Do you support torture?

[SpidermanTUba]

A yes/no question.

[Dilloduck]

A yes/no question.

only if it's not me being tortured. :coffee:

[Mr. P]

A yes/no question.

Depends.

[SpidermanTUba]

Depends.

That would be a 'yes' then.

[MtnBiker]

Is this an attempt to dissuade a Mrs Bill Clinton presidency?

[theHawk]

Yes, because it can and does work. Of course not all the time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try it if lives are at stake.

[82Marine89]

A yes/no question.

What's your definition of torture?

[Mr. P]

That would be a 'yes' then.

or a 'no', depends.

[nevadamedic]

Yup, especially if it's a Muslim.

[manu1959]

no ...... so please stop posting......:finger3:

[NATO AIR]

No.

There is still no compelling, believable evidence that it works.

It goes against our nation's values, especially those of whom would be ordered to torture someone (the military, law enforcement, intelligence). Their ethos is totally against it... especially in the military, from our founding father on Earth (George Washington) to our more recent leaders like Gen. Eisenhower & Patton.

Its known to perversely weaken unit discipline and professionalism, as has been seen in isolated cases in the war zones abroad of the WOT.

We could go on for days about this.

NOT JUST NO BUT HELLLLLLLLLLL NO!

[theHawk]

No.

There is still no compelling, believable evidence that it works.

It goes against our nation's values, especially those of whom would be ordered to torture someone (the military, law enforcement, intelligence). Their ethos is totally against it... especially in the military, from our founding father on Earth (George Washington) to our more recent leaders like Gen. Eisenhower & Patton.

Its known to perversely weaken unit discipline and professionalism, as has been seen in isolated cases in the war zones abroad of the WOT.

We could go on for days about this.

NOT JUST NO BUT HELLLLLLLLLLL NO!

LOL, "no evidence??"


Washington - A former CIA agent says captured al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding, an interrogation method that critics view as torture, US media reported Tuesday. Retired CIA officer John Kiriakou said he regrets the agency's use of the mock-drowning technique, but believed at the time that it was a legitimate way to prevent further terrorist strikes after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Waterboarding broke Zubaydah, an associate of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in less than 35 seconds and the next day he agreed to cooperate with interrogators, Kiriakou told ABC television.

"He said that Allah had come to him in his cell and told him to cooperate, because it would make things easier for his brothers," he told the Washington Post.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/156879.html


....thats evidence enough for me.


No one is suggesting that it should be regular practice, but it is something our terror-fighting agencies should have the option of doing if they deem it necessary.

[Yurt]

the question posed is not a simple yes or no, for example:

do you support sex?

yes or no

[nevadamedic]

the question posed is not a simple yes or no, for example:

do you support sex?

yes or no

Who doesn't?

[Mr. P]

Who doesn't?

Depends. The question, like the OP question, is not specific enough to answer.

[Yurt]

Who doesn't?

what about sex with a minor girl? against her will? sex with family?

[nevadamedic]

Depends. The question, like the OP question, is not specific enough to answer.

Everyone loves sex, and if they don't then they are doing it wrong. :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

what about sex with a minor girl? against her will? sex with family?

There ya go! Yes/No only answers are usually a trap. Good example.

[Yurt]

what about sex with a minor girl? against her will? sex with family?

read it again NM :poke:

[SpidermanTUba]

What's your definition of torture?

It includes, as a minimum, any intentional treatment of prisoners which has has been prosecuted as a crime in a US civilian or military court.

[SpidermanTUba]

....thats evidence enough for me.


No one is suggesting that it should be regular practice, but it is something our terror-fighting agencies should have the option of doing if they deem it necessary.



LOL! A CIA officer? Yeah, the CIA has been a real reliable source of information these past couple of years, and I can't imagine why a CIA agent would want to justify the CIA's use of torture. I guess since the people doing the torturing says its OK, its all good then, right!


It is already a regular practice. Our President has already announced that we use 'harsh interrogation techniques' which is the same thing as saying 'we torture prisoners, but we don't really like the word 'torture', so we're gonna call it something else.' And if you can't see that, then how blind are you?

[theHawk]

LOL! A CIA officer? Yeah, the CIA has been a real reliable source of information these past couple of years, and I can't imagine why a CIA agent would want to justify the CIA's use of torture. I guess since the people doing the torturing says its OK, its all good then, right!


It is already a regular practice. Our President has already announced that we use 'harsh interrogation techniques' which is the same thing as saying 'we torture prisoners, but we don't really like the word 'torture', so we're gonna call it something else.' And if you can't see that, then how blind are you?

Read the article you moron, that CIA agent says he is actually against torture. But his story is proof that it does indeed work.

[Yurt]

It includes, as a minimum, any intentional treatment of prisoners which has has been prosecuted as a crime in a US civilian or military court.

if you knew torturing one bad guy would save just one good life, would you still oppose it?

and don't play semantics, torturing in my scenario is the only way to save the life.

[Abbey Marie]

There ya go! Yes/No only answers are usually a trap. Good example.

Yup. And they present unrealistic black or white parameters, in a world with shades of grey.

[NATO AIR]

LOL, "no evidence??"



http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/156879.html


....thats evidence enough for me.


No one is suggesting that it should be regular practice, but it is something our terror-fighting agencies should have the option of doing if they deem it necessary.

There is some debate as to whether that guy was an intelligence boon or not. The FBI believed him to be a mentally retarded individual... then all of a sudden he starts talking to the CIA about blowing up the Pope, the London Tower, the Pyramids in Egypt and a thousand other fiendish plots more outlandish than the last one.

I don't believe it. If it worked so well, you wouldn't have so many CIA, FBI and military people going apeshit over torture. There are other factors at play that are not readily apparent.

We do know through history it has not worked. For there to be a few aberrations now and then where we don't know the details, that doesn't count as evidence of its efficacy.

The world is nothing like "24". People need to get that through their pea brains.

[NATO AIR]

There are those here who are correct about nothing being black and white. That's true.

So if Salma Hayek is my sister... and offers to sleep with me, am I supposed to think that there are exceptions in life?

Its like slavery. Its not necessarily black or white either. Yet its not condoned.


I will say this about torture. I agree with Mark Bowden who said that if it came down to torturing a suspect or allowing thousands to die, the agents should torture the suspect and allow themselves to be arrested and tried in a court of law.

The facts behind their torture of the suspect could be made clear and a jury of their fellow citizens would be highly doubtful to find them guilty.

[Yurt]

Yup. And they present unrealistic black or white parameters, in a world with shades of grey.

http://www.maximumeyewear.com/productfolder/designer-sunglasses/ray-ban/wayfarer/ray-ban-wayfarer-sunglasses.jpg

[theHawk]

There is some debate as to whether that guy was an intelligence boon or not. The FBI believed him to be a mentally retarded individual... then all of a sudden he starts talking to the CIA about blowing up the Pope, the London Tower, the Pyramids in Egypt and a thousand other fiendish plots more outlandish than the last one.

I don't believe it. If it worked so well, you wouldn't have so many CIA, FBI and military people going apeshit over torture. There are other factors at play that are not readily apparent.

We do know through history it has not worked. For there to be a few aberrations now and then where we don't know the details, that doesn't count as evidence of its efficacy.

The world is nothing like "24". People need to get that through their pea brains.


So you believe, in the history of mankind, torture has never broken someone into telling the truth?

[SpidermanTUba]

Read the article you moron, that CIA agent says he is actually against torture. But his story is proof that it does indeed work.

No need to read the article, moron, this is old news, I saw the guy interviewed on TV.

And its proof of nothing except that a former CIA agent is claiming that it works. If you trust CIA agents to tell the truth them I'm not sure you really understand what the CIA's job is.

[SpidermanTUba]

if you knew torturing one bad guy would save just one good life, would you still oppose it?

and don't play semantics, torturing in my scenario is the only way to save the life.


You watch '24' too much.

[SpidermanTUba]

So you believe, in the history of mankind, torture has never broken someone into telling the truth?

I believe, in the history of mankind, that any society which condones torture is also a society run by tyrants and fascists.

[SpidermanTUba]

There ya go! Yes/No only answers are usually a trap. Good example.

Its not a trap. If you are against the use of torture, at all times in all places, then answer no. Given that, if you can't answer no, then answer yes.

You're either for torture, or against it. Just like you're either for child incest, or against it. But I'm sure, given enough imagination, you could come up with a scenario that while physically possible, would never actually happen, where molesting a child was the logical choice to make because not making it would result in worse consequences. Yet, you would still say you are against child molestation, right? Or would you say 'define child molestation' - since molestation has no precise meaning, like torture (or ANY word for that matter)?

[Yurt]

Its not a trap. If you are against the use of torture, at all times in all places, then answer no. Given that, if you can't answer no, then answer yes.

You're either for torture, or against it. Just like you're either for child incest, or against it. But I'm sure, given enough imagination, you could come up with a scenario that while physically possible, would never actually happen, where molesting a child was the logical choice to make because not making it would result in worse consequences. Yet, you would still say you are against child molestation, right? Or would you say 'define child molestation' - since molestation has no precise meaning, like torture (or ANY word for that matter)?

NM, you ran from this, so this question is again for you too:

ST, NM - Do you support sex?

only Yes or only No

[hjmick]

Some of the posts I've read could be considered torture.

[NATO AIR]

So you believe, in the history of mankind, torture has never broken someone into telling the truth?

I would say there may have been aberrations now and then, but nothing consistently or even statistically successful enough for people to continue using it.

If you look at the history of torture's use.. its primarily a method to establish control over the subject and/or humiliate them.

The scariest interrogators in WW2 were the silver-tongued SS agents who psychologically broke people (without that person usually realizing it) and induced them into doing what they wanted.

[actsnoblemartin]

:laugh2:


only if it's not me being tortured. :coffee:

[retiredman]

discounting humanity is a slippery slope. It starts with torturing a terrorist who we are 100% sure has knowledge concerning an attack that would kill half the planet....and before not too very long, it becomes routinely beating every suspect in routine robberies to speed up and solidify the confession-obtaining process.

If you would torture a terrorist you KNEW had knowledge of an attack that would kill millions, why wouldn't you torture a terrorist suspect you THOUGHT had knowledge of an attack that would kill thousands, or a possible terrorist who MIGHT have knowledge of an attack that would kill hundreds?

And beyond that, how would you EVER hold the moral high ground against any enemy who treated captured Americans the same way?

My GOD...does being an American mean anything special anymore? Are we not BETTER than our enemies?

[actsnoblemartin]

well i will tell u what i disagree with, holding american citizens in jail with no lawyers indefinently, that is wrong.

ill read more of this later.


discounting humanity is a slippery slope. It starts with torturing a terrorist who we are 100% sure has knowledge concerning an attack that would kill half the planet....and before not too very long, it becomes routinely beating every suspect in routine robberies to speed up and solidify the confession-obtaining process.

If you would torture a terrorist you KNEW had knowledge of an attack that would kill millions, why wouldn't you torture a terrorist suspect you THOUGHT had knowledge of an attack that would kill thousands, or a possible terrorist who MIGHT have knowledge of an attack that would kill hundreds?

And beyond that, how would you EVER hold the moral high ground against any enemy who treated captured Americans the same way?

My GOD...does being an American mean anything special anymore? Are we not BETTER than our enemies?

[actsnoblemartin]

is making a terrorist watch this torture?

:lol:

Tom Cruise Scientology Video - ( ORIGINAL UNCUT ) 9:34 min

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFBZ_uAbxS0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UFBZ_uAbxS0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Mr. P]

discounting humanity is a slippery slope. It starts with torturing a terrorist who we are 100% sure has knowledge concerning an attack that would kill half the planet....and before not too very long, it becomes routinely beating every suspect in routine robberies to speed up and solidify the confession-obtaining process.

If you would torture a terrorist you KNEW had knowledge of an attack that would kill millions, why wouldn't you torture a terrorist suspect you THOUGHT had knowledge of an attack that would kill thousands, or a possible terrorist who MIGHT have knowledge of an attack that would kill hundreds?

And beyond that, how would you EVER hold the moral high ground against any enemy who treated captured Americans the same way?

My GOD...does being an American mean anything special anymore? Are we not BETTER than our enemies?

We have held a higher ground and we continue to. Do we pull fingernails out with pliers, cut off digits, drive nails through hands, hang people by their arms behind their backs? No, we ARE better than our enemies.

A little water doesn't hurt. It works without harm.

[Yurt]

discounting humanity is a slippery slope. It starts with torturing a terrorist who we are 100% sure has knowledge concerning an attack that would kill half the planet....and before not too very long, it becomes routinely beating every suspect in routine robberies to speed up and solidify the confession-obtaining process.

If you would torture a terrorist you KNEW had knowledge of an attack that would kill millions, why wouldn't you torture a terrorist suspect you THOUGHT had knowledge of an attack that would kill thousands, or a possible terrorist who MIGHT have knowledge of an attack that would kill hundreds?

And beyond that, how would you EVER hold the moral high ground against any enemy who treated captured Americans the same way?

My GOD...does being an American mean anything special anymore? Are we not BETTER than our enemies?

you FAILED to answer "yes" or "no"

[manu1959]

discounting humanity is a slippery slope. It starts with torturing a terrorist who we are 100% sure has knowledge concerning an attack that would kill half the planet....and before not too very long, it becomes routinely beating every suspect in routine robberies to speed up and solidify the confession-obtaining process.

If you would torture a terrorist you KNEW had knowledge of an attack that would kill millions, why wouldn't you torture a terrorist suspect you THOUGHT had knowledge of an attack that would kill thousands, or a possible terrorist who MIGHT have knowledge of an attack that would kill hundreds?

And beyond that, how would you EVER hold the moral high ground against any enemy who treated captured Americans the same way?

My GOD...does being an American mean anything special anymore? Are we not BETTER than our enemies?

i don't want to be buried on the high moral ground......

[Sir Evil]

My GOD...does being an American mean anything special anymore? Are we not BETTER than our enemies?

What a typical pile of shit this is! Taking the high road on your high horse as usual.

The day that you realize you are not better than anyone else or that you are not morally better, then maybe you will realize that the equations fits the "we" as well. Being the special American that you think you are certainly did not come from playing the book perfectly by the rules. :rolleyes:

[retiredman]

you FAILED to answer "yes" or "no"

sorry. no

[NATO AIR]

A little water doesn't hurt. It works without harm.

Talk to people who've been water boarded @ SERE and other survival schools.

The bullshit from Bush and others had gotten so thick this year that it was the first issue I'd ever seen good junior, mid-grade and senior NCO's & officers up in arms about, willing to risk their career almost to write a letter asking SECDEF Gates to advise the President and the CIA hacks to experience waterboarding themselves and try to claim it wasn't torture then or just plain shut up about it.

Its amateur hour as usual in Washington. Its so bad now that in some Army units the mid-grade and above officers & NCO's have had to repeatedly and explicitly remind the youngn's that contrary to what they saw on 24 or heard some CIA agent say, torture is a no-no and doesn't work anyway.

You know its bad when the Army copped to flying some people to Hollyweird to beg the 24 producer to reduce the torture scenes on the show because of the damage that fantasy crap was causing.

[NATO AIR]

Actually.. one last note I always enjoy considering.

The whole torture debate is another example of "we support the troops but they might as well shut the hell up because we ignore them anyway" deal.

Countless uniformed and retired officers and NCO's have come forward publicly to criticize the use of torture by the USG in any case. Right or wrong, these gents usually are the most experienced of the bunch, besides the others (the FBI & CID/NCIS agents who've been chasing terrorists a lot more effectively than the CIA for the last 20 years anyway) who also came out against it forcefully.

Yet the politicians (besides a few notables like McCain, Graham & Congressman Ron Kirk (Naval Intel Reserve Officer/Republican) tend to ignore that. As do most of the people. Certainly most of the media.

That's a shame. They don't waste their oxygen talking about this issue because it makes them feel better.

But then again, considering how we ignored advice for a surge for more than a year, for adequate COIN tactics for 2-3 years and how we told the military to shut up and let Paul Bremer handle it... why do I always bother to get worked up over ignoring the valid and generally far more informed commentary and advice of the military?

[Mr. P]

Talk to people who've been water boarded @ SERE and other survival schools.

The bullshit from Bush and others had gotten so thick this year that it was the first issue I'd ever seen good junior, mid-grade and senior NCO's & officers up in arms about, willing to risk their career almost to write a letter asking SECDEF Gates to advise the President and the CIA hacks to experience waterboarding themselves and try to claim it wasn't torture then or just plain shut up about it.

Its amateur hour as usual in Washington. Its so bad now that in some Army units the mid-grade and above officers & NCO's have had to repeatedly and explicitly remind the youngn's that contrary to what they saw on 24 or heard some CIA agent say, torture is a no-no and doesn't work anyway.

You know its bad when the Army copped to flying some people to Hollyweird to beg the 24 producer to reduce the torture scenes on the show because of the damage that fantasy crap was causing.

I have been water boarded, Nato. Thus my opinion.

[OCA]

A yes/no question.


In terms of using it as a means to glean or gain something which is unattainable any other way you bet your goofy ass I do!

[emmett]

Talk to people who've been water boarded @ SERE and other survival schools.

The bullshit from Bush and others had gotten so thick this year that it was the first issue I'd ever seen good junior, mid-grade and senior NCO's & officers up in arms about, willing to risk their career almost to write a letter asking SECDEF Gates to advise the President and the CIA hacks to experience waterboarding themselves and try to claim it wasn't torture then or just plain shut up about it.

Its amateur hour as usual in Washington. Its so bad now that in some Army units the mid-grade and above officers & NCO's have had to repeatedly and explicitly remind the youngn's that contrary to what they saw on 24 or heard some CIA agent say, torture is a no-no and doesn't work anyway.

You know its bad when the Army copped to flying some people to Hollyweird to beg the 24 producer to reduce the torture scenes on the show because of the damage that fantasy crap was causing.

Hey! I got an idea. We could just politely ask the insensative terrorist bastards if they would like to surrender some information, then if they didn't we could give them a brand new curan that had not been touched with filthy Christian hands, serve them a good meal cooked in pots that had never contained a pork product, then we could make friends with them huh? That would be special.

Let me ask you this. Where do you draw the line of your standars? Let's draw a scenario. Your child has been abducted, the bastard is caught, he has buried your child in a box that has 8 hours of air left. Would you then feel torture was out of the question as a way to get the bastard to tell where your child was? I think we all know the answer. Why would obtaining information about a plot to kill Americans be any different. Why don't you explain it to my dumb ass so I can understand.

[jimnyc]

Here's my thoughts on torture. And yes, I know some will disagree, and that's cool.

I think if a terrorist is caught either harming our troops or attempting to do so, or it's believed he has information that can help, we do what needs to be done. If that means tying a string around his balls and lifting him over a tree limb until they roll down the road like a few marbles that have gone astray, so be it. Seriously though, I don't care in the slightest bit if I hear that a terrorist has been waterboarded, sleep deprived or has had a gun put to his head with blanks in it. I've seen footage of what they'll do to our soldiers or citizens should they capture them, and what we might do to them is a day at the beach in comparison. Our efforts would be a means of getting information to assist in winning a war or saving lives. Their efforts are outright murder.

[retiredman]

Here's my thoughts on torture. And yes, I know some will disagree, and that's cool.

I think if a terrorist is caught either harming our troops or attempting to do so, or it's believed he has information that can help, we do what needs to be done. If that means tying a string around his balls and lifting him over a tree limb until they roll down the road like a few marbles that have gone astray, so be it. Seriously though, I don't care in the slightest bit if I hear that a terrorist has been waterboarded, sleep deprived or has had a gun put to his head with blanks in it. I've seen footage of what they'll do to our soldiers or citizens should they capture them, and what we might do to them is a day at the beach in comparison. Our efforts would be a means of getting information to assist in winning a war or saving lives. Their efforts are outright murder.

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

[jimnyc]

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

Your cute little analogies are just that, cute. I think I was quite clear in the instances that I would be for torture, but if you would like to draw it further and make it sound more acceptable in other instances to make your point, more power to you.

I have no desire to see a terrorist have ANY rights whatsoever. Their goal is to kill or die, I prefer it's just them who die and they not get to bring others with them.

[Mr. P]

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

You talk as though this is all brand new. It went on in WWII and VN. Not much said about that. Didn't seem to cross over to the civilian world. The current focus is nothing more than another attempt to 'get Bush'. Nothing seems to stick so lets give this a try. All interrogation techniques are torture, torture is a crime, therefore Bush is a criminal, impeach him and toss him in jail. Exactly what the intent of the "Yes/No" OP is all about IMO. Pitifull.

[Sir Evil]

You talk as though this is all brand new. It went on in WWII and VN. Not much said about that. Didn't seem to cross over to the civilian world. The current focus is nothing more than another attempt to 'get Bush'. Nothing seems to stick so lets give this a try. All interrogation techniques are torture, torture is a crime, therefore Bush is a criminal, impeach him and toss him in jail. Exactly what the intent of the "Yes/No" OP is all about IMO. Pitifull.

Exactly right Mr.P! Dipshits making something out of this make it out like it's something that has never happened before. :rolleyes:

[retiredman]

Your cute little analogies are just that, cute. I think I was quite clear in the instances that I would be for torture, but if you would like to draw it further and make it sound more acceptable in other instances to make your point, more power to you.

I have no desire to see a terrorist have ANY rights whatsoever. Their goal is to kill or die, I prefer it's just them who die and they not get to bring others with them.


Where do you draw the line? And if you start down the slope, why can't you make the case each and every time to just move the line a little bit further to save people?

[Dilloduck]

It is a slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments are based on whatever dastardly thing that you are sure is going to happen next. Humans don't KNOW what will happen next and because A happens it doesn't mean that B has to.

[retiredman]

Slippery slope arguments are based on whatever dastardly thing that you are sure is going to happen next. Humans don't KNOW what will happen next and because A happens it doesn't mean that B has to.

are you suggesting that if we started using torture routinely as an interrogation technique, that it would not thereafter, be easier for us to accept using torture under more circumstances?

[Dilloduck]

are you suggesting that if we started using torture routinely as an interrogation technique, that it would not thereafter, be easier for us to accept using torture under more circumstances?

It might be easier for you to accept it but not me.

[NATO AIR]

You talk as though this is all brand new. It went on in WWII and VN. Not much said about that. Didn't seem to cross over to the civilian world. The current focus is nothing more than another attempt to 'get Bush'. Nothing seems to stick so lets give this a try. All interrogation techniques are torture, torture is a crime, therefore Bush is a criminal, impeach him and toss him in jail. Exactly what the intent of the "Yes/No" OP is all about IMO. Pitifull.

Considering that the only people begging for the right to torture is the CIA, which can't be trusted by anybody to be accountable, I don't view this as an attempt to get Bush.

Considering that so many military JAGS have risked their careers to follow the law and the spirit of the military, and not some bunk political hackery, I don't think it is an attempt to "get Bush".

Considering that even military prosecutors (hell, a Marine colonel whose best friend died on 9/11) have refused to bring charges against defendants because there is strong evidence that they were tortured, I don't see this as an attempt to "get Bush".

Its an attempt to do what's right, both by our laws and by our traditions. Beyond anything else, all we have in the military when it comes down to it is our ethos. Shaped in boot camp, the academies and OCS, cultivated in the fleet, in the field and in the firefights and strengthened by the common honor we all strive to share with our predecessors.

That there are a few (including a disgraceful tiny minority within the military itself) who would desire to gut this ethos and our honor because they can't think things through or even pursue the goddamn interrogation manuals they have that have worked for decades (yes, even in the 80's & 90's, how come you think we have turned most of the people we have captured over to our side? it sure wasn't torture) is not any firm evidence of torture's efficacy.

It is the sign that we have far too many simpletons in positions of power instead of men and women of honor and intelligence.

A last note; consider that some people in positions of power over the past six years have arrogantly ignored the objections of those who are most experienced in chasing and capturing terrorists. The CIA lost damn near its entire Middle East/North Africa brain trust in Lebanon in '83, and the FBI/CID/DIA/NCIS took up the fight and did an admirable job capturing and interrogating countless terrorists over the 18 years between then and 9/11. They didn't once have to torture. They turned most of the people into informants and snitches. We learned more about terrorism and its supporters and its intricacies then from skillful, intelligent interrogation procedures than anything else.

This success has been replicated on countless occasions since 9/11, most recently in the killing of that beast in Iraq Zawqawri. Our Army and contractor interrogators outsmarted the terrorists and terrorist supporters they captured and got the intel and cooperation they needed to put a JDAM on the bastard's hiding spot.

No need for torture. Not now, not then, not ever.

[Dilloduck]

Considering that the only people begging for the right to torture is the CIA, which can't be trusted by anybody to be accountable, I don't view this as an attempt to get Bush.

Considering that so many military JAGS have risked their careers to follow the law and the spirit of the military, and not some bunk political hackery, I don't think it is an attempt to "get Bush".

Considering that even military prosecutors (hell, a Marine colonel whose best friend died on 9/11) have refused to bring charges against defendants because there is strong evidence that they were tortured, I don't see this as an attempt to "get Bush".

Its an attempt to do what's right, both by our laws and by our traditions. Beyond anything else, all we have in the military when it comes down to it is our ethos. Shaped in boot camp, the academies and OCS, cultivated in the fleet, in the field and in the firefights and strengthened by the common honor we all strive to share with our predecessors.

That there are a few (including a disgraceful tiny minority within the military itself) who would desire to gut this ethos and our honor because they can't think things through or even pursue the goddamn interrogation manuals they have that have worked for decades (yes, even in the 80's & 90's, how come you think we have turned most of the people we have captured over to our side? it sure wasn't torture) is not any firm evidence of torture's efficacy.

It is the sign that we have far too many simpletons in positions of power instead of men and women of honor and intelligence.

A last note; consider that some people in positions of power over the past six years have arrogantly ignored the objections of those who are most experienced in chasing and capturing terrorists. The CIA lost damn near its entire Middle East/North Africa brain trust in Lebanon in '83, and the FBI/CID/DIA/NCIS took up the fight and did an admirable job capturing and interrogating countless terrorists over the 18 years between then and 9/11. They didn't once have to torture. They turned most of the people into informants and snitches. We learned more about terrorism and its supporters and its intricacies then from skillful, intelligent interrogation procedures than anything else.

This success has been replicated on countless occasions since 9/11, most recently in the killing of that beast in Iraq Zawqawri. Our Army and contractor interrogators outsmarted the terrorists and terrorist supporters they captured and got the intel and cooperation they needed to put a JDAM on the bastard's hiding spot.

No need for torture. Not now, not then, not ever.

You're going to have to explain to me how killing is good and torture is bad.

[NATO AIR]

You're going to have to explain to me how killing is good and torture is bad.

That's a good question. In the end though, we're trained to fight and kill, not torture. Its two different things. We're fighting the bad guy on his turf, we probably will have to kill him as capturing him is normally quite difficult. Needless to say, once we capture him if we can, we interrogate him using our tried and true methods (that we continually update to reflect cultural & religious values and beliefs) and get what we need. We don't torture him as there is no need.

[Dilloduck]

That's a good question. In the end though, we're trained to fight and kill, not torture. Its two different things. We're fighting the bad guy on his turf, we probably will have to kill him as capturing him is normally quite difficult. Needless to say, once we capture him if we can, we interrogate him using our tried and true methods (that we continually update to reflect cultural & religious values and beliefs) and get what we need. We don't torture him as there is no need.

It used to be that when a war was fought the goal was to torture the enemy so badly that they would quit and you would would attain your victory.
If we are not willing to immedialtely inflict enough massive pain on the enemy--enough to achieve victory --we shouldn't be there in the first place.

[manu1959]

That's a good question. In the end though, we're trained to fight and kill, not torture. Its two different things. We're fighting the bad guy on his turf, we probably will have to kill him as capturing him is normally quite difficult. Needless to say, once we capture him if we can, we interrogate him using our tried and true methods (that we continually update to reflect cultural & religious values and beliefs) and get what we need. We don't torture him as there is no need.

what is the definition of torture.....it is easy to argue that shooting someone is torture.....

[Dilloduck]

what is the definition of torture.....it is easy to argue that shooting someone is torture.....

or that issuing a fatwah is torture.

[retiredman]

It might be easier for you to accept it but not me.


so tell me....

is torturing a known terrorist who we are certain has critical information about an attack that will kill millions OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a suspected terrorist who we are pretty sure has information about an attack that will kill thousands OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a possible terrorist who might have information about an attack that will kill hundreds OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a foreign national who might have information about a planned armed robbery that may kill several people OK? Yes or No?

[manu1959]

so tell me....

is torturing a known terrorist who we are certain has critical information about an attack that will kill millions OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a suspected terrorist who we are pretty sure has information about an attack that will kill thousands OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a possible terrorist who might have information about an attack that will kill hundreds OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a foreign national who might have information about a planned armed robbery that may kill several people OK? Yes or No?

yes yes no no

[Dilloduck]

so tell me....

is torturing a known terrorist who we are certain has critical information about an attack that will kill millions OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a suspected terrorist who we are pretty sure has information about an attack that will kill thousands OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a possible terrorist who might have information about an attack that will kill hundreds OK? Yes or No?

is torturing a foreign national who might have information about a planned armed robbery that may kill several people OK? Yes or No?

define torture

[manu1959]

define torture

manfrom maine's discussions which is who i would make these terrorists speak to .....wouldn't take more than an hour....

[Mr. P]

define torture

How many times have you asked that now? 3? Why no answer? Is it cuz as I said the intent is just to "get Bush" by labeling every interrogation method "torture"?

[Dilloduck]

How many times have you asked that now? 3? Why no answer? Is it cuz as I said the intent is just to "get Bush" by labeling every interrogation method "torture"?

How well I know. He has used every trick in the book to try and convince us is something else tho. It's like arguing with TM except he uses bigger words and spells em better. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Where do you draw the line? And if you start down the slope, why can't you make the case each and every time to just move the line a little bit further to save people?

Like I said, I think I was pretty clear. I draw the line with terrorists. Their goal is simply to kill or kill and die themselves. There has been no legislation on waterboarding, so it's not unconstitutional.

----------------------------

You have a hidden warehouse with 33 known terrorists inside. We drop a 2000lb bomb on them and they all die. Everyone cheers that we nailed them.

You have one captured terrorist. He is waterboarded and soldiers lives are saved as a result. He is now held in a jail/camp and gets 3 squares a day. Complaints come out of the woodwork because we tortured a terrorist.

Odd.

[Trigg]

what is the definition of torture.....it is easy to argue that shooting someone is torture.....

I agree, lawyers are already trying to argue that lethal injection is "cruel and inhumane".

What constitutes torture??

[NATO AIR]

Like I said, I think I was pretty clear. I draw the line with terrorists. Their goal is simply to kill or kill and die themselves. There has been no legislation on waterboarding, so it's not unconstitutional.

----------------------------

You have a hidden warehouse with 33 known terrorists inside. We drop a 2000lb bomb on them and they all die. Everyone cheers that we nailed them.

You have one captured terrorist. He is waterboarded and soldiers lives are saved as a result. He is now held in a jail/camp and gets 3 squares a day. Complaints come out of the woodwork because we tortured a terrorist.

Odd.

Not if you're at all familiar with warfare.

One occurs on the battlefield in military operations.

The other occurs with that person under our control and as our responsibility. (if you don't like that, run for President, pull the US out of the Geneva Conventions, and tell the generals, admirals and NCO's of the military to resign if they don't like it).

Typical of the lazy Bush Administration, we could have easily gotten past this if we'd convened the other world powers after 9/11 and gotten a new Geneva Conventions chapter passed. Hell, we could have created a specific prison for the long-term terrorist types who we could not execute for whatever reason and would have had Russia & China's support (incidentally, something the Russians actually proposed after 9/11). We could have legally and irrevocably made it lawful for the US to torture people if necessary.

But that never happened.

Instead, we've got amateurs in charge and unaccountable screw-ups (the CIA) breaking the law left and right.

The adults here, the military, the federal prosecutors, the FBI, DIA, NCIS & CID, have had to utilize the law to bring some order into this mess. Not to mention to keep panicked amateurs from ignoring 200 plus years of tradition that has served the country well.

Again, we have yet to see a confirmed case where torture was deemed necessary. In every confirmed case of torture, we have adults who have noted it was counterproductive and could have easily been accomplished without torture.

[jimnyc]

Again, we have yet to see a confirmed case where torture was deemed necessary. In every confirmed case of torture, we have adults who have noted it was counterproductive and could have easily been accomplished without torture.

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you wrote. I simply have no sympathy for terrorists and don't feel they deserve any protection that comes from our laws, treaties, constitution or anything else. But again, that's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. There's probably a reason I'm not calling the shots!

With that said, I think those who claim that duties could have been performed without the use of torture are doing a little bit of monday morning quarterbacking. There's no true way to tell for sure after the fact, and it's always nice to have the luxury of time on your hands to analyze a situation. I would imagine there are times that officials are pressed for time and need answers in short time in order to prevent the loss of life.

Honestly, I haven't read the specific reports, but a few others have noted here on the board that lives were in fact saved as a result of the waterboarding incidents. If this is true, then I don't see how it can be counterproductive.

[Yurt]

For those that oppose all ""torture"", what do you propose as a method(s) of getting life saving information from detainees or prisoners on the battlefield? One could make the argument that simply detaining someone against their will is torture, as they are most likely uncomfortable being away from their home/comrades/jihadis.... maybe we should let them all go free, free like a bird

[Dilloduck]

Not if you're at all familiar with warfare.

One occurs on the battlefield in military operations.

The other occurs with that person under our control and as our responsibility. (if you don't like that, run for President, pull the US out of the Geneva Conventions, and tell the generals, admirals and NCO's of the military to resign if they don't like it).

Typical of the lazy Bush Administration, we could have easily gotten past this if we'd convened the other world powers after 9/11 and gotten a new Geneva Conventions chapter passed. Hell, we could have created a specific prison for the long-term terrorist types who we could not execute for whatever reason and would have had Russia & China's support (incidentally, something the Russians actually proposed after 9/11). We could have legally and irrevocably made it lawful for the US to torture people if necessary.

