Do you support torture?

[retiredman]

I believe that would need to be said to Yurt, not RSR. Yurt knows better than to do that without YOUR permission to him.

I already GAVER yurt permission to post the texts from the supposedly daming PM's. Yurt already posted the texts from the supposedly damning PM's. Do YOU see anything in there where I admitted that I LIED about anything? RSR just immediately jumped on the pig pile but, of course, he had no idea what the fuck he was talking about (big surprise!). Now you have a chance to show me where I admitted lying in any of the text copied by yurt from our PM's.

The boy is sick. obsessed and sick. I feel sorry for him and wish him well...I honestly do.

[Kathianne]

I already GAVER yurt permission to post the texts from the supposedly daming PM's. Yurt already posted the texts from the supposedly damning PM's. Do YOU see anything in there where I admitted that I LIED about anything? RSR just immediately jumped on the pig pile but, of course, he had no idea what the fuck he was talking about (big surprise!). Now you have a chance to show me where I admitted lying in any of the text copied by yurt from our PM's.

The boy is sick. obsessed and sick. I feel sorry for him and wish him well...I honestly do.

I just got back from work, only saw the one I replied to. I'll keep reading. Have a glass of wine or something, it's good for your blood pressure. ;)

[Yurt]

I believe that would need to be said to Yurt, not RSR. Yurt knows better than to do that without YOUR permission to him.

its cool kath. he gave me permission, i posted the main parts of the pm's that showed he knew i called him a liar for insulting his father and that if he did not want me to call him a liar anymore, he needed to come clean to the board about his dishonesty, e.g., recant. i could post more, but it is enough, and no matter what, he will mince words, lie and do whatever because he never said the exact word "lie" even though it is quite clear i said he lied and that in order for me to stop calling him a liar, he needed to come clean about his lie that i insulted his father.

since he is dishonest, there is no further need for me to discuss it with him.

[Yurt]

well, i said i was done, but it is clear i must post a little more from the pm's as mfm is now calling me a sick obsessed liar...


MFM
Oh...and when did I insult a family member? Or are you tone deaf to sarcasm?

YURT
you call that card now after going after me about your dad when you know full well i spoke about your dad in the same vernacular... this is why i think you are scum. you know full well i never talked ill about your father, yet you continued to berate me, you talk about my uncle and EXPECT me to accept sarcasm....that is intellectually DISHONEST.

that is what i do not like about you, i don't care if you are an ass, i can't stand dishonesty


MFMthe commment about the uncle was sarcasm. I implied that "you" were a little boy who had gotten a hold of his uncle Yurt's computer. I was implying that your reply was so immature that it sounded as if a young child had written it while uncle Yurt was off working. I am sorry that such sarcasm escaped you. I was not saying anything about your uncle. I was implying that you were the uncle and your little nephew was banging away at DP in your absence.

wow.

I don't lie. I HATE being called a liar and you know that very well, yet you continue to say the one thing that makes me see red. And then you try to take the moral high ground.



YURTthat is your response, no shit dumbass, fuck you. you know full well my comment was NOT about your dad moron, you are a liar, you're just too stupid to see it.
bye bye fake/liar preacher, you had your chance, i even told you, i respect you because your church members do, and this is how you deal with me... fool, only one conclusion, you are a drunk and a liar

as we all know mfm went on and on in a thread about how i insulted his dad, so i used his comment about my uncle to show him (after he refused my understanding in that thread) that my comment about his dad not being an attorney went to MFM's integrity as MFM was insulting lawyers in such a negative fashion. after calling MFM a liar for saying i insulted his father....his response:



I understand that your comments were not denigrating my dad

you see, he knew and did not refute that he lied about, his reply accepted that he lied, i again mention his lie.


would love to have this PM open to the board. you flat out said that my post was an insult to your dad, in fact, you kept the whole thread running on it.... and now, and now, you admit it you knew i DID NOT insult your dad....

are you man enough to admit to the board i never insulted your dad?

i will admit that your post had nothing to do with my uncle...of course i know, the SAME as you did, yet you told the board i insulted your father. will you recant? if so, i will not call you a liar. unless of course you lie again. but, if you make it public, i will as well.

sorry to talk more about this when i said i wouldn't, but that is pretty much the whole story. i honestly thought after seeing the brief version mfm would apologize and say, oh yeah, i guess i did admit lying. he knew exactly what i was asking him to do and he knew i was calling him a liar for that.

my mistake on not making him spell it out, but i trusted him and did not feel like dragging it out further. clearly he is obsessed and untrustworthy.

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of the thread, and more from the kook left on torture

Canadian Boy Forced to Endure Discomfort, Drowsiness in Gitmo Torture Chamber
By now, everyone has seen the horrific video of a 15-year old Canadian boy being tortured at Bush's Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp. However, many remain blissfully unaware of the tragic story that led to his illegal and immoral capture at the hands of our babykilling U.S. troops.

It all began when a scrappy young Omar Khadr was goofing around in an Afghani warzone, as all boisterous young men his age are apt do, when one of the grenades he was juggling to impress some local girls just happened to explode. Sergeant First Class Christopher James Speer, who was not wearing a helmet at the time, was killed in the explosion. But in a way, SFC Speer got off easy, for he was never forced to stay up way past his bedtime and endure hours of annoying questions in an uncomfortable chair while tears poured from his big, puppy-dog eyes and wails for his mommy echoed throughout the darkened corridors of Bush's underground torture chamber.

"I can't move my arms!" Khadr wails in the chilling video, lifting up his shirt with his toes to reveal either his hairy man-nipples, or the fading scars of torture at the hands of Bush's goons. "Help me! Help me!"

If it wasn't for the court-ordered release of this damning video, Khadr's cries for help would have never been answered. The heartbreaking story of his sleepless nights and general discomfort would have never been revealed. Nor would the family of of SFC Speer have an opportunity to apologize for the suffering young Khadr was forced to endure because their Gung-Ho son decided to interrupt an innocent teenage slumber party at a baby-milk factory.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Khadr doesn't deserve some share of the guilt here. But he must be considered innocent until proven guilty by the World Court, and then released back into the wilds of his native Great White North to suckle upon its abundance of hooker-fed bacon and sniveling progressives.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/07/canadian-boy-fo.html

[Yurt]

as i was discussing with manu before, who establishes whether it is torture when it is not spelled out?

[Said1]

Back to the topic of the thread, and more from the kook left on torture

Canadian Boy Forced to Endure Discomfort, Drowsiness in Gitmo Torture Chamber
By now, everyone has seen the horrific video of a 15-year old Canadian boy being tortured at Bush's Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp. However, many remain blissfully unaware of the tragic story that led to his illegal and immoral capture at the hands of our babykilling U.S. troops.

It all began when a scrappy young Omar Khadr was goofing around in an Afghani warzone, as all boisterous young men his age are apt do, when one of the grenades he was juggling to impress some local girls just happened to explode. Sergeant First Class Christopher James Speer, who was not wearing a helmet at the time, was killed in the explosion. But in a way, SFC Speer got off easy, for he was never forced to stay up way past his bedtime and endure hours of annoying questions in an uncomfortable chair while tears poured from his big, puppy-dog eyes and wails for his mommy echoed throughout the darkened corridors of Bush's underground torture chamber.

"I can't move my arms!" Khadr wails in the chilling video, lifting up his shirt with his toes to reveal either his hairy man-nipples, or the fading scars of torture at the hands of Bush's goons. "Help me! Help me!"

If it wasn't for the court-ordered release of this damning video, Khadr's cries for help would have never been answered. The heartbreaking story of his sleepless nights and general discomfort would have never been revealed. Nor would the family of of SFC Speer have an opportunity to apologize for the suffering young Khadr was forced to endure because their Gung-Ho son decided to interrupt an innocent teenage slumber party at a baby-milk factory.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Khadr doesn't deserve some share of the guilt here. But he must be considered innocent until proven guilty by the World Court, and then released back into the wilds of his native Great White North to suckle upon its abundance of hooker-fed bacon and sniveling progressives.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/07/canadian-boy-fo.html

Given his age, I'm surprised he not here a the Holiday Innes (youth det centre) watching Zoey 101 re-runs.

[red states rule]

Given his age, I'm surprised he not here a the Holiday Innes (youth det centre) watching Zoey 101 re-runs.

If the peace niks had their way, he would put up in the Hilton

[Said1]

If the peace niks had their way, he would put up in the Hilton

Given the Arar scenario, the media portrays him as a victim.

[red states rule]

Given the Arar scenario, the media portrays him as a victim.

The liberal media portrays the terrorists as freedom fighters, and US troops as war criminals

I am sad to say so do most Dems

[Yurt]

define severe and prolonged.......and iminent death.....


exactly, great point and thats my point, i am not sure

is it a subjective standard? somehow i doubt it or anyone could say i'm tortured, i'm tortured

this is the heart of the matter

[retiredman]

in reality, don't you think it is really something like pornography?

It is tough to define with words, but when youy SEE it, you know you have seen it.

[red states rule]

in reality, don't you think it is really something like pornography?

It is tough to define with words, but when youy SEE it, you know you have seen it.

Given your sick and demented posts, you should be expert on the topic :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

the fact remains....your statement implied that you thought the waterboarding was torture just like my statement implied that you had weird sexual proclivities...to split hairs and try to claim apples and oranges when the real difference might be navel oranges and tangerines...is pretty fucking weak.

and to call me a LIAR for arriving at the same sort of inference to the phrase that your buddy RSR did is pretty foul.

I got a great and normal sex life. I made an analogy.... don't like it? put me on ignore. But either way, PUHLEEESE quit following me around and nitpicking my every post and calling me a liar. I have asked you nicely on several occasions.

And you wonder why so many cal you a liar? With these types of 'arguments'. Seriously, you need to look at what you do, before castigating other for not castigating others.

This was just sick.


and I gave RSR an example that mirrored yours and even your butt buddy agreed with me that I had implied you liked to fuck dead whores.

I stated clearly that I did not know whether you liked to fuck dead whores or not....but somehow, your pal RSR was determined that I had implied that you did.

go figure.

And here you keep digging.


Bush has been wiping his ass with it since 9/12/01. The Constitution was never meant to be cast aside in times of trouble. Only those bent on subverting it would seek to do so, and it is only by the support of their craven dupes, cowed by the fear of some shadowy menace, which allows them to do so.

You and your fellow travelers really have no idea of what you're so willing to throw away because the bunch of fascists infesting the White House prey and pander to your own base fears.

You and your ilk disgust me.
And you've been conversing with Abe and Franklin, have you?

[retiredman]

bogus!

[red states rule]

maybeONE OF THEIR IWFFORTES of your

I am all through digging...but it seems you hold a near morbid concentration sitgn all public pronouncesments about one's sexual lifestyle. whatever/

You are the pervert preacher around here, and who has the obsession with weird sex

Something you picked up in the Navy?

[red states rule]

And you wonder why so many cal you a liar? With these types of 'arguments'. Seriously, you need to look at what you do, before castigating other for not castigating others.

This was just sick.

Tried to rep you Kathianne, but have to pread the love around

I owe you for this one

[retiredman]

You are the pervert preacher around here, and who has the obsession with weird sex

Something you picked up in the Navy?

I did not write that post.

[Yurt]

You are the pervert preacher around here, and who has the obsession with weird sex

Something you picked up in the Navy?

my grandfather was in the navy, no way, he must have picked it up from the closet....

mfm is nothing, let's stick to the thread

[red states rule]

my grandfather was in the navy, no way, he must have picked it up from the closet....

mfm is nothing, let's stick to the thread

I did not intend it as an insult toward all those who served in the Navy. Point is taken Yurt - MFM probably picked it up while in the crows nest

[retiredman]

As I said...someone has compromised the board. I did not write that post.

[red states rule]

As I said...someone has compromised the board. I did not write that post.

If you did not lie so much, we might be able to take your word for it

[Kathianne]

I did not write that post.

So who did? What is your point. BTW, when you posted, that was copied.

[bullypulpit]

And you've been conversing with Abe and Franklin, have you?

Mo, just common sense. RSR and his fellow travelers have no idea of what they're selling nor how cheaply they sell it. Obviously the Founders were made of sterner stuff than they.

[red states rule]

Mo, just common sense. RSR and his fellow travelers have no idea of what they're selling nor how cheaply they sell it. Obviously the Founders were made of sterner stuff than they.

and you peace nik Bush haters have no idea that the terrorists are using you. You are useful idiots for the terrorists. Your hate for Pres Bush and thirst for political power are driving you to undermine and oppose everything done to win this war

BP, fools like you have no common sense - just common nonsense

[darin]

I did not write that post.

If you hadn't edited, I might-could tell from which IP that post was made - but I saw that post w/ your user name attached to it last night. I figured you were drunk off your ass.

For the record - Yurt is kicking MFM's butt in this "debate" :)

[retiredman]

So who did? What is your point. BTW, when you posted, that was copied.


I have no idea who did. I edited it, but I did not write the original post. someone compromised the board.

[red states rule]

I have no idea who did. I edited it, but I did not write the original post. someone compromised the board.

Your post reminds me of another famous denial - "I did not have sexual relations with that women"

[retiredman]

Your post reminds me of another famous denial - "I did not have sexual relations with that women"

look, RSR... I have always stood by my posts. I have had to apologize for inflammatory comments that I have made from time to time - and I have always done so....but I have NEVER claimed that I didn't write something. That happened here last night. I did not write the original text in post #765 that you quoted in post #766. I am not entirely sure how something like that gets done, but nonetheless it DID get done last night and I immediately edited it and put down the reason why I edited it. Perhaps, had I let it stand as written, the moderators might have been able to ascertain who had done it, but that thought never crossed my mind - my only thought was to get those words that I had not written out from under my avatar... and I did so. Now you can chose to believe me or not... but that is the truth.

[red states rule]

look, RSR... I have always stood by my posts. I have had to apologize for inflammatory comments that I have made from time to time - and I have always done so....but I have NEVER claimed that I didn't write something. That happened here last night. I did not write the original text in post #765 that you quoted in post #766. I am not entirely sure how something like that gets done, but nonetheless it DID get done last night and I immediately edited it and put down the reason why I edited it. Perhaps, had I let it stand as written, the moderators might have been able to ascertain who had done it, but that thought never crossed my mind - my only thought was to get those words that I had not written out from under my avatar... and I did so. Now you can chose to believe me or not... but that is the truth.

It is a historic occassion when we hear the truth form you, since we hear it from you so often

It your history was not one of billegerent arrogrance, obnoxious attitude, and a pattern of of being a serial liar - mayne more of us would be wiling to give you the benefit of the doubt

[retiredman]

It is a historic occassion when we hear the truth form you, since we hear it from you so often

It your history was not one of billegerent arrogrance, obnoxious attitude, and a pattern of of being a serial liar - mayne more of us would be wiling to give you the benefit of the doubt


I actually doubt whether you would ever give me the benefit of the doubt...nor do I really care about that. Your nonstop onslaught of insults to my patriotism and my service have gone on for years. I pretty much expect what you dish out.

I may be belligerent, and arrogant and obnoxious... so are you... but I am NOT a liar. And I an not a coward or unpatriotic. I love my country and I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. I did and do take that oath very seriously

[red states rule]

I actually doubt whether you would ever give me the benefit of the doubt...nor do I really care about that. Your nonstop onslaught of insults to my patriotism and my service have gone on for years. I pretty much expect what you dish out.

I may be belligerent, and arrogant and obnoxious... so are you... but I am NOT a liar. And I an not a coward or unpatriotic. I love my country and I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. I did and do take that oath very seriously

You have noone to blame but yourself. You have clearly shown you have two faces - on here and the other you claim to show as a preacher

You live for one thing and one thing only - to increase power for your party. If the troops get in the way, you kick them to the curb. If terrorists need your protection, you cover them in a blanket

You are the worst kind of politcal hack. You will toss anyone who gets in your way under the bus, and happily run them over

[retiredman]

You have noone to blame but yourself. You have clearly shown you have two faces - on here and the other you claim to show as a preacher

You live for one thing and one thing only - to increase power for your party. If the troops get in the way, you kick them to the curb. If terrorists need your protection, you cover them in a blanket

You are the worst kind of politcal hack. You will toss anyone who gets in your way under the bus, and happily run them over

that is a lie. I have never kicked the troops to the curb. I have never tried to protect any terrorists.

Again... I don't expect you to ever stop telling those lies... or being every bit as arrogant and obnoxious and belligerent as you say I am... I merely point out that I did not write the original #765. I have no idea who did or how they were able to do it. I have reported the problem to the mods.

[red states rule]

that is a lie. I have never kicked the troops to the curb. I have never tried to protect any terrorists.

Again... I don't expect you to ever stop telling those lies... or being every bit as arrogant and obnoxious and belligerent as you say I am... I merely point out that I did not write the original #765. I have no idea who did or how they were able to do it. I have reported the problem to the mods.

You have called for surrender in Iraq. You have defended Dems who have slimed and insulted the troops. You said you would let a terror attack happen rather then waterboard a terrorist that might stop it

Unlike you, I call my party on their mistakes - you lie and defend your parties mistakes

You defend your boys flip flops, racist comments, racist and terrorist friends.

Your party comes before all else with you. Period.

[retiredman]

You have called for surrender in Iraq. You have defended Dems who have slimed and insulted the troops. You said you would let a terror attack happen rather then waterboard a terrorist that might stop it

Unlike you, I call my party on their mistakes - you lie and defend your parties mistakes

You defend your boys flip flops, racist comments, racist and terrorist friends.

Your party comes before all else with you. Period.

If you could show that I have called for surrender in Iraq, you would have done so in the thread where I challenged you to prove that slander on the condition that, if you did, I would leave here forever.

I don't LIE about anything. My party makes mistakes and when they do, I admit them, but I would not consider abandoning my party unless they abandoned their platform, which I firmly believe is the best thing for my country which is my first priority.

[red states rule]

If you could show that I have called for surrender in Iraq, you would have done so in the thread where I challenged you to prove that slander on the condition that, if you did, I would leave here forever.

I don't LIE about anything. My party makes mistakes and when they do, I admit them, but I would not consider abandoning my party unless they abandoned their platform, which I firmly believe is the best thing for my country which is my first priority.

You know shithead, you keep thinking by playing the same tune over and over you will get different results

You are such a liar, I sometimes think you actually believe your lies and the BS you toss out. You live by word games

You could care less what your party or candidates say or do. Your defense of the messiah and all his racism, flip flops, lies, and racist and terrorist friends prove your loyality is with the party not what they stand for

[retiredman]

You know shithead, you keep thinking by playing the same tune over and over you will get different results

You are such a liar, I sometimes think you actually believe your lies and the BS you toss out. You live by word games

You could care less what your party or candidates say or do. Your defense of the messiah and all his racism, flip flops, lies, and racist and terrorist friends prove your loyality is with the party not what they stand for

Like I said: if you could show my supprt for surrender, you would have already done so... if YOU think that you can continue to repeat the same lie about me over and over again and that will somehow make it magically turn into the truth, you need to put down the crack pipe.

I care what my party's platform is. As long as my party stands for what it stands for in its platform, and as long as my party's candidates pledge to stand on that platform, I will support them, because I believe that that platform provides the best hope for America...which is and has always been my first priority.

[red states rule]

Like I said: if you could show my supprt for surrender, you would have already done so... if YOU think that you can continue to repeat the same lie about me over and over again and that will somehow make it magically turn into the truth, you need to put down the crack pipe.

I care what my party's platform is. As long as my party stands for what it stands for in its platform, and as long as my party's candidates pledge to stand on that platform, I will support them, because I believe that that platform provides the best hope for America...which is and has always been my first priority.

Again, surrender is redelpolyment or anything else you want to call it

You care only about party, not what your candidates or elected leaders say or do. They can have racist and terrorists as friends - that is fine with you

They can lie to you and that is cool with you

As long as they are Democrats that is all that matters to you

The country and the troops can go to Hell as long as Dems win an election

[retiredman]

Again, surrender is redelpolyment or anything else you want to call it

You care only about party, not what your candidates or elected leaders say or do. They can have racist and terrorists as friends - that is fine with you

They can lie to you and that is cool with you

As long as they are Democrats that is all that matters to you

The country and the troops can go to Hell as long as Dems win an election

the country is always my first priority. and I totally support the troops in all their efforts. I pray for them every morning and every night and my church prays for them every Sunday and prays for a miracle that they all come home safely. We do many things to provide substantive support to our troops. If the democrats ever changed their platform so that it was not in my country's best interest, I would quit being a democrat. country first and always.

[red states rule]

the country is always my first priority. and I totally support the troops in all their efforts. I pray for them every morning and every night and my church prays for them every Sunday and prays for a miracle that they all come home safely. We do many things to provide substantive support to our troops. If the democrats ever changed their platform so that it was not in my country's best interest, I would quit being a democrat. country first and always.

and welcome to Fantasy Island!!!!

[darin]

I have no idea who did. I edited it, but I did not write the original post. someone compromised the board.


...or somebody posted from your computer. (shrug). Since you've edited, I can't tell if the IP's match or differ. Next time you feel somebody compromised the board leave the post as is, and ask for help.

:)

[red states rule]

...or somebody posted from your computer. (shrug). Since you've edited, I can't tell if the IP's match or differ. Next time you feel somebody compromised the board leave the post as is, and ask for help.

:)

Where is Inspector Columbo when you need him? :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

and you peace nik Bush haters have no idea that the terrorists are using you. You are useful idiots for the terrorists. Your hate for Pres Bush and thirst for political power are driving you to undermine and oppose everything done to win this war

BP, fools like you have no common sense - just common nonsense

Bush isn't worth the effort required for hate. Try breaking into my home, and you'll find out how much of a pacifist I am. The only dupes here are you and your fellow travelers who would cheerfully sell their freedom for the promise of false security. For your information, the war, undeclared by Congress and in violation of international law, was won several years ago. We have been involved in a bloody occupation, our troops caught in the middle of a civil war lacking the supplies and equipment the Republican controlled Congress failed to provide.

[red states rule]

Bush isn't worth the effort required for hate. Try breaking into my home, and you'll find out how much of a pacifist I am. The only dupes here are you and your fellow travelers who would cheerfully sell their freedom for the promise of false security. For your information, the war, undeclared by Congress and in violation of international law, was won several years ago. We have been involved in a bloody occupation, our troops caught in the middle of a civil war lacking the supplies and equipment the Republican controlled Congress failed to provide.

Idiots like you hate your President and fellow countrymen then the terrorists that would kill you and your family without giving it a second thought

Your thirst for power is so great you are willing to toss the troops, the people of Iraq under the bus, and hand the terrorists a huge win

To bad the troops are winning and you now have to eat a supersized shitburger

Enjoy every bite

[Gaffer]

Let's see mfm. The dem platform calls for the immediate withdrawl of our troops from iraq. Regardless of consequences. Seems like giving up to me. After all the lives and money spent there your party wants us to just pick up and leave. That's why it's the party of surrender monkeys. And it's part of the platform you support.

The dem platform calls for more and higher taxes. Including taxing retirement investments.

The dem platform calls for continuing the restrictions on drilling, which keeps gas prices high and even want to increase taxes on gas.

The dems want a national health care program and will add more taxes to us to pay for it.

the dem platform calls for nationalizing schools, as if government isn't already screwing that up as it is.

The dem platform calls for reducing the military cutting back on defense programs and research.

You want all of this and you plan to move to mexico so you can live cheaper. As everyone has said, it's all about party and power with you.

[Yurt]

the country is always my first priority. and I totally support the troops in all their efforts. I pray for them every morning and every night and my church prays for them every Sunday and prays for a miracle that they all come home safely. We do many things to provide substantive support to our troops. If the democrats ever changed their platform so that it was not in my country's best interest, I would quit being a democrat. country first and always.

no matter how far he moves to the middle (changes his positions) you will still vote for him, is that correct?

[red states rule]

no matter how far he moves to the middle (changes his positions) you will still vote for him, is that correct?

Does a shark shit in the sea?

[retiredman]

no matter how far he moves to the middle (changes his positions) you will still vote for him, is that correct?


if he moves further away from the platform of the demcratic party than McCain is, I will NOT vote for him. If not, why would I vote for a candidate that supports less of my key issues?

now...be a big boy and try to actually answer that question.

[retiredman]

Let's see mfm. The dem platform calls for the immediate withdrawl of our troops from iraq. Regardless of consequences. Seems like giving up to me. After all the lives and money spent there your party wants us to just pick up and leave. That's why it's the party of surrender monkeys. And it's part of the platform you support.
bullshit the 2008 democratic platform plank on Iraq has not even been written yet

The dem platform calls for more and higher taxes. Including taxing retirement investments.
the democratic platform will undoubtedly contain a plank calling for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy. I support that

The dem platform calls for continuing the restrictions on drilling, which keeps gas prices high and even want to increase taxes on gas.
I would imagine that the democratic platform would not be as restrictive as you claim on this issue. Do you HAVE a link, or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

The dems want a national health care program and will add more taxes to us to pay for it. I support national healthcare

the dem platform calls for nationalizing schools, as if government isn't already screwing that up as it is.bullshit. It does not

The dem platform calls for reducing the military cutting back on defense programs and research.we are already the overwhelmingly most powerful military presence on the planet by a long shot. Our primary enemies going forward will damage us with bombs delivered in suitcases or in cargo ships that arrive in our ports uninspected. We don't NEED 22nd century space lasers to defeat them.

You want all of this and you plan to move to mexico so you can live cheaper. As everyone has said, it's all about party and power with you.

I want a better America for my children. I personally want to live my remaining years in as warm and comfortable and affordable location as I can.

[Gaffer]

I want a better America for my children. I personally want to live my remaining years in as warm and comfortable and affordable location as I can.

The only thing your leaving for your children is higher taxes, recession and less liberty.


bullshit the 2008 democratic platform plank on Iraq has not even been written yet

If the democrat party platform has not been written yet, then how can you support it? The same way obamanation can make decisions on iraq when he hasn't been there and talked to the commanders?

obamanation is writing the platform as he goes along. Everything he talks about is what will be in the platform or he wouldn't talk about it.


the democratic platform will undoubtedly contain a plank calling for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy. I support that

They are calling for more taxes on gas and they want to tax 401k's and other retirement investments. They will not only repeal the tax cuts but they will add more taxes as well.


I would imagine that the democratic platform would not be as restrictive as you claim on this issue. Do you HAVE a link, or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

Don't need a link, polosi, reid, obamanation, clinton have all said it. It's all over the media. And I still hold you to your word that you don't believe links we post here. I still will not post links for you. If you don't believe me then too bad, just means your not a very informed voter.


we are already the overwhelmingly most powerful military presence on the planet by a long shot. Our primary enemies going forward will damage us with bombs delivered in suitcases or in cargo ships that arrive in our ports uninspected. We don't NEED 22nd century space lasers to defeat them.

And we need to stay overwhelming. The more we develop, the safer our troops are and the safer we all are. Where a hundred men died 40 years ago we have moved on so that now only ten die. By continuing to develop weapons and defense we can reduce that over time to none dying. Or do we settle with 10?

[red states rule]

With MFM, the ONLY thing he looks for before he votes for any candidate is if there is a "D" at the end of their name

[retiredman]

The only thing your leaving for your children is higher taxes, recession and less liberty.

disagree...and so do my kids

If the democrat party platform has not been written yet, then how can you support it? The same way obamanation can make decisions on iraq when he hasn't been there and talked to the commanders?
there are certain plansk in the democratic party platform that have remained unchanged for years

obamanation is writing the platform as he goes along. Everything he talks about is what will be in the platform or he wouldn't talk about it.

clearly, you do not understand how a party platform is determined

They are calling for more taxes on gas and they want to tax 401k's and other retirement investments. They will not only repeal the tax cuts but they will add more taxes as well.
your opinion. not supported by facts

Don't need a link, polosi, reid, obamanation, clinton have all said it. It's all over the media. And I still hold you to your word that you don't believe links we post here. I still will not post links for you. If you don't believe me then too bad, just means your not a very informed voter.
it just means that you expect me to buy your bullshit. I ain't

And we need to stay overwhelming. The more we develop, the safer our troops are and the safer we all are. Where a hundred men died 40 years ago we have moved on so that now only ten die. By continuing to develop weapons and defense we can reduce that over time to none dying. Or do we settle with 10?

spending billions on space lasers when our real threat comes form small weapons delivered in suitcases is not cost effective. deal with it

[red states rule]

spending billions on space lasers when our real threat comes form small weapons delivered in suitcases is not cost effective. deal with it

The real threat is from the surrender monkeys and tax and spend liberals you support and are part of

[retiredman]

The real threat is from the surrender monkeys and tax and spend liberals you support and are part of

fuck you. I have NEVER supported surrendering to anyone.

But...you are a proven liar.... so I guess I should not be surprised.

[Yurt]

if he moves further away from the platform of the demcratic party than McCain is, I will NOT vote for him. If not, why would I vote for a candidate that supports less of my key issues?

now...be a big boy and try to actually answer that question.

you would vote for a known liar and racist simply because there D in front of his name, that is a fact

[retiredman]

you would vote for a known liar and racist simply because there D in front of his name, that is a fact


I don't consider Obama to be either of those. Neither do most rational people.

ANd I would vote for NO ONE "simply becuse there is a D AFTER (not in front) of their name. I would vote for someone because of all that D represents. I would vote for someone who supports the democratic party platform before I would vote for someone who is opposed to it. Sometimes I get the feeling that you really don't understand how politics really works!

[5stringJeff]

Again, surrender is redelpolyment or anything else you want to call it

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a huge difference between redeployment and surrender.

redeployment (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04543.html)
(DOD) The transfer of forces and materiel to support another joint force commander's operational requirements, or to return personnel, equipment, and materiel to the home and/or demobilization stations for reintegration and/or out-processing.

The US doesn't surrender, officially. It conducts:

retrograde movement (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04688.html)
(DOD) Any movement of a command to the rear, or away from the enemy. It may be forced by the enemy or may be made voluntarily. Such movements may be classified as withdrawal, retirement, or delaying action.

retirement (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04685.html)
(DOD, NATO) An operation in which a force out of contact moves away from the enemy.

withdrawal operation (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/w/05898.html)
(DOD) A planned retrograde operation in which a force in contact disengages from an enemy force and moves in a direction away from the enemy.

[SpidermanTUba]

Anyone who wants to see the part of this threat that the fabulous jimnyc has split from this one, can find it here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16425

[jimnyc]

Anyone who wants to see the part of this threat that the fabulous jimnyc has split from this one, can find it here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16425

As usual, you are wrong. I have no clue who split and moved a portion of this thread. I was happy laughing at you right where I was.

[Kathianne]

Anyone who wants to see the part of this threat that the fabulous jimnyc has split from this one, can find it here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16425

I split the thread, it had gone totally ot, but I did it hours before you posted this. I left my house for a wedding at 3. You posted this at 9:55pm, CST.

[logroller]

In a word, yes. But then I'd support a lot of things, so long as they benefit a greater number. Religion, abortion, legalizing drugs, overthrowing third world governments of countries rich in resources... the list goes on and on.

[revelarts]

In a word, yes. But then I'd support a lot of things, so long as they benefit a greater number. Religion, abortion, legalizing drugs, overthrowing third world governments of countries rich in resources... the list goes on and on.

Abortion, torture and world conquest for the good of mankind.

sounds like so many other "great" world leaders of history.

I hope your kidding.

[logroller]

Abortion, torture and world conquest for the good of mankind.

sounds like so many other "great" world leaders of history.

I hope your kidding.

I am.

[TheShadowKNows]

A yes/no question.

I not only support Torture, but I aggressively advocate it. Although in the final analysis, the act of "water Boarding" has an inconclusive definition at the best, for purposes of example I'll include it as Torture.
That being the crucial information that was ascertained from confirmed and suspected Muslim Terrorists at gitmo, while ostensibly leading to the saving of American lives ( I would personally torture every one of them to save one American Life, but I've always been accused of being a ROMANTIC ).
While those on the left are busy wallowing in their systemic mindset of rampant guilt. Overreaching in every direction imaginable to avoid "offending" anyone who didn't receive a bicycle on their 5th. birthday. Categorizing them as "victims", in their obsessive need to alleviate the shame of their own inherent self depreciation.
Luckily there are those among us ( ADULTS ) that will bear the burden of direct and immediate action, even though there will always be the possibility of offending someone's sensibilities, and/or moral and legal rights. All for the "Greater Good".
While consistently, and regardless of results, enduring demagoguery by the Left as "Violating" the rules of conduct that THEY have laid down. Rules that have never produced any visible success in anything undertaken in War or Peace, nor shown any degree of a positive effectiveness on the morale of the Military personnel involved, or the Citizenry supporting them.
This thread is only the tip of the Iceberg of the Cultural War that we are fighting for the heart and soul of this Great Republic. The insidiousness of the Left, no matter what banner they chose to fly under, whether it be Progressives, Liberals, Marxists, ETC. ETC. ETC.. Is at the roots, all the same ( feel good ) worn rhetoric that has never "worked" for the "People" throughout History. But served only to propel one Dictator/ Carpetbagger/ Tyrant after another to prominence, while leaving Misery, Disillusionment, Carnage, and Despair in the wake.
There is no COMPROMISE with them, only the heart wrenching disappointment of reaching out with honorable intentions, and then discovering that you have just joined a long list of others who have followed the same egregious path.
As whatever your approach to dealing with them may be, don't ever believe that compromise is possible, as they seek only to get you over to their side of the fence, to allow them the advantage in acquiring their nefarious goals.
The next several years are not going to be easy, but it is winnable, and well worth the fight.

[J.T]

Torture is evil.

But sometimes your only options are between evils and all you can do is seek to prevent the greater tragedy.

If torturing a person can save numerous lives that will otherwise be lost, then what is the more moral action: to cause the suffering of one or to allow the deaths of many?

This very principle is enshrined in our common faith, as the suffering of a single man is justified as the salvation of many.

[Gunny]

I not only support Torture, but I aggressively advocate it. Although in the final analysis, the act of "water Boarding" has an inconclusive definition at the best, for purposes of example I'll include it as Torture.
That being the crucial information that was ascertained from confirmed and suspected Muslim Terrorists at gitmo, while ostensibly leading to the saving of American lives ( I would personally torture every one of them to save one American Life, but I've always been accused of being a ROMANTIC ).
While those on the left are busy wallowing in their systemic mindset of rampant guilt. Overreaching in every direction imaginable to avoid "offending" anyone who didn't receive a bicycle on their 5th. birthday. Categorizing them as "victims", in their obsessive need to alleviate the shame of their own inherent self depreciation.
Luckily there are those among us ( ADULTS ) that will bear the burden of direct and immediate action, even though there will always be the possibility of offending someone's sensibilities, and/or moral and legal rights. All for the "Greater Good".
While consistently, and regardless of results, enduring demagoguery by the Left as "Violating" the rules of conduct that THEY have laid down. Rules that have never produced any visible success in anything undertaken in War or Peace, nor shown any degree of a positive effectiveness on the morale of the Military personnel involved, or the Citizenry supporting them.
This thread is only the tip of the Iceberg of the Cultural War that we are fighting for the heart and soul of this Great Republic. The insidiousness of the Left, no matter what banner they chose to fly under, whether it be Progressives, Liberals, Marxists, ETC. ETC. ETC.. Is at the roots, all the same ( feel good ) worn rhetoric that has never "worked" for the "People" throughout History. But served only to propel one Dictator/ Carpetbagger/ Tyrant after another to prominence, while leaving Misery, Disillusionment, Carnage, and Despair in the wake.
There is no COMPROMISE with them, only the heart wrenching disappointment of reaching out with honorable intentions, and then discovering that you have just joined a long list of others who have followed the same egregious path.
As whatever your approach to dealing with them may be, don't ever believe that compromise is possible, as they seek only to get you over to their side of the fence, to allow them the advantage in acquiring their nefarious goals.
The next several years are not going to be easy, but it is winnable, and well worth the fight.

Talk about someone getting his a$$ lit.:laugh2:

[revelarts]

Torture is evil...

yes it is

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8

[Gunny]

I don't consider Obama to be either of those. Neither do most rational people.

ANd I would vote for NO ONE "simply becuse there is a D AFTER (not in front) of their name. I would vote for someone because of all that D represents. I would vote for someone who supports the democratic party platform before I would vote for someone who is opposed to it. Sometimes I get the feeling that you really don't understand how politics really works!

Anyone with a brain capable of thought would consider Obama both.

[Gunny]

yes it is

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8

"Torture" is just another buzz word defined by the position of the person(s) using the word.

The left has repeatedly used the word to sling mud at the right. The Bush administration however, tried to "hem and haw" around the subject instead of taking it head on.

Too bad. If NSA wiretaps are legal and we have the Obama-sponsored expansion of the Gestapo now holding power in all walks of public transportation, define torture. BTW ... isn't GTMO STILL open? Hmmm ....

The problem is, this nation is so politically polarized it's lost any semblance of common sense toward a common goal -- the safety of this nation.

Using coercion on those who are known criminals and enemies of this nation and thought to hold vital information, to obtain information, is just using common sense.

Using it as a matter of policy against any and all does NOT fit that criteria.

[revelarts]

"Torture" is just another buzz word defined by the position of the person(s) using the word.

The left has repeatedly used the word to sling mud at the right. The Bush administration however, tried to "hem and haw" around the subject instead of taking it head on.

Too bad. If NSA wiretaps are legal and we have the Obama-sponsored expansion of the Gestapo now holding power in all walks of public transportation, define torture. BTW ... isn't GTMO STILL open? Hmmm ....

The problem is, this nation is so politically polarized it's lost any semblance of common sense toward a common goal -- the safety of this nation.

Using coercion on those who are known criminals and enemies of this nation and thought to hold vital information, to obtain information, is just using common sense.

Using it as a matter of policy against any and all does NOT fit that criteria.
All due respect Gunny
you've missed a lot of my post and others folks on this subject,
But it's not left right issue to me, it's a right wrong issue.
I've posted plenty of military interrogators, FBI interrogators, A man that's lead all the sere train training schools, Military officers, WW2 interrogators, Sere trainers, All say clearly that torture is what we did and that it's NOT a productive way to get information. they all say that it's Counter productive to the point that many report that it is a FACT that there are More terrorist and insurgents because of the the torture and MORE dead military because of our torture policy.
Common sense says we should stop it in the face of this evidence.
Common decency says we should have never have started it.

[Gunny]

All due respect Gunny
you've missed a lot of my post and others folks on this subject,
But it's not left right issue to me, it's a right wrong issue.
I've posted plenty of military interrogators, FBI interrogators, A man that's lead all the sere train training schools, Military officers, WW2 interrogators, Sere trainers, All say clearly that torture is what we did and that it's NOT a productive way to get information. they all say that it's Counter productive to the point that many report that it is a FACT that there are More terrorist and insurgents because of the the torture and MORE dead military because of our torture policy.
Common sense says we should stop it in the face of this evidence.
Common decency says we should have never have started it.

All due respect to you ... I was posting on this topic on this board before you were a member.:laugh2:

It isn't a right - wrong issue. I'm quite sure I can find as many if not more people that will claim the people you mention that say it doesn't work are wrong.

So let's dispense with the he said - she said and you can address the opinion I posted instead of trying to sweep me, and it, under the rug with the brush of a hand.

Again, the definition of "torture" is a matter of opinion when it comes to drawing the line between "coercion" and "torture". It's NOT a right - wrong/black-or-white only issue.

[revelarts]

All due respect to you ... I was posting on this topic on this board before you were a member.:laugh2:

It isn't a right - wrong issue. I'm quite sure I can find as many if not more people that will claim the people you mention that say it doesn't work are wrong.

So let's dispense with the he said - she said and you can address the opinion I posted instead of trying to sweep me, and it, under the rug with the brush of a hand.

Again, the definition of "torture" is a matter of opinion when it comes to drawing the line between "coercion" and "torture". It's NOT a right - wrong/black-or-white only issue.

Just saying that you may have missed some post that put the subject in a clearer light.

But it is a right or wrong issue.
Torture is against the law.
why? cause it's wrong.
Assault and battery is wrong.
it's against the law.
Tortures definition has been defined in law for years, the Bush Admin had lawyers ATTEMPT to Redefine it.
they understood clearly what it meant and crossed the line. "Up to the point of organ Failure"

"Coercion" and enhanced interrogation are poor euphemisms for torture when applied to the recent military context Gunny. terms used to avoid scrutiny and possible prosecution.


Part of SERE training is teaching military how to endure torture as used in other countries. It was UNAMBIGUOUSLY design for that purpose. How is it that if we use the techniques they become "coercion"? simple answer, It doesn't.
it's still torture. period.


is the below coercion?
or torture?




.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/05/06/chainedwomanunderwear.jpe

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/05/21/capt.dcwap10905212044.iraq_prisoner_abuse_dcwap109 .jpg

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/05/21/ra4030007601.jpg

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/abu/2/ghraib_1.jpg
And these are a couple of nice pictures.

Maybe that type of thing is coercion to you Gunny I don't know. But a couple of solders are in jail because stuff like that,
a military court considered it torture.

[J.T]

Funny how something (waterboarding) can be 'torture' when it's done during VietNam but 'coercion' and 'enhanced interrogation' during Iraq/Afghanistan...

I guess it all just depends who your nemesis is...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU

[logroller]

All due respect to you ... I was posting on this topic on this board before you were a member.:laugh2:

It isn't a right - wrong issue. I'm quite sure I can find as many if not more people that will claim the people you mention that say it doesn't work are wrong.

So let's dispense with the he said - she said and you can address the opinion I posted instead of trying to sweep me, and it, under the rug with the brush of a hand.

Again, the definition of "torture" is a matter of opinion when it comes to drawing the line between "coercion" and "torture". It's NOT a right - wrong/black-or-white only issue.

Classic "Ends justifying the means" dilemma, wouldn't you say?

It reminds me of a question I often ask someone frustrated with our judicial system-- How many guilty people must walk before it justifies a person's rights being violated to get a conviction? 10 to1 , 100:1?

[jimnyc]

Classic "Ends justifying the means" dilemma, wouldn't you say?

It reminds me of a question I often ask someone frustrated with our judicial system-- How many guilty people must walk before it justifies a person's rights being violated to get a conviction? 10 to1 , 100:1?

How many American lives would need to possibly be on the line before "torturing" a terrorist would be necessary and/or a potentially useful tool. It's been proven to have saved lives and most likely and ultimately lead to the capture of OBL. I have no problems with the instances that it is done to known terrorists in the attempt to save lives or capture higher target known terrorists.

[Gunny]

Just saying that you may have missed some post that put the subject in a clearer light.

But it is a right or wrong issue.
Torture is against the law.
why? cause it's wrong.
Assault and battery is wrong.
it's against the law.
Tortures definition has been defined in law for years, the Bush Admin had lawyers ATTEMPT to Redefine it.
they understood clearly what it meant and crossed the line. "Up to the point of organ Failure"

"Coercion" and enhanced interrogation are poor euphemisms for torture when applied to the recent military context Gunny. terms used to avoid scrutiny and possible prosecution.


Part of SERE training is teaching military how to endure torture as used in other countries. It was UNAMBIGUOUSLY design for that purpose. How is it that if we use the techniques they become "coercion"? simple answer, It doesn't.
it's still torture. period.


is the below coercion?
or torture?




.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/05/06/chainedwomanunderwear.jpe

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/05/21/capt.dcwap10905212044.iraq_prisoner_abuse_dcwap109 .jpg

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/05/21/ra4030007601.jpg

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/abu/2/ghraib_1.jpg
And these are a couple of nice pictures.

Maybe that type of thing is coercion to you Gunny I don't know. But a couple of solders are in jail because stuff like that,
a military court considered it torture.

You're trying to make the topic too simple; yet, over-complicating it in the wrong place.

Torture is illegal. In this country, THAT alone does not necessarily make anything right or wrong. We have plenty and then some laws that make morally objectionable stuff legal. Does that make it right? I think not.

Saying "torture is illegal" says nothing without a clear-cut definition of "torture". Again, "torture" is a subjective term. As of late, it appears defined only by which party's administration is currently in power.

If the Bush administration had condoned forcing POWs to watch 80's, rock-star themed (esp if Bryan Adams or Kenny Loggins does the theme song), action romances or ANY Bill Murray move, the left would've wailed, and IMO, rightly so.

So again ... BEFORE you go to railing against something, you have to define it. You have not. You've chosen a word, deemed it evil, and are attempting to make it a black or white only issue. But you can't define the word itself.

[Gunny]

Classic "Ends justifying the means" dilemma, wouldn't you say?

It reminds me of a question I often ask someone frustrated with our judicial system-- How many guilty people must walk before it justifies a person's rights being violated to get a conviction? 10 to1 , 100:1?

IMO, "torture" is defined by circumstance as much as anything else. I have since the left went ga-ga over this, ensuring our enemies had every right they are out to destroy, taken issue with the term "torture".

I don't agree with "torturing" anyone. I have zero problem with using coercive techniques to obtain information that could lead to a strategic/tactical advantage. After all, what's always lost in the sauce on this topic is: If we're going to fight, fight to win, or just stay home to begin with.

Internal politic cost us Vietnam. On the ground, we were winning. We lost when the weak sisters and bleeding hearts starting caring more for our enemy's well-being than our own.

Iraq and Afghanistan is just Part Deux. Same crap. Same hypocrisy from the left mostly, and the McLame-ites who want to shed a tear for the enemy on some baseless principle.

We tie our own troops hands behind their backs and patch one eye and make them hop on one fight while waging a war against an enemy that has NO rules.

Too bad the left doesn't hold their own behavior and standards to the same Christ-like level they do our troops, and ANY political opposition.

Watching this same scenario play out over and over again? THAT is torture.

[LuvRPgrl]

a yes/no question.

yeaaano

[red states rule]

IMO, "torture" is defined by circumstance as much as anything else. I have since the left went ga-ga over this, ensuring our enemies had every right they are out to destroy, taken issue with the term "torture".

I don't agree with "torturing" anyone. I have zero problem with using coercive techniques to obtain information that could lead to a strategic/tactical advantage. After all, what's always lost in the sauce on this topic is: If we're going to fight, fight to win, or just stay home to begin with.

Internal politic cost us Vietnam. On the ground, we were winning. We lost when the weak sisters and bleeding hearts starting caring more for our enemy's well-being than our own.

Iraq and Afghanistan is just Part Deux. Same crap. Same hypocrisy from the left mostly, and the McLame-ites who want to shed a tear for the enemy on some baseless principle.

We tie our own troops hands behind their backs and patch one eye and make them hop on one fight while waging a war against an enemy that has NO rules.

Too bad the left doesn't hold their own behavior and standards to the same Christ-like level they do our troops, and ANY political opposition.

Watching this same scenario play out over and over again? THAT is torture.

You have to remember Gunny, if Rev had his way both Saddam and OBL would be alive and well

While Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and the CIA employees who obtained valuable informartion that SAVED lives would all be in jail

That should tell you everything you need to know about Rev on this issue

[LuvRPgrl]

All due respect Gunny
you've missed a lot of my post and others folks on this subject,
But it's not left right issue to me, it's a right wrong issue.
I've posted plenty of military interrogators, FBI interrogators, A man that's lead all the sere train training schools, Military officers, WW2 interrogators, Sere trainers, All say clearly that torture is what we did and that it's NOT a productive way to get information. they all say that it's Counter productive to the point that many report that it is a FACT that there are More terrorist and insurgents because of the the torture and MORE dead military because of our torture policy.
Common sense says we should stop it in the face of this evidence.
Common decency says we should have never have started it.

If it doesnt work, then why does anyone use it?

Oh, a note to all posters. If you have alot of paragraphs, using indentations and paragraph break like I have in this paragraph makes the
reading much easier, and thus readers are much more likely to read

your entire post.

[revelarts]

If it doesn't work, then why does anyone use it?

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
mentality doesn't make sense but poor biz managers and parents use it every day.

But it seems to me if it worked you wouldn't need to use it 183 times to get anything that people can half way submit as a barely credible scrap of intel. Unless it's to justify the 1ST time it was used and didn't work.

[red states rule]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
mentality doesn't make sense but poor biz managers and parents use it every day.

But it seems to me if it worked you wouldn't need to use it 183 times to get anything that people can half way submit as a barely credible scrap of intel. Unless it's to justify the 1ST time it was used and didn't work.

Rev are you trying to covince us or yourself on that? Once again I will remind you many Obama administration offical admitted valuable intel was obtained using waterboarding

But you seem hell bent on ignoring the facts and living in your fantasy land that terrorists can be reasoned with, and consider successful and deadly terror attacks not worth stopping

[jimnyc]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
mentality doesn't make sense but poor biz managers and parents use it every day.

But it seems to me if it worked you wouldn't need to use it 183 times to get anything that people can half way submit as a barely credible scrap of intel. Unless it's to justify the 1ST time it was used and didn't work.

It was PROVEN to have worked. Also, the CIA director who was AGAINST waterboarding has admitted intel was gained that helped lead to the finding of OBL. 'nuff said, you lose, goodbye! :dance:

[Gunny]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
mentality doesn't make sense but poor biz managers and parents use it every day.

But it seems to me if it worked you wouldn't need to use it 183 times to get anything that people can half way submit as a barely credible scrap of intel. Unless it's to justify the 1ST time it was used and didn't work.

Okay, I'll do what you thus far have failed to.

Torture is inflicting pain, either physically or mentally, for the sake of inflicting pain.

Using coercion to, either physically, mentally or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining information is NOT torture, and it works EVERY day.

How many convictions have been obtained in our justice system by using coercion to turn one accused against a partner for testimony? Doesn't work?

Using coercive methods against terrorists is completely justified, IMO, and unlike yours, IMO it works way more than it does not.

[revelarts]

Rev are you trying to covince us or yourself on that? Once again I will remind you many Obama administration offical admitted valuable intel was obtained using waterboarding

But you seem hell bent on ignoring the facts and living in your fantasy land that terrorists can be reasoned with, and consider successful and deadly terror attacks not worth stopping

Im not the one ignoring the facts,
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8


It was PROVEN to have worked. Also, the CIA director who was AGAINST waterboarding has admitted intel was gained that helped lead to the finding of OBL. 'nuff said, you lose, goodbye! :dance:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8



Okay, I'll do what you thus far have failed to.

Torture is inflicting pain, either physically or mentally, for the sake of inflicting pain.

Using coercion to, either physically, mentally or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining information is NOT torture, and it works EVERY day.

How many convictions have been obtained in our justice system by using coercion to turn one accused against a partner for testimony? Doesn't work?

Using coercive methods against terrorists is completely justified, IMO, and unlike yours, IMO it works way more than it does not.

Ah, just as I thought, you do know what torture means.
but you mentioned earlier that "it could be Kenny Loggins and Bill Murry films". If that can be considered torture in your mind and all you gents agree that torture "works" why not use Kenny loggin's and Bill murry? Why waste energy with all of this waterboarding, stress positions and beatings. Since torture very well includes bad music?

OH, that's not enough pain? Osama Binzombies crew's been trained to resist Kenny Loggins? So you have to use "ENHANCED METHODS"?


Police have gone to jail for torture as well. Waterboarding is not taught a the police academy. Legal Coercion doesn't include "inflicting Extreme physical or mental pain". Your vainly trying to cloud the issue and erase the line completely.


frankly gentlemen I'm sad for the country when so many of you won't consider the evidence I've presented in other threads that shows
None torture techniques are BETTER. MORE effective and Historically Proven to get more info and not provoke the enemy.

But you keep insisting that torture is the only way to get terrorist to talk.
And now torture is just normal form of coercion that Police need to use it as well, becuase inflicting extreme pain is not bad if it gets a confession and torture is nothing but a word.
So, at least according to you gunny, there is NO such thing as illegal torture/coercion.

Was that a slippery slope from terrorist to U.S. criminals, or a drop off a cliff?

[jimnyc]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8

I have no idea what you're linking to as all you did was link to an entire page. But I don't need to read it. I read Panetta's original comments. He was CIA chief and I tend to think he knew what he was talking about, he was against waterboarding, and still admitted how information was gotten from a prisoner. You say it isn't an effective technique, and yet the CIA chief told us it helped capture the most wanted man EVER on our planet. We've been through this argument already. You are free to believe whatever you want, but presenting the same argument over and over, and even linking to it from other threads, likely won't prove anything or change anyone's mind.

[jimnyc]

But you keep insisting that torture is the only way to get terrorist to talk.


JUST ONCE - show us where JUST ONCE someone EVER stated it was the ONLY way to get a terrorist to talk. If not, stop putting words in others mouths to try and reinforce your argument.

[revelarts]

I guess no Americans have never been tortured either. Only coerced in other countries. Forced to Watch foreign films most likely.

John McCain Tortured Naawww only coerced, happens ever day.

I'm sure all the Hanoi Hilton vets will be glad to hear the news.

[jimnyc]

I guess no Americans have never been tortured either. Only coerced in other countries. Forced to Watch foreign films most likely.

John McCain Tortured Naawww only coerced, happens ever day.

I'm sure all the Hanoi Hilton vets will be glad to hear the news.

Should I hold my breath waiting for you to backup your comments?

[Gunny]

Im not the one ignoring the facts,
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8




Ah, just as I thought, you do know what torture means.
but you mentioned earlier that "it could be Kenny Loggins and Bill Murry films". If that can be considered torture in your mind and all you gents agree that torture "works" why not use Kenny loggin's and Bill murry? Why waste energy with all of this waterboarding, stress positions and beatings. Since torture very well includes bad music?

OH, that's not enough pain? Osama Binzombies crew's been trained to resist Kenny Loggins? So you have to use "ENHANCED METHODS"?


Police have gone to jail for torture as well. Waterboarding is not taught a the police academy. Legal Coercion doesn't include "inflicting Extreme physical or mental pain". Your vainly trying to cloud the issue and erase the line completely.


frankly gentlemen I'm sad for the country when so many of you won't consider the evidence I've presented in other threads that shows
None torture techniques are BETTER. MORE effective and Historically Proven to get more info and not provoke the enemy.

But you keep insisting that torture is the only way to get terrorist to talk.
And now torture is just normal form of coercion that Police need to use it as well, becuase inflicting extreme pain is not bad if it gets a confession and torture is nothing but a word.
So, at least according to you gunny, there is NO such thing as illegal torture/coercion.

Was that a slippery slope from terrorist to U.S. criminals, or a drop off a cliff?

We DID use Metallica. Are you saying keeping you awake with Enter Sandman blaring at full blast is not a form of what you inaccurately label torture?

If "torture" DOESN'T work, then how come the Code of Conduct for military people had to be amended so that it said I will evade giving information to the utmost of my ability, or words to that effect?

I guess the JCS and DoD figure physical and psychological coercion only works on Americans, huh?

Police have always used coercion. It's part of their game plan. The problem here is, as I stated from the beginning, you are trying to make a black or white only issue of it.

It's anything but.

You have presented no evidence. You have presented opinions. SO has everyone else. There are no definitive statistics that support your arguments.

[Gunny]

I guess no Americans have never been tortured either. Only coerced in other countries. Forced to Watch foreign films most likely.

John McCain Tortured Naawww only coerced, happens ever day.

I'm sure all the Hanoi Hilton vets will be glad to hear the news.

Do you even read what you're posting?

John McCain was tortured. There was no point to the physical abuse he suffered.

I think I clearly pointed out the difference between coercion and torture, and you acknowledged such.

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

[Gunny]

Should I hold my breath waiting for you to backup your comments?

You mean back up misusing a word I clearly defined for him? I'd suggest NOT on the holding your breath.:laugh:

[revelarts]

Do you even read what you're posting?

John McCain was tortured. There was no point to the physical abuse he suffered.

I think I clearly pointed out the difference between coercion and torture, and you acknowledged such.

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

somehow I don't think I'm the one digging here.

[Gunny]

somehow I don't think I'm the one digging here.

Of course you don't. Your willful blindness to anyone else's opinions or relevant facts is superceded only by your ignorance on the topic at hand.

[red states rule]

Im not the one ignoring the facts,
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page8




Revv I am not ignoring the facts. This from a LIBERAL publication and they are pissed over the truth

At least they are not ignoring like it you are





CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House’s political script when he told Tuesday night’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden.

“We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,” he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” Panetta simply said “that’s correct.”

Throughout the day, White House officials had pushed back at claims that water-boarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques produced the information that eventually led to Osama bin Laden.

“The fact is that no single piece of information led to the successful mission,” White House spokesman Carney told reporters at Tuesday’s White House press conference. He also said that administration officials are not reconsidering the administration’s opposition to tougher interrogation practices. There is “no change whatsoever,” he said.

Several former Bush administration officials previously told TheDC that there’s persuasive evidence that the intelligence surrounding bin Laden’s location stemmed from enhanced interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or other terror suspects at CIA black sites around the world.

Data from tough interrogations has been integrated with information that emerged from softer interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/03/torturous-evasions/#ixzz1RMacNHX9

[LuvRPgrl]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
mentality doesn't make sense but poor biz managers and parents use it every day.

But it seems to me if it worked you wouldn't need to use it 183 times to get anything that people can half way submit as a barely credible scrap of intel. Unless it's to justify the 1ST time it was used and didn't work.

Sorry rev, you cant compare the two. biz managers and parents use it out of emotions, its not something they really think through. Im sure the torture techniques and when, if and how to use them have been carefully thought throught through before employing, particularly since so much focus has been put on the topic lately.

If I was an interogator, I wouldnt use torture unless it worked, and I wouldnt let anyone else use it for any length of time unless it worked, unless it was a particularly hedious person we were dealing with, like for example, had I captured pol pot, edi amin, castro, stalin, lenin, ho chi min, hitler, muzzolini, sorry bout the spelling there bro's....and as for muzzolini, well you know what the Italians did to him

Rev, I usually find you to be a very fair minded guy, maybe step back a little and give it some reflection
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR RESPONDING TO MY POST, AND THE ACTUAL POINT THAT IT WAS ABOUT.
Lately I have been dealing with an idiot who ignore 95% of the points Im making and focuses on twisting and turning things with the 5% that could be considered marginal.

[red states rule]

Rev here is the LA Times - hardly a conservative paper

Sorry to pile on like this but the truth is the truth





The operation that killed Osama bin Laden was led by the CIA, although most of those conducting the raid were military special operations troops, a U.S. official said today. CIA Director Leon Panetta gave the go-order about midday Sunday, after President Obama had signed off on it.

Panetta and other CIA officials monitored the raid via live video on the 7th floor of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. When an operator was overheard confirming that bin Laden was killed, cheers erupted.

Bin Laden was shot while shooting back, the official reported. Contrary to some reports, the operation was intended to kill or capture bin Laden, although all involved thought capture was unlikely.

"This wasn’t an execution," the official said."The assessment going in to it was that it’s highly unlikely that’s he’s going to be taken alive, but if he decided to lay down his arms, he would have been taken captive."

Crucial information about the trusted courier who owned the compound came years ago from CIA interrogations of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, the official said. This is significant, because the Al Qaeda mastermind was subject to waterboarding and other brutal interrogation methods.

"We were able to get pieces of information from detainees," the official said. "That took years and these guys don’t give it up all willingly."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/02/news/la-pn-osama-bin-laden-cia-20110502

[revelarts]

Do you even read what you're posting?

John McCain was tortured.
There was no point to the physical abuse he suffered.

I think I clearly pointed out the difference between coercion and torture, and you acknowledged such.

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.


Of course you don't. Your willful blindness to anyone else's opinions or relevant facts is superceded only by your ignorance on the topic at hand.

I think I see very clearly your opinion here.
Torture is OK if it has a point.


Relevant facts?
I don't think you've mentioned any. You've mentioned several times that torture is only an opinion
and it's not evil (ever I suppose) but it's when extreme pain is inflicted on someone. Like watching ghostbusters,
And it Works "in your Opinion".
Are Those the "facts" i'm missing?
or are you refering to the one item you mentioned about the DOD editing the military conduct code ?
that's intersting what about this...
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter:
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation.
Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts,
and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
Is that a fact we should consider? or do we just consider both "opinion" and let the boys in the field firger it out as they go along?


My Ignorance of the issue?
I wish to God that I never needed to know a Damn thing about it except but from history books.
My own Country openly doing this hellish BS blows my mind. But put some facts up worth reading to enlighten me on the benefits of Tort.. i mean coercion.
Maybe quotes from the Chinese commies or the Russian gulag or Nazis, Jeffrey Dahmer ,the Spanish Inquisitors Diaries, Alquida maybe.
They all hold wisdom on the effectiveness of proper coercion techniques.

Blind and Ignorant?
I posted pictures and asked you a simple question; do the pictures show torture or legal coercion?
You dodged the question saying i was "missing the point" "making things to simple" or some nonsense.
The people and actions in the photos are exactly the point.
You want to blur the lens and use euphemisms to cover it, and highlight some imagined "results" rather than look at it in cold sad ugly light.

I just can't figure out why it's torture when the Nazis did it (to test the limits of humans etc)
or the Spanish Inquisitors did it (to get conversions)
but we do it (to get Intel) and it's OK.
and/or somehow a matter of opinion? That's just BS Gunny.

[red states rule]

Rev, when did squirting water down the nose of a terrorist become "torture"?

If your family was in danger and you were alone in a room with a terrorist who had info that could stop the attack - you would do nothing thaqt would violate his "rights"?

Do I have you correct on this?

[Kathianne]

Rev, when did squirting water down the nose of a terrorist become "torture"?

If your family was in danger and you were alone in a room with a terrorist who had info that could stop the attack - you would do nothing thaqt would violate his "rights"?

Do I have you correct on this?

Wasting your breath. He can't separate torture from extracting information. I.e., just hurting someone because they are controlled by your side vs. getting intel through means that are beyond asking direct questions. In the later, the asking already took place and failed.

[red states rule]

Wasting your breath. He can't separate torture from extracting information. I.e., just hurting someone because they are controlled by your side vs. getting intel through means that are beyond asking direct questions. In the later, the asking already took place and failed.

Rev seems to be an OK guy but on this he is way out there in LEFT field

Unless I have him wrong - he has posted if he had his way OBL and Saddam would be alive and well as Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and CIA workers would be in jail

Does anyoneelse see what is wrong with that picture?

[Kathianne]

Rev seems to be an OK guy but on this he is way out there in LEFT field

Unless I have him wrong - he has posted if he had his way OBL and Saddam would be alive and well as Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and CIA workers would be in jail

Does anyoneelse see what is wrong with that picture?

i agree with him being a fine person, just his head in the sand thing doesn't do it for me.

[red states rule]

i agree with him being a fine person, just his head in the sand thing doesn't do it for me.

I suspect Rev has the same attitude on terrorism like Jacques Chirac did

http://strangepolitics.com/images/content/112903.jpg

[revelarts]

Kath,
are you talking about what is seen in the AbuGrad pictures and waterboarding or what you might see police do in an episode of "Law and Order". There is a difference. But that's not what people here seem to be defending when we all say Torture.




Indeed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself said:

During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told the interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the U.S.

And "the CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any 'specific imminent attacks,' according to recently declassified Justice Department memos."

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31137-Proof-That-Waterboarding-Does-Work/page5

Directly from the court record
Judge Kollar-Kotelly remarks "Not only did al-Rabiah's interrogators repeatedly conclude that these same confessions were not believable -- which al-Rabiah's counsel attributes to abuse and coercion, some of which is supported by the record -- but it is also undisputed that al-Rabiah confessed to information that his interrogators obtained from either alleged eyewitnesses who are not credible and as to whom the Government has now largely withdrawn any reliance, or from sources that never even existed ... If there exists a basis for al-Rabiah's indefinite detention, it most certainly has not been presented to this Court...."

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>




...I personally interrogated many terrorists we have in our custody and elsewhere, and gained confessions, identified terror operatives, their funding, details of potential plots, and information on how al Qaeda operates, along with other actionable intelligence. Because of these successes, I was the government's main witness in both of the trials we have had so far in Guantanamo Bay – the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, and Ali Hamza Al Bahlul, Bin Laden's propagandist. In addition I am currently helping the prosecution prepare for upcoming trials of other detainees held in Guantanamo Bay....

[red states rule]

So you are still going to ignore the CIA Director and continue your trip down the Yellow Brick Road?

OK Rev I got it

Thank God your job is NOT keeping America safe. You would be the best thing to happen to the terrroists if you decide to have a career change and work for Homeland Security

[revelarts]

Rev seems to be an OK guy but on this he is way out there in LEFT field

Unless I have him wrong - he has posted if he had his way OBL and Saddam would be alive and well as Pres Bush, VP Cheney, and CIA workers would be in jail

Does anyoneelse see what is wrong with that picture?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
YOU said That's what i wanted.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I've never said that.

If I had My way Red Bush, Cheney and the Cia would have never have tortured in the 1st place. No need for jail.

Yes Saddam might be alive along with nearly a Million innocent Iraqis. No WMDs why kill him?

And 9/11 would have never have happened becuase the CIA FBi etc would have followed up on all the intel that they had in hand.
We'd have proof OBL was behind the plot and would pick up put him on trail and throw him in jail with the Charles Manson.

And there'd be no need for this conversation becuase we'd all still "feel safe" enough and wouldn't have a twisted faux pragmatic "blood lust" for torture.
And our constitution would have suffered less wear and tare in the name of safety and defeating the terrorist.

[revelarts]

So you are still going to ignore the CIA Director and continue your trip down the Yellow Brick Road?

OK Rev I got it

Thank God your job is NOT keeping America safe. You would be the best thing to happen to the terrroists if you decide to have a career change and work for Homeland Security
Funny seems, You guys have ignore Everyone I've posted.

It seems a wise person would look at ALL of the input not just One person Hmmm. No? And even that one person look at all they have to say. And why they might say it.

[red states rule]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
YOU said That's what i wanted.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I've never said that.

If I had My way Red Bush, Cheney and the Cia would have never have tortured in the 1st place. No need for jail.

Yes Saddam might be alive along with nearly a Million innocent Iraqis. No WMDs why kill him?

And 9/11 would have never have happened becuase the CIA FBi etc would have followed up on all the intel that they had in hand.
We'd have proof OBL was behind the plot and would pick up put him on trail and throw him in jail with the Charles Manson.

And there be no need for this conversation becuase we'd all still "feel safe" enough and wouldn't have a twisted "blood lust" for torture.
And our constitution would have suffered less wear and tare in the name of safety and defeating the terrorist.

Rev, you are so worng on this. It was people like you taht allowed Hitler to strat WWII and kill 50 million people

I can see you cheering as Chamberlian waived that piece of paper and proclaim we now have peace

Again, how is squirting water down the nose of the terrorist "blood lust"? You are sounding more and more like the nuts at the anti war/pro terrorist rallies that used to be held every weekend somewhere in America during the Bush years

[jimnyc]

Rev, you are so worng on this. It was people like you taht allowed Hitler to strat WWII and kill 50 million people

I can see you cheering as Chamberlian waived that piece of paper and proclaim we now have peace

Again, how is squirting water down the nose of the terrorist "blood lust"? You are sounding more and more like the nuts at the anti war/pro terrorist rallies that used to be held every weekend somewhere in America during the Bush years

He just makes up things as he goes along, he seems to think assigning us false words and innuendo it will make his lame arguments look better. I asked him earlier about this and he ignored me.

[jimnyc]

Funny seems, You guys have ignore Everyone I've posted.

It seems a wise person would look at ALL of the input not just One person Hmmm. No? And even that one person look at all they have to say. And why they might say it.

Enhanced techniques assisted in catching the most wanted man ever on the planet. The CIA director who was against waterboarding told of how these techniques helped find OBL.

[jimnyc]

Yes Saddam might be alive along with nearly a Million innocent Iraqis. No WMDs why kill him?

We killed Saddam? I could have sworn he was handed over to the Iraqi's to be tried in their court system, where he was found guilty of thousands of murders and sentenced to death. But don't let the facts get in the way of you making your stories sound better!

[revelarts]

We killed Saddam? I could have sworn he was handed over to the Iraqi's to be tried in their court system, where he was found guilty of thousands of murders and sentenced to death. But don't let the facts get in the way of you making your stories sound better!

I stand corrected on that point .
your exactly right Jim.
(we did attack his country, but technically your right , sorta)

[red states rule]

We killed Saddam? I could have sworn he was handed over to the Iraqi's to be tried in their court system, where he was found guilty of thousands of murders and sentenced to death. But don't let the facts get in the way of you making your stories sound better!

Saddam was hanged near midnight without any advance warning. I bet Rev was so pissed off

He could have been with other peace niks protesting the "murder" of Saddam and ranting how Bush killed another human being in his senseless, immoral, and illegal war

[LuvRPgrl]

REV, they very well could have put that part in red in there to make it look like their official posisition is no torture, while at the same time giving the ol wink wink.

Kind of like what TSA does at the airports, but they are under public scrutiny there, but we know how often they catch grandma from minnesota with C4.

And kinda like God would make the earth look older than it is :)


I think I see very clearly your opinion here.
Torture is OK if it has a point.


Relevant facts?
I don't think you've mentioned any. You've mentioned several times that torture is only an opinion
and it's not evil (ever I suppose) but it's when extreme pain is inflicted on someone. Like watching ghostbusters,
And it Works "in your Opinion".
Are Those the "facts" i'm missing?
or are you refering to the one item you mentioned about the DOD editing the military conduct code ?
that's intersting what about this...
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter:
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation.
Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts,
and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
Is that a fact we should consider? or do we just consider both "opinion" and let the boys in the field firger it out as they go along?


My Ignorance of the issue?
I wish to God that I never needed to know a Damn thing about it except but from history books.
My own Country openly doing this hellish BS blows my mind. But put some facts up worth reading to enlighten me on the benefits of Tort.. i mean coercion.
Maybe quotes from the Chinese commies or the Russian gulag or Nazis, Jeffrey Dahmer ,the Spanish Inquisitors Diaries, Alquida maybe.
They all hold wisdom on the effectiveness of proper coercion techniques.

Blind and Ignorant?
I posted pictures and asked you a simple question; do the pictures show torture or legal coercion?
You dodged the question saying i was "missing the point" "making things to simple" or some nonsense.
The people and actions in the photos are exactly the point.
You want to blur the lens and use euphemisms to cover it, and highlight some imagined "results" rather than look at it in cold sad ugly light.

I just can't figure out why it's torture when the Nazis did it (to test the limits of humans etc)
or the Spanish Inquisitors did it (to get conversions)
but we do it (to get Intel) and it's OK.
and/or somehow a matter of opinion? That's just BS Gunny.

[LuvRPgrl]

I stand corrected on that point .
your exactly right Jim.
(we did attack his country, but technically your right , sorta)

I HATE it when people say that.
What country of his did we attack?

[SassyLady]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
YOU said That's what i wanted.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I've never said that.

If I had My way Red Bush, Cheney and the Cia would have never have tortured in the 1st place. No need for jail.

Yes Saddam might be alive along with nearly a Million innocent Iraqis. No WMDs why kill him?

And 9/11 would have never have happened becuase the CIA FBi etc would have followed up on all the intel that they had in hand.
We'd have proof OBL was behind the plot and would pick up put him on trail and throw him in jail with the Charles Manson.

And there'd be no need for this conversation becuase we'd all still "feel safe" enough and wouldn't have a twisted faux pragmatic "blood lust" for torture.
And our constitution would have suffered less wear and tare in the name of safety and defeating the terrorist.

Well, Rev, if you are going for the whole ball of wax and stating that Bush, Cheney and the CIA would never have resorted to torture, why not wave your magic wand and create a world where OBL didn't exist? If you are going to create a fantasy ... why not go all the way.

Trouble is....you can't. Reality is that OBL had a vendetta against America and Americans and he had a lot of support around the world for his brand of torture and insanity ... and Saddam was one of those.

And your assertion that 1,000,000 "innocent Iraqis" would still be alive is not a fact that can be supported. Can you unequivocally state that Saddam would not have continued his torturing and slaughter of "innocent Iraqis"? Do you really think Americans killed all those Iraqis or would you concede that the majority were killed by the insurgents and terrorists?

OBL declared war on the US on 9/11 ... he wasn't committing a crime, he was waging war. Therefore, he should not have been "arrested and brought to trial" and put in jail with Manson.

OBL is/was not a citizen of the US, therefore, is not subject to the rights and privileges of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[LuvRPgrl]

Saddam, had a PRISON for kids, whom he deemed might be a threat to him in the future, no trial, just prison, I wonder how long he intended to keep them there.


Well, Rev, if you are going for the whole ball of wax and stating that Bush, Cheney and the CIA would never have resorted to torture, why not wave your magic wand and create a world where OBL didn't exist? If you are going to create a fantasy ... why not go all the way.

Trouble is....you can't. Reality is that OBL had a vendetta against America and Americans and he had a lot of support around the world for his brand of torture and insanity ... and Saddam was one of those.

And your assertion that 1,000,000 "innocent Iraqis" would still be alive is not a fact that can be supported. Can you unequivocally state that Saddam would not have continued his torturing and slaughter of "innocent Iraqis"? Do you really think Americans killed all those Iraqis or would you concede that the majority were killed by the insurgents and terrorists?

OBL declared war on the US on 9/11 ... he wasn't committing a crime, he was waging war. Therefore, he should not have been "arrested and brought to trial" and put in jail with Manson.

OBL is/was not a citizen of the US, therefore, is not subject to the rights and privileges of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[revelarts]

Rev, you are so worng on this. It was people like you taht allowed Hitler to strat WWII and kill 50 million people

I can see you cheering as Chamberlian waived that piece of paper and proclaim we now have peace

Again, how is squirting water down the nose of the terrorist "blood lust"? You are sounding more and more like the nuts at the anti war/pro terrorist rallies that used to be held every weekend somewhere in America during the Bush years

People like me that started WW2?!?? --what the hey??
What are you talking about? Ok Look, Osama has never made a secret of his intentions , he's never tried to sign a peace treaty or deceive the west into thinking he was our friend. We tried to make make him think we were his and used him in Afghan, helped him build his army, helped train his fighters. I wonder how many in the U.S. where for that at the time? Do we consider ourselves partially to blame for 9/11 becuase of the support we gave OBL for YEARS? Or do we just want to deny our own backhanded support in our own attack on this one? enemy of our enemy bite us in the @$$.
But No, I would not have supported Chamberlain, the signs were to many by that time. Hilter was shown to be an obvious lier by that point.
And i think you can see from my post that I'll call a political liar a liar even if he claims to support things I'm for.

Squirting a lil water down the nose?
I'm not going to respond to that bit RED.

But the" fuax pragmatic Blood lust" Yeah Thats what i see when people write things like ...
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF the WORLD and you FAMILY where about to DIE!!!????"
"Do you think ALQUida is Goning to Follow Geneva? ..."
"They have no rights..."
"Don't tie the hands of the CIA..."
"you want to feed the terrorist milk and cookies..."
"trail?? they don't deserve a trail..."
"I don't care what we do to them, they are Terrorist..."

But the one that bugs me the most is

"Well if they wouldn't/won't talk we HAVE TO...."
That After i've posted quote after quote of REAL LIFE interrogators explaining that we get MORE and better INTEL by using other ...none torture... methods. I still dont see Why is that so hard to take in?

I think only Jim has acknowledge that , if intel the goal, then what ever method is best we should use.
I think we differ in that I don't think, ---By any means necessary-- is where we need to or HAVE TO go as a Country.

But As far as I can tell most still WANT TO believe that torture is somehow the FINAL SOLUTION and best solution in interrogation. Despite expert testimony otherwise. Completely ignoring everything the Real life interrogators have said.
WHY?
faux.... pragmatic.... Bloodlust maybe
is what i come up with.
or blind support for Bush Cheney policies.
Pick one or both.
But the sad disregard for the idea any humane standards has any bearing on the conversation REALLY sadens me.
And the Constant minimizing of the "techniques" is disturbing.

And As A Christian I really don't see how how this fits ANY biblical teaching. ANYWHERE.
I'm waiting for someone to show me where God Commanded or even allowed Torture. ---As long as it kept people safe.---
There a lot of harsh warfare in the Bible, but Never torture.
Maybe that stuff is in the Koran, I don't know but i don't want to be like AlQuida or Radial Muslims in that respect myself.



He just makes up things as he goes along, he seems to think assigning us false words and innuendo it will make his lame arguments look better. I asked him earlier about this and he ignored me.
Jim Sorry if i put word in your mouth not my intent.



REV, they very well could have put that part in red in there to make it look like their official posisition is no torture, while at the same time giving the ol wink wink.

Kind of like what TSA does at the airports, but they are under public scrutiny there, but we know how often they catch grandma from minnesota with C4.

And kinda like God would make the earth look older than it is :)
Well LuvRPG, if we are guessing at intent why not guess the other way for the SINGLE reference Gunny brought up? If we are guessing. But how about we put that quote in red from the Army Manuel together with all of the other quotes i posted from professional interrogators? why not do that, it's seem Honest enough to me.


And the Partial reference the Jim and Red repeat, the head of CIA Panetta says so,
Here's the rest of what he says,

Quote Originally Posted by Panetta
....Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

Jim says he's CYA, Maybe, but that's a guess, an Assumption, AND NOT WHAT HE STATES. And again WHAT ABOUT ALL THE REST OF THE CIA, FBI ETC? why are you ignoring them?
Or making up excuses for WHY they are saying what they say? What's this love of torture? that's come over the U.S..?
can i get a reasonable answer and not an "Oh rev you just wrong here" "Panetta said so"

When other methods are BETTER why use it, why support it? it's illegal and unnecessary and from George Washington until 2003 we publicly repudiated it and countries that supported it.

And again it just wrong people,
Torture is bad and you all know it, we shouldn't even be having this conversation in America.



I HATE it when people say that.
What country of his did we attack?
Last I Checked Saddam was the leader and citizen of Iraq and lived there ,so yeah, His country.
And we, the U.S., started dropping bombs on the country.
I mean, it is what it is LuvRGirl.



Well, Rev, if you are going for the whole ball of wax and stating that Bush, Cheney and the CIA would never have resorted to torture, why not wave your magic wand and create a world where OBL didn't exist? If you are going to create a fantasy ... why not go all the way.
I would go back even further than that but that's another story.
But I was responding to Reds Assertion of what HE thought I'd wish for.
His is a fantasy as well but i guess he's not the only one who thought that's what i wanted.



Trouble is....you can't. Reality is that OBL had a vendetta against America and Americans and he had a lot of support around the world for his brand of torture and insanity ... and Saddam was one of those.
No I can't, Though it would be much better don't you think? OBL did have support the U.S. at one point,
But Saddam was not a friend of OBL, That's been proven false.



And your assertion that 1,000,000 "innocent Iraqis" would still be alive is not a fact that can be supported. Can you unequivocally state that Saddam would not have continued his torturing and slaughter of "innocent Iraqis"? Do you really think Americans killed all those Iraqis or would you concede that the majority were killed by the insurgents and terrorists? No I can't but he didn't have a record of or plan that included the kind of bombing and shooting and door to door home invasions etc etc. that we and the coalition have done either.
I doubt he would have had a reason to do as much damaged as we've Caused by OUR Presence there. we can't honestly shift blame the insurgents.
If we were never there there would have been no insurgents and the terror bombers that came from other countries would have stayed home.
I mean sure ants may have been on the picnic table before you put the potato salad on it but c'mon.

And this is for sure, there would be ZERO dead, maimed and PSD afflicted American troops from Iraq.
And why should we have a hand in killing Iraqis AT ALL, be it 1,000,000 or 100?
Claiming Saddam may have done it to, doesn't make our hands clean Sassy.




OBL declared war on the US on 9/11 ... he wasn't committing a crime, he was waging war. Therefore, he should not have been "arrested and brought to trial" and put in jail with Manson.
That debatable. Can a private organization declare war?
If you don't have a country is it war or a crime?
But Either way, we do imprison war criminals. Countries do put the leaders of coups and blood baths etc on trail.
Jail is an honest option, so is the death penalty, for many war crimes.



OBL is/was not a citizen of the US, therefore, is not subject to the rights and privileges of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If an illegal immigrant from England steals your car can we put him in jail for life without a trail?
No. why becuase the laws do apply. If your visiting Thailand do there laws apply to you if you spit on the side walk? Yes.
If someone commits a crime on our soil they are subject to our laws.
OBL fits the bill. the fact he was out of the country at the time makes no difference the crime was committed here and since extradition wasn't working we went to get his Arse. I was on board with that.
But the constitution covers what the gov't can and cannot do.
Rights come from God. The Bill of rights aren't negated if your accused of committing a crime.

We don't string um up and ask question later, if we are not driven by... um well... just vengeance or blood lust IMO.

[Gunny]

People like me that started WW2?!?? --what the hey??
What are you talking about? Ok Look, Osama has never made a secret of his intentions , he's never tried to sign a peace treaty or deceive the west into thinking he was our friend. We tried to make make him think we were his and used him in Afghan, helped him build his army, helped train his fighters. I wonder how many in the U.S. where for that at the time? Do we consider ourselves partially to blame for 9/11 becuase of the support we gave OBL for YEARS? Or do we just want to deny our own backhanded support in our own attack on this one? enemy of our enemy bite us in the @$$.
But No, I would not have supported Chamberlain, the signs were to many by that time. Hilter was shown to be an obvious lier by that point.
And i think you can see from my post that I'll call a political liar a liar even if he claims to support things I'm for.

Squirting a lil water down the nose?
I'm not going to respond to that bit RED.

But the" fuax pragmatic Blood lust" Yeah Thats what i see when people write things like ...
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF the WORLD and you FAMILY where about to DIE!!!????"
"Do you think ALQUida is Goning to Follow Geneva? ..."
"They have no rights..."
"Don't tie the hands of the CIA..."
"you want to feed the terrorist milk and cookies..."
"trail?? they don't deserve a trail..."
"I don't care what we do to them, they are Terrorist..."

But the one that bugs me the most is

"Well if they wouldn't/won't talk we HAVE TO...."
That After i've posted quote after quote of REAL LIFE interrogators explaining that we get MORE and better INTEL by using other ...none torture... methods. I still dont see Why is that so hard to take in?

I think only Jim has acknowledge that , if intel the goal, then what ever method is best we should use.
I think we differ in that I don't think, ---By any means necessary-- is where we need to or HAVE TO go as a Country.

But As far as I can tell most still WANT TO believe that torture is somehow the FINAL SOLUTION and best solution in interrogation. Despite expert testimony otherwise. Completely ignoring everything the Real life interrogators have said.
WHY?
faux.... pragmatic.... Bloodlust maybe
is what i come up with.
or blind support for Bush Cheney policies.
Pick one or both.
But the sad disregard for the idea any humane standards has any bearing on the conversation REALLY sadens me.
And the Constant minimizing of the "techniques" is disturbing.

And As A Christian I really don't see how how this fits ANY biblical teaching. ANYWHERE.
I'm waiting for someone to show me where God Commanded or even allowed Torture. ---As long as it kept people safe.---
There a lot of harsh warfare in the Bible, but Never torture.
Maybe that stuff is in the Koran, I don't know but i don't want to be like AlQuida or Radial Muslims in that respect myself.



Jim Sorry if i put word in your mouth not my intent.



Well LuvRPG, if we are guessing at intent why not guess the other way for the SINGLE reference Gunny brought up? If we are guessing. But how about we put that quote in red from the Army Manuel together with all of the other quotes i posted from professional interrogators? why not do that, it's seem Honest enough to me.


And the Partial reference the Jim and Red repeat, the head of CIA Panetta says so,
Here's the rest of what he says,

Quote Originally Posted by Panetta
....Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

Jim says he's CYA, Maybe, but that's a guess, an Assumption, AND NOT WHAT HE STATES. And again WHAT ABOUT ALL THE REST OF THE CIA, FBI ETC? why are you ignoring them?
Or making up excuses for WHY they are saying what they say? What's this love of torture? that's come over the U.S..?
can i get a reasonable answer and not an "Oh rev you just wrong here" "Panetta said so"

When other methods are BETTER why use it, why support it? it's illegal and unnecessary and from George Washington until 2003 we publicly repudiated it and countries that supported it.

And again it just wrong people,
Torture is bad and you all know it, we shouldn't even be having this conversation in America.



Last I Checked Saddam was the leader and citizen of Iraq and lived there ,so yeah, His country.
And we, the U.S., started dropping bombs on the country.
I mean, it is what it is LuvRGirl.



I would go back even further than that but that's another story.
But I was responding to Reds Assertion of what HE thought I'd wish for.
His is a fantasy as well but i guess he's not the only one who thought that's what i wanted.


No I can't, Though it would be much better don't you think? OBL did have support the U.S. at one point,
But Saddam was not a friend of OBL, That's been proven false.

No I can't but he didn't have a record of or plan that included the kind of bombing and shooting and door to door home invasions etc etc. that we and the coalition have done either.
I doubt he would have had a reason to do as much damaged as we've Caused by OUR Presence there. we can't honestly shift blame the insurgents.
If we were never there there would have been no insurgents and the terror bombers that came from other countries would have stayed home.
I mean sure ants may have been on the picnic table before you put the potato salad on it but c'mon.

And this is for sure, there would be ZERO dead, maimed and PSD afflicted American troops from Iraq.
And why should we have a hand in killing Iraqis AT ALL, be it 1,000,000 or 100?
Claiming Saddam may have done it to, doesn't make our hands clean Sassy.



That debatable. Can a private organization declare war?
If you don't have a country is it war or a crime?
But Either way, we do imprison war criminals. Countries do put the leaders of coups and blood baths etc on trail.
Jail is an honest option, so is the death penalty, for many war crimes.


If an illegal immigrant from England steals your car can we put him in jail for life without a trail?
No. why becuase the laws do apply. If your visiting Thailand do there laws apply to you if you spit on the side walk? Yes.
If someone commits a crime on our soil they are subject to our laws.
OBL fits the bill. the fact he was out of the country at the time makes no difference the crime was committed here and since extradition wasn't working we went to get his Arse. I was on board with that.
But the constitution covers what the gov't can and cannot do.
Rights come from God. The Bill of rights aren't negated if your accused of committing a crime.

We don't string um up and ask question later, if we are not driven by... um well... just vengeance or blood lust IMO.

When you figure out WTF you're talking about, let us know.

[SassyLady]

When you figure out WTF you're talking about, let us know.

I understood....



but I still support enhanced interrogation.

[SassyLady]

No I can't, Though it would be much better don't you think? OBL did have support the U.S. at one point,
But Saddam was not a friend of OBL, That's been proven false.

You are making an assumptions that terrorists need to be friends to be bound to a common cause. It has been proven that both OBL and Saddam hated America and Americans.


No I can't but he didn't have a record of or plan that included the kind of bombing and shooting and door to door home invasions etc etc. that we and the coalition have done either.
I doubt he would have had a reason to do as much damaged as we've Caused by OUR Presence there. we can't honestly shift blame the insurgents.
If we were never there there would have been no insurgents and the terror bombers that came from other countries would have stayed home.
I mean sure ants may have been on the picnic table before you put the potato salad on it but c'mon.

This is pure BS Rev....if we had not engaged the enemy in Irag and Afghanistan the insurgents/terrorists would have stepped up attacks here in America. Then it would have been America lives lost ... and not just those of the soldiers. I still do not understand why people think that the insurgents were caused by United States presence ....we did not create the crazy, fanatics ... they were already there. Did our presence escalate their activities ... yes...but they were already in existence.

Wouldn't you rather our soldiers engage the enemy on foreign soil ... or would you like to bring all the soldiers home and let them fight the crazies here, on American soil?




And this is for sure, there would be ZERO dead, maimed and PSD afflicted American troops from Iraq. Wrong.



And why should we have a hand in killing Iraqis AT ALL, be it 1,000,000 or 100? Claiming Saddam may have done it to, doesn't make our hands clean Sassy. Hands are never clean in a war; it can't be sanitized. That would be a true fantasy Rev.



That debatable. Can a private organization declare war?
If you don't have a country is it war or a crime? Absolutely! A private organization can engage in war activities, and a country that harbors, aids and abets that individual/organization should ask themselves if they are willing to be at war. If not, then hand the individual over or help hunt them down.



But Either way, we do imprison war criminals. Countries do put the leaders of coups and blood baths etc on trail.
Jail is an honest option, so is the death penalty, for many war crimes. Yes, as was done with Saddam.



If an illegal immigrant from England steals your car can we put him in jail for life without a trail?
No. why becuase the laws do apply. If your visiting Thailand do there laws apply to you if you spit on the side walk? Yes.
If someone commits a crime on our soil they are subject to our laws.
OBL fits the bill. the fact he was out of the country at the time makes no difference the crime was committed here and since extradition wasn't working we went to get his Arse. I was on board with that.
But the constitution covers what the gov't can and cannot do.
Rights come from God. The Bill of rights aren't negated if your accused of committing a crime.

So, what you are saying is that when Pearl Harbor was bombed, we should have just politely asked Japan to hand over the criminal that ordered the bombing so we could put them on trial?



We don't string um up and ask question later, if we are not driven by... um well... just vengeance or blood lust IMO.

I guess I still have too much of the Old West in me. Swift justice.

[red states rule]

People like me that started WW2?!?? --what the hey??
What are you talking about? Ok Look, Osama has never made a secret of his intentions , he's never tried to sign a peace treaty or deceive the west into thinking he was our friend. We tried to make make him think we were his and used him in Afghan, helped him build his army, helped train his fighters. I wonder how many in the U.S. where for that at the time? Do we consider ourselves partially to blame for 9/11 becuase of the support we gave OBL for YEARS? Or do we just want to deny our own backhanded support in our own attack on this one? enemy of our enemy bite us in the @$$.
But No, I would not have supported Chamberlain, the signs were to many by that time. Hilter was shown to be an obvious lier by that point.
And i think you can see from my post that I'll call a political liar a liar even if he claims to support things I'm for.

Squirting a lil water down the nose?
I'm not going to respond to that bit RED.

But the" fuax pragmatic Blood lust" Yeah Thats what i see when people write things like ...
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF the WORLD and you FAMILY where about to DIE!!!????"
"Do you think ALQUida is Goning to Follow Geneva? ..."
"They have no rights..."
"Don't tie the hands of the CIA..."
"you want to feed the terrorist milk and cookies..."
"trail?? they don't deserve a trail..."
"I don't care what we do to them, they are Terrorist..."

But the one that bugs me the most is

"Well if they wouldn't/won't talk we HAVE TO...."
That After i've posted quote after quote of REAL LIFE interrogators explaining that we get MORE and better INTEL by using other ...none torture... methods. I still dont see Why is that so hard to take in?

I think only Jim has acknowledge that , if intel the goal, then what ever method is best we should use.
I think we differ in that I don't think, ---By any means necessary-- is where we need to or HAVE TO go as a Country.

But As far as I can tell most still WANT TO believe that torture is somehow the FINAL SOLUTION and best solution in interrogation. Despite expert testimony otherwise. Completely ignoring everything the Real life interrogators have said.
WHY?
faux.... pragmatic.... Bloodlust maybe
is what i come up with.
or blind support for Bush Cheney policies.
Pick one or both.
But the sad disregard for the idea any humane standards has any bearing on the conversation REALLY sadens me.
And the Constant minimizing of the "techniques" is disturbing.

And As A Christian I really don't see how how this fits ANY biblical teaching. ANYWHERE.
I'm waiting for someone to show me where God Commanded or even allowed Torture. ---As long as it kept people safe.---
There a lot of harsh warfare in the Bible, but Never torture.
Maybe that stuff is in the Koran, I don't know but i don't want to be like AlQuida or Radial Muslims in that respect myself.



Jim Sorry if i put word in your mouth not my intent.



Well LuvRPG, if we are guessing at intent why not guess the other way for the SINGLE reference Gunny brought up? If we are guessing. But how about we put that quote in red from the Army Manuel together with all of the other quotes i posted from professional interrogators? why not do that, it's seem Honest enough to me.


And the Partial reference the Jim and Red repeat, the head of CIA Panetta says so,
Here's the rest of what he says,

Quote Originally Posted by Panetta
....Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

Jim says he's CYA, Maybe, but that's a guess, an Assumption, AND NOT WHAT HE STATES. And again WHAT ABOUT ALL THE REST OF THE CIA, FBI ETC? why are you ignoring them?
Or making up excuses for WHY they are saying what they say? What's this love of torture? that's come over the U.S..?
can i get a reasonable answer and not an "Oh rev you just wrong here" "Panetta said so"

When other methods are BETTER why use it, why support it? it's illegal and unnecessary and from George Washington until 2003 we publicly repudiated it and countries that supported it.

And again it just wrong people,
Torture is bad and you all know it, we shouldn't even be having this conversation in America.



Last I Checked Saddam was the leader and citizen of Iraq and lived there ,so yeah, His country.
And we, the U.S., started dropping bombs on the country.
I mean, it is what it is LuvRGirl.



I would go back even further than that but that's another story.
But I was responding to Reds Assertion of what HE thought I'd wish for.
His is a fantasy as well but i guess he's not the only one who thought that's what i wanted.


No I can't, Though it would be much better don't you think? OBL did have support the U.S. at one point,
But Saddam was not a friend of OBL, That's been proven false.

No I can't but he didn't have a record of or plan that included the kind of bombing and shooting and door to door home invasions etc etc. that we and the coalition have done either.
I doubt he would have had a reason to do as much damaged as we've Caused by OUR Presence there. we can't honestly shift blame the insurgents.
If we were never there there would have been no insurgents and the terror bombers that came from other countries would have stayed home.
I mean sure ants may have been on the picnic table before you put the potato salad on it but c'mon.

And this is for sure, there would be ZERO dead, maimed and PSD afflicted American troops from Iraq.
And why should we have a hand in killing Iraqis AT ALL, be it 1,000,000 or 100?
Claiming Saddam may have done it to, doesn't make our hands clean Sassy.



That debatable. Can a private organization declare war?
If you don't have a country is it war or a crime?
But Either way, we do imprison war criminals. Countries do put the leaders of coups and blood baths etc on trail.
Jail is an honest option, so is the death penalty, for many war crimes.


If an illegal immigrant from England steals your car can we put him in jail for life without a trail?
No. why becuase the laws do apply. If your visiting Thailand do there laws apply to you if you spit on the side walk? Yes.
If someone commits a crime on our soil they are subject to our laws.
OBL fits the bill. the fact he was out of the country at the time makes no difference the crime was committed here and since extradition wasn't working we went to get his Arse. I was on board with that.
But the constitution covers what the gov't can and cannot do.
Rights come from God. The Bill of rights aren't negated if your accused of committing a crime.

We don't string um up and ask question later, if we are not driven by... um well... just vengeance or blood lust IMO.

http://th732.photobucket.com/albums/ww325/abayridgeguy/th_bullshit.jpg

[fj1200]

I understood....

+1


but I still support enhanced interrogation.

+ 1/2... and falling?

[revelarts]

You are making an assumptions that terrorists need to be friends to be bound to a common cause. It has been proven that both OBL and Saddam hated America and Americans.


No I'm going by reports of Saddams actions. Saddam Never helped OBL.
And BOTH OBL and saddam we're OUR friends at one time. And we Supplied BOTH with arms and weapons.




This is pure BS Rev....if we had not engaged the enemy in Irag and Afghanistan the insurgents/terrorists would have stepped up attacks here in America. Then it would have been America lives lost ... and not just those of the soldiers. I still do not understand why people think that the insurgents were caused by United States presence ....we did not create the crazy, fanatics ... they were already there. Did our presence escalate their activities ... yes...but they were already in existence.

Now your talking fantasy. Let me ask you one question. If your an insurgent or fanatic and you want to hurt the U.S. which is an easier target. U.S. city Planes trains power plants Office buildings. Or !00,000 armed U.S. troops in Iraq. See you might never agree with this Idea but Ron Paul was Exacty right when he told Guliani. many hate us because we are on there soil. the Attack on Iraq DID provoke MORE Fanatics. Many told Interrogators Exactly That. Experts and CIA officials have confirmed it over and Over. And what is an Insurgent? former Iraqi soldiers and Iraq civilians fighter for their country. Were they planning on hoping a plan and attacking the USA.
Absolutely Not.


Wouldn't you rather our soldiers engage the enemy on foreign soil ... or would you like to bring all the soldiers home and let them fight the crazies here, on American soil?

there a lot of people sitting at home watching TV around the world in dozens of countries that hate America with a an unholy passion . Until they do something we don't need to go any where. Because most of them aren't going to do jack.



Wrong.
Hands are never clean in a war; it can't be sanitized. That would be a true fantasy Rev.

If you don't start a war your hands never get dirty we attacked Iraq, not the other way around.




So, what you are saying is that when Pearl Harbor was bombed, we should have just politely asked Japan to hand over the criminal that ordered the bombing so we could put them on trial?

Japan was a country not a private org.



I guess I still have too much of the Old West in me. Swift justice.

Nothing wrong with swift justice. As long as you can prove you've got the right perp.
Ever see the ox bo incident?

[jimnyc]

Rev, I disagree with many of your points, and some of your points are actually laughable. When you can formulate a post with paragraphs and not hit enter after 10 words, I'll be happy to respond. Your posts are SO difficult to read that I actually just move to the next post after a short while. Seriously, can you not write paragraphs? Why do you hit the enter key after a short sentence and then continue on the next line?

But to address just one of your lines, the first one, and about as far as I could get in that post that looks like it was hit by a terrorist or tortured:


No I'm going by reports of Saddams actions. Saddam Never helped OBL.
And BOTH OBL and saddam we're OUR friends at one time. And we Supplied BOTH with arms and weapons.

If the US government is our friend, and we're able to purchase guns from them, or their approval... Then someone goes crazy down the line and shoots up a bunch of people, is our government responsible for that persons actions?

We currently sell arms to a shitload of countries. To think we are indefinitely responsible for their actions with these weapons is retarded.

[revelarts]

Rev, I disagree with many of your points, and some of your points are actually laughable. When you can formulate a post with paragraphs and not hit enter after 10 words, I'll be happy to respond. Your posts are SO difficult to read that I actually just move to the next post after a short while. Seriously, can you not write paragraphs? Why do you hit the enter key after a short sentence and then continue on the next line?

But to address just one of your lines, the first one, and about as far as I could get in that post that looks like it was hit by a terrorist or tortured:



If the US government is our friend, and we're able to purchase guns from them, or their approval... Then someone goes crazy down the line and shoots up a bunch of people, is our government responsible for that persons actions?

We currently sell arms to a shitload of countries. To think we are indefinitely responsible for their actions with these weapons is retarded.

Sorry, I'm trying to pack a lot in quickly, and it doesn't always come out as clearly as i'd hope. Also i edit myself so it won't be soooo freaking long. That doesn't add to clarity. Sometimes I feel like I've got to support my statements by reems a proof and reason before i can have a right to heard beyond the D&R sound bites.


But your point about OBL and Saddam. We KNEW both of those guys where crazy when we sold them guns, chemical weapons and trained them. We're not talking about England here.

[Gaffer]

Rev you seem to buy into the common misconception that UBL and saddam were our friends back in the 80's. That's wrong. UBL was part of the majhedeen (however it's spelled) which was fighting the soviets in afghan. The US supplied them with stinger missiles and money to fight the soviets, a common enemy. Their weapons were mostly soviet or chinese made. UBL happened to be rich which put him in a command position.

On the other hand we have saddam who was never a friend either. He attacked iran, who was already our enemy, with the intention of taking over the oil fields. The US supplied him with intelligence about iranian troop movements. All of his equipment came from russia and france. He was closely tied with the soviets.

Neither of them were our friends they were associates we worked with against common enemies.

Inflicting pain on someone for the sake of inflicting pain is torture. And it will not get reliable information. However, there are ways of inflicting pain that will get information, does not endanger the health of the person being interrogated, and can be verified with others.

Lets use your pictures and we will take a walk. Those are all your friends and family there. I want information you have. I walk you by them and let you have a good look. Then I say, wouldn't you like to see them set free? All you have to do is talk to me about what you know. They will be immediately set free. Now the thing is, none of them have been hurt. Just tied up and humiliated. I haven't hurt you or them, but I'm torturing you mentally.

This only works on people who have feelings. For those that don't you have to resort to other means such as water boarding. Water boarding is another form of psychological torture. You feel like your drowning but your not. It's all about breaking the will of the person your dealing with.

Things like the pictures you posted are just examples of sadistic cruelty for the pleasure of those performing it. It's not govt sanctioned.

[SassyLady]

Rev .... so what you are saying is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It seems that you are trying to say that because we sold arms to those who were fighting our enemy (Russia, Iran) that made them our friends?

Do you honestly believe that Saddam was not connected to OBL?

I thought you loved conspiracies? Here, you need to read this book:


In Losing bin Laden you’ll learn:

The never-before-told story of the Saudi government’s attempt to assassinate
bin Laden.
Why Clinton refused to meet with his first CIA Director.
Drawn from secret Sudanese intelligence files, the never-before-told story of bin Laden’s role in shooting down America’s Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia—and how Clinton manipulated the news media to keep the worst off America’s TV screens.
How Clinton ignored intelligence and offers of cooperation against bin Laden from several Muslim countries.
The 1993 World Trade Center attack—why Clinton refused to believe it had been bombed; why the CIA was kept out of the investigation; and how one of the FBI’s most trusted informants was actually a double agent working for bin Laden.
Why the CIA never funded bin Laden—despite the media myths.
The untold story of a respected congressman who repeatedly warned Clinton
officials about bin Laden in 1993—and why he was ignored.
Revealed for the first time: how Clinton and a Democratic senator stopped the CIA from hiring Arabic translators—while phone intercepts from bin Laden remained untranslated.
How the Predator spy plane—which spotted bin Laden three times—was grounded by bureaucratic infighting.
The inside story of how Clinton defeated bin Laden’s plots to murder thousands more during the Millennium celebrations.
Plus much more, including appendices of secret documents and photos, as well as the established links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. http://richardminiter.com/books/losing-bin-laden/

[revelarts]

Do you really want me to pull out the conspiracy info, how far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go?


I'll never said that the U.S. gov't was OBL's or Saddam's Friend. the U.S. has never been a good friends to the dictators we set up and use. A pimp isn't a prostitutes friend. Even though the Pimp may feed and cloth her well. So we agree there.

I've posted U.S. gov't docs of our Chemical weapons arms sales to Saddam.
and here's BreZiggy with the Muhjadeem,
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhFleLinwEM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhFleLinwEM?version=3"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Sybel Edmonds Former FBI translator , Gave classified info to the 9/11 commission. now the most Gagged women in US history. Created the Nat'l Whiste blowers coalition after her mistreatment (fired, gagged) . comments about Bin Laden.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qutWJYutg3o?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qutWJYutg3o?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

how far down that rabbit hole do you want to go?

[Gaffer]

Do you really want me to pull out the conspiracy info, how far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go?


I'll never said that the U.S. gov't was OBL's or Saddam's Friend. the U.S. has never been a good friends to the dictators we set up and use. A pimp isn't a prostitutes friend. Even though the Pimp may feed and cloth her well. So we agree there.

I've posted U.S. gov't docs of our Chemical weapons arms sales to Saddam.
and here's BreZiggy with the Muhjadeem,
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhFleLinwEM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhFleLinwEM?version=3"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Sybel Edmonds Former FBI translator , Gave classified info to the 9/11 commission. now the most Gagged women in US history. Created the Nat'l Whiste blowers coalition after her mistreatment (fired, gagged) . comments about Bin Laden.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qutWJYutg3o?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qutWJYutg3o?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

how far down that rabbit hole do you want to go?

I only want to go down to where reality stops and wonderland begins.

Like I said the US provided the muhjadeem with stinger missiles and funding. It was to fight the soviets, our enemy at the time. The islamist rallied to afghan, an example of islam in it's purest form.

As for the second video, can you come up with evidence that the US was working with bin laden up until 9/11, and show how the US govt, including clinton conspired with him. Other than someone wacko's hearsay. Like in the Anthony trial, circumstantial evidence only goes so far. It proves nothing without tangible evidence.

[revelarts]

I only want to go down to where reality stops and wonderland begins.

Like I said the US provided the muhjadeem with stinger missiles and funding. It was to fight the soviets, our enemy at the time. The islamist rallied to afghan, an example of islam in it's purest form.

As for the second video, can you come up with evidence that the US was working with bin laden up until 9/11, and show how the US govt, including clinton conspired with him. Other than someone wacko's hearsay. Like in the Anthony trial, circumstantial evidence only goes so far. It proves nothing without tangible evidence.

The Women was a FBI translator. She listened to and tranlated the incidents herself . It's not hearsay Or circumstantial. WHAT she heard is locked up in FBI headquarters, Classified away (destroyed?). the 9-11 commission heard her and her testimony was classified. Several senators heard it in the Sciff and that was classified. more than the Bin Laden story too.
here's a link to 2 senators request for Ashcroft to declassify portions the internal investigations confirming her testimony.
http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Leahy_Grassley_Letter_to_Ashcroft_7-9-04.pdf

Very convenient to call her a wacko, if that makes you feel better Gaff.
But it's not her that's wacko, it's our gov't my friend. Things are not a advertised.

[revelarts]

But back to the thread topic:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7MRU1MVWBsE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7MRU1MVWBsE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
he's cut off before he can mention what I quoted earlier.

BUt te point he makes is one that i don't think I or anyone else has mentioned that the Science of Interogating tell you that stress is not going aid in clear memory.

but
you folks believe what you want and when the grand kids are OK with torturing the motorcycle theif don't wonder why.
they are doing it with a PURPOSE. not for fun.

[revelarts]

also from Steven Kleinman, Colonel, USAFR,
speaking at Congressional Hearing 2007



2007
TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF `ENHANCED' INTERROGATION.



Steven Kleinman, Colonel, USAFR, Intelligence and National Security Specialist, Senior Intelligence Officer/Military Interrogator. .... He was an interrogator and case officer during Operation Just Cause, as the chief of a joint combined interrogation team during Operation Desert Storm, and served as a senior adviser on interrogation to the commander of a special operations task force during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He currently holds the rank of colonel, as the reserve senior intelligence officer at the Air Force Special Operations Command.


Congressman Nadler: "Okay, let me ask you a question, and I need you to set aside for a minute any moral or legal concerns and also any other limits that might be imposed by the Army Field Manual. If you were in a position where you knew with absolute certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent value, is there anything that you would, could or should do that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field Manual?"

Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not. The wonderful point we are in--and I would like to try to expand on that, if I may--moral, legal and operational confluence all ends in one very narrow circle. And that is, what we need to do to adhere to legal concerns, what we need to do as a Nation that would be morally correct, and what I would need to do as an operator all falls in that same circle.
There is not an approach, there is not a strategy, there is not a treatment that would even come close to violating Geneva Convention guidelines, or the Constitution of the United States, and certainly not the field manual on interrogation. We talk about rapport, but rapport is a very inexact term. There is a lot more to it. But, fundamentally, to answer your question directly, I would not need to do anything that would be prohibited by the field manual and still be very, very effective."

[jimnyc]

The Women was a FBI translator. She listened to and tranlated the incidents herself . It's not hearsay Or circumstantial. WHAT she heard is locked up in FBI headquarters, Classified away (destroyed?). the 9-11 commission heard her and her testimony was classified. Several senators heard it in the Sciff and that was classified. more than the Bin Laden story too.
here's a link to 2 senators request for Ashcroft to declassify portions the internal investigations confirming her testimony.
http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Leahy_Grassley_Letter_to_Ashcroft_7-9-04.pdf

Very convenient to call her a wacko, if that makes you feel better Gaff.
But it's not her that's wacko, it's our gov't my friend. Things are not a advertised.

So it's your stance that 2 different administrations are allowing this to be swept under the rug? If her testimony is classified, at least we know she was heard. One would think there would be MANY in government screaming about this if there was any PROOF and not just words. The President can't be told of what this testimony was? I call bullshit. Many would still have access to this and I don't see them complaining much.

Are you also implying that the 9/11 commission is complicit in this? And everyone else who had clearance to hear this material?

Come out from the rabbit hole before a lobotomy is needed, Rev.

And I hate to break the news to you, but without the actual documents (which you conveniently claim are locked up in some mysterious safe or have been destroyed), it IS 100% hearsay.

But I'll make a more informed opinion when you link me to the many that have clearance that have heard her testimony, and find her credible.

[Gunny]

So it's your stance that 2 different administrations are allowing this to be swept under the rug? If her testimony is classified, at least we know she was heard. One would think there would be MANY in government screaming about this if there was any PROOF and not just words. The President can't be told of what this testimony was? I call bullshit. Many would still have access to this and I don't see them complaining much.

Are you also implying that the 9/11 commission is complicit in this? And everyone else who had clearance to hear this material?

Come out from the rabbit hole before a lobotomy is needed, Rev.

And I hate to break the news to you, but without the actual documents (which you conveniently claim are locked up in some mysterious safe or have been destroyed), it IS 100% hearsay.

But I'll make a more informed opinion when you link me to the many that have clearance that have heard her testimony, and find her credible.

Not sure why you keep it up. His mind is closed, and he believes the topic is black or white only. All he's presented are cherry picked opinions to support a one-sided argument.

[fj1200]

Not sure why you keep it up. His mind is closed, and he believes the topic is black or white only. All he's presented are cherry picked opinions to support a one-sided argument.

The moral issue that we should be a country that doesn't engage in barbaric actions and be a beacon to the rest of the world? Yeah I guess that's one sided.

[Gunny]

The moral issue that we should be a country that doesn't engage in barbaric actions and be a beacon to the rest of the world? Yeah I guess that's one sided.

Really. Just I asked rev and got no answer, I'll ask you a like question:

How do you define "barbaric actions"? That starts at beating up your little brother and taking his toy and moves from there.

We won't have to worry about any morals if we aren't free to have them. You won't be free to have them if you are not willing to use whatever means necessary to defeat those that would take them away.

As long as there are barbaric aggressors, the use of barbaric force to combat them will be justified.

[jimnyc]

The moral issue that we should be a country that doesn't engage in barbaric actions and be a beacon to the rest of the world? Yeah I guess that's one sided.

I'm sure the rest of the world will understand that we used enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorists that can be counted on one hand - and according to the CIA, part of that information lead to the capture/killing of the most wanted man ever on our planet.

On a side note - why is it that so many jump up and down that the US shouldn't be the one who consistently helps other countries or engages other countries, that we should worry about our own country. But then in the next sentence we should worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us?

[jimnyc]

Really. Just I asked rev and got no answer, I'll ask you a like question:

How do you define "barbaric actions"? That starts at beating up your little brother and taking his toy and moves from there.

We won't have to worry about any morals if we aren't free to have them. You won't be free to have them if you are not willing to use whatever means necessary to defeat those that would take them away.

As long as there are barbaric aggressors, the use of barbaric force to combat them will be justified.

I see nothing "barbaric" about using a technique that scares a prisoner and makes him THINK he is drowning. Then again, I don't hug trees and want to handcuff our military either.

[Gunny]

I see nothing "barbaric" about using a technique that scares a prisoner and makes him THINK he is drowning. Then again, I don't hug trees and want to handcuff our military either.

Agreed. My point was to do the same to him as I did rev .... they use subjective terminology as absolutes.

Then there is the quandary of the argument itself. "Barbaric actions"? Where's the condemnation for the transgressors who play by NOBODY's rules? Instead of condemnation by those who aren't protecting themselves nor anyone else for those that ARE doing the protecting?

[jimnyc]

Agreed. My point was to do the same to him as I did rev .... they use subjective terminology as absolutes.

Then there is the quandary of the argument itself. "Barbaric actions"? Where's the condemnation for the transgressors who play by NOBODY's rules? Instead of condemnation by those who aren't protecting themselves nor anyone else for those that ARE doing the protecting?

We are in 1000% agreement. Some here have the audacity to continually condemn our country for taking necessary steps to ensure the safety of our country and our military - and those steps don't involve "barbaric" techniques.

THIS is what we are up against. THIS is what we are trying to prevent. THIS is what our enemy understands. THIS is the treatment OUR soldiers get if interrogated. THIS IS BARBARIC, not waterboarding someone and allowing them to walk away afterwards and have a warm meal and a blanket.

I DEFY you to watch this, Rev. WATCH IT AND UNDERSTAND what we are up against. Do you really think people who can do this will just give up information to us because we ask nicely?

NOBODY should watch the last 30 seconds of this unless you want to be sick - OR if you want to see something TRULY barbaric, not simulated drowning where the suspect walks away unharmed. Some want to condemn our military or intelligence agencies from taking actions to prevent this kind of shit. Because we did it to what, maybe 3-5 terrorists, and gained information that killed Bin Laden?

Daily complaints about our government, intel agencies or military - but this shit gets talked about for a day or 2 and then nobody mentions it anymore.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/1378c00ef5"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/1378c00ef5" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

[Gunny]

We are in 1000% agreement. Some here have the audacity to continually condemn our country for taking necessary steps to ensure the safety of our country and our military - and those steps don't involve "barbaric" techniques.

THIS is what we are up against. THIS is what we are trying to prevent. THIS is what our enemy understands. THIS is the treatment OUR soldiers get if interrogated. THIS IS BARBARIC, not waterboarding someone and allowing them to walk away afterwards and have a warm meal and a blanket.

I DEFY you to watch this, Rev. WATCH IT AND UNDERSTAND what we are up against. Do you really think people who can do this will just give up information to us because we ask nicely?

NOBODY should watch the last 30 seconds of this unless you want to be sick - OR if you want to see something TRULY barbaric, not simulated drowning where the suspect walks away unharmed. Some want to condemn our military or intelligence agencies from taking actions to prevent this kind of shit. Because we did it to what, maybe 3-5 terrorists, and gained information that killed Bin Laden?

Daily complaints about our government, intel agencies or military - but this shit gets talked about for a day or 2 and then nobody mentions it anymore.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/1378c00ef5"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/1378c00ef5" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

Sure they mention it again. Been my observation when they get lit into, they just go start another thread, similar title, minus the opposition to their delusional beliefs in some utopian wonderland.

[revelarts]

Gunny I showed you pictures of what torture is. I also said very clearly that waterboarding is torture. And I've pointed out that your definition was correct, except for the Idea that torture is magical sanitized and becomes only Coercion if it's done for a reason.

I give more specfic examples of torture if you like and barbaric activity. But it's funny that Gaffer did say that the images in the photos were torture but you've avoided the question twice now.

Jim,
Waterboarding is not some one THNIKING they are drowing they are drowning.

Navy SERE trainer Nance

While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."

Mr Nance said US troops were trained to withstand waterboarding, watched by a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a backup team. "When performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt," he added. "Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American."
But I'm the one wasting my breath because i've pointed this out before. As well as the fact that its not the way to get intel. What it is good for is false confessions and getting people to do whatever you want. OH, with the side benefit of creating more terrorist.

Jim
As far as not helping others around the world but caring what the world thinks of us. It's more about self respect. WE make the claim and teach our children that the USA has higher moral standards than dictators, despots and oppressive Communist regimes . WE claim to be The Beacon of FREEDOM and Human Rights of the world. Do we keep our own standard? Nope. Not even when it's to our own benefit BUT if we think we MIGHT BE, POSSIBLY COULD BE, ONE DAY threatened then Freedom and Human rights for all people go in the toilet.

[jimnyc]

Jim,
Waterboarding is not some one THNIKING they are drowing they are drowning.

Navy SERE trainer Nance

But I'm the one wasting my breath because i've pointed this out before.

NO, your problem is that you go out and search for what supports your argument instead of searching for the truth. This was discussed previously and IT IS NOT drowning:


http://waterboarding.org/info

Correction: Early drafts of this page indicated that waterboarding included inhaling water into the lungs. The recently declassified Bybee Memo's official procedure (http://waterboarding.org/official_procedure) is to prevent this.
So, NO DROWNING AS NO WATER ENTERS THE LUNGS - so how is this "barbaric"?

[revelarts]

We didn't understand How the Japanese could use Kamazais, ANd the NAZI's could do all the Hell they did.

But the WW2 interrogators State Explicitly that they DID NOT need to Torture or Enhanced Interrogation to deal with captors.
PERIOD

Torture or Revenge is not an Intel technique.

[jimnyc]

Jim
As far as not helping others around the world but caring what the world thinks of us. It's more about self respect. WE make the claim and teach our children that the USA has higher moral standards than dictators, despots and oppressive Communist regimes . WE claim to be The Beacon of FREEDOM and Human Rights of the world. Do we keep our own standard? Nope. Not even when it's to our own benefit BUT if we think we MIGHT BE, POSSIBLY COULD BE, ONE DAY threatened then Freedom and Human rights for all people go in the toilet.

All this because a handful of terrorists received harsh treatment? LOL :lol:

[Gunny]

Gunny I showed you pictures of what torture is. I also said very clearly that waterboarding is torture. And I've pointed out that your definition was correct, except for the Idea that torture is magical sanitized and becomes only Coercion if it's done for a reason.

I give more specfic examples of torture if you like and barbaric activity. But it's funny that Gaffer did say that the images in the photos were torture but you've avoided the question twice now.

Jim,
Waterboarding is not some one THNIKING they are drowing they are drowning.

Navy SERE trainer Nance

But I'm the one wasting my breath because i've pointed this out before. As well as the fact that its not the way to get intel. What it is good for is false confessions and getting people to do whatever you want. OH, with the side benefit of creating more terrorist.

Jim
As far as not helping others around the world but caring what the world thinks of us. It's more about self respect. WE make the claim and teach our children that the USA has higher moral standards than dictators, despots and oppressive Communist regimes . WE claim to be The Beacon of FREEDOM and Human Rights of the world. Do we keep our own standard? Nope. Not even when it's to our own benefit BUT if we think we MIGHT BE, POSSIBLY COULD BE, ONE DAY threatened then Freedom and Human rights for all people go in the toilet.

You haven't pointed out a thing. There's a difference between torture and coercion you refuse to recognize.

Your "examples" are mere opinions of people that have no more experience than I, or other of your detractors on this board do.

Waterboarding for the sake of it is torture. Waterboarding for the sake of extracting specific information that may save even ONE life of a US serviceperson or US citizen is coercion.

Simple as that. SO long as you choose to let others fight for you, you have no right to criticize how they do it. Or get your ass out on the line yourself and we'll see how long your sentamentalism for for a ruthless enemy lasts.

[jimnyc]

But the WW2 interrogators State Explicitly that they DID NOT need to Torture or Enhanced Interrogation to deal with captors.
PERIOD

Revenge is not an Intel technique.

Agreed. But waterboarding or similar to gain information from known terrorists IS - and it's worked. PERIOD.

[Gunny]

We didn't understand How the Japanese could use Kamazais, ANd the NAZI's could do all the Hell they did.

But the WW2 interrogators State Explicitly that they DID NOT need to Torture or Enhanced Interrogation to deal with captors.
PERIOD

Revenge is not an Intel technique.

Sure we understood. Bad example on YOUR part. We understood and we made them pay. You'd just slap them on the hands and say "bad boys".


And I got news for you ... QUIT listen to just opinions that suit your argument. WWI interrogators didn't use "torture" BY THE STANDARDS OF THEIR DAY.

You DO realize both Germans and Japanese were depicted as subhuman by US propaganda? You DO realize that the US NOW, as you are dishonestly trying to make a comparison, PALES in comparison to the attrocities committed by Japan and Germany during WWII?

Get over the brainwashing, dude.

[revelarts]

Simple as that. SO long as you choose to let others fight for you, you have no right to criticize how they do it. Or get your ass out on the line yourself and we'll see how long your sentamentalism for for a ruthless enemy lasts.

You know what Gunny If thats your attitude and you SAY others are Fighting for me. I say their Fired. Don't claim your doing it for my benefit. If you CLAIM to work for the people, we've got EVERY right to Criticize and comment or Praise what goes on and how its done. Come home from the field and take a job doing something else if they don't understand that. Don't risk your life for an ideal you don't really believe in. Or a standard you feel you can't keep.

[Gunny]

You know what Gunny If thats your attitude and you SAY others are Fighting for me. I say their Fired. Don't claim your doing it for my benefit. If you CLAIM to work for the people, we've got EVERY right to Criticize and comment or Praise what goes on and how its done. Come home from the field and take a job doing something else if they don't understand that. Don't risk your life for an ideal you don't really believe in. Or a standard you feel you can't keep.

Another argument that is a loss on your part.

Where's the praise? I don't hear any from you weaklings, and don't presume I fight for you nor your freedom.

I risk my life for an ideal. I don't risk it for those who have no idea what that ideal is because they're so caught up in unrealistic BS it's pathetic.

I have 2 daughters and grandduaghter I prefer they not suffer the fate you relegate them to.

[revelarts]

Another argument that is a loss on your part.

Where's the praise? I don't hear any from you weaklings, and don't presume I fight for you nor your freedom.

I risk my life for an ideal. I don't risk it for those who have no idea what that ideal is because they're so caught up in unrealistic BS it's pathetic.

I have 2 daughters and grandduaghter I prefer they not suffer the fate you relegate them to.

You hear the praise every time I've quoted a military person that you dismiss.

May God bless your family Gunny and Whatever you personal ideals are you've got every right to fight for them. But not wearing a uniform that represents all of us whose ideals it stands for.

[jimnyc]

Rev - I notice that you skipped right over the part where I corrected your statements about waterboarding. Why do you search for information that backs up your beliefs and not the truth?

[revelarts]

( I wish I had a nickel for every time someone ignored a point I've made)
Ok Jim,


Notable statements are that the "The inidividual does not breathe any water into his lungs" and "…it is likely that this procedure would not last more than 20 minutes in any one application."
Now let’s look at the Bradbury Memo from May 30, 2005. Here is a passage from page 15:

Note that now we can have people on the board for up to two hours, with up to six applications of water on five days over a 30 day period. How did they go from 20 minutes to two hours and come up with such arbitrary numbers for the number of times a person can be waterboarded? Does torture occur only once these thresholds are exceeded?

Now let’s look at page 31:

This is full evidence that the CIA medical staff knew that waterboarding is actually drowning, not simulated drowning: "With the waterboard, the interrogators use potable saline rather than plain water so that detainees will not suffer from hyponatremia and to minimize the risk of pneumonia." Pneumonia is only a risk if the water is getting into the lungs. This is an admission that water is getting into the lungs. That is drowning. This is also in direct contradiction to the statement in the Bybee memo that water does not enter the lungs.
Here is MayoClinic.com on hyponatremia:
Hyponatremia occurs when the sodium in your blood is diluted by excess water. Hyponatremia may result from medical conditions that impair excretion of water from your body, or by a significant increase in water consumption, such as by athletes competing in marathons and other high-endurance events.
Relying on saline to prevent hyponatremia shows that the prisoners also were swallowing very large amounts of water while being waterboarded. That has not been discussed much in the descriptions I have seen coming from the government previously.
But I'll give you a Firm Maybe on the lungs, its sounds like MANY times it does and few times it doesn't. But it's strange that you believe the Lawyers Bybees description, and not the NAVY SERE trainer who'se DONE it and experienced it. HOWEVER people are suffocating. It's no simulation. ANd they can die, the fear is not of imagined possibility of dying it is clinically real. Literally moments away. THAT Qualifies as torture.

Putting a pillow on Grandmas face so she'll tell you where the car keys are is what, coercion?


"The United States military justice system has prosecuted "waterboarding" as a form of torture since the Spanish-American war. " An article by a former JAG who says "The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years."


SERE Trainer Nance Again
"SERE trained tens of thousands of service members of its historical use by the Nazis, the Japanese, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese.
SERE emphasized that enemies of democracy and rule of law often ignore human rights, defy the Geneva Convention and have subjected our men and women to grievous physical and psychological harm. We stress that enduring these calumnies will allow our soldiers to return home with honor.
The SERE community was designed over 50 years ago to show that, as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool that leaves no physical scars and which can be repeatedly used as an intimidation tool.
Waterboarding has the ability to make the subject answer any question with the truth, a half-truth or outright lie in order to stop the procedure. Subjects usually resort to all three, often in rapid sequence. Most media representations or recreations of the waterboarding are inaccurate, amateurish and dangerous improvisations, which do not capture the true intensity of the act. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a simulation of drowning -- it is drowning."


Gunny your definition starts in the wrong place. When a soldier attacks a ship in battle and all of the enemy drown that warfare, when a soldier slowly drowns (or inflicts pain unnecessary pain on) a prisoner that's torture and abuse.

[Gaffer]

revelarts: Gunny your definition starts in the wrong place. When a soldier attacks a ship in battle and all of the enemy drown that warfare, when a soldier slowly drowns (or inflicts pain unnecessary pain on) a prisoner that's torture and abuse

It's torture and abuse if he's doing it for pleasure or revenge. Getting information makes it a necessary tool.

Lets also throw in the fact that the guy your questioning likes to torture people and has many friends who also like to torture people. He has information on where they are. What methods are you going to use to get that info out of him?

[revelarts]

It's torture and abuse if he's doing it for pleasure or revenge. Getting information makes it a necessary tool.

Lets also throw in the fact that the guy your questioning likes to torture people and has many friends who also like to torture people. He has information on where they are. What methods are you going to use to get that info out of him?

2007
TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF `ENHANCED' INTERROGATION.

Steven Kleinman, Colonel, USAFR, Intelligence and National Security Specialist, Senior Intelligence Officer/Military Interrogator. .... He was an interrogator and case officer during Operation Just Cause, as the chief of a joint combined interrogation team during Operation Desert Storm, and served as a senior adviser on interrogation to the commander of a special operations task force during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He currently holds the rank of colonel, as the reserve senior intelligence officer at the Air Force Special Operations Command.


Congressman Nadler: "Okay, let me ask you a question, and I need you to set aside for a minute any moral or legal concerns and also any other limits that might be imposed by the Army Field Manual. If you were in a position where you knew with absolute certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent value, is there anything that you would, could or should do that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field Manual?"

Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not. The wonderful point we are in--and I would like to try to expand on that, if I may--moral, legal and operational confluence all ends in one very narrow circle. And that is, what we need to do to adhere to legal concerns, what we need to do as a Nation that would be morally correct, and what I would need to do as an operator all falls in that same circle.
There is not an approach, there is not a strategy, there is not a treatment that would even come close to violating Geneva Convention guidelines, or the Constitution of the United States, and certainly not the field manual on interrogation. We talk about rapport, but rapport is a very inexact term. There is a lot more to it. But, fundamentally, to answer your question directly, I would not need to do anything that would be prohibited by the field manual and still be very, very effective."

[Gaffer]

Col Klienman covered his ass and danced effortlessly around the question. which is not the question I asked.

What methods would you use to get the info? Would you like me to make it multiple choice?

[fj1200]

Really. Just I asked rev and got no answer, I'll ask you a like question:

How do you define "barbaric actions"? That starts at beating up your little brother and taking his toy and moves from there.

We won't have to worry about any morals if we aren't free to have them. You won't be free to have them if you are not willing to use whatever means necessary to defeat those that would take them away.

As long as there are barbaric aggressors, the use of barbaric force to combat them will be justified.

First of all you assume I have the same feeling as Rev on the issue, I was merely pointing out that a position based on morality/ethics is necessarily going to be one-sided because "sin" is "sin." Having said that I do find myself moving toward his position on the torture issue. Barbaric actions are like pornography, you know it when you see it as well as the definition changing over time.

You also assume that we must counter barbarism with barbarism to remain free; I don't buy into the argument that that is the only thing keeping Islamofascism at bay.


I'm sure the rest of the world will understand that we used enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorists that can be counted on one hand - and according to the CIA, part of that information lead to the capture/killing of the most wanted man ever on our planet.

On a side note - why is it that so many jump up and down that the US shouldn't be the one who consistently helps other countries or engages other countries, that we should worry about our own country. But then in the next sentence we should worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us?

Is giving up our ethics worth it to kill OBL?

[jimnyc]

But I'll give you a Firm Maybe on the lungs, its sounds like MANY times it does and few times it doesn't. But it's strange that you believe the Lawyers Bybees description, and not the NAVY SERE trainer who'se DONE it and experienced it. HOWEVER people are suffocating. It's no simulation. ANd they can die, the fear is not of imagined possibility of dying it is clinically real. Literally moments away. THAT Qualifies as torture.

Putting a pillow on Grandmas face so she'll tell you where the car keys are is what, coercion?

You pick what you want to hear from various sources. The bottom line is that NO water enters the lungs if the actions outlined and appropriate training is followed. If anything, you showed that the interrogators might even take EXTRA precautionary actions to ensure it cannot happen. If it was "barbaric" or "torture" - why not just jam a garden hose down their throats for a minute at a clip? There's reasons they are trained to do it in such a controlled manner.

And you may want to use lame analogies to try and make your point - but these are known terrorists this technique is being done to, and more than just the Bush administration and Panetta have stated it yielded results. These cockroaches are far from being grandma.

[jimnyc]

Is giving up our ethics worth it to kill OBL?

I don't believe we've done so, that's your opinion.

[jimnyc]

Someone answer me this:

We have terrorists in jails. We have murderers in jail. Terrorists are kept in isolation. US prisons hold many murderers in isolation.

We waterboarded a very small handful of terrorists to gain valuable information. These terrorists have since walked away from their "torture".

We have since KILLED many, many murders that were in US prisons.

So it's wrong to "torture" foreign terrorists, but not a problem to kill people?

[fj1200]

I don't believe we've done so, that's your opinion.

That's your opinion. Some do.

[fj1200]

We have since KILLED many, many murders that were in US prisons.

They were tried and convicted.


So it's wrong to "torture" foreign terrorists, but not a problem to kill people?

The ones in jail? Have they been tried and convicted?

[jimnyc]

They were tried and convicted.



The ones in jail? Have they been tried and convicted?

Ok, fine - use the example of US troops killing foreign terrorists. Our troops have killed many of them using sniper rifles and/or apache helicopters, and many were killed when not a US troop was in sight. They were just known terrorists in a gathering.

Or the very terrorists that have been waterboarded. Not a word would have ever been said had they just been shot. We've killed many, many terrorists over the years even with drone attacks. None of these "men" received a trial and none convicted.

Are you now going to stand up for them too? Or is it ok to kill a terrorist but just not ok to pour water on him?

[jimnyc]

They were tried and convicted.



The ones in jail? Have they been tried and convicted?

And using your argument again... If we "tried and convicted" a terrorist, but we are extremely confident he has knowledge regarding an impending terror attack - is it now ok to waterboard him since he received his day in court? We know he can now be killed since he was sentenced to death - but it's not ok to waterboard him?

[logroller]

And using your argument again... If we "tried and convicted" a terrorist, but we are extremely confident he has knowledge regarding an impending terror attack - is it now ok to waterboard him since he received his day in court? We know he can now be killed since he was sentenced to death - but it's not ok to waterboard him?

I agree, terrorists should be treated the same as a foreign spy; so long as the terrorist isn't a US citizen, a non-uniformed combatant is excluded from both US laws and Geneva Convention protections. If someone has no respect for Law and Order, they shouldn't enjoy it's protections. That seems justified, doesn't it?

[jimnyc]

I agree, terrorists should be treated the same as a foreign spy; so long as the terrorist isn't a US citizen, a non-uniformed combatant is excluded from both US laws and Geneva Convention protections. If someone has no respect for Law and Order, they shouldn't enjoy it's protections. That seems justified, doesn't it?

Except that spys don't generally kill people or "terrorize" people - nor do they generally have information that can potentially save lives and/or prevent terrorist attacks.

We've beaten the torture aspect to death, and no on is likely to change their mind because of a post on the internet. I just find it funny that we kill people in war and most don't have an issue with this, but if you pour water into someone's mouth and nose to scare them, well now you are barbaric. Just have a drone go over the top of their house an obliterate them with a bomb, then you're ok, just don't capture them!

[logroller]

Except that spys don't generally kill people or "terrorize" people - nor do they generally have information that can potentially save lives and/or prevent terrorist attacks.

Two sides of the same coin, IMO. Spying can and does have catastrophic effects on security. The fact its clandestine means we just don't hear about it; but does ignorance of the fact make it any more or less acceptable?

We've beaten the torture aspect to death, and no on is likely to change their mind because of a post on the internet. I just find it funny that we kill people in war and most don't have an issue with this, but if you pour water into someone's mouth and nose to scare them, well now you are barbaric. Just have a drone go over the top of their house an obliterate them with a bomb, then you're ok, just don't capture them!

To me, what is barbaric is the glorification of killing. Terrorist extremists, the live feed 'shock and awe', even video games-- we have become jaded to violence, even preferential to it. Agreed, waterboarding seems benign in the comparison to the horrors of war; but that doesn't make it right, only justifiable.:thumb: To say I support torture would be false, but I accept it as a necessary evil.

[revelarts]

Ok, fine - use the example of US troops killing foreign terrorists. Our troops have killed many of them using sniper rifles and/or apache helicopters, and many were killed when not a US troop was in sight. They were just known terrorists in a gathering.

Or the very terrorists that have been waterboarded. Not a word would have ever been said had they just been shot. We've killed many, many terrorists over the years even with drone attacks. None of these "men" received a trial and none convicted.

Are you now going to stand up for them too? Or is it ok to kill a terrorist but just not ok to pour water on him?

Sure, I'll stand up for them too.
How do you -- JIM --- know for sure that everyone that's been killed is a "terrorist". Can you ---JIM--- name 1 terrorist act that any of those people that have been struck by drones have committed. Personally I don't trust the gov't or the military to just name and kill so called terrorist. The US gov't has killed PLENTY of people it hasn't liked at home and abroad and I'm not ready to give the military a blank check everywhere around the world. and assume every drone strike and sniper hit they call is correct.
PAnneta, who you've quoted on the torture, has said publicly that there are MAYBE 2000 alquida WORLD WIDE. I'm not sure what all the drone strikes and snipers are doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, surely by now we should have whittled them down enough that we can deal with them. And if we've known enough to snipe and drone don't we know enough to try them? What terrorist attack have they committed? What's the last terrorist attack against the US? are we sniping people that are THINKING/PLANNING to attack us? If it's part of the War effort in Afghan, were they are firing against out troops then that's another issue but "terrorist" sitting at home never firing a shot and getting their wife and kids blown to heck is not right.

I'd guess you think the military is only doing good and only bad guy evil terrorist are dying. I'm not going to get into a long back and forth with you on this but that's my take.

No we shouldn't be killing people our gov't just declare terrorist.
Yeah sure "they WANT TO kill us." Well if they really want to we can prove it. and put them in jail. we have no problem rendering people to secret sites we shouldn't have a problem rendering them to public court and Federal prison or the death penalty if they've done more than WANT TO.



And using your argument again... If we "tried and convicted" a terrorist, but we are extremely confident he has knowledge regarding an impending terror attack - is it now ok to waterboard him since he received his day in court? We know he can now be killed since he was sentenced to death - but it's not ok to waterboard him?
you said something about changing peoples minds, well i'm sure this won't either. but it is something to be honest about, for those who claim they want the constitution upheld again. The 8th Amendment says
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Torture/waterboarding/Abugrading fits into cruel and usual seems to me.

So we shouldn't. And as so many interrogators have mentioned there's no need to torture. It's funny that people who support torture so much Also claim it was "only used 3 times". Well if "only used 3 times" it seems that shows that it's unnecessary as well. If you honestly believe that figure. (Or is that figure a lie?) But that's just me.


Except that spys don't generally kill people or "terrorize" people - nor do they generally have information that can potentially save lives and/or prevent terrorist attacks.

