore I don't think we should engage in it.

To me, it's very simple.

But it's also good to see the thought process that some go through to justify it. I'm glad this topic was brought up.

I am against torture as well; however, I do not consider this to be torture. Just because it makes you "feel bad" or gives you a unconfortable sensation does not make it torture.

[Jake_Blues]

I am against torture as well; however, I do not consider this to be torture. Just because it makes you "feel bad" or gives you a unconfortable sensation does not make it torture.

So, what is torture then? Being shot in the knee cap just makes you feel bad, but it isn't torture?

It has already been said, but would you want these things done to your son or daughter if they were in the military?

Treat others as you would have them treat you. Note that this doesn't say "treat others the same way they treat you".

-E

[Gags]

I have to admit that I'm conflicted on this issue. On the one hand I know that supporting torture hurts us as a people. Once you OK a little torture a lot of torture starts to happen...That being said, in my own little reality I've got a soft spot for gangsters. If you move on us you are going to f@cking pay. Our enemy will not respect us so they will learn to fear us.

Soundman, posted the beheading pics and I thought to myself, "everyone of these MF-er's needs to fall."

It seems that we deal with the cultural differences in what people view is appropriate forms resistance/fighting.

I mean in a way I would like to inject some of these guys with heroin daily until they get physically addicted, use that addiction, then let them go...Won't be good to anyone anymore. However, when I think of my Country and what we stand for as a people we should not condone torture or methods like I just suggested.

[Gags]

Hell, I almost want to try waterboarding to see how bad it really is.

[CannonBall]

Hell, I almost want to try waterboarding to see how bad it really is.

M&G?
-Nate

[Steve]

Hell, I almost want to try waterboarding to see how bad it really is.

Film it. :D

Apparently torture as a form of protest is okey dokey, but it's wrong when done for other reasons. :rolleyes:

[Gags]

M&G?
-Nate

Why not.:thumbsup:

[Gags]

Film it. :D

Apparently torture as a form of protest is okey dokey, but it's wrong when done for other reasons. :rolleyes:


I think the hazing at VMI at times was worse...

[CannonBall]

I think part of what makes it ?torture? is the fact that the action being performed is unwanted. It?s not the best example, but ?Mythbusters? did the ?Chinese water torture,? and the girl who was tied down completely freaked after a while, but the unrestrained guy had no problems. If you aren?t restrained and just having this done to you I can?t imagine it would be as traumatic as being tied down to a table in some foreign uncomfortable environment and going through this thinking you may actually be killed. I also doubt the protesters do it as whole heartedly as those trying to extract information and I?m sure they let people up as soon as they ?tap out.?
-Nate

[Dave McDonald]

Why not.:thumbsup:

You gotta lock up yer attack cat first.

[Gags]

You gotta lock up yer attack cat first.

He loves people.

[Dave McDonald]

He loves people.

with or without gravy? :)

[Steve]

I also doubt the protesters do it as whole heartedly as those trying to extract information and I?m sure they let people up as soon as they ?tap out.?
-Nate

I'm sure you're correct. You just don't see protestors employing any other form of torture to protest that same form of torture. Either it's torture and it's ALWAYS wrong or it ain't. :shrug:

[Dave McDonald]

I'm sure you're correct. You just don't see protestors employing any other form of torture to protest that same form of torture. Either it's torture and it's ALWAYS wrong or it ain't. :shrug:

You're right...I never see anyone protesting the enemy's beheadings in that same way...

[scottycards]

I mean in a way I would like to inject some of these guys with heroin daily until they get physically addicted, use that addiction, then let them go...Won't be good to anyone anymore. However, when I think of my Country and what we stand for as a people we should not condone torture or methods like I just suggested.

Did you happen to catch the program on the CIA and torture last evening on Nat'l Geo channel?

Great show on all the torture research the US did back in the 1940's and 1950's. They injected people with LSD for 77 days continuously, increasing the dose over time to see what they could extract from them.

They also took convicts who were herion addicted, and gave them herion if they would participate in LSD experiments and other mind-control experiments. Electric shock, they showed a bunch of interesing and gruesome stuff. It was a good show.

Google Joe Olson, CIA torture sometime. It was a very interesting show.
Wiki link, FWIW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

The CIA actually was responsible for Olson's death, and paid the family a bunch of dough.

The facts are that we're no strangers to this game, we decided it was not the right thing to do, abandoned it, and our current administration dusted off the old manuals and decided that it's OK.

[Gags]

Did you happen to catch the program on the CIA and torture last evening on Nat'l Geo channel?

Great show on all the torture research the US did back in the 1940's and 1950's. They injected people with LSD for 77 days continuously, increasing the dose over time to see what they could extract from them.

They also took convicts who were herion addicted, and gave them herion if they would participate in LSD experiments and other mind-control experiments. Electric shock, they showed a bunch of interesing and gruesome stuff. It was a good show.

Google Joe Olson, CIA torture sometime. It was a very interesting show.
Wiki link, FWIW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

The CIA actually was responsible for Olson's death, and paid the family a bunch of dough.

The facts are that we're no strangers to this game, we decided it was not the right thing to do, abandoned it, and our current administration dusted off the old manuals and decided that it's OK.

I'll definitely check it out.

Dude, how many Nazi intelligence and counter intelligence officers did we natuaralize? I think a bunch but if we didn't the Russians would have...I think they got some too.

[Yota]

I went waterboarding once. It was fun. :thumbsup:

[CLYDE]

I've had my mind changed! Since it's "all fair", I won't get worked up when our guys and gals get beheaded, or tortured, or really, anything else. I'll just expect that kind of stuff from now on. :rolleyes:
If you didnt already expect it by now, I would think you had your head buried in the sand. It has been the norm by the exremists, for a very very long time. and wether we waterboard, or anything else, they will continue to do this to our people. Its better to kill yourself, than allow yourself to be taken captive by them, and I am sure some of our people have done just that, knowing the fate in store for them if taken.

[CLYDE]

We're trying to show these guys that we are the good ones, here. If we engage in these practices, we're just as bad as they are. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
No we are not trying to show the terrorists that we are the good guys, We are trying to exterminate them, by all means at our disposal. To let them know, that we will hunt them down however we can, and to kill them with extreme prejudice. These people hate us, and will continue to hate us, no matter what we do. In return, they have made us show them the consideration the justly deserve, These are NOT an enemy military, these are radib dogs, that need to be terminated, yet you persist in thinking of them as people, when clearly they have no humanity of their own. Let me add that I just had surgery, and am feeling very mellow, and generous at the moment, due to the eneormous amount of pain meds I am on, so I may even be understating how i really feel about this.

[CLYDE]

Morals by who's standard?

Here is an example of moral behavior with a prisoner. At least I believe he is a prisoner, his hands are bound behind his back. A 12 year old is being taught how to decapitate said prisoner.

Very graphic, some would say NSFW
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188003.php

Here is an example of how US POW's are treated.
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=22366&comview=1

What about when they tie the hands of their prisoners and douse them with flammable liquid and push them in a pit that has a fire in it? Just Google that you will find the video if you want to see it.

Where are the cries of moral outrage when these things happen?

How about lets strap a bomb to a kid or a mentally disabled person and send them into a market.

I could go on and on about this. My sentiment is that if water boarding does not kill them and does not damage them in any physical way have at it. I would prefer that they do things that would make it so they can not go to their god when it is all said and done but that would hurt someones feelings. Feelings and morals in war... :rolleyes: We are not at war with a country, as far as I can tell it is a militia for a religious group. We are fighting a groups belief system. Their beliefs are not the same as ours so they want us dead, thats all there is to it. They attacked our country enough times all over the globe and we have a CINC that had enough and had the balls to do something about it. Now lets tie the hands of the ones with the balls to fight them in their back yard instead of in our streets at home. :shrug:These prisoners don't have a country to sign a treaty with or that sets forth rules for them to follow. They follow the guidance of religious nuts and distorted interpretations of their bible the Koran.

When you have seen the spoils of war and what humans are capable of doing to one another over a belief and not an action maybe then, just maybe those with feelings and morals will look away while men and women with the ability and courage to keep this country free and safe do their jobs.

I am done with this thread.
Well said:thumbsup:

[Budman]

So, what is torture then? Being shot in the knee cap just makes you feel bad, but it isn't torture?

It has already been said, but would you want these things done to your son or daughter if they were in the military?

Treat others as you would have them treat you. Note that this doesn't say "treat others the same way they treat you".