But that never happened.

Instead, we've got amateurs in charge and unaccountable screw-ups (the CIA) breaking the law left and right.

The adults here, the military, the federal prosecutors, the FBI, DIA, NCIS & CID, have had to utilize the law to bring some order into this mess. Not to mention to keep panicked amateurs from ignoring 200 plus years of tradition that has served the country well.

Again, we have yet to see a confirmed case where torture was deemed necessary. In every confirmed case of torture, we have adults who have noted it was counterproductive and could have easily been accomplished without torture.

The rules of war do nothing except make it more palatable. Somehow if we kill by the rules we are suddenly above it all. Sorry but I haven't been so brainwashed that I think that shooting someone in the head is better than twisting his arm. Rules of War is an oxymoron no matter how you wanna spin it.

[NATO AIR]

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you wrote. I simply have no sympathy for terrorists and don't feel they deserve any protection that comes from our laws, treaties, constitution or anything else. But again, that's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. There's probably a reason I'm not calling the shots!

With that said, I think those who claim that duties could have been performed without the use of torture are doing a little bit of monday morning quarterbacking. There's no true way to tell for sure after the fact, and it's always nice to have the luxury of time on your hands to analyze a situation. I would imagine there are times that officials are pressed for time and need answers in short time in order to prevent the loss of life.

Honestly, I haven't read the specific reports, but a few others have noted here on the board that lives were in fact saved as a result of the waterboarding incidents. If this is true, then I don't see how it can be counterproductive.

Agreed that there could be MMQB'ing on the issue. That's the problem of debating somewhat classified matters.

We do know based on our stellar success in Iraq (not the war itself but how well we've broken up cells and what not) that skilled interrogation, trickery and a bit of psychological warfare goes a long way towards getting what we need to know. I've sought out not only my friends who've been over there but others as well, and their stories match what I've read in the media from torture supporters Mark Bowden and Ralph Peters, who nevertheless have argued that the use of torture is not needed (merely the option) because our interrogators get better and better with the more experience they get and that we constantly reinvent the wheel to prevent them from knowing our playbook and being prepared for how we'll handle them when they're in our custody.

We also know that the military and law enforcement professionals nearly unanimously oppose torture's use, and have pointed out holes the size of an aircraft carrier in the CIA's claims about detainees. The FBI in particular is still incensed about its documented success with detainees being washed down the toilet by some CIA amateur's loss of patience with the process.

Oh well. I'm done with this argument, this is probably the subject I've argued and written about most in the last 2 years. Its a matter of honor to me and perhaps I'm irrational, but I guess then so is the overwhelming majority of the law enforcement and the military communities, so that's good company to have.

Deep down, I think a proven terrorist (and that's difficult for us to prove because we've self-polluted the population to the point that the military admits only 10-15% of our detainees in Gitmo and 30% elsewhere are honest to God terrorists) should be interrogated for whatever information we can get that is of import and then executed under a new class of Geneva Conventions that would render terrorism, ethnic cleansing and mass murder as punishable by swift death upon conviction and customary swift appeal.

One day it will be like this.. one day (after the bastards dirty bomb Marsailles or Moscow). We just fucked it up for this decade.

[Dilloduck]

Agreed that there could be MMQB'ing on the issue. That's the problem of debating somewhat classified matters.

We do know based on our stellar success in Iraq (not the war itself but how well we've broken up cells and what not) that skilled interrogation, trickery and a bit of psychological warfare goes a long way towards getting what we need to know. I've sought out not only my friends who've been over there but others as well, and their stories match what I've read in the media from torture supporters Mark Bowden and Ralph Peters, who nevertheless have argued that the use of torture is not needed (merely the option) because our interrogators get better and better with the more experience they get and that we constantly reinvent the wheel to prevent them from knowing our playbook and being prepared for how we'll handle them when they're in our custody.

We also know that the military and law enforcement professionals nearly unanimously oppose torture's use, and have pointed out holes the size of an aircraft carrier in the CIA's claims about detainees. The FBI in particular is still incensed about its documented success with detainees being washed down the toilet by some CIA amateur's loss of patience with the process.

Oh well. I'm done with this argument, this is probably the subject I've argued and written about most in the last 2 years. Its a matter of honor to me and perhaps I'm irrational, but I guess then so is the overwhelming majority of the law enforcement and the military communities, so that's good company to have.

Deep down, I think a proven terrorist (and that's difficult for us to prove because we've self-polluted the population to the point that the military admits only 10-15% of our detainees in Gitmo and 30% elsewhere are honest to God terrorists) should be interrogated for whatever information we can get that is of import and then executed under a new class of Geneva Conventions that would render terrorism, ethnic cleansing and mass murder as punishable by swift death upon conviction and customary swift appeal.

One day it will be like this.. one day (after the bastards dirty bomb Marsailles or Moscow). We just fucked it up for this decade.

NATO--if people can join together to make up rules on how to kill and torture each other they certainly should be able to avoid war entirely.

[NATO AIR]

NATO--if people can join together to make up rules on how to kill and torture each other they certainly should be able to avoid war entirely.

I certainly wish it were possible. Let's see what Asia does in the next two decades and there might be hope yet.

[Dilloduck]

I certainly wish it were possible. Let's see what Asia does in the next two decades and there might be hope yet.

Well the next time I see anyone establishing proper war etiquette, I'm going to expect one soon.

[Mr. P]

For those that oppose all ""torture"", what do you propose as a method(s) of getting life saving information from detainees or prisoners on the battlefield? One could make the argument that simply detaining someone against their will is torture, as they are most likely uncomfortable being away from their home/comrades/jihadis.... maybe we should let them all go free, free like a bird

I say put womens panties on their heads! That's not torture, it's a dream! It's part of psychological operations (Psyops).

Now seriously, that is how ridiculous this "torture" BS has gotten and why the whole anti-Torture (read psyops) movement is just pure BS!

Have we FALLEN to a lower level? One worse than the politicians running a war? Do the civilians get to call the shots now? If so, we're F'king doomed to NEVER WIN AGAIN!

[Dilloduck]

I say put womens panties on their heads! That's not torture, it's a dream! It's part of psychological operations (Psyops).

Now seriously, that is how ridiculous this "torture" BS has gotten and why the whole anti-Torture (read psyops) movement is just pure BS!

Have we FALLEN to a lower level? One worse than the politicians running a war? Do the civilians get to call the shots now? If so, we're F'king doomed to NEVER WIN AGAIN!

No shit--Gen MacArthur sniffed this game out in Korea.

[Psychoblues]

Shame on anyone that would support torture. Torture is not any American ideal or value that this old vet would ever embrace. Torture is for those stupid enough to think they could stand it or suicidal enough to think that they would be believed.

[Dilloduck]

Shame on anyone that would support torture. Torture is not any American ideal or value that this old vet would ever embrace. Torture is for those stupid enough to think they could stand it or suicidal enough to think that they would be believed.

Shame---:laugh2:

OMG dude--not shame !!!

[actsnoblemartin]

do ideals win wars? :cheers2:


Shame on anyone that would support torture. Torture is not any American ideal or value that this old vet would ever embrace. Torture is for those stupid enough to think they could stand it or suicidal enough to think that they would be believed.

[Psychoblues]

Nope. Ideals start wars.



do ideals win wars? :cheers2:

National values end them. I don't for a moment suspect that you understand that, do you?

[red states rule]

do ideals win wars? :cheers2:

No, but with libs in charge the terrorists would win - no wonder they are hoping for the Dems to win in 08

Libs are the best friends terrorists have in this war

[SpidermanTUba]

NM, you ran from this, so this question is again for you too:

ST, NM - Do you support sex?

only Yes or only No

Since I support some forms of sex, the correct answer to that is YES.

Much like OCA supports using torture to gain information that someone might think someone else has:

In terms of using it as a means to glean or gain something which is unattainable any other way you bet your goofy ass I do!
but in all likelihood does not support torture for mere sadistic pleasure, the correct answer for him is YES.

[bullypulpit]

LOL, "no evidence??"



http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/156879.html


....thats evidence enough for me.


No one is suggesting that it should be regular practice, but it is something our terror-fighting agencies should have the option of doing if they deem it necessary.

We have no evidence that it worked. He wasn't there during the interrogation, he was Stateside. So, can he really tell if it worked or not? Do we have ANY evidence that ANY actionable intelligence was obtained...? In a word, "No.".

[red states rule]

We have no evidence that it worked. He wasn't there during the interrogation, he was Stateside. So, can he really tell if it worked or not? Do we have ANY evidence that ANY actionable intelligence was obtained...? In a word, "No.".

It has worked -but you will ignore the proof


snip

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[retiredman]

so again for the record...you are for using any methods devised by man to extract information from people we have detained and who we suspect may have information that we would find useful in our efforts against islamic extremism? is that true?

[red states rule]

so again for the record...you are for using any methods devised by man to extract information from people we have detained and who we suspect may have information that we would find useful in our efforts against islamic extremism? is that true?

Still beating the same dead horse MM. We all know you would rather have a successful attack then preventing it

It would make great talking points at the press conferences held by Reid and Pelosi

[retiredman]

Still beating the same dead horse MM. We all know you would rather have a successful attack then preventing it

It would make great talking points at the press conferences held by Reid and Pelosi

why can't you just answer a simple question?:laugh2:

[glockmail]

so again for the record...you are for using any methods devised by man to extract information from people we have detained and who we suspect may have information that we would find useful in our efforts against islamic extremism? is that true?
Personally I don't think that waterboarding a terrorist meets the definition of torture. Nor is having a German Shepard bark at him.

[red states rule]

Personally I don't think that waterboarding a terrorist meets the definition of torture. Nor is having a German Shepard bark at him.

BP asked for proof waterboarding worked - I posted proof

Then MM goes into his usual coddle the terrorist mode, and tries to blame America for protecting itself

[retiredman]

Personally I don't think that waterboarding a terrorist meets the definition of torture. Nor is having a German Shepard bark at him.
we disagree on the former, and agree on the latter.

[retiredman]

BP asked for proof waterboarding worked - I posted proof

Then MM goes into his usual coddle the terrorist mode, and tries to blame America for protecting itself


I am not blaiming america for anything...this thread is about whether you support torture. I asked you if you support any and every form of interrogation technique if it is used against detainees who we believe have information that would aid us in our war against islamic extremism. can you answer that simple question or will you continue to run away from it?

[red states rule]

I am not blaiming america for anything...this thread is about whether you support torture. I asked you if you support any and every form of interrogation technique if it is used against detainees who we believe have information that would aid us in our war against islamic extremism. can you answer that simple question or will you continue to run away from it?

and I have answered

Your response was I should be shot as a enemy of the state/ Typical of a liberal

Coddle the terrorists and kill fellow Americans who disagree with you

[glockmail]

we disagree on the former, and agree on the latter.
You are inconsistent. Both meet the lib definition of torture.

[red states rule]

You are inconsistent. Both meet the lib definition of torture.

Libs always want it both ways. With MM, his logic makes a figure eight look like a straight line

[glockmail]

BP asked for proof waterboarding worked - I posted proof

Then MM goes into his usual coddle the terrorist mode, and tries to blame America for protecting itself

Panty waste, both.

[red states rule]

Panty waste, both.

I noted how MM ignored the proof and how lives were saved

[retiredman]

You are inconsistent. Both meet the lib definition of torture.

that's not my definition. having a dog bark at you is not torture by any internationally held standard. waterboarding is.

[retiredman]

I noted how MM ignored the proof and how lives were saved

I have no doubt that waterboarding saved lives. I ask you again....if saving lives is the only criteria, does that mean that you support any and all interrogation techniques against detainees if we think they might have knowledge that would allow us to save lives?

[glockmail]

that's not my definition. having a dog bark at you is not torture by any internationally held standard. waterboarding is.
Having the dog bark is as well. Its demoralizing to a Muslim. Same with having to look at a woman. Its fucking torture.

[retiredman]

and I have answered

Your response was I should be shot as a enemy of the state/ Typical of a liberal

Coddle the terrorists and kill fellow Americans who disagree with you

would you not admit that your stance pisses on Article VI of the constitution?

[red states rule]

Having the dog bark is as well. Its demoralizing to a Muslim. Same with having to look at a woman. Its fucking torture.

Or giving them Jimmy Dean products for breakfast

[retiredman]

Having the dog bark is as well. Its demoralizing to a Muslim. Same with having to look at a woman. Its fucking torture.

barking dogs are not torture according to any internationally held standard. It is not torture according to the GC and it is not torture according to the UN convention. fact.

[glockmail]

I have no doubt that waterboarding saved lives. I ask you again....if saving lives is the only criteria, does that mean that you support any and all interrogation techniques against detainees if we think they might have knowledge that would allow us to save lives?

If avoiding torture, according to the international definition, is the only criteria, do you support coddling terrorists who are likely to have knowledge that if known by our troops could save American lives?

[retiredman]

Or giving them Jimmy Dean products for breakfast

take that shit to the humor forum. are you really incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion?

[glockmail]

barking dogs are not torture according to any internationally held standard. It is not torture according to the GC and it is not torture according to the UN convention. fact. Both examples I gave are demoralizing to Muslims. Both are therefore illegal according to GC/UN. FACT.

[red states rule]

take that shit to the humor forum. are you really incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion?

It offends the poor terrorists - fact

[retiredman]

Both examples I gave are demoralizing to Muslims. Both are therefore illegal according to GC/UN. FACT.:link:

[glockmail]

:link:You've posted that shit here before yourself. Stop being a fucking troll.

[retiredman]

You've posted that shit here before yourself. Stop being a fucking troll.


I have NEVER posted anything which states that having a dog bark at someone is torture, nor anything which states that bieng interrogated by a woman is torture.

you claim something is a FACT, fucking PROVE it or admit you were LYING.

simple as that.

[glockmail]

I have NEVER posted anything which states that having a dog bark at someone is torture, nor anything which states that bieng interrogated by a woman is torture.

you claim something is a FACT, fucking PROVE it or admit you were LYING.

simple as that. Straw Man. Nice try, troll.

[retiredman]

Both examples I gave are demoralizing to Muslims. Both are therefore illegal according to GC/UN. FACT.
prove your "FACT" or shut the fuck up.:laugh2: fag

[glockmail]

prove your "FACT" or shut the fuck up.:laugh2: fag
You're the faggot.


United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity" http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=181374&postcount=688

[retiredman]

so, I guess you would need to show me how having a woman interrogate you would be generally be considered "severe mental pain" under the spirit and letter of that UN convention. I'll wait. queerbait.

[actsnoblemartin]

did someone say faggot

:gay:

[glockmail]

so, I guess you would need to show me how having a woman interrogate you would be generally be considered "severe mental pain" under the spirit and letter of that UN convention. I'll wait. queerbait. That's your quote not mine, thus your argument. If waterborading can be considered torture yet does no physical harm, then barking dogs and interrogation by a woman has to considered torture as well, if inflicted on a devout Muslim.

It appears that you have argued yourself into a corner. :coffee:

[retiredman]

That's your quote not mine, thus your argument. If waterborading can be considered torture yet does no physical harm, then barking dogs and interrogation by a woman has to considered torture as well, if inflicted on a devout Muslim.

It appears that you have argued yourself into a corner. :coffee:

Like I said...until you can show me that any recognized international standard considers barking dogs and women asking questions as "severe mental pain", you have not proved your "fact".

But DO keep yipping and yapping about it. It is what you do best.

[glockmail]

Like I said...until you can show me that any recognized international standard considers barking dogs and women asking questions as "severe mental pain", you have not proved your "fact".

But DO keep yipping and yapping about it. It is what you do best.

If that's your standard now then show me the same about waterboarding. :lol:

You fucked up. :lol:

[retiredman]

If that's your standard now then show me the same about waterboarding. :lol:

You fucked up. :lol:

you are asking me if there are international standards that consider waterboarding torture?

I will gladly dig those references up, as soon as you have proven your FACT from above.

I'll wait.
:coffee:

[glockmail]

you are asking me if there are international standards that consider waterboarding torture?

I will gladly dig those references up, as soon as you have proven your FACT from above.

I'll wait.
:coffee:Keep waiting. It's your argument, so your responsibility to provide backup if asked. :coffee:

[retiredman]

Keep waiting. It's your argument, so your responsibility to provide backup if asked. :coffee:


you proclaimed a FACT and cannot substantiate it. why am I not surprised?

[red states rule]

I have no doubt that waterboarding saved lives. I ask you again....if saving lives is the only criteria, does that mean that you support any and all interrogation techniques against detainees if we think they might have knowledge that would allow us to save lives?

I see saving lives is not your top priority MM - scoring political points is at the top of your list

[retiredman]

I see saving lives is not your top priority MM - scoring political points is at the top of your list

the constitution, which is the foundation of all our freedoms, is my priority.

If you would be willing to trample it in this instance, clearly you would be willing to do so in any instance that seemed appropriate from your narrow partisan perspective.

[red states rule]

the constitution, which is the foundation of all our freedoms, is my priority.

If you would be willing to trample it in this instance, clearly you would be willing to do so in any instance that seemed appropriate from your narrow partisan perspective.

Yes MM hold up a copy of the Constitution as the bodies are being removed from the blast zone, and tell the America people we could not use all methods on a terrorist to stop the attack

That would be a great PR move for your party

[retiredman]

Yes MM hold up a copy of the Constitution as the bodies are being removed from the blast zone, and tell the America people we could not use all methods on a terrorist to stop the attack

That would be a great PR move for your party


like I said, if you piss on the constitution once, you will piss on it whenever it suits you.

[red states rule]

like I said, if you piss on the constitution once, you will piss on it whenever it suits you.

Truth does bug the hell out of you

You would not have waterboarded Atta on Sept 10, 2001 - correct?

[retiredman]

Truth does bug the hell out of you

You would not have waterboarded Atta on Sept 10, 2001 - correct?

The truth is something you seem to desperately try to evade. Remember: our military swears an OATH to "support and defend - not the United States - but the CONSTITUTION of the United States.... against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Any American who would trample it like you have so clearly stated you would, is a domestic enemy of it.

And your "time machine premise" is ridiculous. If I could go back in time and have Atta in custody on 9/10/01, I could also go back in time and nab the other 18.... mere incarceration and not torture, would be all that was necessary.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

The truth is something you seem to desperately try to evade. Remember: our military swears an OATH to "support and defend - not the United States - but the CONSTITUTION of the United States.... against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Any American who would trample it like you have so clearly stated you would, is a domestic enemy of it.

And your "time machine premise" is ridiculous. If I could go back in time and have Atta in custody on 9/10/01, I could also go back in time and nab the other 18.... mere incarceration and not torture, would be all that was necessary.:laugh2:

Just as I thought - you would not waterboard Atta in an attempt to stop the 9-11 attacks

[retiredman]

Just as I thought - you would not waterboard Atta in an attempt to stop the 9-11 attacks

and you would trample on the constitution.

ergo: domestic enemy

[red states rule]

and you would trample on the constitution.

ergo: domestic enemy

So saving innocent lives is trampling the Constitution?

Only to a moonbat lib would that be the case

[retiredman]

So saving innocent lives is trampling the Constitution?

Only to a moonbat lib would that be the case

no...trampling the constitution is trampling the constitution. It is not a chinese menu...you do not get to choose one article from column A and one article from column B and arbitrarily ignore the rest. You have stated on more than one occasion that YOU feel completely comfortable trampling on the constitution if YOU think it would be expedient to do so. That makes you an domestic enemy of that document. that's a fact.... a fact you can't stand to accept, I know...but it is one.

[red states rule]

no...trampling the constitution is trampling the constitution. It is not a chinese menu...you do not get to choose one article from column A and one article from column B and arbitrarily ignore the rest. You have stated on more than one occasion that YOU feel completely comfortable trampling on the constitution if YOU think it would be expedient to do so. That makes you an domestic enemy of that document. that's a fact.... a fact you can't stand to accept, I know...but it is one.

Again, I am more interested in saving innocent live and defeating the terrorists

You are more interested in losing the war and coddling the terrorists. Party before all else with you MM

[retiredman]

Again, I am more interested in saving innocent live and defeating the terrorists

You are more interested in losing the war and coddling the terrorists. Party before all else with you MM


no. I am interested in defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

and you, by your own admission, are a domestic enemy of the constitution. that's a fact.

[red states rule]

no. I am interested in defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

and you, by your own admission, are a domestic enemy of the constitution. that's a fact.

and you would rather have innocent people killed rather then preventing the attacks

That is a fact

[retiredman]

and you would rather have innocent people killed rather then preventing the attacks

That is a fact


of course not...but I wouldn't trample the constitution for any reason.


you are on record as being perfectly willing to do so.

ergo: domestic enemy.

[glockmail]

you proclaimed a FACT and cannot substantiate it. why am I not surprised? You shouldn't be surprised. No one else is either: your claiming something and are unwilling to back it up.

[retiredman]

Both examples I gave are demoralizing to Muslims. Both are therefore illegal according to GC/UN. FACT.

you state "fact". I say prove it. bring me the cites from the UN Convention on Torture AND from the Geneva Conventions. Or retract your claim of FACT.

your choice.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

you state "fact". I say prove it. bring me the cites from the UN Convention on Torture AND from the Geneva Conventions. Or retract your claim of FACT.

your choice.:laugh2: Is this the 2nd or 3rd time you asked for this and it was henceforth provided? http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=181374&postcount=688

You argued yourself into a corner. You fucked up.
:coffee:

[retiredman]

Is this the 2nd or 3rd time you asked for this and it was henceforth provided? http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=181374&postcount=688

You argued yourself into a corner. You fucked up.
:coffee:


that is not proof that female interrogators are considered torture by the UN OR the GC.... try again. State fact...prove it... UN AND Geneva Convention.

I'll wait

[glockmail]

that is not proof that female interrogators are considered torture by the UN OR the GC.... try again. State fact...prove it... UN AND Geneva Convention.

I'll waitThat's your quote not mine, thus your argument. If waterborading can be considered torture yet does no physical harm, then barking dogs and interrogation by a woman has to considered torture as well, if inflicted on a devout Muslim.

[retiredman]

That's your quote not mine, thus your argument. If waterborading can be considered torture yet does no physical harm, then barking dogs and interrogation by a woman has to considered torture as well, if inflicted on a devout Muslim.

Quit tapdancing... show me proof for both the UN AND the Geneva Convention. You stated fact.... back it up. or run away. your choice.

[glockmail]

Quit tapdancing... show me proof for both the UN AND the Geneva Convention. You stated fact.... back it up. or run away. your choice. It's your argument that the GC/UN prohibits waterborading and the US is beholden to that. If that is the case then we are prohibited from exposing sensitive Muslims to barking dogs and girlie panties. Simple logic.

[retiredman]

It's your argument that the GC/UN prohibits waterborading and the US is beholden to that. If that is the case then we are prohibited from exposing sensitive Muslims to barking dogs and girlie panties. Simple logic.

Show me where my argument has ever included the Geneva Conventions in regard to the unconstitutionality of waterboarding.

And then, quit your fucking tapdancing and provide the proof to the FACT that you so boldly stated. I disagree with your FACT and call you a fucking queerbait liar who weasels away from his own missteps. Be a man and admit you fucked up.

[glockmail]

Show me where my argument has ever included the Geneva Conventions in regard to the unconstitutionality of waterboarding...... It's been your arguant all along that "international law" trumps the Constitution. Be a man and admit that.

[retiredman]

It's been your arguant all along that "international law" trumps the Constitution. Be a man and admit that.


it has been my argument that treaties are the law of the land according TO the constitution.... have you ever read Article VI.... oh no...I forgot...you never read anything, you just wait for others to read it for you and then, depending on whether they are your buddies or not, you chose to believe or disbelieve them! :lol:

sp when will you be a man and prove your little "fact"? Or better yet, when will you just admit that you misspoke and were mistaken?

[glockmail]

it has been my argument that treaties are the law of the land according TO the constitution.... have you ever read Article VI.... oh no...I forgot...you never read anything, you just wait for others to read it for you and then, depending on whether they are your buddies or not, you chose to believe or disbelieve them! :lol:

sp when will you be a man and prove your little "fact"? Or better yet, when will you just admit that you misspoke and were mistaken? What I said was that I don't bother to read boring and useless shit like you do. The Constitution is neither.

So you admit that you think "international law" trumps the Constitution. That explains a lot actually. But to be consistent with your camp, you must also agree that a barking dog or head-panties is torture, just like waterboarding.

[retiredman]

What I said was that I don't bother to read boring and useless shit like you do. The Constitution is neither.

So you admit that you think "international law" trumps the Constitution. That explains a lot actually. But to be consistent with your camp, you must also agree that a barking dog or head-panties is torture, just like waterboarding.

no. I don't. Can you fucking read, or are you really a COMPLETE moron? I said that the constitution itself gives preeminent status to treaties ratified by our government.

How would YOU interpret Article VI of the constitution when it says "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"???

I would love to hear your interpretation! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

no. I don't. Can you fucking read, or are you really a COMPLETE moron? I said that the constitution itself gives preeminent status to treaties ratified by our government.

How would YOU interpret Article VI of the constitution when it says "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"???

I would love to hear your interpretation! :laugh2:So you do think that International Law trumps the Constitution. Just like I said.

[retiredman]

So you do think that International Law trumps the Constitution. Just like I said.
YOu really are as dumb as sack of hair.

I guess you are incapable of giving us your interpretation of Article VI. Why is that? Do you need to go check with someone with some intelligence to figure out how to answer it?

you are a little idiot...incapable of intelligent discussion

[glockmail]

YOu really are as dumb as sack of hair.

I guess you are incapable of giving us your interpretation of Article VI. Why is that? Do you need to go check with someone with some intelligence to figure out how to answer it?

you are a little idiot...incapable of intelligent discussion Right now I'm more interested in your interpretation, which appears to be that "international law" trumps the Constitution. This is, after all, a hallmark of the Democrat Party, and you would therefore swallow it down whole.

[retiredman]

Right now I'm more interested in your interpretation, which appears to be that "international law" trumps the Constitution. This is, after all, a hallmark of the Democrat Party, and you would therefore swallow it down whole.

wow. you really look pathetic when you get painted into a corner. speaking of swallowing.... how does "supreme law of the land" taste? :laugh2:

[glockmail]

wow. you really look pathetic when you get painted into a corner. speaking of swallowing.... how does "supreme law of the land" taste? :laugh2:
You assert that "international law" trumps the Constitution.

[retiredman]

You assert that "international law" trumps the Constitution.

no. I do not. you cannot comprehend english, obviously.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly states that when America enters into a treaty with another country or countries, that the terms of that treaty have great weight. The terms of treaties that we make with other nations become, according to our founding fathers, the supreme law of the land. Article VI is unambiguous about this. There is a distinct difference between "international law" and the specific terms of treaties that we negotiate with other nation states. That diffference is not really very subtle, but obvously flies high over YOUR head.

Oh..and did you hear the latest news from President Bush's Director of Central Intelligence? Michael Hayden has stated that waterboarding is probably not legal. Imagine that. That's what I'VE been saying all along. hmmmm.

[glockmail]

"Probably not" and "not" are two very different things. But for you to be consistent, having a dog bark or head panties are "probably not" legal also.

[retiredman]

"Probably not" and "not" are two very different things. But for you to be consistent, having a dog bark or head panties are "probably not" legal also.


that is your opinion and it is a stupid one.

I do not share it.

Let's just say that Michael Hayden probably doesn't either..and he probably would find you to be even more moronic than I do.:laugh2:

How are those Iranians and their love of America, by the way????


oh..and regarding those American loving muslims...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?lb=brme&pnt=346&nid=&id=

seems as if they don't quite agree with you! LOL

[glockmail]

Its not an opinion that "not" is not the same as "probably not". :lame2:

[retiredman]

Its not an opinion that "not" is not the same as "probably not". :lame2:

you really do have a problem with English above the My Weekly Reader level, don't you? The more you post, the stupider you become in my eyes. Really...sometimes I feel like I am trying to talk to a three year old. What is an opinion is the phrase that ends in "also". wow.

and I LOVE how you ignore every thing else that pummels your stupid ideas and concentrate on one gotcha - and fuck that up!

[glockmail]

you really do have a problem with English above the My Weekly Reader level, don't you?....

I routinely ignore your insults and bullshit. As I said before I have you exactly where I want you.

As someone who "Aced" American Literature at the college level, I don't think that there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension. Your post in question, as well as the one quoted in my signature, can only be interpreted one way.

[retiredman]

I routinely ignore your insults and bullshit. As I said before I have you exactly where I want you.

As someone who "Aced" American Literature at the college level, I don't think that there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension. Your post in question, as well as the one quoted in my signature, can only be interpreted one way.

"General Custer and the 7th Cavalry pursued Chief Sitting Bull and his band of Lakota Sioux up to the banks of the Little Big Horn."

Do you interpret THAT sentence in that same way? Professor? :lol:

"Aced", huh. Look...everybody is a phi beta kappa on the internet, glock.... and every gay guy like you has an enormous penis, no doubt. American literature at an Alabama vo-tech is probably not as strenuous as curricula at real colleges.

And it seems to me that you do a much better job ignoring your own screw ups than you do me!

[Yurt]

"General Custer and the 7th Cavalry pursued Chief Sitting Bull and his band of Lakota Sioux up to the banks of the Little Big Horn."

Do you interpret THAT sentence in that same way? Professor? :lol:

"Aced", huh. Look...everybody is a phi beta kappa on the internet, glock.... and every gay guy like you has an enormous penis, no doubt. American literature at an Alabama vo-tech is probably not as strenuous as curricula at real colleges.

And it seems to me that you do a much better job ignoring your own screw ups than you do me!

If torturing the enemy could save just one life of an innocent, are you for it or against it.

caveat: if you already answered, alright, just couldn't bring myself to wade back through this thread.

[Psychoblues]

The poll suggests that torture is not a value appreciated by most Americans. How about you torture loving unAmerican sonsabitches heading for Syria, Egypt, Iraq even Iran or wherever else you bastards find your bloodthirst to be acceptable? Al Queda ain't shit up against you nuts!!!!!!!!!!!

[manu1959]

The poll suggests that torture is not a value appreciated by most Americans. How about you torture loving unAmerican sonsabitches heading for Syria, Egypt, Iraq even Iran or wherever else you bastards find your bloodthirst to be acceptable? Al Queda ain't shit up against you nuts!!!!!!!!!!!

all three future prezes will close gitmo and outlaw waterboarding....so this topic will be moot in 12 months......after that we hope gifts and sweet talk will get us the info we need to prevent bad shit from hapening....

[Psychoblues]

You already know that you'll be first on the sweet talking iteniary, m'59.



all three future prezes will close gitmo and outlaw waterboarding....so this topic will be moot in 12 months......after that we hope gifts and sweet talk will get us the info we need to prevent bad shit from hapening....

Why do you want to get all defensive about it?

[retiredman]

If torturing the enemy could save just one life of an innocent, are you for it or against it.

caveat: if you already answered, alright, just couldn't bring myself to wade back through this thread.

it is a nonsensical question, really. Until we torture someone and find out the something that we think that they may know and that something turns out to help us stop some event, we would never know if it would save one innocent life.

back at ya: if the police were pretty sure that the vagrant man they had found passed out drunk behind a bar was the guy who had been molesting and then killing young girls in their town, but they had no real hard and fast evidence on him, would you be for or against torturing him into confessing so that we would not have him back on the street where he might molest and kill again?

[red states rule]

it is a nonsensical question, really. Until we torture someone and find out the something that we think that they may know and that something turns out to help us stop some event, we would never know if it would save one innocent life.

back at ya: if the police were pretty sure that the vagrant man they had found passed out drunk behind a bar was the guy who had been molesting and then killing young girls in their town, but they had no real hard and fast evidence on him, would you be for or against torturing him into confessing so that we would not have him back on the street where he might molest and kill again?

It is not nonsensical - you would rather have innocent people killed rather then do whatever is needed to prevent the terrorist attack

[retiredman]

It is not nonsensical - you would rather have innocent people killed rather then do whatever is needed to prevent the terrorist attack


would you torture a confession out of a suspected child molester? that would save many lives, wouldn't it?

[red states rule]

would you torture a confession out of a suspected child molester? that would save many lives, wouldn't it?

You are so full of it MM. You are really getting desperate to try and make your lame argument seem senseable

[retiredman]

You are so full of it MM. You are really getting desperate to try and make your lame argument seem senseable


the question Yurt posed was: would you approve of torturing someone to save a life.

if the police were pretty sure that the vagrant man they had found passed out drunk behind a bar was the guy who had been molesting and then killing young girls in their town, but they had no real hard and fast evidence on him, would you be for or against torturing him into confessing so that we would not have him back on the street where he might molest and kill again?

[red states rule]

the question Yurt posed was: would you approve of torturing someone to save a life.

if the police were pretty sure that the vagrant man they had found passed out drunk behind a bar was the guy who had been molesting and then killing young girls in their town, but they had no real hard and fast evidence on him, would you be for or against torturing him into confessing so that we would not have him back on the street where he might molest and kill again?

Your lame argument is just that. The vagrant, I assume, is a US citizen and is protected by the US Constitution

Terrorists are not

[retiredman]

Your lame argument is just that. The vagrant, I assume, is a US citizen and is protected by the US Constitution

Terrorists are not


the vagrant wasn't a US citizen... he was an illegal immigrant from Mexico. torture him?

[red states rule]

the vagrant wasn't a US citizen... he was an illegal immigrant from Mexico. torture him?

Then deport him, or find a reason to hold him

I know you libs love to say the US tortures - but we don't. That has been proven over and over

But facts never get in the way of your talking points MM

[retiredman]

Then deport him, or find a reason to hold him

I know you libs love to say the US tortures - but we don't. That has been proven over and over

But facts never get in the way of your talking points MM
deport him so he can slip across the border again and kill and molest again?

Oh...and did you notice yesterday that the DCI admits that waterboarding is illegal?

[red states rule]

deport him so he can slip across the border again and kill and molest again?

Oh...and did you notice yesterday that the DCI admits that waterboarding is illegal?

Why are you worried aboult illegals - you guys are ready to lay out the welcome mat on 1/20/2009

[retiredman]

Why are you worried aboult illegals - you guys are ready to lay out the welcome mat on 1/20/2009

I am not. I wonder why you would not agree to torture someone if it might save a life?

[glockmail]

"General Custer and the 7th Cavalry pursued Chief Sitting Bull and his band of Lakota Sioux up to the banks of the Little Big Horn."

Do you interpret THAT sentence in that same way? Professor? :lol:

"Aced", huh. Look...everybody is a phi beta kappa on the internet, glock.... American literature at an Alabama vo-tech is probably not as strenuous as curricula at real colleges.

…

transitive verb
1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat [implies a person or people]
2: to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : SEEK <pursue a goal>
3: to proceed along <pursues a northern course>
4 a: to engage in <pursue a hobby> b: to follow up or proceed with <pursue an argument>

Custer is obviously pursuing, or hunting, a person in accordance with definition 1. You and the Dems are pursuing, or embracing, a concept or ideal in accordance with definitions 2, 3, or 4. See the difference?

My BS is from a well respected Northeast university. And yours?

[glockmail]

it is a nonsensical question, really. Until we torture someone and find out the something that we think that they may know and that something turns out to help us stop some event, we would never know if it would save one innocent life.

back at ya: if the police were pretty sure that the vagrant man they had found passed out drunk behind a bar was the guy who had been molesting and then killing young girls in their town, but they had no real hard and fast evidence on him, would you be for or against torturing him into confessing so that we would not have him back on the street where he might molest and kill again?

We are talking about known terrorists here- leaders in their movement. Your response and related scenario are bullshit.

With regards to the child molester, you bet I'd smack him around if I though he had knowledge of his buddies future (and pending) actions. Of course that has nothing to do with your scenario whatsoever. In your scenario, I'd collect evidence at the scene, drag his ass into court and put him in a cell next to you.

[red states rule]

My BS is from a well respected Northeast university. And yours?


From a box of Cracker Jacks?

[glockmail]

From a box of Cracker Jacks? More likely from a cow pasture. :lol:

[red states rule]

More likely from a cow pasture. :lol:

Please, do not insult cow pastures like that

[glockmail]

Please, do not insult cow pastures like that
B. S., bull shit, cow pasture. Get it? :lol:

[retiredman]

transitive verb
1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat [implies a person or people]
2: to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : SEEK <pursue a goal>
3: to proceed along <pursues a northern course>
4 a: to engage in <pursue a hobby> b: to follow up or proceed with <pursue an argument>

Custer is obviously pursuing, or hunting, a person in accordance with definition 1. You and the Dems are pursuing, or embracing, a concept or ideal in accordance with definitions 2, 3, or 4. See the difference?

My BS is from a well respected Northeast university. And yours?

no...my democrats are hunting or pursuing islamic extremism in accordance with definition 1. your parenthetical implications are merely your opinion. My statement, which you quote, used the word in the sense of definition 1. And if you have any doubts, ask the author.

And my undergraduate degree is from a well respected mid-atlantic service academy.

[emmett]

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

It reallyis pretty simple. Percentages are for after the torture. If they talk, well..... I'm 100 % sure. If they don't talk, well.......I'm less sure.

[Yurt]

it is a nonsensical question, really. Until we torture someone and find out the something that we think that they may know and that something turns out to help us stop some event, we would never know if it would save one innocent life.

back at ya: if the police were pretty sure that the vagrant man they had found passed out drunk behind a bar was the guy who had been molesting and then killing young girls in their town, but they had no real hard and fast evidence on him, would you be for or against torturing him into confessing so that we would not have him back on the street where he might molest and kill again?

Do you actually know what nonsensical means? if the question were so absurd and solely "nonsense" why then is the question still around and why did you put such "nonsensical" effort into answering it? does a bear shit in the words. now that is nonsensical. my question is not, for it does in fact have a foundation in reality, in that, the possibility of torture does in fact have a chance of yielding the necessary information.

your comment that we will never know if an innocent life would be save is nonsensical. you state it as fact, however, it is not fact. because, according to you, "we will never know." it is nonsensical to propose an answer that relies on the premise that "we will never know."

you question back to me is a logical fallacy, in that, it is a false analogy to the thread and to my question. i said -- if you knew -- thus it is not a "pretty sure" analysis.

since you failed to answer my question, i see no reason to answer yours.

[retiredman]

Do you actually know what nonsensical means? if the question were so absurd and solely "nonsense" why then is the question still around and why did you put such "nonsensical" effort into answering it? does a bear shit in the words. now that is nonsensical. my question is not, for it does in fact have a foundation in reality, in that, the possibility of torture does in fact have a chance of yielding the necessary information.

your comment that we will never know if an innocent life would be save is nonsensical. you state it as fact, however, it is not fact. because, according to you, "we will never know." it is nonsensical to propose an answer that relies on the premise that "we will never know."

you question back to me is a logical fallacy, in that, it is a false analogy to the thread and to my question. i said -- if you knew -- thus it is not a "pretty sure" analysis.

since you failed to answer my question, i see no reason to answer yours.

If you KNEW torturing a terrorist would save a million lives, would you?

If you thought torturing a terrorist suspect would save a thousand lives, would you?

If you thought there was a possibility that torturing a guy who might possibly be a terrorist would save ten lives, would you?

If there was a snowball's chance in hell that, if you tortured the vagrant passed out behind the local gin mill, he might confess to being the child molester, would you?

All rhetorical... all unrealistic. Either we are a moral nation, or we are not. Take your pick.

[red states rule]

If you KNEW torturing a terrorist would save a million lives, would you?

If you thought torturing a terrorist suspect would save a thousand lives, would you?

If you thought there was a possibility that torturing a guy who might possibly be a terrorist would save ten lives, would you?

If there was a snowball's chance in hell that, if you tortured the vagrant pass out behind the local gin mill, he might confess to being the child molester, would you?

All rhetorical... all unrealistic. Either we are a moral nation, or we are not. Take your pick.

OK MM, we know you want to coddle terrorists and ensure their comfort over saving lives

We get the message

[Kathianne]

If you KNEW torturing a terrorist would save a million lives, would you?

If you thought torturing a terrorist suspect would save a thousand lives, would you?

If you thought there was a possibility that torturing a guy who might possibly be a terrorist would save ten lives, would you?

If there was a snowball's chance in hell that, if you tortured the vagrant pass out behind the local gin mill, he might confess to being the child molester, would you?

All rhetorical... all unrealistic. Either we are a moral nation, or we are not. Take your pick.

Right. And you feel that you're take on all, negates all other opinions. I don't think anyone has posted as many sources to back up a difference of opinion than I did over a month ago. You acknowledged, then backed off. Ok, that's cool, though you never stated by what logic you did so.

[retiredman]

Right. And you feel that you're take on all, negates all other opinions. I don't think anyone has posted as many sources to back up a difference of opinion than I did over a month ago. You acknowledged, then backed off. Ok, that's cool, though you never stated by what logic you did so.


I have read the enabling legislation for the UN convention. I do not agree that it allows waterboarding. And, in any case, this thread is ABOUT torture.... not specifically those techniques over which you and I have a difference of opinion.
I do NOT support torture and I do not think that moral nations should employ it...and...quite frankly, I am surprised that you would think otherwise.

[retiredman]

OK MM, we know you want to coddle terrorists and ensure their comfort over saving lives

We get the message

no. you obviously DON'T get it. I don't want to coddle terrorists. I don't want to sink to anywhere near their level either.

and hey....asshole...if you don't like reading my "message" anymore. PUT ME ON IGNORE. Otherwise...either debate me or shut the fuck up.

[Kathianne]

I have read the enabling legislation for the UN convention. I do not agree that it allows waterboarding. And, in any case, this thread is ABOUT torture.... not specifically those techniques over which you and I have a difference of opinion.
I do NOT support torture and I do not think that moral nations should employ it...and...quite frankly, I am surprised that you would think otherwise.

I'm very concerned about the definitions of torture. You are a case in point of why such IS important.

[red states rule]

no. you obviously DON'T get it. I don't want to coddle terrorists. I don't want to sink to anywhere near their level either.

You can't sink any lower MM

You are not scraping the bottom of the barrel - you crawled under it along time ago

[retiredman]

You can't sink any lower MM

You are not scraping the bottom of the barrel - you crawled under it along time ago

take it to the comedy thread. either debate me or not. you support torturing people, I do not. From my perspective, that puts your as low as our enemies.


And once you start down the slippery slope where torture is OK for really major terrorists, then it quickly become OK for petty thieves. I, for one, do not want to see my country sink to that level.

[red states rule]

take it to the comedy thread. either debate me or not. you support torturing people, I do not. From my perspective, that puts your as low as our enemies.


And once you start down the slippery slope where torture is OK for really major terrorists, then it quickly become OK for petty thieves. I, for one, do not want to see my country sink to that level.

I want to break the terrorists and save lives. You think the US can fight and win a PC war

[Yurt]

If you KNEW torturing a terrorist would save a million lives, would you?

If you thought torturing a terrorist suspect would save a thousand lives, would you?

If you thought there was a possibility that torturing a guy who might possibly be a terrorist would save ten lives, would you?

If there was a snowball's chance in hell that, if you tortured the vagrant passed out behind the local gin mill, he might confess to being the child molester, would you?

All rhetorical... all unrealistic. Either we are a moral nation, or we are not. Take your pick.

do you care more about the molestor or the child victim?

take your pick

[red states rule]

do you care more about the molestor or the child victim?

take your pick

Most liberals bend over backwards for the criminals, and make excuses for their actions

[retiredman]

do you care more about the molestor or the child victim?

take your pick

the child victim

I still would not torture anyone because I care more about the soul of this nation than I do any one individual....except my immediate family, of course!

[Yurt]

manfrommaine;198066]the child victim

Its good you do.




I still would not torture anyone because I care more about the soul of this nation than I do any one individual.

Soul? You do realize this nation used to hang people and shoot their for crimes. Yet you think you have the "finger" on the pulse of this nation's "soul?"

I think what you are trying argue is that, if we torture an innocent man, it is wrong, regardless if it saves an innocent life. For both are innocent and who are we to weigh the "levy" on the price of their innocence.

Is that what you are saying? I think you are missing my point.

Because I'm saying, you have a known combatant that has made it known that he/she seeks your destruction, your "soul" if you will. That enemy, known enemy, will not divulge information about his comrades or jihads. that information could and in "my" question -- will save lives.

Let's make it simple for you:

osama wanna be loggin has been caught.

are you telling me, that you would not torture him to get information about his plan(s) of attack against the "soul" of your country?

[retiredman]

Its good you do.





Soul? You do realize this nation used to hang people and shoot their for crimes. Yet you think you have the "finger" on the pulse of this nation's "soul?"

I think what you are trying argue is that, if we torture an innocent man, it is wrong, regardless if it saves an innocent life. For both are innocent and who are we to lay the "levy" on the price of their innocence.

Is that what you are saying? I think you are missing my point.

Because I'm saying, you have a known combatant that has made it known that he/she seeks your destruction, your "soul" if you will. That enemy, known enemy, will not divulge information about his comrades or jihads. that information could and in "my" question -- will save lives.