I just find it funny that we kill people in war and most don't have an issue with this, but if you pour water into someone's mouth and nose to scare them, well now you are barbaric. Just have a drone go over the top of their house an obliterate them with a bomb, then you're ok, just don't capture them!

Drone bombing a house is not OK. I've mention several time elsewhere i think the general forever war on terror is BS. I don't think it's right to drone bomb homes around the world. If China did it here and said "well it's just the bad guys" would you think it's right? I'd guess you wouldn't but somehow it OK for the US to do it. I say BS.

I ask again were these drone bombed terrorist part of the 9-11 attack or what have they done. If they were part of the afghan war then that's another thing. If they shot at our troops or our allies they are fair game. But Killing POTENTIAL terrorist. What the Heck? I'm sure most here think I'm crazy "THEY WANT TO KILL US." yes all 2000 of them. Sorry I'm not impressed by the threat for some reason. The troops are doing what they are told but. And I'm not buying the gov't line about we're only killing the bad guys. Sorry.

[Gaffer]

:bang3:

[Gunny]

First of all you assume I have the same feeling as Rev on the issue, I was merely pointing out that a position based on morality/ethics is necessarily going to be one-sided because "sin" is "sin." Having said that I do find myself moving toward his position on the torture issue. Barbaric actions are like pornography, you know it when you see it as well as the definition changing over time.

You also assume that we must counter barbarism with barbarism to remain free; I don't buy into the argument that that is the only thing keeping Islamofascism at bay.



Is giving up our ethics worth it to kill OBL?

One does not have to give up one's morality to combat fire with fire. One merely needs the desire to win and be willing to use the tools and tactics necessary to do so.

Again, that over-inflated sense of morality isn't going to matter squat to people using against you what you label "barbaric". It just frees their hands by giving them a weapon to use against you.

You may not buy the argument that you have to fight fire with fire; however, it is no less a fact because you desire to delude yourself with a set of morals they aren't hampered by in the least.

[logroller]

One does not have to give up one's morality to combat fire with fire. One merely needs the desire to win and be willing to use the tools and tactics necessary to do so.

Again, that over-inflated sense of morality isn't going to matter squat to people using against you what you label "barbaric". It just frees their hands by giving them a weapon to use against you.

You may not buy the argument that you have to fight fire with fire; however, it is no less a fact because you desire to delude yourself with a set of morals they aren't hampered by in the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg&feature=player_detailpage
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hopNAI8Pefg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hopNAI8Pefg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[fj1200]

Ok, fine - use the example of US troops killing foreign terrorists. Our troops have killed many of them using sniper rifles and/or apache helicopters, and many were killed when not a US troop was in sight. They were just known terrorists in a gathering.

Or the very terrorists that have been waterboarded. Not a word would have ever been said had they just been shot. We've killed many, many terrorists over the years even with drone attacks. None of these "men" received a trial and none convicted.

Are you now going to stand up for them too? Or is it ok to kill a terrorist but just not ok to pour water on him?

Now that you're changing the terms... First of all, I don't think that they are entitled to a trial and as far as I'm concerned they are on the battlefield. Second, I'm guessing that there are rules of engagement followed when action is taken and we're not just taking pot shots at a group of could be terrorists.

I'm not sure but it seems that you might fall on the side of "just shooting" them would be over the top. Also, why do you assume I'm standing up for the terrorists? It could just be a matter of holding ourselves to a higher standard than our enemy.


And using your argument again... If we "tried and convicted" a terrorist, but we are extremely confident he has knowledge regarding an impending terror attack - is it now ok to waterboard him since he received his day in court? We know he can now be killed since he was sentenced to death - but it's not ok to waterboard him?

My argument? You laid the ground rules. We don't torture convicted felons even though they may have information related to other crimes.

[fj1200]

One does not have to give up one's morality to combat fire with fire. One merely needs the desire to win and be willing to use the tools and tactics necessary to do so.

Is that what you need to tell yourself? If you're being attacked with immoral "fire" then a like response of "fire" would be equally immoral wouldn't it? A desire to win does not automatically retain one's morality.


Again, that over-inflated sense of morality isn't going to matter squat to people using against you what you label "barbaric". It just frees their hands by giving them a weapon to use against you.

Maybe not but it's not them that I'm worried about. Which weapon would that be? They are "barbaric" and we are not?


You may not buy the argument that you have to fight fire with fire; however, it is no less a fact because you desire to delude yourself with a set of morals they aren't hampered by in the least.

Fact not proven.

[jimnyc]

Now that you're changing the terms... First of all, I don't think that they are entitled to a trial and as far as I'm concerned they are on the battlefield. Second, I'm guessing that there are rules of engagement followed when action is taken and we're not just taking pot shots at a group of could be terrorists.

I'm not sure but it seems that you might fall on the side of "just shooting" them would be over the top. Also, why do you assume I'm standing up for the terrorists? It could just be a matter of holding ourselves to a higher standard than our enemy.

My argument? You laid the ground rules. We don't torture convicted felons even though they may have information related to other crimes.

You guys seem to forget we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "terrorists" are captured on the battlefield or in raids. The majority of the time they are armed or with people that are armed. Shooting them and ending it right there would be legit and end of story. There would be an announcement on TV that a few terrorists were killed in action. No one would complain. Instead, we use special care to capture high target terrorists so that we can gather information. We've used enhanced interrogation techniques on a couple of them. People cry because we aren't "ethical" or we are "barbaric".

[Gunny]

Is that what you need to tell yourself? If you're being attacked with immoral "fire" then a like response of "fire" would be equally immoral wouldn't it? A desire to win does not automatically retain one's morality.



Maybe not but it's not them that I'm worried about. Which weapon would that be? They are "barbaric" and we are not?



Fact not proven.

Tell myself? No. Neither do I attempt to portray myself as some intellectual who buys an argument that tries to apply absolutes to subjectives. "Barbaric" and "torture" are words subject to interpretation.

Anyone who isn't smart enough to know that if you meet force with lesser force you lose, doesn't belong in this discussion.

If you cannot understand something as simple as the concept that you do not have to give up your beliefs to use whatever tactics and strategy are necessary to defeat an enemy, also does not belong in this discussion.

In both cases, delusion puts the topic out of your reach.

[fj1200]

You guys seem to forget we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... We've used enhanced interrogation techniques on a couple of them. People cry because we aren't "ethical" or we are "barbaric".

I don't forget anything of the sort but I can't help it when you have to make assumptions. If the information is so good from "torturing" a couple of them then why aren't we doing it to all of them?

[jimnyc]

I don't forget anything of the sort but I can't help it when you have to make assumptions. If the information is so good from "torturing" a couple of them then why aren't we doing it to all of them?

Because only a small handful of high target terrorists would likely have sensitive info. The rest are just lackeys that blow themselves up but have no info.

[fj1200]

Tell myself? No. Neither do I attempt to portray myself as some intellectual who buys an argument that tries to apply absolutes to subjectives. "Barbaric" and "torture" are words subject to interpretation.

It's at least as good as your pseudo intellectualism that states that morality automatically is conferred upon the winner.


Anyone who isn't smart enough to know that if you meet force with lesser force you lose, doesn't belong in this discussion.

So your position would be that we should have tortured Japanese POWs, decapitated them, killed at random, etc. like they did to our guys because we need to meet force with (at least) equal force; would I have that right? It would also seem that you think we are meeting AQ "force" with a lesser force just because we might refuse to "torture" prisoners because last I checked we are ahead in any meaningful category of warfare or do they have some predator drones flying overhead that I just haven't heard about.


If you cannot understand something as simple as the concept that you do not have to give up your beliefs to use whatever tactics and strategy are necessary to defeat an enemy, also does not belong in this discussion.

In both cases, delusion puts the topic out of your reach.

I don't believe I need to give up my beliefs to defeat an enemy but it seems that you will do whatever is necessary, ethics be damned, to "win"; That is your delusion.

[fj1200]

Because only a small handful of high target terrorists would likely have sensitive info. The rest are just lackeys that blow themselves up but have no info.

But let's pull some fingernails just to be sure.

[jimnyc]

But let's pull some fingernails just to be sure.

No, they haven't tortured probably 99% of all captured terrorists. Less than 5 from reports I have read. But if it makes your argument sound better, go ahead and make shit up!

[fj1200]

No, they haven't tortured probably 99% of all captured terrorists. Less than 5 from reports I have read. But if it makes your argument sound better, go ahead and make shit up!

What did I make up? Besides I was merely trying to determine if something would go to far in your view.

[jimnyc]

But let's pull some fingernails just to be sure.


What did I make up? Besides I was merely trying to determine if something would go to far in your view.

You made a statement that implies either I or the interrogators were pulling fingernails just for the hell of it. I corrected you with not only that being made up, but a more realistic number and to show that captured terrorists at a low ranking level have not been "tortured".

[jimnyc]

Besides I was merely trying to determine if something would go to far in your view.

And to answer this question, YES - it would be going too far if we allowed Americans to die from terror attacks when we could have gained information to prevent it.

[fj1200]

You made a statement that implies either I or the interrogators were pulling fingernails just for the hell of it. I corrected you with not only that being made up, but a more realistic number and to show that captured terrorists at a low ranking level have not been "tortured".

A. I didn't imply anything of the sort so, B. there was nothing to correct. Sorry to have to correct you there.


And to answer this question, YES - it would be going too far if we allowed Americans to die from terror attacks when we could have gained information to prevent it.

I almost thought we had some agreement there but I see you answered a question I didn't ask. Did the KSM "torture" leading to the OBL killing save American lives?

[jimnyc]

I almost thought we had some agreement there but I see you answered a question I didn't ask. Did the KSM "torture" leading to the OBL killing save American lives?

It would also have been going too far not to use enhanced techniques on the 9/11 mastermind to get information. It would also be going too far to not bring Bin Laden to justice - whether that be dead or alive.

[jimnyc]

Did the KSM "torture" leading to the OBL killing save American lives?

Considering that taking out OBL was taking out the leader, and it also yielded over a hundred USB drives, countless hard drives and all sorts of planning - I would say that his death has saved perhaps countless lives. No different than catching a man with a bomb strapped to himself, we may never know exactly how many lives were saved.

[fj1200]

Considering that taking out OBL was taking out the leader, and it also yielded over a hundred USB drives, countless hard drives and all sorts of planning - I would say that his death has saved perhaps countless lives. No different than catching a man with a bomb strapped to himself, we may never know exactly how many lives were saved.

Well for that you have to assume that the ONLY reason we were led to him is because of "torture."

[jimnyc]

Well for that you have to assume that the ONLY reason we were led to him is because of "torture."

You can assume whatever you like. All I know is that waterboarding was done on just a few terrorists, it disrupted a number of terrorist attacks and helped with information to kill Bin Laden.

[jimnyc]

3 people waterboarded after 9/11 until 2003. It yielded a wealth of information and prevented quite a few attacks. It also gained information that helped kill Bin Laden. You guys can whine about this all you want, but those are facts.

[Gunny]

3 people waterboarded after 9/11 until 2003. It yielded a wealth of information and prevented quite a few attacks. It also gained information that helped kill Bin Laden. You guys can whine about this all you want, but those are facts.

They have continually argued against the facts. Rev ignores them and cherrypicks his answers , and fj likes to think he's playing semantics by deflecting all over the place, also cherrypicking his answers.

A common denominator?

[jimnyc]

They have continually argued against the facts. Rev ignores them and cherrypicks his answers , and fj likes to think he's playing semantics by deflecting all over the place, also cherrypicking his answers.

A common denominator?

Yeap, but the facts are the facts. Rev wants to post only what supports his argument. He post all kinds of shit about how waterboarding doesn't work, ignoring the fact that it worked thus far on all 3 terrorists. Then he'll even ignore that evidence, even though it comes from top officials. And 'ol FJ would rather play expand a post, sensationalism and semantics games, but is generally very lacking when it comes to the meat of a debate - facts.

[revelarts]

3 people waterboarded after 9/11 until 2003. It yielded a wealth of information and prevented quite a few attacks. It also gained information that helped kill Bin Laden. You guys can whine about this all you want, but those are facts.

sigh, No those are not the facts Jim. that's the propaganda and the only thing you'll see no matter what I've posted to so otherwise.
you often try to post items to pick at my details (and sometimes I've admitted to bit and pieces) but nothing seems to affect your assertions.
the ONLY person you've HALF quoted to back up ANY of that is Panneta and he doesn't back the 1st part of your statement at all and only drags torture info in the bin laden kill as "part" of multiple sources.

But if you want to make up Crap to make you point go ahead.

[revelarts]

:bang3:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V4nvkRwUEUs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V4nvkRwUEUs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6muPCk6NqIM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6muPCk6NqIM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[jimnyc]

sigh, No those are not the facts Jim. that's the propaganda and the only thing you'll see no matter what I've posted to so otherwise.
you often try to post items to pick at my details (and sometimes I've admitted to bit and pieces) but nothing seems to affect your assertions.
the ONLY person you've HALF quoted to back up ANY of that is Panneta and he doesn't back the 1st part of your statement at all and only drags torture info in the bin laden kill as "part" of multiple sources.

But if you want to make up Crap to make you point go ahead.


3 people waterboarded after 9/11 until 2003. It yielded a wealth of information and prevented quite a few attacks. It also gained information that helped kill Bin Laden. You guys can whine about this all you want, but those are facts.


Are you disputing what I wrote? That only 3 people were waterboarded?
That it prevented attacks? That it gained information that helped kill Bin Laden? Which would you like me to prove first?

[jimnyc]

Only 3 people waterboarded after 9/11 and none after 2003:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

That it prevented attacks: Zubaydah cracked in less than 35 seconds and provided information that prevented perhaps dozens of attacks:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

That it helped gain information which lead to OBL:

I've provided many links to what Pannetta stated. 4 successive CIA directors have also stated that the waterboarded terrorists gave up valuable information. Dick Cheney stated it worked. Dennis Blair, Obama's director of intelligence, has stated it gained information.

So deny what is right in front of you, but what I wrote is ALL FACTS.

Read about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah

He's the one who cracked in 35 seconds. His information indirectly led to the capture of KSM:

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-11/politics/agent.tapes_1_waterboarding-cia-director-michael-hayden-cia-agent?_s=PM:POLITICS

And although you then put the blinders on, KSM gave a TON of info and one of them lead to the courier - who was the key in finding and killing OBL.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DfnBqfvqcdU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DfnBqfvqcdU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Ali Sufan an interrogator who 1st spoke to Zubaydah an tells the rest of the story I've posted this before but you've ignored it. before.

he testifies that HE Got Actionable info BEFORE enhanced Torture then the CIA grabbed him started rough stuff and Zubaydah shut-up. They stopped then Sufan started speaking to him again and ZUbayduh gave Up MORE info. then CiA steped in again and began rough stuff and Zubaydah SHUT UP again. Sufan began to protest then the CIA then asked the only person getting REAL INTEL to LEAVE.

the whole story not the propaganda

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[jimnyc]

Sure, words from 4 different CIA directors, the vice president and the current director of intelligence are all propaganda.

[fj1200]

Yeap, but the facts are the facts.

Yup, cherry picked facts are cherry picked facts.


Rev wants to post only what supports his argument. He post all kinds of shit about how waterboarding doesn't work, ignoring the fact that it worked thus far on all 3 terrorists. Then he'll even ignore that evidence, even though it comes from top officials.

Posting evidence that supports an argument! Who would do that? :rolleyes: Besides, I'm not sure rev doesn't acknowledge that it has worked (I could be wrong on that), but the question is does it work effectively, does it work better, and has it provided misleading information that is counterproductive.


And 'ol FJ would rather play expand a post, sensationalism and semantics games, but is generally very lacking when it comes to the meat of a debate - facts.

Expand-a-post! :eek: It's just how I like to directly answer particular points. The fact of this debate is your relegation of enemies to the subhuman level. Besides, facts in an ethics debate? :slap:

[gabosaurus]

I totally support torture. I think we should send Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and several rap artists to play a concert at Gitmo. I am guessing that a staggering amount of information would be surrendered within 12 hours.

[logroller]

I totally support torture. I think we should send Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and several rap artists to play a concert at Gitmo. I am guessing that a staggering amount of information would be surrendered within 12 hours.

Great idea. We have. People complained, even some musicians; though rock musicians wern't among them.:rock: Suppose they're used to hurtng peoples ears.
http://www.newser.com/story/44902/bands-blast-blaring-music-torture-at-gitmo.html

Sesamie Street:thumb:; Barney even:2up:. but that's not really torture, more like reprogramming. You really wanna to torture them, play them campaign ads 24 hrs a day.

[red states rule]

Great idea. We have. People complained, even some musicians; though rock musicians wern't among them.:rock: Suppose they're used to hurtng peoples ears.
http://www.newser.com/story/44902/bands-blast-blaring-music-torture-at-gitmo.html

Sesamie Street:thumb:; Barney even:2up:. but that's not really torture, more like reprogramming. You really wanna to torture them, play them campaign ads 24 hrs a day.

Better yet, if we really want to torture entire countries why not export liberals and liberalism over there?

Can you see the reaction if offices of NOW, GLAD, Code Pink, ACORN, Media Matters, Think Progress,and other left wing groups popped up all over the Middle East?

They will do to the Middle East what they have done to America

Gabby, Virgil, Bully, and others could lead the way for us :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Better yet, if we really want to torture entire countries why not export liberals and liberalism over there?

Can you see the reaction if offices of NOW, GLAD, Code Pink, ACORN, Media Matters, Think Progress,and other left wing groups popped up all over the Middle East?

They will do to the Middle East what they have done to America

Gabby, Virgil, Bully, and others could lead the way for us :laugh2:

Yea, I was thinking, real torture, make them read Gabbys posts.

[red states rule]

Yea, I was thinking, real torture, make them read Gabbys posts.

and Revs if Gabby's posts don't break them

Of course, since Rev wants to protect their rights so badly, if GITMO closes I hope the Feds drop off one or two terrorists on Revs (and Gabby's) door step and let them put them up for few years until their trial date

I can see them breaking bread with them, letting the terrorists babysit the kids, taking them to the store, sharing their complaints about Pres Bush and the US military

I ams sure Rev and Gabby would "bond" with the terrorists and maybe convert them so they would no longer hate America :laugh2:

[Prince Lemon]

I agree that sometimes the use of torture is needed on those who do brutal violence against decent people and society.It always gives a warning to society that doing wrong things is not payed.

[revelarts]

I agree that sometimes the use of torture is needed on those who do brutal violence against decent people and society.It always gives a warning to society that doing wrong things is not payed.
Can you give me a Bible verse or 2 in support of torture PL?

[Gunny]

Can you give me a Bible verse or 2 in support of torture PL? You back for another beating? Looks like you got "God"on your side. FartSmellerBoy thanked you. Try joining the real world instead of lingering in that fantasy, utopian world you wish we lived in.

[LuLu]

A yes/no question.I believe very trained professionals should make the decision.
ONe of my problems with West is he used it when he wasn't trained.

[Gaffer]

I believe very trained professionals should make the decision.
ONe of my problems with West is he used it when he wasn't trained.

All he did was shoot a bullet into a barrel near the guy he was questioning. That's not torture and doesn't require special training.

[ConHog]

All he did was shoot a bullet into a barrel near the guy he was questioning. That's not torture and doesn't require special training.

The only training that requires is being trained not to miss your target. Pretty sure West was trained in that.


I only have one question for those who oppose "torture."


IF your child were missing and the FBI had a suspect in custody who they were almost positive had information on your child's whereabouts, what wouldn't you want them to do to that person to get that information?

[LuvRPgrl]

The only training that requires is being trained not to miss your target. Pretty sure West was trained in that.


I only have one question for those who oppose "torture."


IF your child were missing and the FBI had a suspect in custody who they were almost positive had information on your child's whereabouts, what wouldn't you want them to do to that person to get that information?

I have another question.
If torture wasnt at all effective as those who are opposed to it claim, then why do so many countries use it?

[revelarts]

I've posted a few integrators who tell us what torture is good for.
It's good for making people say what YOU WANT THEM to say. Not the truth. Most haven't heard it but I've posted it over and over from plenty of sources. "People will say ANYTHING they think the torturer wants to hear to stop the torture."
It's great for forcing "confessions" Like U.S. POW's in Nam. Good for an intimidating example to keep others quiet or ELSE. It's a great tool for oppressive state rule.
And yeah the U.S. has done all that before but , it's been illegal. and people have gone to jail for it.
If that's the kinda country we want well we've got it now.
I, for one, don't feel safer.

[ConHog]

I've posted a few integrators who tell us what torture is good for.
It's good for making people say what YOU WANT THEM to say. Not the truth. Most haven't heard it but I've posted it over and over from plenty of sources. "People will say ANYTHING they think the torturer wants to hear to stop the torture."
It's great for forcing "confessions" Like U.S. POW's in Nam. Good for an intimidating example to keep others quiet or ELSE. It's a great tool for oppressive state rule.
And yeah the U.S. has done all that before but , it's been illegal. and people have gone to jail for it.
If that's the kinda country we want well we've got it now.
I, for one, don't feel safer.

Absolutely correct, which is why the person doing the questioning has to ask the right questions. Torture works. PERIOD. Sure it will get people to admit to things they didn't do, but not if the interrogator isn't asking them to admit to things they didn't do.

IOW the interrogator should only be asking questions that he pretty much already knows the answers to. ANd these guys are trained to do so.

[revelarts]

Absolutely correct, which is why the person doing the questioning has to ask the right questions. Torture works. PERIOD. Sure it will get people to admit to things they didn't do, but not if the interrogator isn't asking them to admit to things they didn't do.

IOW the interrogator should only be asking questions that he pretty much already knows the answers to. ANd these guys are trained to do so.
SO if your asking questions and you expect certain answers and if you don't get them then the torturee picks up on that and gives you the answer your expecting.
exactly.

but why are we torturing people for info we "pretty much already know". But um how do we know it... without torture i assume.

The Interrogators I've posted aren't trying to find out what they already know, they are looking for new info and they say they get MORE and BETTER intel it WITHOUT torture.
It's evil and sadistic... that should be enough to settle the issue but whatever...
Countries gone to hell,
God rest America.

[ConHog]

SO if your asking questions and you expect certain answers and if you don't get them then the torturee picks up on that and gives you the answer your expecting.
exactly.

but why are we torturing people for info we "pretty much already know". But um how do we know it... without torture i assume.

The Interrogators I've posted aren't trying to find out what they already know, they are looking for new info and they say they get MORE and BETTER intel it WITHOUT torture.
It's evil and sadistic... that should be enough to settle the issue but whatever...
Countries gone to hell,
God rest America.


