Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Can you supply any kind of rational explanation for waterboarding a man 183 times in a month?
|
Yes. I think this illustrates restraint.
On the other hand, in your 'reality' this is what you would get (like it or not). Without clearly defined parameters and a foggy moral compass (i.e. - a bullet in the head is o.k., but waterboarding is not). You would have your people capture a high value target and tell him to talk or start walking. If he starts walking...bang. No investigation, no false outrage, no trials, you simply had an enemy get a bullet in his head.
---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
You didn't answer the question. Let me restate: If we want to use waterboarding we have no right to complain if another country waterboards our guys.
|
I don't complain about it. I make plans to address the issue.
Quote:
|
If we conduct severe beatings on detainees we have no right to complain when one of our guys gets beaten severely by captives.
|
In my view it is not a complaint to tell the enemy that if they unduly harm my people there will be unpleasant consequences, and that it would be in their best interest not to severely beat captives.
I do admit that I am a bit more extreme when it comes to these issues than the normal person. In a group of people I would be the one who needs to be 'talked down', but I know that, I do listen to a credible voice of reason and I am not a total animal.