Taliban High Commander Captured

[Kathianne]

Good news and questions:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/02/taliban-second-in-command-captured-now.html


Monday, February 15, 2010
Taliban Second-In-Command Captured, Now What?
Good news. The NY Times is reporting that the second in command of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Baradar, has been captured in Pakistan.


The capture was undertaken by the Pakistanis with help from the CIA:
Details of the raid remain murky, but officials said that it had been carried out by Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and that C.I.A. operatives had accompanied the Pakistanis.

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

The Times is publishing the news now because White House officials acknowledged that the capture of Mullah Baradar was becoming widely known in the region.

According the The Times' report, Baradar is being interrogated by both Pakistanis and Americans. If that is true, that is more good news...

Did the U.S. deliberately not take possession of Baladar so as to avoid the now-thorny issue of Baradar's right to counsel and to remain silent?

And if so, what does that say about our policies regarding people, such as the failed Detroit airplane bomber, who are in our possession?...

[Jeff]

Good news and questions:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/02/taliban-second-in-command-captured-now.html

Hopefully the Pakistan’s military will keep him and get info from him, keep him away from Obama and the other bleeding hearts liberals in this country, If he came here he may be put on trial in NYC :eek: once his usefulness is all worn out then bring him here put him in time square with the survivors of 9/11 , that would be a real reality TV show :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Hopefully the Pakistan’s military will keep him and get info from him, keep him away from Obama and the other bleeding hearts liberals in this country, If he came here he may be put on trial in NYC :eek: once his usefulness is all worn out then bring him here put him in time square with the survivors of 9/11 , that would be a real reality TV show :laugh2:

He's being questioned in Pakistan, I heard on my way to school that he's talking. The CIA is also involved. Isn't this 'rendition' in deed?

[Jeff]

He's being questioned in Pakistan, I heard on my way to school that he's talking. The CIA is also involved. Isn't this 'rendition' in deed?

LOL, I bet he is talking, NO Obama screaming about the poor guys rights, LOL

[Kathianne]

LOL, I bet he is talking, NO Obama screaming about the poor guys rights, LOL

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jeff again.

Yeah, somehow I doubt Pakistan is going to lose sleep over his rights. :rolleyes:

[Jeff]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jeff again.

Yeah, somehow I doubt Pakistan is going to lose sleep over his rights. :rolleyes:

I have a feeling he is more than happy at this point to spill his guts, maybe for real :laugh2:

[crin63]

Might have to give Obama props over this one. It appears he is letting the Pakistani's and CIA do their jobs without mirandizing the terrorist. Although Obama will probably find a place for him to teach somewhere in the U.S.

[revelarts]

Alright, I'll be the spoiler here, sorry.
I've got my own question for you folks.

Are We at war with the Taliban as "terrorist" or "insurgents"?
If they are fighting for national control of the country are they terrorist, insurgents or soldiers. If soldiers then they are due all the rights and privileges of our own solders under the Geneva convention? It looks likes the CIA and ISI have got that guy so it's not really a military mission strictly speaking. It's an intelligence op. Which is to get intel not necessarily get a conviction. However if he's a leader in a war over control of Afghanistan then he can be held until the wars over. But it seems that the CIA/ISI have Rendered the guy. Something we said we weren't going to do anymore. (Promise broken #??? Obama.) But the U.S. military's hands are clean at this point. And the good old CIA is doing ??? in our name.

There have been more than enough military and intelligence people that have said torture is counter productive. Including John McCain. Should we at this point be getting excited about prisoners getting roughed up. I know on a visceral level we want to get back at those that have been fighting our soldiers. But to my knowledge the Taliban never blew up anything outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are we turning into the barbarians what we say we are better than?
I ask the Christians here again. Please give me some torture scriptures to support the idea that it's the best thing to do to our enemies?

[Abbey Marie]

Alright, I'll be the spoiler here, sorry.
I've got my own question for you folks.

Are We at war with the Taliban as "terrorist" or "insurgents"?
If they are fighting for national control of the country are they terrorist, insurgents or soldiers. If soldiers then they are due all the rights and privileges of our own solders under the Geneva convention? It looks likes the CIA and ISI have got that guy so it's not really a military mission strictly speaking. It's an intelligence op. Which is to get intel not necessarily get a conviction. However if he's a leader in a war over control of afghanistan then he can be held until the wars over. But it seems that the CIA/ISI haved a Rendered the guy. Something we said we weren't going to do anymore. (Promise broken #??? Obama.) But the U.S. military's hands are clean at this point. And the good old CIA is doing ??? in our name.

There have been more than enough military and intelligence people that have said torture is counter productive. Including John McCain. Should we at this point be getting excited about prisoners getting roughed up. I know on a visceral level we want to get back at those that have been fighting our soldiers. But to my knowledge the Taliban never blew up anything outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are we turning into the barbarians what we say we are better than?
I ask the Christians here again. Please give me some torture scriptures to support the idea that it's the best thing to do to our enemies?

Ah, the Christians again. Its utterly amazing how religion (read: Christian religion) is supposed to be kept totally separate from government, until it is handy to throw it in the mix. No Nativities in the town square, but let's hold Christians responsible for gov't policy. Oy vey.

[revelarts]

I support nativity scenes on public property.

But that's not the question? I honestly wonder how some of my brothers and sister square the notion of torturing or roughing up prisoners with the Bible and church teachings?

I know of a few people personally that are, frankly, more republican than Christian on many issues. But there are many liberal Christians who are more democrats than Christians too on a lot of issues as well.

but I'm only asking a very simply question. I'm not blaming Christians for torture just asking how they can support it or promote it. And some gleefully so.

[Mr. P]

Alright, I'll be the spoiler here, sorry.
I've got my own question for you folks.

Are We at war with the Taliban as "terrorist" or "insurgents"?
If they are fighting for national control of the country are they terrorist, insurgents or soldiers. If soldiers then they are due all the rights and privileges of our own solders under the Geneva convention? It looks likes the CIA and ISI have got that guy so it's not really a military mission strictly speaking. It's an intelligence op. Which is to get intel not necessarily get a conviction. However if he's a leader in a war over control of Afghanistan then he can be held until the wars over. But it seems that the CIA/ISI have Rendered the guy. Something we said we weren't going to do anymore. (Promise broken #??? Obama.) But the U.S. military's hands are clean at this point. And the good old CIA is doing ??? in our name.

There have been more than enough military and intelligence people that have said torture is counter productive. Including John McCain. Should we at this point be getting excited about prisoners getting roughed up. I know on a visceral level we want to get back at those that have been fighting our soldiers. But to my knowledge the Taliban never blew up anything outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are we turning into the barbarians what we say we are better than?
I ask the Christians here again. Please give me some torture scriptures to support the idea that it's the best thing to do to our enemies?

Lemme ax you a question and see if you can answer without reference to any scriptures: If a member of you immediate family, child, wife, were say, kidnapped and the kidnapper was caught and revealed that the member of your family was buried and had 24 hrs of air and there was about 12 hrs left, but wouldn't tell were they were buried. What interrogation technique would you use to find the site your family member is buried at before they ran out of air?

Personally, I'd water board the bastard..How about you?

[Abbey Marie]

I support nativity scenes on public property.

But that's not the question? I honestly wonder how some of my brothers and sister square the notion of torturing or roughing up prisoners with the Bible and church teachings?

I know of a few people personally that are, frankly, more republican than Christian on many issues. But there are many liberal Christians who are more democrats than Christians too on a lot of issues as well.

but I'm only asking a very simply question. I'm not blaming Christians for torture just asking how they can support it or promote it. And some gleefully so.

I am saying that whether I promote/support it or not, has nothing to do with my religion. My religion is not a part of gov't; it is a wholly separate thing, not to be uttered in the same breath. Isn't that correct? For example, my taxes may go to fund abortions, though I am vehemently opposed to them. It matters not what I "believe" regarding abortions. We are told time and again, right here on this board, too, that my religious beliefs and values must be irrelevant to our gov't. The ACLU has taught me that oh so well. So, if our gov't chooses to torture, it must be no concern to us as Christians. You cannot have it both ways.

[revelarts]

Lemme ax you a question and see if you can answer without reference to any scriptures: If a member of you immediate family, child, wife, were say, kidnapped and the kidnapper was caught and revealed that the member of your family was buried and had 24 hrs of air and there was about 12 hrs left, but wouldn't tell were they were buried. What interrogation technique would you use to find the site your family member is buried at before they ran out of air?

Personally, I'd water board the bastard..How about you?

Mr. P.
I asked you guys a question 1st. These worse case, ticking time bomb, scenarios keep coming up. But does the guy the CIA/ISI just captured fall into that category. No one's mentioned a time bomb once in the case of this Afghan leader. But torture has still been promoted and cheered here as the way to go. So is the ticking time bomb, loss of air, type scenario really the ONLY "good" reason you think there is to torture someone?

In the case you outline above I might do worse than water board, if in my blind rage i thought it might save them, which it may not. But c'mon honestly Mr. P events like that are rarer than Hailey's comet.

I've axswered your question please answer mine?

[Mr. P]

Mr. P.
I asked you guys a question 1st. These worse case ticking time bomb scenario keeps coming up. But does the guy the CIA/ISI just captured fall into that category. No one's mentioned it once in the case of this Afghan leader. But torture has still been promoted and cheered here as the way to go. So is the ticking time bomb, loss of air, type scenario really the ONLY "good" reason you think there is to torture someone?

In the case you outline above I might do worse than water board, if in my blind rage i thought it might save them, which it may not. But c'mon honestly Mr. P events like that are rarer than Hailey's comet.

I've axswered your question please answer mine?

I answered, I'd water board. Been there and have had it done to me...You? IT'S NOT torture. But it is 100% DAMN effective! That's my scripture on it.

[hjmick]

They caught a guy who has been living openly in Karachi for a while now. I'm not impressed.

[Agnapostate]

I'm with revelarts. I'm not sure why there's a tendency to perceive the Taliban as something akin to an international terrorist organization when their actual function was as a domestically repressive theocratic organization (with Mullah Omar opposing the 9/11 hijackings), and now, as a violent insurgency intent on restoring their former role. If the aim of the U.S. military occupiers was to eradicate domestic repression based on religious feudalism, that might be a worthy cause, but they've formed strategic alliances designed only on combating the Taliban, even if these allies (such as the Northern Alliance) are quite theocratic themselves. OBL pursued a similar strategy; he formed alliances in the anti-Soviet resistance with individuals and organizations that would be perceived as quite progressive, and later allied with the Taliban. While he's depicted as finding friends only among Islamic fundamentalists, he went to those who would protect him.

[Agnapostate]

IT'S NOT torture. But it is 100% DAMN effective! That's my scripture on it.

It is not both "not torture" and "damn effective" if its effectiveness is based on its coercive nature and ability to instill pain and fear into subjects. But as has been mentioned, the question isn't whether it's "torture" or not, but whether torture itself is ethically justifiable. Many people beg the question in automatically assuming that it isn't, but this is logically fallacious.

[Mr. P]

They caught a guy who has been living openly in Karachi for a while now. I'm not impressed.

Well, it IS Pakistan. Did you expect they'd just go get him?
I'll bet there was pressure on them for this one...or more of OUR $$$ one.

[Mr. P]

It is not both "not torture" and "damn effective" if its effectiveness is based on its coercive nature and ability to instill pain and fear into subjects. But as has been mentioned, the question isn't whether it's "torture" or not, but whether torture itself is ethically justifiable. Many people beg the question in automatically assuming that it isn't, but this is logically fallacious.

As I said..It's NOT torture but a damn effective technique.
Call it an ethically justifiable interrogation technique. I do.

[revelarts]

As I said..It's NOT torture but a damn effective technique.
Call it an ethically justifiable interrogation technique. I do.

If you don't mind me asking, In what situation was it done to you Mr. P?

I can accept that it's your position that's it's not torture. and that what happen to you makes it scripture to you. But i hope you can understand that what happen to you isn't in the Bible. Or promoted in the bible, unless someone can point it out for me.

You say it's effective, would you say it's effective in getting people to say want ever you want them to say as well?

[Agnapostate]

As I said..It's NOT torture but a damn effective technique.
Call it an ethically justifiable interrogation technique. I do.

Yes, you said that. We've established that. What we've not established, however, is that your comment was any more than an assertion, as it didn't seem to be supported by arguments. To "torture" is to "to intentionally inflict pain or suffering on (someone)" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/torture). As waterboarding entails the intentional infliction of pain and suffering as part of its very nature as a coercive and effective interrogation technique, it would seem quite evident that it constitutes torture. The only reason you wish to dispute that is because you perceive that the semantic label of "torture" will be politically unpopular. But that is not relevant to its ethical status, as I mentioned. ;)

[glockmail]

Might have to give Obama props over this one. It appears he is letting the Pakistani's and CIA do their jobs without mirandizing the terrorist. Although Obama will probably find a place for him to teach somewhere in the U.S.Its not bad when Democrats do it. Besides, they'll just claim the CIA couldn't intervene, or use plausible deniability.

[Kathianne]

and here we have the 'plausible deniability':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/16/taliban-second-commander-captured


...Barader was seized in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and US intelligence forces, according to US government officials quoted in the New York Times. Mullah Barader has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with US and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials. Though Barack Obama has banned US agencies from using forms of torture such as waterboarding, Pakistani questioning techniques are frequently brutal.

US officials later confirmed the report of Baradar's capture to the Associated Press news agency.... So the guy is being tortured, giving up information, but 'hey, what do we know?' Says, Mr. O.

[Mr. P]

Yes, you said that. We've established that. What we've not established, however, is that your comment was any more than an assertion, as it didn't seem to be supported by arguments. To "torture" is to "to intentionally inflict pain or suffering on (someone)" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/torture). As waterboarding entails the intentional infliction of pain and suffering as part of its very nature as a coercive and effective interrogation technique, it would seem quite evident that it constitutes torture. The only reason you wish to dispute that is because you perceive that the semantic label of "torture" will be politically unpopular. But that is not relevant to its ethical status, as I mentioned. ;)

Is it ethical to allow people to die IF you have a non-psychically harming method, no blood, no fingers chopped off, no nails pulled out, no eyes gouged, no joints dislocated etc... to extract information that will prevent those deaths?

[Missileman]

Is it ethical to allow people to die IF you have a non-psychically harming method, no blood, no fingers chopped off, no nails pulled out, no eyes gouged, no joints dislocated etc... to extract information that will prevent those deaths?

Absolutely unethical. As unethical as tossing the guy in a cell and not asking him any questions at all.

[Mr. P]

Absolutely unethical. As unethical as tossing the guy in a cell and not asking him any questions at all.

Yes, it's a no brainer..but sadly some will continue to focus on definitions that place a shroud of protection over folks that will continue to kill.

[revelarts]

New Boss same as the Old Boss.
Winning Hearts and Minds.

-------
Mr P I'm not exactly sure at what point -Inflicting Pain on purpose- becomes Torture. I'm not sure where that line is for you. But If Inflicting Pain "works" Why not just set up Pain Chambers all over the world, if all we are really concerned about is that it works. Maybe some mobile.. no.. flying Pain fortresses.

Well I could use some extra money bout now, I think i'll rob an old lady or Pimp out my neighbors daughters. It works right? It's not Pimping, its an Escort service.

---------
Abu Zubaydah's interrogator testifies

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"...From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the "enhanced interrogation techniques," a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)..."


.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bx2Nky_PR1c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bx2Nky_PR1c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ElIjbIY2eeI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ElIjbIY2eeI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[glockmail]

But its perfectly OK when the Democrats do it.

[Mr. P]

New Boss same as the Old Boss.
Winning Hearts and Minds.

-------
Mr P I'm not exactly sure at what point -Inflicting Pain on purpose- becomes Torture.




There is NO pain involved in water boarding.

[Mr. P]

If you don't mind me asking, In what situation was it done to you Mr. P?

I can accept that it's your position that's it's not torture. and that what happen to you makes it scripture to you. But i hope you can understand that what happen to you isn't in the Bible. Or promoted in the bible, unless someone can point it out for me.

You say it's effective, would you say it's effective in getting people to say want ever you want them to say as well?

I'll tell what, if you take the Bible to war as a manual yer gonna get yer ass kicked! It's like taking a knife to a gun fight.

As far as getting people to say what you want them to say..NO.
There are questions of course..the answers are then put through Intel channels to determine if they may be valid. It's a complex process, not what ya see on TV.

[revelarts]

There is NO pain involved in water boarding.

No pain? what sensations do you feel that would compel you to talk.
I'm not sure I know what your saying. "it's not torture", "it's not even painful", mildly uncomfortable maybe? I know it doesn't leave a mark but electric shock don't either in many cases. Again I'm not sure what your saying.

-Taking the Bible into war- well yeah war is ugly, in the field of battle a lot of nightmarish stuff needs to be done to win but the Bible does say that there's "... time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;... A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. ..." Ecclesiastes 3 v3&8. Once someone is a prisoner the person is off the battlefield. Torture, inflicting pain, whatever, is cruel and unusual punishment and totally unnecessary.


.
Bush Supporter Chistopher Hitchens, allowed himself to be waterboarded and he concluded "If waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l34Tx9oAHZo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l34Tx9oAHZo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Mr. P]

No pain? what sensations do you feel that would compel you to talk.
I'm not sure I know what your saying. "it's not torture", "it's not even painful", mildly uncomfortable maybe? I know it doesn't leave a mark but electric shock don't either in many cases. Again I'm not sure what your saying.

-Taking the Bible into war- well yeah war is ugly, in the field of battle a lot of nightmarish stuff needs to be done to win but the Bible does say that there's "... time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;... A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. ..." Ecclesiastes 3 v3&8. Once someone is a prisoner the person is off the battlefield. Torture, inflicting pain, whatever, is cruel and unusual punishment and totally unnecessary.



Plain simple Distress. And it's not cruel unusual punishment. Severing fingers, ears, heads that's cruel and unusual and THEY DO IT!
A minute of water? NOPE.

[revelarts]

Mr.P , to be sure, there's a difference in the of crushing body parts and other non-permanent types of Painful-Uncomfortable procedures. But if they are Unnecessary and LONG illegal why employ them? They do it But we are not them.

[Mr. P]

Mr.P , to be sure there's a difference in the crushing body parts and other non-permanent types of Painful-Uncomfortable procedures. But if they are Unnecessary and LONG illegal why employ them? They do it But we are not them.

War IS HELL, Pal!

[Agnapostate]

Is it ethical to allow people to die IF you have a non-psychically harming method, no blood, no fingers chopped off, no nails pulled out, no eyes gouged, no joints dislocated etc... to extract information that will prevent those deaths?

Again, I'm not interested in your pointless ethical quibbling, but in definitional accuracy. Waterboarding is torture. The actual question is whether torture is ethical.

[Mr. P]

Again, I'm not interested in your pointless ethical quibbling, but in definitional accuracy. Waterboarding is torture. The actual question is whether torture is ethical.

I believe it was you who brought pointless ethical quibbling to the table, son. Deal with it. How about talking REALITY?

How would you extract information from an enemy? Give em a lolly pop?

[SassyLady]

Ah, the Christians again. Its utterly amazing how religion (read: Christian religion) is supposed to be kept totally separate from government, until it is handy to throw it in the mix. No Nativities in the town square, but let's hold Christians responsible for gov't policy. Oy vey.

excellent points Abbey!

[SassyLady]

What is painful (or torture) to one individual may not even register on another person, and could even be considered pleasurable. I personally cannot stand listening to screeching guitars......and yet my husband can listen to that crap all day long. So .... who is to decide that listening to screeching guitars is pleasure or torture?

Would I use torture to get information that could save lives, or end a conflict (that is killing thousands) sooner........you betcha I would use it.

I would never make a good police officer.......because I probably wouldn't be bringing too many criminals in alive......I'm just not that compassionate.

[PostmodernProphet]

Absolutely unethical. As unethical as tossing the guy in a cell and not asking him any questions at all.

are you saying it is unethical to even fight the Talliban?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, I'm not interested in your pointless ethical quibbling, but in definitional accuracy. Waterboarding is torture. The actual question is whether torture is ethical.

there are those that consider everything short of letting the guy go home to be "torture"......that is a definition that makes the entire debate meaningless...but let's adopt your viewpoint for the sake of arguement.....in short then, if the torture does not cause physical injury, even "torture" can be ethical....

[revelarts]

War is Hell but that doesn't alter the fact that "enhanced" interrogations are unnecessary and counter productive. Also illegal by our own standards.

From Congressional Hearing 2007
TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF `ENHANCED' INTERROGATION. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:38765.wais)



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


Congressman Nadler: "Okay, let me ask you a question, and I need you
to set aside for a minute any moral or legal concerns and also
any other limits that might be imposed by the Army Field
Manual.
If you were in a position where you knew with absolute
certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and
you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent
value, is there anything that you would, could or should do
that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field
Manual?"
Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not. The
wonderful point we are in--and I would like to try to expand on
that, if I may--moral, legal and operational confluence all
ends in one very narrow circle. And that is, what we need to do
to adhere to legal concerns, what we need to do as a Nation
that would be morally correct, and what I would need to do as
an operator all falls in that same circle.
There is not an approach, there is not a strategy, there is
not a treatment that would even come close to violating Geneva
Convention guidelines, or the Constitution of the United
States, and certainly not the field manual on interrogation. We
talk about rapport, but rapport is a very inexact term. There
is a lot more to it.
But, fundamentally, to answer your question directly, I
would not need to do anything that would be prohibited by the
field manual and still be very, very effective."

[Agnapostate]

I believe

I think I've seen about enough of your tap dancing.


there are those that consider everything short of letting the guy go home to be "torture"......that is a definition that makes the entire debate meaningless...but let's adopt your viewpoint for the sake of arguement.....in short then, if the torture does not cause physical injury, even "torture" can be ethical....

My, my, what a clever lad you are. Try explaining that to this idiot.

[glockmail]

Mr.P , to be sure, there's a difference in the of crushing body parts and other non-permanent types of Painful-Uncomfortable procedures. But if they are Unnecessary and LONG illegal why employ them? They do it But we are not them. Do you think that's all the Pakistanis are doing to this guy? :lol:

[PostmodernProphet]

Try explaining that to this idiot.
you need to be specific....there are so many of you......

[HogTrash]

You can bet your sweet patooty the High Commander has been locked in a room with a couple of CIA agents, getting waterboarded repeatedly.

I would guess that he is singing like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir at the second coming of Christ...Keep up the good work boys.

Meanwhile, what's Obama doing?...He's sitting in the Oval Office pretending he doesn't know what's going on.

At least he has enough sense to keep his hypocritical ass out of the way. :thumb:

[HogTrash]

No pain? what sensations do you feel that would compel you to talk.
I'm not sure I know what your saying. "it's not torture", "it's not even painful", mildly uncomfortable maybe? I know it doesn't leave a mark but electric shock don't either in many cases. Again I'm not sure what your saying.
Sheer terror brought on by the absolute convincing sensation that you are drowning and about to die.

True torture involves pain, physical injury and even lifetime disfigurement of which waterboarding does none of these.

Within a few minutes after waterboarding there are absolutely no signs of any trauma or injury resulting from the experience.

It is the most effective and humane method of extracting intelligence from enemy combatants...The left just used it for Bush propaganda.

[Agnapostate]

It entails the imposition of suffering and coercion, and therefore constitutes torture. That has no necessary impact on its morality. What this idiot has done is assumed that I'll automatically oppose any such act as a result, regardless of the fact that I explicitly stated that the question of whether torture is ethically justifiable is a separate issue.

[Mr. P]

It entails the imposition of suffering and coercion, and therefore constitutes torture. That has no necessary impact on its morality. What this idiot has done is assumed that I'll automatically oppose any such act as a result, regardless of the fact that I explicitly stated that the question of whether torture is ethically justifiable is a separate issue.

Hey Junior, I thought you took yer toys and went home, whining all the way "he won't play MY game!".

Now that your back can you tell us how YOU would extract vital information from a non-cooperative enemy?

There's a Lolly Pop in it for ya.

[Jeff]

Hey Junior, I thought you took yer toys and went home, whining all the way "he won't play MY game!".

Now that your back can you tell us how YOU would extract vital information from a non-cooperative enemy?

There's a Lolly Pop in it for ya.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr. P again

[Agnapostate]

Hey Junior, I thought you took yer toys and went home, whining all the way "he won't play MY game!".

Now that your back can you tell us how YOU would extract vital information from a non-cooperative enemy?

There's a Lolly Pop in it for ya.

With torture, of course. Isn't that kind of obvious?

You've got your head up your ass today, boy.

[revelarts]

:bang3:

Um has anyone actually read or watched my post from REAL interrogators who say you don't need it, even with uncooperative prisoners.

Why would honest folks ignore the experts?
Why do some insist on torture?
Is there some virtue in torture I'm missing.
HELLO, TORTURE Doesn't work!. REAL interrogators agree, is it that hard to leave the practice? what gives?

Can some one give me a strait answer on this?

[Mr. P]

:bang3:

Um has anyone actually read or watched my post from REAL interrogators who say you don't need it, even with uncooperative prisoners.

Why would honest folks ignore the experts?
Why do some insist on torture?
Is there some virtue in torture I'm missing.
HELLO, TORTURE Doesn't work!. REAL interrogators agree, is it that hard to leave the practice? what gives?

Can some one give me a strait answer on this?

You won't like it...


Congressman Nadler: "Okay, let me ask you a question, and I need you
to set aside for a minute any moral or legal concerns and also
any other limits that might be imposed by the Army Field
Manual.
If you were in a position where you knew with absolute
certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and
you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent
value, is there anything that you would, could or should do
that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field
Manual?"
Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not.

The simple answer is...

Based on my experience I'd say he's lying but he has no choice. NO career Officer is going to testify to Congress that he'd break the Law, even if the circumstances justified it. That would mark the end of his career.

[Missileman]

:bang3:

Um has anyone actually read or watched my post from REAL interrogators who say you don't need it, even with uncooperative prisoners.

Why would honest folks ignore the experts?
Why do some insist on torture?
Is there some virtue in torture I'm missing.
HELLO, TORTURE Doesn't work!. REAL interrogators agree, is it that hard to leave the practice? what gives?

Can some one give me a strait answer on this?

If waterboarding works, but torture doesn't then the only rational conclusion is that waterboarding isn't torture.

[Mr. P]

With torture, of course. Isn't that kind of obvious?

You've got your head up your ass today, boy.

GASP!!!! That's illegal ya know?

But just outta curiosity Sally, how low would you go?

Would you go as far as placing woman's panties on a guys head.
Or have a female guard humiliate a male prisoner with dominance perhaps?

Just what would be your technique of choice?

[Agnapostate]

Hell, I don't know. How about some fingernail extraction?

Now, are you going to stop being an idiot and simply concede that waterboarding constitutes torture? Don't be a fickle bitch about it.

[82Marine89]

Hell, I don't know. How about some fingernail extraction?

Now, are you going to stop being an idiot and simply concede that waterboarding constitutes torture? Don't be a fickle bitch about it.

It's not torture. It's scary as shit, but it's not torture.

[Agnapostate]

It's not torture. It's scary as shit, but it's not torture.

It fits with the definition involving deliberate imposition of suffering. It's torture, simply due to the technical definition of the word. That doesn't make it right or wrong in and of itself, but too many people seem to have begged the question in assuming that torture is automatically wrong without even considering the issue.

[revelarts]

let me mention this to start, I'm really not buying your parsing of waterboarding from forms of torture that would leave a person with long term injuries. They are different in color but both are torture. Let me ask you this. If a person waterboarded a dog would it be torture? If they waterboarded a child would it be torture? Handcuffs and stress positions on a child for days on end not torture? If someone did those things to your daughters or wife and family would you say? "They just caused my family some distress.".

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

The simple answer is...

Based on my experience I'd say he's lying but he has no choice. NO career Officer is going to testify to Congress that he'd break the Law, even if the circumstances justified it. That would mark the end of his career.

P that's an interesting answer.
so your saying He's lying.
That he would (probably has) go beyond the Army field manual. That's 1 thing.
The other thing that your saying is that to do so HE WOULD BE BREAKING THE LAW.
Distress, terror or torture either way, it is against the law.
i think we've found common ground.
Do people still go to jail for breaking the law in gov't positions?
"Nation of Laws" and all that. that's a lie too, I've decided that a while back.

You've really thrown a curveball into the whole discussion.

mmmm.. so Mr P. Are you saying that all of the Military officers,... the interrogators from the CIA... and FBI are Lying when they say that Torture is the least effective and a counter productive method of interrogation. And that the rank and file soldiers that picked upped the techniques but now denounce it are lying.
wow.
If what your saying is true that's quite a conspiracy. I got snapped at for saying that Cheney and Rumsfield were liars... that Bush lied. The same folks will probably believe you about this issue though. "you do know there's a difference between being mistaken and lying right? "
Funny how that works.
I'm not saying that your wrong.
If planting a seed of doubt was you goal youv'e done it. I've heard NSA and FBI guys talk about how they lie to congress all the time. George Tenant has done it more than once. So the concept isn't alien. Just that their story is so consistent. Are you aware of a memo, or talking points given out to all the lying military etc involved? Anything to back up what you say? Honestly you could be right, stranger things have happened.

It's just hard to know what is true now a days... based on what you've said... I mean people from the military are liars... your from the military ergo...

What's a soul to believe?

That puts the people in a strange position doesn't it P.
So the Military officers lie to congress to protect their careers... or the country... or the military or all 3. We'll maybe Bush lied to keep his position. He did torture. He did know about it. Cheney too. lied about WMDs, Lying about IRAn now. But if you are telling me the truth. We've just got to trust our military and fearless leaders to do the right thing. They only lie to protect themselves... and the good of the country of course. They only DISTRESS people for the good of the country... I can believe that? I can rest easy tonight in the knowledge that:
the Generals on down will lie for their careers and break a few legs against the will of the people and the law... because they no best.
that the intelligence agencies are liars. and will spy on the people and the congress against all law or the constitution
I already know that the presidents and politicians are liars, where do start with there.

God bless America, we are the best country in the world, love it or leave it baby.

You now the saddest thing about what you telling me is that. From the beginning. When the Judge advocate generals of several armed forces and retired generals all spoke out against torture and for the army field manual AGAINST the lawyers for Bush Cheney the administration, All the officers that retired over torture, that they where all just putting on a show. They knew that they were DISTRESSING people that it worked and they just wanted to cover their A$$ets.

If what you saying is true it's just another confirmation to me that the anti federalist founders where right again in their paranoia about the military writing "...Standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people..."
Antifederalist Papers Number 25


---

[revelarts]

Just disregard to following it's lies to cover pensions

Retired Judge Advocates General Write To Leahy Condemning Waterboarding
November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue – but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture – no less than wanton killing – is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact – as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule – the law – has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise – or even to give credence to such a suggestion – represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88"

[revelarts]

Ill shut up after this one.

This goes Firmly in the board for Mr. P. Military lies about torture scenario.

"Richard Armitage, who was second in command at the State Department during former President George W. Bush's first term, believes waterboarding is torture and says he would have resigned had he known the CIA was torturing suspects.

"I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would've had the courage to resign," "

I won't go into detail but IMO Armitage is a HUGE liar and international Crook. ZERO sarcasm here. If he where the main one publicly condemning torture I wouldn't buy the idea at all. Armitage is reeeall dirty.

[HogTrash]

:bang3:

Um has anyone actually read or watched my post from REAL interrogators who say you don't need it, even with uncooperative prisoners.

Why would honest folks ignore the experts?
Why do some insist on torture?
Is there some virtue in torture I'm missing.
HELLO, TORTURE Doesn't work!. REAL interrogators agree, is it that hard to leave the practice? what gives?

Can some one give me a strait answer on this?Waterboarding is in fact an extremely useful tool for extracting information that does save lives.

Just because you choose to believe the propaganda of people with an anti-America agenda, doesn't make it true.

Do you honestly believe that our American military is so cruel, ruthless and sadiistic that they torture people for the fun of it, einstein?

Without a doubt, liberals have got to be the most ignorant people in the history of mankind...How you manage to survive is a mystery to me.

No wonder you people want a cradle to grave nanny government...You probably can't feed, bath or clothe youselves without government assistance.

[Mr. P]

Ill shut up after this one.

.

How about going back and reading what I quoted and the answer I gave again. THINK about it a bit before you launch into a knee jerk incoherent rambling liberal three post response. Resist making assumptions AND please don't try to put words in my mouth.

[revelarts]

You won't like it...

If you were in a position where you knew with absolute
certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and
you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent
value, is there anything that you would, could or should do
that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field
Manual?"
Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not.


The simple answer is...

Based on my experience I'd say he's lying but he has no choice. NO career Officer is going to testify to Congress that he'd break the Law, even if the circumstances justified it. That would mark the end of his career.


Ok, let me try to parse this.
"Based on my experience.."
your Airforce, And generally familiar with military mindset. You've been Wateredboarded maybe seen it done to others.

...I'd say he's lying...
Colonel Kleinman is lying, not telling the truth to congress both verbally and in writing about not needing to use torture in any form mild or otherwise to get good intel from prisoners

...but he has no choice. ...
He's compelled to lie he probably doesn't want to but he must... Why is that?

NO career Officer is going to testify to Congress that he'd break the Law
OK the reason is that No Officer would tell the truth or ... All Career officers would lie to congress if it means saying that they would or do break the law.

...even if the circumstances justified it...
Even if they broke the law to do the right thing, or in the best interest of the country, or to save lives.
Why not?

...That would mark the end of his career
the end of his career would be a distressing consequence for ANY or ALL Career officers personally and Colonel Kleinman in particular.

You did say it was a quick answer maybe they way you worded it didn't convey exactly what you were thinking. I've been there. But that's what i got from your answer.
-Any Officer when asked directly by congress if they've done or would do something illegal, even for a good cause, would lie to congress to save his or her career.-
That's what i honestly get from what you said. I don't mean to misrepresent you.


But yeah maybe i was rambling yeah maybe, it was 3 am.
but liberal, I've never been called that before except here that's funny.
I'm generally anti federal Gov't so to say anyone in the gov't lies is just throwing fuel on a fire here.
Lets talk about abortion then we'll see if you guys call me a liberal.

but I didn't know that torture/waterboarding was conservative and being anti torture was liberal. I honestly thought not torturing people was American. and torturing people was Red Soviet, Fascist, Maoist, terrorist and generally what totalitarian countries do. Not America. But I get the impression that some might think I'm just naive to believe that our country can survive without torturing/waterboarding people.
And I didn't realize that wanting the military, intelligence services and president to tell the truth to the people it's suppose to serve was Liberal. I thought it was American. I'm an disillusioned idealist maybe, I'll take that label for myself. whatever.

[Mr. P]

If you wanna parse..please do so with the complete sentence (there are only three) in context of the quote I addressed.

I know most liberals have a problem with this but give it a try.

BTW the fact that you can't read my signature that READS UNITED STATES ARMY not Air force, suggests that you are not only liberal, but a liberal troll to boot.

[Kathianne]

If you wanna parse..please do so with the complete sentence (there are only three) in context of the quote I addressed.

I know most liberals have a problem with this but give it a try.

BTW the fact that you can't read my signature that READS UNITED STATES ARMY not Air force, suggests that you are not only liberal, but a liberal troll to boot.

There is a certain logic in your conclusion with Relevarts, verts, whatever. I took him more militia, but you could be right about trolling. :coffee:

[Mr. P]

There is a certain logic in your conclusion with Relevarts, verts, whatever. I took him more militia, but you could be right about trolling. :coffee:

It smelled from his first post..then again it could just be my cooking I smell. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

It smelled from his first post..then again it could just be my cooking I smell. :laugh2:

If it's chicken soup, bring me some. I'm sick. :(

Called in today. About an hour ago I called in for tomorrow. Boo hoo.

Got to do sub plans. Sigh.

[revelarts]

Sorry to hear your sick Katherine, I pray you get better quickly.

Ok, looks likes I've got some splainin to do. My views are real and my own. I'm not trying to flame or bait anyone. But the name of the site here is DebatePolicy. That's all i'm trying to do here. When people make points I have different positions on, I've commented and tried to rebut with facts.

As I've mentioned before I used to vote a pretty solid republican ticket. I 1st voted for president in 1980 while still in college. I voted for J. Carter and against Reagan. In 1983 I became a born again Christian and in 1984 voted Reagan, then Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, But this last election I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

I'm not Militia though i support it, I'm not a "liberal troller" LOL

the Constitution Party Platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php) is probably the closet thing to my own positions.

Constitution Party platform on foreign policy
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Foreign%20Policy

On Iraq (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=420),
"...BUSH TO LAWMAKERS ON IRAQ: DO YOU HAVE A BETTER IDEA?THE CONSTITUTION PARTY SAYS: YES! TAKE IT FROM CALIFORNIA CONGRESSMAN SAM FARR


And as far as My "liberal" views on torture, Bush and Cheney.
If you take minute to check out this site. THe American View (http://www.theamericanview.com/) you'll get a better picture of where i'm coming from.
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1234
"When Government Becomes Godless, the “American View” Is Abandoned, We Become Murderers, Torturers And Much More That’s Evil... If Bush is a Christian, wouldn’t his faith have told him something about the right and wrong way to treat prisoners who are also human beings? Of course. And why, if Bush is a Christian, would he have relied solely on intelligence “professionals” to tell him what was “legal” and what constituted “torture” - ..."

The views are a little more pointed than my own but carry the same basic drift.

I'm strongly apposed to torture on moral and biblical grounds. apposed to abortion on moral and biblical grounds. apposed to unnecessary wars on moral and biblical grounds. And I think it's easy to make an honest political case to support those views among others. On any political questions the 1st thing i ask is what's the Bible have to say about that subject to the best of my understanding and go from there. I don't check in 1st with the conservatives or the liberals. I get data from both sides and more and assume that they all could be lying or any one of them could be telling the truth, keep listening and digging and hope truth show it itself. That leads to odd places sometime.

Anywho there ya go.

I guess i should ask, i don't want to break the Sites etiquette. Am i coming on to strong? or making my postings to long. I'm fine with not having my positions agreed with. (though i don't understand why anyone would disagree with me ) There are pretty "colorful" characters here. I'd hate to think I'm to extreme for the party. i like to deal with facts and witnesses and reports and reason from a high moral perspective. Prove me wrong and I'll change my position, maybe. At least I'll give you credit for poking holes in my info, like Katherine (or abby, I think K) did with my numbers on Gitmo recidivism. But call me names like "liberal". Mr. P that gets you know where and doesn't make your political points any stronger at all sir. Um yeah sorry about calling you airforce.

God bless ya'll