Let's make it simple for you:

osama wanna be loggin has been caught.

are you telling me, that you would not torture him to get information about his plan(s) of attack against the "soul" of your country?


why make it "simple" for me, when you avoid difficult questions yourself. Rather than ask all the fucking questions, why don't you have the balls to answer a few now and then?

[Yurt]

why make it "simple" for me, when you avoid difficult questions yourself. Rather than ask all the fucking questions, why don't you have the balls to answer a few now and then?

your obsession with balls is duly noted.

as i said before, you failed to answer mine.....

and seriously, this is your best shot at a reply to my post....

answer the question posed and stop hiding behind bullcaca

[retiredman]

you asked me a question in post 198. I answered it.

I asked YOU a series of questions in post 189...you have dodged all of them.

Get busy, motherfucker.

[Dilloduck]

take it to the comedy thread. either debate me or not. you support torturing people, I do not. From my perspective, that puts your as low as our enemies.


And once you start down the slippery slope where torture is OK for really major terrorists, then it quickly become OK for petty thieves. I, for one, do not want to see my country sink to that level.

Bah--slippery slope arguments are crap and this thread has become torture in itself. So you do think Obama and Hillary will represent the "soul" of this country ??

[retiredman]

Bah--slippery slope arguments are crap and this thread has become torture in itself. So you do think Obama and Hillary will represent the "soul" of this country ??

fairly well....better than McCain...obviously you disagree.

[Dilloduck]

fairly well....better than McCain...obviously you disagree.

Obviously you have assumed too much again. btw--that waterboarding occured years ago---how come we're not seeing anything new sliding down that slope of yours ?

[retiredman]

Obviously you have assumed too much again. btw--that waterboarding occured years ago---how come we're not seeing anything new sliding down that slope of yours ?

are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.

and are you saying that Clinton and Obama WILL represent the soul of America better than McCain?

[red states rule]

are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.

and are you saying that Clinton and Obama WILL represent the soul of America better than McCain?

Where is your proof that waterboarding has been used more then 3 times? I posted proff for BP and he ran away from this thread like a scared rabbit

You libs are trying to make something out of nothing. 3 times waterboarding was used. Each time the terrorists cracked and lives were saved

What the hell is your malfunction MM?

[retiredman]

Where is your proff that waterboarding has been used more then 3 times? I posted proff for BP and he ran away from this thread like a scared rabbit

You libs are trying to make something out of nothing. 3 times waterboarding was used. Each time the terrorists cracked and lives were saved

What the hell is your malfunction MM?


I don't have a problem. This thread is about torture in general, not waterboarding in specific. You support all forms of torture - you've already made that point quite clear. I, on the other hand do not because I believe it is in direct violation of one of the treaties America is a signatory of, and therefore a violation of Article VI of the constitution.

It seems that the DCI also feels that torture - even waterboarding - is illegal

[red states rule]

I don't have a problem. This thread is about torture in general, not waterboarding in specific. You support all forms of torture - you've already made that point quite clear. I, on the other hand do not because I believe it is in direct violation of one of the treaties America is a signatory of, and therefore a violation of Article VI of the constitution.

It seems that the DCI also feels that torture - even waterboarding - is illegal

MM does his Liberal 2 step once again to avoid incomiong facts

[retiredman]

MM does his Liberal 2 step once again to avoid incomiong facts

what facts? You have said that you condone and support the use of any and all methods of torture. I don't.

[red states rule]

what facts? You have said that you condone and support the use of any and all methods of torture. I don't.


are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.

and are you saying that Clinton and Obama WILL represent the soul of America better than McCain?



Where is your proof that waterboarding has been used more then 3 times? I posted proof for BP and he ran away from this thread like a scared rabbit

[retiredman]

Where is your proof that waterboarding has been used more then 3 times? I posted proof for BP and he ran away from this thread like a scared rabbit


I don't need proof. It was used. I believe it is illegal...so does the DCI. I don't care how many times it was used, it was used. That is the point.

[red states rule]

I don't need proof. It was used. I believe it is illegal...so does the DCI. I don't care how many times it was used, it was used. That is the point.

Spoken like a true liberal. You imply waterboarding was used more then 3 times - and you can't back it up

Meanwhile you and BP run like hell from an ABC News source that shows the 3 times it ws used the terrorist cracked and gave up info that saved lives

[retiredman]

Spoken like a true liberal. You imply waterboarding was used more then 3 times - and you can't back it up

Meanwhile you and BP run like hell from an ABC News source that shows the 3 times it ws used the terrorist cracked and gave up info that saved lives


youare mistaken [liar]
I have never implied any such thing.

and I am well aware that it we had ripped the fingernails out of only three detainees and they had given up information that supposedly saved lives, you would approve of that too.

Your position as approving any and all types of torture is well known.

[red states rule]

youare mistaken [liar]
I have never implied any such thing.

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.


You are the liar - as usual

You rant just like Motor Mouth Murtha when a reporter confronted with the progress in Iraq. He tried to lie about that as you are over waterboarding

[retiredman]

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.


You are the liar - as usual

I said I didn't know...and you don't either.

Hayden DID say that waterboarding was "necessary but illegal".

That is a fact.

[red states rule]

I said I didn't know...and you don't either.

Hayden DID say that waterboarding was "necessary but illegal".

That is a fact.

So Clintonesque of you MM - slander your country then try to backpeddle away from it

[retiredman]

So Clintonesque of you MM - slander your country then try to backpeddle away from it

I am not slandering anyone or backpeddling away from anything.

YOU are the one who can only insult and attack and NEVER debate issues. I have stated my doubts, and you have been incapable of responding as to why they are unfounded. Independent thought is really beyond your ability.

[red states rule]

I am not slandering anyone or backpeddling away from anything.

YOU are the one who can only insult and attack and NEVER debate issues. I have stated my doubts, and you have been incapable of responding as to why they are unfounded. Independent thought is really beyond your ability.

You clearly implied they were lying. Much like your party leaders, you slime the very people protecting your sorry ass - then you try to lie your way when called on it

[retiredman]

You clearly implied they were lying. Much like your party leaders, you slime the very people protecting your sorry ass - then you try to lie your way when called on it


I implied no such thing.

you are mistaken.

[red states rule]

I implied no such thing.

you are mistaken.

Your quote is out there for all to see

Liar

[retiredman]

Your quote is out there for all to see

Liar

And my quote does not call anyone a liar. I understand full well that the Central Intelligence Agency cannot operate with full disclosure... it is, after all, a spy agency. I understand that what they release to the public is often not - and should not be the full story. To do otherwise would be silly.

[red states rule]

And my quote does not call anyone a liar. I understand full well that the Central Intelligence Agency cannot operate with full disclosure... it is, after all, a spy agency. I understand that what they release to the public is often not - and should not be the full story. To do otherwise would be silly.

You lie almost as good as Bill Clinton

And like Bill, we all know he, and you, are lying

[retiredman]

You lie almost as good as Bill Clinton

And like Bill, we all know he, and you, are lying

I am not, nor have I ever, lied. and why do you think you can speak for "all of you"?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I am not, nor have I ever, lied. and why do you think you can speak for "all of you"?:laugh2:

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.



Busted again MM

[retiredman]

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
are you suggesting that change like that happens overnight?

and how do you know that it hasn't happened since? because our government tells us so? Hayden just admitted yesterday that waterboarding was "necessary but probably illegal". Clearly, the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary, regardless of the legality.



Busted again MM

there is no lie there. I am certain that the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary. and the DCI said so.

[red states rule]

there is no lie there. I am certain that the CIA is prepared to do what is necessary. and the DCI said so.

Well, add yet another lie to your your growing list.

You don't have the balls to admit the truth when you are busted

[retiredman]

Well, add yet another lie to your your growing list.

You don't have the balls to admit the truth when you are busted

you can't read. that's not my problem.

you certainly are incapable of stringing five sentences together of your own creation. That's not my problem either, but it IS annoying.

[red states rule]

you can't read. that's not my problem.

you certainly are incapable of stringing five sentences together of your own creation. That's not my problem either, but it IS annoying.

Your own words are sinking you once again MM

Another lie has been added to long list of lies

[SpidermanTUba]

Wow. there are a lot of Nazis on this board

[Noir]

Torture is never acceptable. Period.

[Hagbard Celine]

No way. I always turn the dial whenever conservative talk radio comes on.

[actsnoblemartin]

I support torture, I believe it supports lives, and we shouldnt make islamo-nazi's comfortable.

The real question is, how far do we go.

[glockmail]

No way. I always turn the dial whenever conservative talk radio comes on. So you're closed-minded as well as a bigot.

[Noir]

I believe it supports lives

It does what now?

[5stringJeff]

I don't support torture, and I don't support the use of torture as an interrogation technique by American officials.

[actsnoblemartin]

It does what now?

I meant to say it saves lives

[Hagbard Celine]

So you're closed-minded as well as a bigot.

Again with the projection. What a joke you and your ill-concieved, closed-minded and bigoted political philosophy are.:lol:

[glockmail]

Again with the projection. What a joke you and your ill-concieved, closed-minded and bigoted political philosophy are.:lol:
Again with a baseless assumption. In direct contrast, my comment was based entirely on your posts today. You must have had a frustrating weekend. :poke:

[Noir]

I meant to say it saves lives

It also ruins lives...but we'll keep that hush hush....

[Gaffer]

It also ruins lives...but we'll keep that hush hush....

How?

[retiredman]

Again with a baseless assumption. In direct contrast, my comment was based entirely on your posts today. You must have had a frustrating weekend. :poke:


after more than 10K posts from you, suggesting that your political philosophy is ill-conceived, close minded and bigoted is anything BUT a baseless assumption. In fact, it is a matter of public record.

[Noir]

How?

You're tellin me if you were tortured for information it would not effect you?

I would also warn anyone from assuming those who are being tortured have information or are terrorists, if you support torture then you support torture of anyone whom the goverment or Army have suspicions of witholding information.

[Gaffer]

You're tellin me if you were tortured for information it would not effect you?

I would also warn anyone from assuming those who are being tortured have information or are terrorists, if you support torture then you support torture of anyone whom the goverment or Army have suspicions of witholding information.

They are not suspects. They are terrorist. They are not just average mo's off the street. They are already warped for life. What effect it has on them is not important. They should be executed as soon as the information is gotten out of them and verified.

[Mr. P]

I support "persuasive interrogation". Water boarding works 100% of the time without physical harm.

[SpidermanTUba]

I support torture, I believe it supports lives, and we shouldnt make islamo-nazi's comfortable.

The real question is, how far do we go.


Can you show me the medical report which indicates torture can save life?

[SpidermanTUba]

I support "persuasive interrogation".

That's just a nice way of saying torture.


Water boarding works 100% of the time without physical harm.

Maybe in fantasy land. And water boarding is torture.

[Noir]

They are not suspects. They are terrorist. They are not just average mo's off the street. They are already warped for life. What effect it has on them is not important. They should be executed as soon as the information is gotten out of them and verified.

They are people who are suspected of having information. Which they may not. By supporting torture you support the right for your goverment to torture those whom it believes are withholding information, and are suspected terrorists.


That's just a nice way of saying torture.
Exactly, the foolishness of those who say things like 'advanced interrogation methods' ect repusle me. I wonder if they would mind being the subject of one of these 'methods'


Water boarding works 100% of the time without physical harm.

There is no 'physical harm' because it is mental torture, you are made to feel as if you are drowning, that must be horrid. And as i said before, as this is not (in your mind) torture, i assume you would mind being subject to a few weeks of water torture...sorry 'water boarding'


Torture is never acceptable.