Waterboarding saves lives

[chance1]

Of course it doesn't because you aren't listening. You can torture somebody and call it "tough interrogation" but that doesn't change the fact that it's torture. You can call it anything you like. You can call it spongecake. It won't change the essence of what it is.

i was listening - or reading really

but until u expained it ................ so thanks

so it's kinda like spongecake?

did u see the curb episode where the cleaning lady (crazy one) pushed jeff's wife over the railing but luckily she landed on the 12 spongecakes that larry had bought for jeff that she had thrown out

very funny

i don't think it's torture

and it's a very grey area - not black and white

and the fact that it saved lives is KINDA FUCKING IMPORTANT

cuz those are real lives saved

not some "america sucks" poster

 

[Nishin]

^ funny how you systematically refer to tv shows to demonstate your ways of thinking... you may not be a "video-game guy" but the point I think was that you seem endoctrined with the leisure industry/hollywood scenaristic' views of the world rather than... well reality.

To reiterate a question previously asked in this thread... but the other way around : which lives were saved? Since it's so fucking important maybe you can tell?
I personally think it means innocent pakistanese lives that would have been "collaterally damaged" in an undiscriminative rush operation as we witnessed your army do in other places... so probably not the lives you were thinking of taken by the ones you would think of...

What I found equally important is that the tortured man is described as a terror suspect (a.k.a not proven/unconvicted terrorist) and that the ex-CIA agent says that the information provided indirectly led to given results, in other words : the information given alone was not sufficient and was disposable (granted the intelligence agency did its work properly: )

Another thing that is made clear by reading the agent's testimony is the secret services' amazing incompetence at doing their jobs as they apparently knew nothing about anybody in this case...

Your selective reading also failed to note how the very agent engaged in the torturing now opposes it and qualifies it unnecessary.

Now about the morality of it all, you mention how we who oppose it would overlook it if it served our own interest or saved familiar lives, thus showing how you fail to recognize others' independancy of thought... you apply/impose your personal system of ethics to the rest of us when the rest of the world actually made it clear how it morally stood regarding this question by agreeing to and signing international treaties banning torture...

Clearly you demonstrate your firm belief in the "the end justifies all means" idiom, thus expliciting your similarity of thought with integrists and terrorists you try to pass as superior to... I think you're only fooling yourself...