Proves you don't know what you're talking about. You have to ask base answers in order to gauge the responses , among other things. You don't just send some thug into a room and tell him to start beating on a guy until he spills the beans. You have to have specific questions



In other words if you kidnapped a child and I had you in custody and just started electrocuting you every time you lied or didn't answer questions about the kid , well eventually you would start talking. Likewise if I asked you about a bank robbery that you had nothing to do with and I electrocuted you every time you denied having anything to do with it eventually you would admit to a bank robbery you had nothing to do with, but that information is absolutely useless to me since it's false, so why would you I even pursue that line of questioning with you, let alone torture you over it? Oh that's right, and neither would our intelligence community.

[revelarts]

Proves you don't know what you're talking about. You have to ask base answers in order to gauge the responses , among other things. You don't just send some thug into a room and tell him to start beating on a guy until he spills the beans. You have to have specific questions



In other words if you kidnapped a child and I had you in custody and just started electrocuting you every time you lied or didn't answer questions about the kid , well eventually you would start talking. Likewise if I asked you about a bank robbery that you had nothing to do with and I electrocuted you every time you denied having anything to do with it eventually you would admit to a bank robbery you had nothing to do with, but that information is absolutely useless to me since it's false, so why would you I even pursue that line of questioning with you, let alone torture you over it? Oh that's right, and neither would our intelligence community.

And If I didn't kidnap a kid OR rob a bank but you think I did what do i say?

[ConHog]

And If I didn't kidnap a kid OR rob a bank but you think I did what do i say?

If you did neither , then its doubtful you'd have to worry about me torturing you in the first place.

[revelarts]

(There are some many issues with the above 3 post... that i'm not going go into it but the whole kidnapped etc scenario begs the question police should torture suspected kipnapers and murderers but lets not go there)


But why is it Doubtful, We know that there were bounties put out on AlQueada and some people in Afghanistan kidnapped neighbors and turned them in to collect the bounties. One gitmo Guard I posted was told all of the prisoners were "the worse of the worse" he came to find out differently.
Conservative Judges who finally got to review the "evidence" against many of the detainees, said they should have never been held and if they had done anything the mis-treatment they received and the testimony under torture made the whole case inadmissible. Same in Iraq. rival factions of religion and political groups turned in their opposite numbers to the coalition as "terrorist insurgents" . so the soldiers "knew" they were and treated them accordingly.

Basically CON from what the professional trainers have said that is Ignored here OVER AND OVER. NONE OF THEM WHERE TRAINED TO TORTURE TO GET INFO. They say OVER AND OVER THAT"S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT. THEY SAY that there Military-FBI- interrogation training taught them that torture was an ineffective tool for get information.
The Sere School was not torture for intel training it was "resistance training" - ...

I'm not sure why, people insist on the idea the torture is what's needed when pro interrogators since WW2 clearly explain that other tools are better in ALL cases. no exceptions.

Why use crow bar to paint a wall? It's not the right tool. If you want to put a whole in the wall sure go for it.

And it doesn't even matter -- if true--- that someone did manage to paint 3 rooms with a crow bar it's still a stupid way to paint.

[ConHog]

(There are some many issues with the above 3 post... that i'm not going go into it but the whole kidnapped etc scenario begs the question police should torture suspected kipnapers and murderers but lets not go there)


But why is it Doubtful, We know that there were bounties put out on AlQueada and some people in Afghanistan kidnapped neighbors and turned them in to collect the bounties. One gitmo Guard I posted was told all of the prisoners were "the worse of the worse" he came to find out differently.
Conservative Judges who finally got to review the "evidence" against many of the detainees, said they should have never been held and if they had done anything the mis-treatment they received and the testimony under torture made the whole case inadmissible. Same in Iraq. rival factions of religion and political groups turned in their opposite numbers to the coalition as "terrorist insurgents" . so the soldiers "knew" they were and treated them accordingly.

Basically CON from what the professional trainers have said that is Ignored here OVER AND OVER. NONE OF THEM WHERE TRAINED TO TORTURE TO GET INFO. They say OVER AND OVER THAT"S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT. THEY SAY that there Military-FBI- interrogation training taught them that torture was an ineffective tool for get information.
The Sere School was not torture for intel training it was "resistance training" - ...

I'm not sure why, people insist on the idea the torture is what's needed when pro interrogators since WW2 clearly explain that other tools are better in ALL cases. no exceptions.

Why use crow bar to paint a wall? It's not the right tool. If you want to put a whole in the wall sure go for it.

And it doesn't even matter -- if true--- that someone did manage to paint 3 rooms with a crow bar it's still a stupid way to paint.



Torture works dude. And by torture let's undertand that I am talking about waterboarding and such lest some idiot accuse me of supporting REAL torture. That I don't support.

I've been waterboarded, you'll do anything to make it stop. That leaves it on the people doing the interrogating to make sure they don't pick the wrong person or ask the wrong questions.

Are there some assholes in the system who have no place there? Of course there are, but that's a function of assholes existing, and not one of torture. If they couldn't do this, they would be assholes in other ways.

[Gunny]

"Torture" is reading rev's naive idealism in this thread.

[revelarts]

Quote From Idealist General George Marshall and Endorsed By and Promoted By Polyanna GEN. Dwight Eisenhower.
From Marshalls Book Given to most military officers on leadership and conduct.


THE ARMED FORCES OFFICER

"The United States abides by the laws of war. Its armed forces, in their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, in the spirit and to the letter. In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid so doing. Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual and unnecessary hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified in any circumstance. Likewise, respect for the reign of law, as that term is understood in the United States, is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes."
FULL TEXT Linked to here from the Idealist Air Force University web site in Alabama
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/officer.txt

(http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/officer.txt)


Gen Vessy, Former Joint chief of Staff understands it to mean what most honest people would,
NO Torture or "enhanced" BS.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6082399

Gen Vessy's letter to John McCain
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/09/post_48.html

[Gunny]

Quote From Idealist General George Marshall and Endorsed By and Promoted By Polyanna GEN. Dwight Eisenhower.
From Marshalls Book Given to most Army officiers on leadership and conduct.


THE ARMED FORCES OFFICER

"XXV The United States abides by the laws of war. Its armed forces, in their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, in the spirit and to the letter. In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid so doing. Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual and unnecessary hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified in any circumstance. Likewise, respect for the reign of law, as that term is understood in the United States,
is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes."
FULL TEXT Linked to here from the Idealist Air Force University web site in Alabama
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/officer.txt

(http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/officer.txt)


Gen Vessy, Former Joint chief of Staff understands it to mean what most people honest would,
NO Torture or "enhanced" BS.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6082399

Gen Vessy's letter to John McCain
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/09/post_48.html

Obeyed as much as speed limit signs.

You missed my point. The term "torture" is subjective. You can't even define it. For instance, and again, reading your naive but unrealistic idealism stated repeatedly is torture. Fits the definition.

[revelarts]

Obeyed as much as speed limit signs.

You missed my point. The term "torture" is subjective. You can't even define it. For instance, and again, reading your naive but unrealistic idealism stated repeatedly is torture. Fits the definition.
No ones arguing stop signs or obvious hyperbole, that's a Red Herring and mischaracterization of the question..

General Vessy seems to agree with my Naivete as do WW2 interrogators as well current professional interrogators i've posted.

but never mind them, Gunny knows better.

for all the good it will do...
I'll REPOST 1 of the Former FBI bin laden Unit interrogator's comments.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OGdNhwFqhyU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/biGRQY67VOA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

[Gunny]

No ones arguing stop signs or obvious hyperbole, that's a Red Herring and mischaracterization of the question..

General Vessy seems to agree with my Naivete as do WW2 interrogators as well current professional interrogators i've posted.

but never mind them, Gunny knows better.

for all the good it will do...
I'll REPOST 1 of the Former FBI bin laden Unit interrogator's comments.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OGdNhwFqhyU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/biGRQY67VOA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Ummm ... no? It's a DIRECT response to your pulling out some Eisenhower handbook as if it's gospel.

Let me clue you in, Dudley Do-Right. I know the law as well as if not better than you. Kind of how that works when you spend 21 years in the military continually having and subsequently teaching those subjects. If you were REALLY up to snuff, you'd pull out the Code of Conduct which specifically addresses conduct as a POW and the treatment of POWs.

None of which has anything to do with your fantasy world. I think I made myself REAL clear so quit tossing out little catch phrases you've learned on the internet when they're out of place.

The simple fact is, you can't define "torture". I even defined it FOR you a few pages back and you STILL can't define it. You're too caught up in your own Holier-than-thou idealism.

[ConHog]

Quote From Idealist General George Marshall and Endorsed By and Promoted By Polyanna GEN. Dwight Eisenhower.
From Marshalls Book Given to most military officers on leadership and conduct.


THE ARMED FORCES OFFICER

"The United States abides by the laws of war. Its armed forces, in their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, in the spirit and to the letter. In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid so doing. Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual and unnecessary hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified in any circumstance. Likewise, respect for the reign of law, as that term is understood in the United States, is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes."
FULL TEXT Linked to here from the Idealist Air Force University web site in Alabama
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/officer.txt

(http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/officer.txt)

Gen Vessy, Former Joint chief of Staff understands it to mean what most honest people would,
NO Torture or "enhanced" BS.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6082399

Gen Vessy's letter to John McCain
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/09/post_48.html




That leaves the door open right there.


Oh and you're truly insane if you don't think we were "torturing" people under Ike's watch as either Supreme Commander of Alllied forces, or POTUS.

[revelarts]

:rolleyes:

With the above statement your telling me that torture is a necessary part of war. And we should have never have tried the Germans, the Japanese or our own men in WW2 who did it or those police here in the US for torture.
And you saying that Ike and Marshall were hypocritical liars. Fine. I got no problem with that.

Hey look, you want to keep torture safe legal and rare. fine. your minds made up.
It's been Illegal here and on the battlefield for centuries , but you Gunny and Gaffer seem to think we can't live without it. DESPITE Interrogators testimony to the contrary which none of you can reasonably dispute. Or have even tried to except to say "It works" I say "It's Counter productive and Other things 'work' better, here's proof" you say "it works, your crazy and idealist"
Suit yourself folks.

May God have mercy on us all.

[ConHog]

:rolleyes:

With the above statement your telling me that torture is a necessary part of war. And we should have never have tried the Germans, the Japanese or our own men in WW2 who did it or those police here in the US for torture.
And you saying that Ike and Marshall were hypocritical liars. Fine. I got no problem with that.

Hey look, you want to keep torture safe legal and rare. fine. your minds made up.
It's been Illegal here and on the battlefield for centuries , but you Gunny and Gaffer seem to think we can't live without it. DESPITE Interrogators testimony to the contrary which none of you can reasonably dispute. Or have even tried to except to say "It works" I say "It's Counter productive and Other things 'work' better, here's proof" you say "it works, your crazy and idealist"
Suit yourself folks.

May God have mercy on us all.



Once again, when we say torture I think most of us are referring to sleep deprivation, water boarding, withholding food, that sort of thing. I doubt that any of support REAL torture. I know I don't.

As for what we ARE talking about the US has been doing those things forever. I don't care what Ike says in his public remarks.

[cadet]

That stuff will keep people from screwing with the USA.

Plus, death penalty, you make it bad enough, alot more people will fear it. Thus, less crime.

[red states rule]

That stuff will keep people from screwing with the USA.

Plus, death penalty, you make it bad enough, alot more people will fear it. Thus, less crime.

and don't forget to bury them with a box of Jimmy Dean sausage

[actsnoblemartin]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

and bacon

[red states rule]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

and bacon

don't forget the latest issue of "Playboy" as well

[Gunny]

Once again, when we say torture I think most of us are referring to sleep deprivation, water boarding, withholding food, that sort of thing. I doubt that any of support REAL torture. I know I don't.

As for what we ARE talking about the US has been doing those things forever. I don't care what Ike says in his public remarks.

Torture is inflicting psychological and/or physical pain for the sake of it.

The left and/or mamby-pamby's that haven't a clue cannot or will not differentiate between "torture" and coercion. I'm all about coercion if it will save the lowliest private in my company.

The use of the word "torture" is just another lie from the left. They refuse to differentiate. If they did, they wouldn't have a 9+ year-long talking point that doesn't matter worth a shit.

As a small unit commander, I am going to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission with least amount of casualties on my side. Too bad for the cellar-dwellers that want to Monday-morning-quarterback my actions. I'm not getting paid to kiss someone who dwells in Momma's basement's ass. I get paid to win.

[red states rule]

Torture is inflicting psychological and/or physical pain for the sake of it.

The left and/or mamby-pamby's that haven't a clue cannot or will not differentiate between "torture" and coercion. I'm all about coercion if it will save the lowliest private in my company.

The use of the word "torture" is just another lie from the left. They refuse to differentiate. If they did, they wouldn't have a 9+ year-long talking point that doesn't matter worth a shit.

As a small unit commander, I am going to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission with least amount of casualties on my side. Too bad for the cellar-dwellers that want to Monday-morning-quarterback my actions. I'm not getting paid to kiss someone who dwells in Momma's basement's ass. I get paid to win.


You nailed it Gunny. While the left wants to fight terrorists under Marquess of Queensberry Rules, the rest of us know they only understand a bullet to the head

Thank you for your service and for the freedoms I enjoy everyday :salute:

[ConHog]

Brought this back for Rev.

Hey Rev, do you consider torture to include sleep deprivation, withholding food. playing rock music 24/7. things of that nature?

[Mr. P]

Rereading the first six pages after all these yrs WAS torture! :laugh:

[revelarts]

Brought this back for Rev.

Hey Rev, do you consider torture to include sleep deprivation, withholding food. playing rock music 24/7. things of that nature?

So We are all on the same page that what was called Torture during the Inquisition is probably torture today.

But what you've mentioned i'd call abuse.
Until it gets pass a certain point. that point is debatable but 50 days no food.. maybe.
Sleep deprivation can kill, and cause psychotic breaks if maintained.
rock music... depends on the band.

[jimnyc]

wow, 66 pages! I just wanted to post again that I support torturing the fuck out of certain people. If you're a known terrorist, life should suck for you. If it's known that one holds intel that will save American soldiers lives, torture them slowly until they cough it up. And no, I don't need to support my personal opinions. Just as 19 terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans don't need to support their beliefs.

[jimnyc]

rock music... depends on the band.

Play Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber nonstop, and then you finally got me, that IS torture! :lol:

[red states rule]

What is real torture would be having to OCA (Obnoxious Condescending Asshole) listen to go on and on how "great" he is for days on end

[Drummond]

wow, 66 pages! I just wanted to post again that I support torturing the fuck out of certain people. If you're a known terrorist, life should suck for you. If it's known that one holds intel that will save American soldiers lives, torture them slowly until they cough it up. And no, I don't need to support my personal opinions. Just as 19 terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans don't need to support their beliefs.

I agree almost unreservedly with this.

I've just a couple of comments, though. For one .. recognising that a terrorist is a 'person' is also to say that a terrorist is human. I actually strongly dispute this. To be human, you'd need to exhibit human thought, human feeling, human sensibilities. Since when did a terrorist, hell bent on meting out death, destruction and suffering, then GLORYING in it afterwards, prove itself human through any of that ? I say that a human being deserving of the name would have his or her humanity intervene and be deterred from such barbarity before ever committing it ... but in the case of a terrorist, that intervening humanity is wholly absent.

So to my other comment, which is this .. I don't care if a terrorist is tortured, or to what extent. A terrorist's only use is to supply information useful in countering further terrorism, and to this end, you do whatever it takes to achieve that end.

I've already posted elsewhere that I'd have liked to see other Gitmos created, and I absolutely say that here as well. As establishments both for keeping terrorists out of circulation, and for information gathering, they'd be invaluable.

[jimnyc]

I agree almost unreservedly with this.

I've just a couple of comments, though. For one .. recognising that a terrorist is a 'person' is also to say that a terrorist is human. I actually strongly dispute this. To be human, you'd need to exhibit human thought, human feeling, human sensibilities. Since when did a terrorist, hell bent on meting out death, destruction and suffering, then GLORYING in it afterwards, prove itself human through any of that ? I say that a human being deserving of the name would have his or her humanity intervene and be deterred from such barbarity before ever committing it ... but in the case of a terrorist, that intervening humanity is wholly absent.

So to my other comment, which is this .. I don't care if a terrorist is tortured, or to what extent. A terrorist's only use is to supply information useful in countering further terrorism, and to this end, you do whatever it takes to achieve that end.

I've already posted elsewhere that I'd have liked to see other Gitmos created, and I absolutely say that here as well. As establishments both for keeping terrorists out of circulation, and for information gathering, they'd be invaluable.

Sir, you and I will be getting along just fine. I'd like to buy you a beer! :beer:

[Kathianne]

I agree almost unreservedly with this.

I've just a couple of comments, though. For one .. recognising that a terrorist is a 'person' is also to say that a terrorist is human. I actually strongly dispute this. To be human, you'd need to exhibit human thought, human feeling, human sensibilities. Since when did a terrorist, hell bent on meting out death, destruction and suffering, then GLORYING in it afterwards, prove itself human through any of that ? I say that a human being deserving of the name would have his or her humanity intervene and be deterred from such barbarity before ever committing it ... but in the case of a terrorist, that intervening humanity is wholly absent.

So to my other comment, which is this .. I don't care if a terrorist is tortured, or to what extent. A terrorist's only use is to supply information useful in countering further terrorism, and to this end, you do whatever it takes to achieve that end.

I've already posted elsewhere that I'd have liked to see other Gitmos created, and I absolutely say that here as well. As establishments both for keeping terrorists out of circulation, and for information gathering, they'd be invaluable.

I have to agree. The Taliban support terrorism, though few are educated enough to be active terrorists outside of their own areas. An example:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/world/asia/pakistan-taliban-polio/index.html


Taliban to U.S.: End drone strikes in Pakistan, or no more polio vaccines <!--endclickprintinclude--><!--startclickprintexclude--> <!--no partner--> By Reza Sayah, CNN
updated 10:52 AM EDT, Mon June 18, 2012

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- A Taliban commander in northwest Pakistan has announced a ban on polio vaccines for children as long as the United States continues its campaign of drone strikes in the region, according to a statement by the Taliban.


"Polio drops will be banned in North Waziristan until the drones strikes are stopped," said the statement, released Saturday.


"Almost every resident of North Waziristan has become a mental patient because of the drone strikes, which are worse than polio," the statement continued. "On one hand, the U.S. spends millions of dollars to eliminate polio, while on the other hand it kills hundreds with the help of its slave, Pakistan."
Pakistan remains one of only three countries that have yet to eradicate polio...

[revelarts]

I agree almost unreservedly with this.

I've just a couple of comments, though. For one .. recognising that a terrorist is a 'person' is also to say that a terrorist is human. I actually strongly dispute this. To be human, you'd need to exhibit human thought, human feeling, human sensibilities. Since when did a terrorist, hell bent on meting out death, destruction and suffering, then GLORYING in it afterwards, prove itself human through any of that ? I say that a human being deserving of the name would have his or her humanity intervene and be deterred from such barbarity before ever committing it ... but in the case of a terrorist, that intervening humanity is wholly absent.

So to my other comment, which is this .. I don't care if a terrorist is tortured, or to what extent. A terrorist's only use is to supply information useful in countering further terrorism, and to this end, you do whatever it takes to achieve that end.

I've already posted elsewhere that I'd have liked to see other Gitmos created, and I absolutely say that here as well. As establishments both for keeping terrorists out of circulation, and for information gathering, they'd be invaluable.

Whats your take on the magna carta here?

[Drummond]

Whats your take on the magna carta here?

This'll be my last post of the evening (I'm in a different timezone to you, don't forget), though I'll certainly revisit this thread tomorrow if I have reason to.

But my reply is to ask you what you mean. Are you suggesting that Al Qaeda, or any equivalent of them, were piloting Jumbo Jets around, back in 1215 ? Any 'shoebombers' threatening aircraft back in those days ? Any possibility, as there is today, of a terrorist group getting, then deploying, a WMD capable of killing MILLIONS of people ??

I suggest to you that the world of 1215 was significantly different to today, with nobody alive back then who could conceive of, much less perpetrate, the magnitude of atrocity that terrorists of today willingly ASPIRE to. The sheer subhumanity of terrorists today had no equivalent all those centuries ago.

Just as threats evolve, so, too, must effective responses to those threats. This in turn means grasping the nature of the mentality involved that originates them ... and meeting it realistically.

The terrorist of today is capable of a subhumanity barely (if at all) conceived of in ages past. We evolve to face and defeat it, because reality demands no less.

[ConHog]

This'll be my last post of the evening (I'm in a different timezone to you, don't forget), though I'll certainly revisit this thread tomorrow if I have reason to.

But my reply is to ask you what you mean. Are you suggesting that Al Qaeda, or any equivalent of them, were piloting Jumbo Jets around, back in 1215 ? Any 'shoebombers' threatening aircraft back in those days ? Any possibility, as there is today, of a terrorist group getting, then deploying, a WMD capable of killing MILLIONS of people ??

I suggest to you that the world of 1215 was significantly different to today, with nobody alive back then who could conceive of, much less perpetrate, the magnitude of atrocity that terrorists of today willingly ASPIRE to. The sheer subhumanity of terrorists today had no equivalent all those centuries ago.

Just as threats evolve, so, too, must effective responses to those threats. This in turn means grasping the nature of the mentality involved that originates them ... and meeting it realistically.

The terrorist of today is capable of a subhumanity barely (if at all) conceived of in ages past. We evolve to face and defeat it, because reality demands no less.

so, you're argument is that if terrorists are going to behave in a subhuman way , we should respond in kind? No thanks.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sir, you and I will be getting along just fine. I'd like to buy you a beer! :beer:

My friend, that is a right fine post!
I'd like to buy both you guys a beer and make it good, cold San Miguels from the Philippines!
Myself included, :beer: :beer: :beer: , Tyr

[aboutime]

If it is done to protect Americans, in, and out of uniform. YES.

But I do not support the torture America has been experiencing since January 20, 2008.

[aboutime]

Sir, you and I will be getting along just fine. I'd like to buy you a beer! :beer:


Count me in as well. Wish I could also Buy, and Drink a Beer with all of you. But climbing those 12 STEPS again...in my condition, just wouldn't pay off.

[ConHog]

If it is done to protect Americans, in, and out of uniform. YES.

But I do not support the torture America has been experiencing since January 20, 2008.

Well, i can state unequivocally that torturing people isn't going to protect anyone. Let alone Americans. In fact , it is only going to serve to put Americans in MORE danger.

[aboutime]

Well, i can state unequivocally that torturing people isn't going to protect anyone. Let alone Americans. In fact , it is only going to serve to put Americans in MORE danger.

Since this is a forum. Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on that topic.

I base my opinions about Limited Forms of what everyone calls torture on what I have discovered, and learned over many years both in, and out of uniform.