-E

I think there is a line in the sand and no grey area on what is and isn't torture. The problem is that that line is different for different people. As for would I WANT these things done to my son or daughter... The answer is NO; however, I would EXPECT much worse to happen to them if they were in the military and captured by an ememy or opposing force. Same goes for me if I were captured. I am fortunate enough to have recieved the absolute best training in this area that can be taken. They teach you what to expect, how to deal with it and much much more.

Hell, I almost want to try waterboarding to see how bad it really is.

I have said it before, and people think I am kidding, but don't knock it till you try it. It is a temporary feeling of fear, panick and disconfort. If you had an older brother who dunked you under water and held you there for too long as a kid, it is not too much worse than that. (Of course, my brother was a sadistic SOB.)

You gotta lock up yer attack cat first.

He loves people.

with or without gravy? :)

I don't care who you are... That is funny shat right there.

[reeper_4]

The GC is now outdated!! As a former Ranger, I can say this...The world knows how to defend against us now. There will not be another all out war, with full blown, uniformed soldiers goin at it, face to face like all good wars should be fought. They will hide, in mosques, churches and temples. They will use school houses full of children to shield their weapons from us, knowing that we will do nothing about it, because all of our wars now, are not fought on the ground as they should be, they are fought for us on Capitol Hill, where they can have the media bash us and what we are trying to accomplish. It really shouldn't matter if we use waterboarding or not, as they are not uniformed soldiers...and as for immoral???? Was it moral then to SLAM 3 planes into American lives???? I really feel that if people feel WB is immoral, then they should venture to the middle east and experience something other than the freedom they have to sit and bitch about things, the same freedoms that my friends and family have died for. Use WB as much as possible in order to save ANY lives that terrorists threaten!!

[newracer]

At least we don't sever fingers.

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/national/2008/03/13/Iraq.Kidnapped.Contractors/

[CannonBall]

Screw it, kill them all, I'm sick of this crap.
-Nate

[scottycards]

Suggested readings on human evil:

People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck

Good and Evil, Martin Buber

After reading these examinations of Evil behavior in humans, your opinions may be different than they are now.

[Sound_Man]

Suggested readings on human evil:

People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck

Good and Evil, Martin Buber

After reading these examinations of Evil behavior in humans, your opinions may be different than they are now.

I would suggest a brief stint in our armed forces for a more realist enlightenment on what humans are capable of. You can read about it in a book but until you breath it, smell it and touch it you have no clue.

[scottycards]

I would suggest a brief stint in our armed forces for a more realist enlightenment on what humans are capable of. You can read about it in a book but until you breath it, smell it and touch it you have no clue.

With all due respect, I'm very aware of what humans are capable of, and for you to pretend to understand my knowledge of that subject is very presumptious.

You have no inkling of my realm of experience with human capability.

[Sound_Man]

With all due respect, I'm very aware of what humans are capable of, and for you to pretend to understand my knowledge of that subject is very presumptious.

You have no inkling of my realm of experience with human capability.

Wow, we actually agree on something :beer:

[Gags]

Screw it, kill them all, I'm sick of this crap.
-Nate

They want to keep kicking the bee hive until all the killer bees come out in swarm.

[Gags]

With all due respect, I'm very aware of what humans are capable of, and for you to pretend to understand my knowledge of that subject is very presumptious.

You have no inkling of my realm of experience with human capability.

EVERY culture and society has been responsible for horrible acts upon their fellow man. It's happening as I type this.

[scottycards]

Wow, we actually agree on something :beer:

Sound Man-
I have no intentions of attacking you or your opinions on the matter, so I apologize if I've done so.

With that said, often we form our opinions based on our knowledge and experience. I've found (in my own experience, YMMV) that expanding my base of knowledge sometimes alters my opinions on topics.

Such is the case with the topic of human Evil. Peck's book is nothing short of FASCINATING.

Whether or not it changes your opinions, it will increase your knowledge and understanding with regards to human evil. It's a faith-based book, and interlaces faith with science, which is rarely done. Peck is a devout Christian, but also an accomplished scientist.

If you were in Denver, I'd loan you my copy. I picked it up used for a dollar.
:thumbsup:

[DaJudge]

Sound Man-

If you were in Denver, I'd loan you my copy. I picked it up used for a dollar.
:thumbsup:
He's in The Springs......and only reads music! :flipoff2: