I expect that Q-iller is referring to the Gitmo guests who have been undergoing forced feedings through nasal tubes.

Waterboarding Torture:

Do the babbling sniveling liberal democrats consider "Waterbridging" torture?
For those that don't know what Waterbridging is, it is when a Scum Bag Murdering politician takes a young girl, gets her drunk then puts her in his car, he then goes over a bridge, then he drives off the bridge into a river, he fights his way out of the car and gets his sorry ass out of the water, he then walks by three or four phones to tell his crooked flunkies, then he swims across the river and goes to bed.
Meanwhile back at the bridge the girl finds an air bubble, she is praying, crying, puking, clawing and thinking that her "hero" will save her, she doesn't know he went to bed an is probably sound asleep, she gulps, then she dies.

After a good nights sleep the "scum bag" wakes up and tells his ass kissers to report it.

That is called "Water-bridging"

The murdering scum bags father would have been proud of him, he taught him well.

Is that related to Water-Decalaring-Preemptive-War-With-No-Basis-No-Plan-And-No-Exit-Strategerying?

And what does Kennedy have to do with the topic anyway?

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

Kennedy was one of the first to condem "waterboarding" he did so while the Muslims were carving human beings heads off on TV.

Kennedy said 'waterboarding' was inhuman, even to save thousands of innocent lives.

But of course nobody paid any attention to him, the people know what an immoral dog he is.

It is inhuman. 50 years from now history wont reflect the reliable or unreliable information gathered through torture. 50 years from now we'll look back with shame as we learn about a country that surrendered its integrty and dignity, took a 300 step backward and tortured people for information. The 'he did it first' or 'he started it' argument didnt work with my mom and it wont work for us.

I dont want to lose all of that just for the possibility of gathering some information; information that will most likely NOT be accurate.

History will already show this time period as a bleek and an all time low point for America, we dont have to make it first because 'he started it!'

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

Here is the moral issue. There is the utilitarian view that one unethical action can prevent a greater number of more unethical actions. However, we do not know that any specific act of waterboarding will prevent any specific evil from occurring. We have only the fallible judgment of the interrogators. If a person were omniscient and knew with 100% certainty that an act of waterboarding would prevent a greater evil, then they would be justified in waterboarding someone.
However, none of us are omniscient, so allowing an evil based on 100% fallible human judgment is essentially stating, "Do it when you feel like it", since no objective criteria can be given for speculating on what knowledge another person does or does not possess. That is why we have absolute moral rules- why our laws don't read, "Don't do such and such... unless you think you have a good reason". Well, they don't for most of us, but this administration has managed to put itself above the law. This is morally wrong for the reason I mentioned above, and it is a dangerous precedent for a Presidential administration to set. Accordingly, there can be no exceptions, no ambiguities and no rationalizations against this rule: There may be no torture. Torture, moreover, includes all "alternative" interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

First of all torture is not clearly defined. What you think is torture someone else may not.
When do you decide to use tougher methods? When you are a 100% sure? 90%, 50%. Interrogation methods are like a tool box. Many different kinds for different players, timelines and risks. I would hope you start with the nice and easy ones before moving to the tougher ones. Perhaps only a few warrant some extreme.
You just caught a terrorist who claims to have placed a nuke in a major city and it will go off in 24 hours. What are your limits?
Nobody should be torturing for the fun of it. I am sure it happens and should be watched out for. Oversight is important.
I do not believe the terrorist will be nicer to our soldiers knowing we do not torture them. If fact they see it as a weakness not to.
It would be nice to live in your absolute world but this is reality. Why don't you join it.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

That is precisely the problem. An absolute definition of torture must be put in place without any loopholes or ambiguities.

By "tougher methods", you mean torture, of course, so that is correct. I was very clear about that above.

Precisely the limits I would have with anyone else who confessed to a crime.

When there are no absolute rules, "oversight" consists of the whims of the President and officials appointed by the President.

How they see torture is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong.

Here is the reality: Without absolute lines it may not cross, a government becomes more dangerous than any terrorist group.

Let me know when you reach reality. I'm already there.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters