Did ’24′ Normalize Torture?

[red states rule]

Oh my - look who the libs are blaming now for the nations "torture" issue. These libs need to get a life




Jack Bauer finally meets Gary Bauer?


Maybe. In the wake of the release of the CIA torture report, the New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum made an observation on Twitter that the culture warrior would probably agree with:



Still pissed at the creators of 24, who normalized torture every single week.
<time title="Time posted: 10 Dec 2014, 02:00:39 (UTC)" class="dt-updated" datetime="2014-12-10T02:00:39+0000" pubdate="">9:00 PM - 9 Dec 2014</time> (https://twitter.com/emilynussbaum/status/542499099191177217)

220 Retweets (https://twitter.com/emilynussbaum/status/542499099191177217) 274 favorites (https://twitter.com/emilynussbaum/status/542499099191177217)




She’s not alone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/10/how-hollywood-has-bought-in-to-the-notion-that-torture-works/?tid=hp_mm) in making this observation. Still, this is interesting to me, inasmuch as this reflects something social conservatives have long lamented: Hollywood values eventually impact public opinion — and ultimately — public policy. (If you’re into this sort of thing, I engaged in a lengthy Twitter debate with Doug Mataconis — a sharp libertarian writer and attorney — and some others.


The bottom line for me, is this: We shouldn’t be surprised when the values Hollywood sells us (which often involve sex and violence) have an impact.


But liberals and mainstream media elites have mostly mocked the notion that TV, movies, or violent video games could impact mentally disturbed persons, while simultaneously celebrating the way shows like Will & Grace or Modern Family have made Americans more pro-gay in recent years.


Now, some are regretting the possibility that shows like “24″ might have “normalized” torture.


This is not to make a normative value judgment. I suspect some of the values Hollywood has imparted are, in fact, salutary. But the point is that they can and do influence us.


Those who dismiss the notion that Hollywood’s glamorization of sex and violence has a negative impact can’t have it both ways. I’ll take this as a tacit admission that the values Hollywood sells eventually do have an impact — that politics is, as it is often said, downstream from culture.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/10/did-24-normalize-torture-2/

[aboutime]

red states. Ya know? When you really take time to consider how liberal democrats lack the intelligence to actually think, reason, and observe common sense ON THEIR OWN. The one reason most of them use as their source of any kind of intelligence, or information....generally is fictional, coming from tv, and their news sources come from the Comedy Channels, where they find more people who are institutionally just as dumb.

[Neo]

Just watch ANY ONE Jesse Watters "Watters World" (which is after all, a cheap rip-off of Leno's famous(?) "Jay Walking" street interviews) segments on Bill O'Reilly's, "The Factor", to witness the abject stupidity of those people, the majority of which are libs.

[aboutime]

Just watch ANY ONE Jesse Watters "Watters World" (which is after all, a cheap rip-off of Leno's famous(?) "Jay Walking" street interviews) segments on Bill O'Reilly's, "The Factor", to witness the abject stupidity of those people, the majority of which are libs.


As much as I hate to admit that Gruber's statements about Americans being "Stupid" is actually true.

Most Americans who proudly call themselves Liberals, Obama-fans, and Democrats actually are PROVING Gruber was honestly speaking about Democrats...without understanding, or admitting it.

[Neo]

As much as I hate to admit that Gruber's statements about Americans being "Stupid" is actually true.

Most Americans who proudly call themselves Liberals, Obama-fans, and Democrats actually are PROVING Gruber was honestly speaking about Democrats...without understanding, or admitting it.

EXACTLY.........and the support remains.

Time To Teach!

[LongTermGuy]

As much as I hate to admit that Gruber's statements about Americans being "Stupid" is actually true.

Most Americans who proudly call themselves Liberals, Obama-fans, and Democrats actually are PROVING Gruber was honestly speaking about Democrats...without understanding, or admitting it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRanr2NyFCU


:coffee:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

[revelarts]

the 24 question is NOT new and it's not a joke, or a partisan thing it's real.
2007 Christian Science Monitor article



<article id="story" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/NewsArticle"> Does '24' encourage US interrogators to 'torture' detainees?
By Tom Regan, csmonitor.com
<time id="date-published" itemprop="datePublished" class="eza-publish_date outer_block all_caps" datetime="2007-02-12T12:02:00-05:00" title="Published: February 12, 2007 12:02 pm EST">February 12, 2007</time>
The Fox Broadcasting Company television show "24," which for the past five years has detailed "a single, panic-laced day" in which Jack Bauer – a heroic counter-terrorism agent, played by Kiefer Sutherland – must stop "a conspiracy that imperils the nation," is one of the US's most popular shows. But it may also be encouraging real-life interrogators to "go too far" when they question terrorist suspects.
This week's New Yorker features a story about Joel Surnow, the show's creator and a self-described "right-wing nut," and includes the information that last November Mr. Surnow and the story's creative staff were visited by a brigadier general and three top military and FBI interrogators, as well as human rights groups, who told them that the show's graphic depictions of the torture of suspects was "hurting efforts to train recruits in effective interrogation techniques and is damaging the image of the US around the world."
This past November, US Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind "24." Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and FBI interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan – wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals – aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his "call" was.
In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show's central political premise – that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country's security – was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I'd like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show's producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."

</article>
Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told the New Yorker that his students would frequently refer to Jack Bauer in discussions of what permissible in the questioning of terrorist suspects.

He said that, under both US and international law, "Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted." Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer's: "Whatever it takes." His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn't talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, "I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p99s01-duts.html

kinda like trying to talk people here professor, i feel your pain bro.

But i'm sure you guys know FAR better than the any ol General from West Point and the Law Professor and designer of the Law of War for Commanders Curriculum at West point.

maybe they're both stupid liberals heading up West Point?
Or maybe torture is stupid, ineffective, illegal, immoral and ungodly sin.

More from the article

The New York Daily News reports that the terrorism experts told the staff that almost all of the interrogation techniques depicted in "24" would not work in real-life situations.<aside id="story-inset">
</aside>"People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they've just seen," said Tony Lagouranis, who was a US Army interrogator in Iraq and attended the meeting.

[revelarts]

From and ATLANTIC article again back in 2007

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/02/the-real-legacy-of-zero-dark-thirty-will-be-in-interrogation-rooms/273576/


...
...When I watched Zero Dark Thirty, I thought about Tony Lagouranis, an Army interrogator who served in Iraq in 2004, who I interviewed for my book about American soldiers and torture. Back then, many interrogators told me they lacked adequate training, and fewer had field experience. They faced widespread problems identifying and capturing insurgent targets, and sorting out the detainees who were haphazardly picked up in sweeps. And their superiors place unattainable expectations on them: for instance, believing that interrogators should collect actionable intelligence from a detainee in 30-minute sessions.

In the absence of better guidance and training, and in the midst of failing intelligence operations, interrogators like Lagouranis said they drew on various sources for inspiration, including talk about what kind of coercive techniques worked elsewhere, what special ops had been doing nearby—and what they saw on their television screens. In between interrogation sessions, he and his colleagues watched movies and TV shows from their bunker office in Mosul. They later said that the kinds of pressure that was used to make their suspects talk in these Hollywood depictions was especially compelling to them, fueling beliefs that pain and duress were effective tools for questioning their prisoners.
"None of us were complete idiots—we knew it was make-believe," he said. "But still, it affects you."
That's not surprising to Barry McManus, a former CIA chief polygrapher and interrogator, who notes how and why some interrogators might turn to TV and movies in high-pressure situations.
"You're dealing with a lot of inexperienced young men and women, and all of a sudden they are put into an environment where they're tasked with getting information," McManus said. "When it doesn't go the way they think it should go, as quickly as they think it should go, with the pressure they have, they tend to revert back to things they've seen on TV or in movies—thinking that this might be the right thing to do."
In the book, Torture Team, author Philippe Sands describes how Army Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, the staff judge advocate at Guantanamo, had witnessed the effect of Fox's anti-terrorism thriller 24 on the base. She believed the show contributed to an environment in which those at Guantanamo were encouraged to see themselves as being on the frontline, and to go further than they otherwise might. Interrogators even copied the methods of show's protagonist, Agent Jack Bauer, she said: "You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas."
In Lagouranis's case, his unit mostly reproduced "harsh techniques" that other units casually mentioned in passing or copied what other units were doing at the time. But he and his team leader remember how their superiors wanted to reproduce a psychological torture technique they had seen on their office TV screen: a mock electrocution, whereby a detainee would hear the screams of someone they presumed to be another detainee coming from the room next door. The soldiers who were present protested, and ultimately the suggestion was never enacted. (Lagouranis even filed official reports about the torture he saw and was involved in, and wrote a book about it titled Fear Up Harsh.)
Yet there was another chilling instance that occurred around the same time Lagouranis served in 2004. US troops in Tikrit, Iraq, were abusing their detainees. Army Inspector General, Lieutenant General Paul T. Mikolashek, investigated and filed a report that found "at the point of capture, non-commissioned officers were using interrogations techniques they literally remembered from the movies."
Pop culture's stories about torture and interrogation have been shown to influence not only troops on the ground in the heat of a moment, but also US officials at home........

"We're not complete idiots BUT"...
"Inexpeareiend" "UNTRAINED" in REAL effective, BETTER interrogation techniques.

[Neo]

May I also recommend for your reading pleasure.......

[revelarts]

May I also recommend for your reading pleasure.......
Yes your right, 'Chicken Little'
because so many misinformed people think the sky will fall if we don't torture?

good one.

[Neo]

Yes your right, 'Chicken Little'
because so many misinformed people think the sky will fall if we don't torture?

good one.

Where DID you serve Sir?

[BoogyMan]

'24' is a TV show...pure and simple. It saddens me to hear that anyone would look at a TV drama and claim it guided their actions in ANY activity, especially the handling of foreign prisoners.

Have people gone so far off the deep end that televised drama is now to be held up as a pretext for our actions? Worse yet, a guide for our actions?

SMH

[Neo]

Do you REALLY believe it's as simple as its portrayed? My, my, how good, how very nice it must be, to be able to sit in judgment of those who deal with the anus's of this planet, who are PAID SO DAMN HANDSOMELY (not) to prevent the next 9/11, or worse, from occurring.

Geez, you (anyone) want strict adherence to rules?

WHAT rules?

BTW....it's "Art" that's imitating life, NOT the other way around....

[Drummond]

Yes your right, 'Chicken Little'
because so many misinformed people think the sky will fall if we don't torture?

good one.

Can you promise me that information gained via torture has NEVER saved A SINGLE LIFE ?

No, Revelarts. You CANNOT.

I place the value of one single innocent life WAY above any, and all, lives of terrorists.

Perhaps you do not, however.

If you don't ... I look forward to your trying to defend that particular manifestation of Leftieness !!!

[aboutime]

Seems obvious to me, after reading this thread, and paying attention to rev's posts that. Rev is actually one of those Americans Gruber was referring to...those several times he was captured on video.

[jimnyc]

Can you promise me that information gained via torture has NEVER saved A SINGLE LIFE ?

6 ranking CIA officials wrote their names to the fact that it saved thousands of lives. Just yesterday I saw an article that came out from one of the psychologists involved and a few of the things he stated. And this man was also directly involved in the techniques, and also stated that lives were saved. With 3 former CIA leaders and 3 deputies saying it saved lives since this started, and now a psychologist directly involved states similarly. He states he was one of those who directly waterboarded KSM no less, the mastermind behind 9/11.

The "183" times I recall was blown out of the water - and now we are told it was actually 83 times, of 10 seconds of less of water each time. 830 seconds. 13.8 minutes.

If it saved JUST ONE American life, I'm still all for it.

[Drummond]

6 ranking CIA officials wrote their names to the fact that it saved thousands of lives. Just yesterday I saw an article that came out from one of the psychologists involved and a few of the things he stated. And this man was also directly involved in the techniques, and also stated that lives were saved. With 3 former CIA leaders and 3 deputies saying it saved lives since this started, and now a psychologist directly involved states similarly. He states he was one of those who directly waterboarded KSM no less, the mastermind behind 9/11.

The "183" times I recall was blown out of the water - and now we are told it was actually 83 times, of 10 seconds of less of water each time. 830 seconds. 13.8 minutes.

If it saved JUST ONE American life, I'm still all for it.:clap::clap::clap:

Exactly my own thinking. That one life is one life that wouldn't survive, if Leftie do-gooders - blinded by PC nonsense - had their way. The logic of that is to say that terrorist welfare concerns outweigh those of their victims.

I don't care what 'torture' (and waterboarding doesn't qualify !) is meted out. The smallest chance of gain from it makes every last bit of it worthwhile.

[revelarts]

If cameras in every home can save 1 child then...
If curfews every night can save one life...
If torture in American police stations can save on life on the street...
If biological and chemical warfare can save one American soul then all treaties and "rules" of war be d@mn!

then its WELL WORTH IT!

[aboutime]

If cameras in every home can save 1 child then...
If curfews every night can save one life...
If torture in American police stations can save on life on the street...
If biological and chemical warfare can save one American soul then all treaties and "rules" of war be d@mn!

then its WELL WORTH IT!


How bout saying it this way rev? Then tell us how you feel.

If cameras in REV'S home can save his children.
If curfews every night can save REV'S child.
If torture in American police stations can save REV'S son, or daughter.
If biological and chemical warfare can save REV's soul, then Damn all treaties and "rules of war"????

Is is worth it to SAVE REV, and HIS CHILDREN???

[Neo]

How bout saying it this way rev? Then tell us how you feel.

If cameras in REV'S home can save his children.
If curfews every night can save REV'S child.
If torture in American police stations can save REV'S son, or daughter.
If biological and chemical warfare can save REV's soul, then Damn all treaties and "rules of war"????

Is is worth it to SAVE REV, and HIS CHILDREN???

I CALL FOUL - UNFAIR QUESTION!

Libs don't have children, they ABORT them.

[revelarts]

I CALL FOUL - UNFAIR QUESTION!

Libs don't have children, they ABORT them.

I'm not a Lib, and And pro-life BTW.

[Neo]

I'm not a Lib, and And pro-life BTW.

REALLY? DO tell, cause based on what I've read of your posts, you ain't exactly giving me visions of Ronald Reagan, Chomsky perhaps......

[Drummond]

I'm not a Lib, and And pro-life BTW.

I agree with Neo !!

I've seen some pretty classic pro-Leftie opinions from you on this forum !

[revelarts]

the"bush doctrine" of preemptive war is not like Reagan or Washington etc.. It's new and NOT classic conservative.
Classic Conservative and American tradition and law has been about defensive war and often about ending Dems wars.
When i turned conservative neither torture or enhanced interrogation was considered conservative.
It was considered "Commie" and Fascist.
Reagan signed the anti-torture treaty in the 80's with a strong commitment to it.
Classic conservative used to mean they appreciated the bill of rights which has this amendment that says 'NO cruel or usual punishment'. Also amendments about rights to papers etc. unless there's a warrant, no home entry without warrants, right to trial etc. Not many Republicans defend those classic conservative ideas anymore.

What some of you folks are defending is not classic it's NEO-Conservative not conservative.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and many of their cheerleaders claim that title gladly.

so no I'm NOT neo-con. I still believe ALL of the Constitution is the law especially the bill of rights.
Some of you guys seem to want to make up rules as you go along that fit your fears and concerns real or imagined. Just like Dems do. Making excuses why you can't follow the Constitution or morals we've promoted for centuries anymore.
Or you just go along with establishment Republicans that vote in bigger and bigger gov't, more and more gov't control and power every year. But as long as the dems aren't doing it's OK.

I was part of the "Christian right" that rose up in the 80s, and sadly i've discovered that the Republicans don't REALLY care about being Christian or being what was right or much about the Constitution or small gov't or small or medium sized biz. It's a lot of lip service but no substance when it counts.

But you guys can assume everyone fits into your cartoon simple Left/Right Boxes if that makes you feel better. I can't force you think rationally and understand there's more to the world than those 2 cartoon categories.
Or to be honest and acknowledge that you DON'T follow the Constitution or Christian morals when it comes to torture or war.

[aboutime]

I CALL FOUL - UNFAIR QUESTION!

Libs don't have children, they ABORT them.


Neo. Right you are. I apologize. Forgot all about the Liberal, Transparent, Tolerance called ROE V. WADE.

[Neo]

the"bush doctrine" of preemptive war is not like Reagan or Washington etc.. It's new and NOT classic conservative.
Classic Conservative and American tradition and law has been about defensive war and often about ending Dems wars.
When i turned conservative neither torture or enhanced interrogation was considered conservative.
It was considered "Commie" and Fascist.
Reagan signed the anti-torture treaty in the 80's with a strong commitment to it.
Classic conservative used to mean they appreciated the bill of rights which has this amendment that says 'NO cruel or usual punishment'. Also amendments about rights to papers etc. unless there's a warrant, no home entry without warrants, right to trial etc. Not many Republicans defend those classic conservative ideas anymore.

What some of you folks are defending is not classic it's NEO-Conservative not conservative.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and many of their cheerleaders claim that title gladly.

so no I'm NOT neo-con. I still believe ALL of the Constitution is the law especially the bill of rights.
Some of you guys seem to want to make up rules as you go along that fit your fears and concerns real or imagined. Just like Dems do. Making excuses why you can't follow the Constitution or morals we've promoted for centuries anymore.
Or you just go along with establishment Republicans that vote in bigger and bigger gov't, more and more gov't control and power every year. But as long as the dems aren't doing it's OK.

I was part of the "Christian right" that rose up in the 80s, and sadly i've discovered that the Republicans don't REALLY care about being Christian or being what was right or much about the Constitution or small gov't or small or medium sized biz. It's a lot of lip service but no substance when it counts.

But you guys can assume everyone fits into your cartoon simple Left/Right Boxes if that makes you feel better. I can't force you think rationally and understand there's more to the world than those 2 cartoon categories.
Or to be honest and acknowledge that you DON'T follow the Constitution or Christian morals when it comes to torture or war.

DUDE!...........take a deeeeeeeeppppppp breath.....innnnnn........oooooooutttttttt....agai n...repeat as necessary until you feel calmer....sigh....

WHERE, exactly is torture expressly forbidden in our founding documents? It's not. What you cite has no basis in war.

I don't give a fig about "neo-this" or neo-that", NWO, ILLUMINATI conspiracies, and it has zip to do with being a "Christian", (<red lives.

Get over your left-wing penchant for over dramatizing and self-rightness. We are NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY NICE, it's viewed as weakness and inspires more of the same terror bull-shit, especially of late.</red>

[fj1200]

WHERE, exactly is torture expressly forbidden in our founding documents?

Pay attention: There are many steps here.

Constitution --> Treaties --> Geneva Convention --> Hamdi v. Rumsfeld --> Unconstitutional

[revelarts]

8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[revelarts]

Geneva Convention:
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission ... causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

"Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities."

"The following acts are and shall remain prohibited ... cruel treatment and torture; ... Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; "

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory ... are prohibited, regardless of their motive."
(Geneva Convention, 1949 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView))

[revelarts]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2011570550189970b-500wi

Ronald Reagan On Torture
From his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention .
It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment.
Ratification of theConvention by the United States will clearly express United Statesopposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately stillprevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."


Quote:

<tbody>
The UN Convention on Torture, which Ronald Reagan signed and championed, is very clear and its definition of what torture is obviously broad and inclusive. There's actually a good discussion of it at Hot Air, which reproduces the legal definition thus:
.................................
Article 1.
1. 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
................

Just ask yourself: reading this language and knowing that president Bush ordered the waterboarding of a man for 83 times to get evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, is it really a matter of debate whether the last president of the United States is a war criminal? How is one able to come to any other opinion?

Remember:
"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"

is torture. Remember:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Why are we still debating this?

</tbody>

What Reagan Signed - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/04/what-reagan-signed/202639/)

[revelarts]

DUDE!...........take a deeeeeeeeppppppp breath.....innnnnn........oooooooutttttttt....agai n...repeat as necessary until you feel calmer....sigh....

WHERE, exactly is torture expressly forbidden in our founding documents? It's not. What you cite has no basis in war.

I don't give a fig about "neo-this" or neo-that", NWO, ILLUMINATI conspiracies, and it has zip to do with being a "Christian", (<red lives.

Get over your left-wing penchant for over dramatizing and self-rightness. We are NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY NICE, it's viewed as weakness and inspires more of the same terror bull-shit, especially of late.</red>

you claim you "can't play nice" after I've posted Military, CIA, FBI, WWII etc saying it's totally unnecessary.

You've got crap for defense here neo,
you Drummond and AT have posted NOTHING but attacks on me and others IMAGINARY political views because torture Itself is Indefensible, Immoral, Illegall, Unconstitutional, ungodly and ineffective.

the Dean and instructors at West Point say you're full of crap,
the people who've interrogated many AQ members say you're full of crap.
WWII NAZI interrogators say you're full of crap.
They all say they DID PLAY NICE and that's WHEN they got the BEST INFO!!
They all say torture is NOT necessary.

Ronald Reagan says you're wrong.
George Washington says you're wrong. etc etc etc.
can't you people read?
Why all the faux macho Dirty Harry, TV revenge BS, you sound like guys trying to defend wife beating as the way for a REAL man to get some respect round the house. "Sometimes you've got to beat them that's the only thing they understand."

[Neo]

ALL OUT THE WINDOW WHEN THEY ARE NOT UNIFORMED, THEY ARE SPIES, EMEMY COMBATANTS, WHATEVER....and I don't give sway in those cases.

Obviously, you gals/Nancy's ain't never been in a fight. The whole point is to win=we live, THEY DIE.

Next

[Neo]

No need for me to attack YOU, YOU do fine by yourself. I've done the job, I don't care what people "say".

Seesh!

[fj1200]

ALL OUT THE WINDOW WHEN THEY ARE NOT UNIFORMED, THEY ARE SPIES, EMEMY COMBATANTS, WHATEVER....and I don't give sway in those cases.

Obviously, you gals/Nancy's ain't never been in a fight. The whole point is to win=we live, THEY DIE.

Next

Well, the rest of the country goes with SCOTUS. I would have thought you would give sway to the Constitution. :dunno:

And Rev has presented plenty of evidence that torture has no bearing on whether "we live," or "THEY DIE." In fact they do a fine job of dying without us having to resort to torture. Nice strawman though. :rolleyes:

[Abbey Marie]

Ok, but where are these same people when TV shows normalize sexual promiscuity? How about all those murders and rapes on the crime shows? I've been complaining about it for years. The list can go on and on of TV shows and their bad effect on society. But only this gets their attention, huh?

[jimnyc]

Brought this up many times myself and I still don't see how terrorists fully apply to this convention. IF we are going to give them such protections, of which they are not signed onto, then they must abide by all sections as well - otherwise they don't qualify. They fail in ALL FIVE lines of the first section.

CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents
Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2.
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

[fj1200]

Brought this up many times myself and I still don't see how terrorists fully apply to this convention.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

[jimnyc]

If cameras in every home can save 1 child then...

We were talking about terrorists that you can count on one hand - NOT every American.


If curfews every night can save one life...

Again, how did a couple of terrorists change into every child with a curfew? Exaggeration doesn't work with me.


If torture in American police stations can save on life on the street...

Again, from a few terrorists to thousands/millions of American lawbreakers now?


If biological and chemical warfare can save one American soul then all treaties and "rules" of war be d@mn!

Only if done on terrorists.


then its WELL WORTH IT!

If it saves even a single American life, I agree!

[jimnyc]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Too lazy to read the entire thing. Did a search of "uniforms" and "torture" in there and didn't find what I was looking for. What I read what that this gave them the power to recognize them as "enemy combatants", and that they must have the right of due process. I don't think declaring them deserving of due process means that they aren't terrorists, or that they need not meet the requirements of the geneva convention. I thought the whole thing was that so they couldn't hold them forever/indefinitely.

[jimnyc]

In reading: I see where it seems the justices agree that they should have an opportunity to prove that they are not "enemy combatants". But I don't see where it states they DO meet the qualifications of the geneva convention. It shows how certain portions of the convention should be implemented, and that they are deserving of such, but never talks of what the terrorists responsibilities are. The word "torture" is never even stated in this case.

[fj1200]

In reading: I see where it seems the justices agree that they should have an opportunity to prove that they are not "enemy combatants". But I don't see where it states they DO meet the qualifications of the geneva convention. It shows how certain portions of the convention should be implemented, and that they are deserving of such, but never talks of what the terrorists responsibilities are. The word "torture" is never even stated in this case.

This predates Hamdi.


Geneva Convention Applies to Taliban, not Al Qaeda (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960)By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2002 – President Bush said the United States would regard the Geneva Conventions as applying to Taliban detainees under U.S. control -- but not Al Qaeda detainees.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the United States would continue to treat all detainees humanely and in accordance with standards set by the Geneva Conventions.

[Drummond]

Well, the rest of the country goes with SCOTUS. I would have thought you would give sway to the Constitution. :dunno:

And Rev has presented plenty of evidence that torture has no bearing on whether "we live," or "THEY DIE." In fact they do a fine job of dying without us having to resort to torture. Nice strawman though. :rolleyes:

Don't you ever get tired of defending terrorists ?:uhoh:

[fj1200]

Don't you ever get tired of defending terrorists ?:uhoh:

I've never once defended terrorists. I defend the TRUTH, the Constitution, and the rule of law; it's what conservatives do. :)

Have you ever gotten tired of prattling your tired line of "argument" and trolling like a hypocrite?

[fj1200]

This predates Hamdi.

More recent.


U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html)By Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.
The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.
The developments underscored how the administration has been forced to retreat from its long-standing position that President Bush be given extensive leeway to determine how to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects captured in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Until recently, the White House and Defense Department have pursued such anti-terrorism policies with little interference from Congress and the courts, but that has begun to change.
Since 2002, the administration has contended that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law to terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in U.S. military custody elsewhere. Administration officials have voiced concern that the conventions are too vague and could expose the military to second-guessing about appropriate treatment.


But the Supreme Court rejected that view in a 5 to 3 decision last month, ruling that a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay could not be tried by a special military commission established by the Bush administration. The court held that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

[revelarts]

enemy combatant is a BS term.

If the terrorist not a "regular army" then he's a criminal. charged criminals do have rights.
Enemy combatant is BS term ONLY used to try to make up a category where they can break the law... sorry LAWS and RULES.
laws and rules that we all are suppose to obey.... unless we can save one life i guess right?

Reagan signed the treaty and it's the law of the land.


The UN Convention on Torture, which Ronald Reagan signed and championed, is very clear and its definition of what torture is obviously broad and inclusive. There's actually a good discussion of it at Hot Air, which reproduces the legal definition thus:
.................................
Article 1.
1. 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

No exceptional circumstances ...except for terrorist. is not what it says.
no exceptional circumstances ...except for enemy combatants. is not what it says.
If you think it can read that way or it SHOULD be read that way.. then Jim --i think you've mentioned before-- that if people don't like the law they should change it legally NOT just do what they want to inspire of it. (Jim i may be wrong but i think you've said something like that before. My apologies if you've never said anything SIMILAR to that in other threads).

If you think it can read that way or it SHOULD be read that way then there NO reason why other exceptions can't be made that are more far afield, like by police at the local station etc etc.
You've got NO bright line. And once you've crossed over Jim it's fair game as a 'legitimate' tool.
Especially since so many other things have be characterized as terrorism by official bodies since 9/11 that does not include chopping heads off or blowing up buildings. Police Shooter charged with terrorism, person falsely called SWAT team on another charged with terrorism, man looks angry on plane charged with terrorism, man makes silver coins charged with terrorism (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7444-fbi-convicts-bernard-von-nothaus-for-minting-and-selling-silver-coins), Man threatens hunters on his land accused of terrorism, (http://www.kcci.com/news/man-charged-with-threats-of-terrorism-against-hunters/30219414) There are many drug offenses that have been declared terrorist acts, there are many protesters and activate actions that have been declared terrorist acts by the U.S. officials Jim.

that makes them ALL terrorist doesn't it?

the below is from the Dept of Justice FBI 2002-2005 report "Terrorism (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005)" it states

...Although various Executive Orders, Presidential Decision Directives, and congressional statutes address the issue of terrorism, there is no single federal law specifically making terrorism a crime. Terrorists are arrested and convicted under existing criminal statutes. All suspected terrorists placed under arrest are provided access to legal counsel and normal judicial procedure, including Fifth Amendment guarantees.
Definitions
There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).


The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. .....


'Terrorist' and 'enemy combatant' are terms that covers nothing and everything.
They're not some FIXED state that's legally defined where it's PROPER and just to use torture to save .."just one life".
And again the bottom line is it's NOT legal for U.S. law enforcement or military or spy agencies to use it. "no exceptional circumstances"
Do you want people to obey the law Jim?

[Drummond]

you claim you "can't play nice" after I've posted Military, CIA, FBI, WWII etc saying it's totally unnecessary.

You've got crap for defense here neo,
you Drummond and AT have posted NOTHING but attacks on me and others IMAGINARY political views because torture Itself is Indefensible, Immoral, Illegall, Unconstitutional, ungodly and ineffective.

the Dean and instructors at West Point say you're full of crap,
the people who've interrogated many AQ members say you're full of crap.
WWII NAZI interrogators say you're full of crap.
They all say they DID PLAY NICE and that's WHEN they got the BEST INFO!!
They all say torture is NOT necessary.

Ronald Reagan says you're wrong.
George Washington says you're wrong. etc etc etc.
can't you people read?
Why all the faux macho Dirty Harry, TV revenge BS, you sound like guys trying to defend wife beating as the way for a REAL man to get some respect round the house. "Sometimes you've got to beat them that's the only thing they understand."



Assure me, if you can, Revelarts, that torture has never saved a life, nor ever will. With proof that this is so.

If you can't do this, then accept that torture IS a means of gaining useful information.

In considering any reply ... also consider ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47994-Did-%9224%26%238242%3B-Normalize-Torture&p=718588#post718588

... which should lead you to post #16 on this very thread .. one from Jim.

Should you be willing to accept anything of what Jim tells us, Revelarts ... I suggest you rethink your 'UNGODLY' jibe against the use of such a method. Saving innocent lives from evil surely CANNOT be an UNGODLY act to commit !!!!

[jimnyc]

This predates Hamdi.

Then according to this - Al Qaeda and KSM, who was waterboarded - would not be covered under the geneva convention. Rumsfeld said it best:

"The reality is the set of facts that exist today with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Convention was fashioned,"

But nonetheless, Al Qaeda certainly doesn't fit, IMO. And although Afghanistan is a signer of said treaty, I don't think terrorists within a country should represent a "country" and what they signed/agreed to in the past - and less so if they don't follow said treaty themselves.

[jimnyc]

More recent.

Seems like this one covers the indefinite detentions and how this should be applied to combatants as so far as the treaty is concerned. I read that they are covering these cases and stating that they are deserving of trials and due process. I would love to hear the court address the issue as to whether or not ANY person in the world gets such protection - literally "no matter what". While that very well may be what I'm reading here, I couldn't disagree more if that's the case.

[jimnyc]

enemy combatant is a BS term.

If the terrorist not a "regular army" then he's a criminal. charged criminals do have rights.
Enemy combatant is BS term ONLY used to try to make up a category where they can break the law... sorry LAWS and RULES.
laws and rules that we all are suppose to obey.... unless we can save one life i guess right?

Reagan signed the treaty and it's the law of the land.



No exceptional circumstances ...except for terrorist. is not what it says.
no exceptional circumstances ...except for enemy combatants. is not what it says.
If you think it can read that way or it SHOULD be read that way.. then Jim --i think you've mentioned before-- that if people don't like the law they should change it legally NOT just do what they want to inspire of it. (Jim i may be wrong but i think you've said something like that before. My apologies if you've never said anything SIMILAR to that in other threads).

If you think it can read that way or it SHOULD be read that way then there NO reason why other exceptions can't be made that are more far afield, like by police at the local station etc etc.
You've got NO bright line. And once you've crossed over Jim it's fair game as a 'legitimate' tool.
Especially since so many other things have be characterized as terrorism by official bodies since 9/11 that does not include chopping heads off or blowing up buildings. Police Shooter charged with terrorism, person falsely called SWAT team on another charged with terrorism, man looks angry on plane charged with terrorism, man makes silver coins charged with terrorism (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7444-fbi-convicts-bernard-von-nothaus-for-minting-and-selling-silver-coins), Man threatens hunters on his land accused of terrorism, (http://www.kcci.com/news/man-charged-with-threats-of-terrorism-against-hunters/30219414) There are many drug offenses that have been declared terrorist acts, there are many protesters and activate actions that have been declared terrorist acts by the U.S. officials Jim.

that makes them ALL terrorist doesn't it?

the below is from the Dept of Justice FBI 2002-2005 report "Terrorism (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005)" it states



'Terrorist' and 'enemy combatant' are terms that covers nothing and everything.
They're not some FIXED state that's legally defined where it's PROPER and just to use torture to save .."just one life".
And again the bottom line is it's NOT legal for U.S. law enforcement or military or spy agencies to use it. "no exceptional circumstances"
Do you want people to obey the law Jim?

I don't care what any of that mumbo jumbo from the past states. Quite frankly, I don't think today's terrorists fit into that mold, but of course that's just me. I believe all of these things were written and designed on how armed forces are supposed to act and treat others during times of war.

Do you want Americans do die, Rev? Or are dead Americans cool with you if it somehow involves torture? I know you weren't happy with Bin Laden being killed when you first heard that torture may have helped lead to him.

I still take my same stance - if even one American life can be saved by "mistreating" a known terrorist, I'm all for it, have no shame in admitting it. I'll change my stance when those covered under geneva also follow the exact rules. Until such time - war is hell, and it's about killing them first and saving American lives.

[revelarts]

I don't care what any of that mumbo jumbo from the past states. Quite frankly, I don't think today's terrorists fit into that mold, but of course that's just me. I believe all of these things were written and designed on how armed forces are supposed to act and treat others during times of war.

Do you want Americans do die, Rev? Or are dead Americans cool with you if it somehow involves torture? I know you weren't happy with Bin Laden being killed when you first heard that torture may have helped lead to him.

I still take my same stance - if even one American life can be saved by "mistreating" a known terrorist, I'm all for it, have no shame in admitting it. I'll change my stance when those covered under geneva also follow the exact rules. Until such time - war is hell, and it's about killing them first and saving American lives.

Reagan is Mumbo Jumbo now? History is mumbo jumbo? CURRENT interrogators CURRENT military leaders are mumbo jumbo?

Jim look If you don't like the Mumbo Jumobo laws, UCMJ rules, treaties, geneva conventions, then go to congress and change it.
And don't assume all of them are wrong and noone's ever killed anyone like this before. that's mumbo jumbo IMO. terrorism ain't new. been around for thousands of years.
And it's taken that long for us to get away from the use of troture. but you'll set s back cause you and others frankly IGNORE the experts, and the laws and morality. Just in case it might maybe have given us one tick... of a piece info that might have maybe saved one life. you and others are willing to create more terrorist, chuck our reps, our laws and morals down the toilet and possible pave the way for legal torture at home.

good move folks.

[jimnyc]

you and others frankly IGNORE the experts, and the laws and morality.

good move folks.

Just as YOU are continually ignoring 3 CIA leaders, 3 CIA deputies and a man that actually waterboarded KSM himself.

Good move in preferring dead Americans. I'm sorry if I disagree and would prefer dead terrorists and Americans coming home safely.

[aboutime]

I am now fully convinced that REV is nothing but FULL of Mumbo Jumbo.

Anyone who is educationally threatened, and convinced a TV Program has played a part in Actual Life, or actions that defend this nation...Needs to take a long vacation until reality hits them in the back of the head.

Consider this rev. Your conclusions, and demands that we accept what you said are....almost the same as YOU declaring that
http://icansayit.com/images/rubber-ducky.jpg Rubber Ducky, or

SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS....should be in charge of our Navy Dive Teams.:laugh:

[Neo]

To hell with ALL this BULLSHIT and FOCK BOTH of the two lovers of stupidity.

Here's the bottom line.


These people H. A. T. E. us, as in ALL of us. For NO DAMN GOOD REASON other than some perverted religious doctrine from a make believe false, pagan religion, put together by a common pedophile.

WHATEVER it takes, WHEREVER it takes, as REQUIRED by circumstance(s) WHENEVER it takes ANY MEANS to save even ONE American life, it's justified. Period.

Be as self-righteous as you feel you need to be, corpse's rarely are afforded the opportunity to argue their moral equivalencies and I see no different result headed your way, despite all of your intentions.

Where I hail from, we refer to it as "a fools' errand".

[fj1200]

Then according to this - Al Qaeda and KSM, who was waterboarded - would not be covered under the geneva convention. Rumsfeld said it best:

"The reality is the set of facts that exist today with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Convention was fashioned,"

But nonetheless, Al Qaeda certainly doesn't fit, IMO. And although Afghanistan is a signer of said treaty, I don't think terrorists within a country should represent a "country" and what they signed/agreed to in the past - and less so if they don't follow said treaty themselves.

At the time that was conventional wisdom but I disagree that the Taliban didn't fit as they were the regime running a country when we went in.


Seems like this one covers the indefinite detentions and how this should be applied to combatants as so far as the treaty is concerned. I read that they are covering these cases and stating that they are deserving of trials and due process. I would love to hear the court address the issue as to whether or not ANY person in the world gets such protection - literally "no matter what". While that very well may be what I'm reading here, I couldn't disagree more if that's the case.

The GC has provisions for due process. Crimes against the US? Let them stew in prison. Crimes against another country? Ship them over and let that country deal with them.

[fj1200]

Here's the bottom line.

I'm sure that there is a choir that appreciates your sermon against the Constitution and our rule of law.

[Drummond]

I'm sure that there is a choir that appreciates your sermon against the Constitution and our rule of law.

... and are there a choir of Lefties out there, ready to sing the praises of anyone offering your level of opposition to Conservatives on forums such as this ?

The Left want people to sleepwalk into continued non-awareness of the nature of the enemy you face. It's high time that ended.

[Drummond]

Reagan is Mumbo Jumbo now? History is mumbo jumbo? CURRENT interrogators CURRENT military leaders are mumbo jumbo?

Jim look If you don't like the Mumbo Jumobo laws, UCMJ rules, treaties, geneva conventions, then go to congress and change it.
And don't assume all of them are wrong and noone's ever killed anyone like this before. that's mumbo jumbo IMO. terrorism ain't new. been around for thousands of years.
And it's taken that long for us to get away from the use of troture. but you'll set s back cause you and others frankly IGNORE the experts, and the laws and morality. Just in case it might maybe have given us one tick... of a piece info that might have maybe saved one life. you and others are willing to create more terrorist, chuck our reps, our laws and morals down the toilet and possible pave the way for legal torture at home.

good move folks.

Good grief.

I look forward, Revelarts, to your putting so much as TEN PERCENT of the effort into supporting the VICTIMS of terrorism, as you put into finding any way you possibly can to support so-called 'terrorists' rights'...

[fj1200]

... and are there a choir of Lefties out there, ready to sing the praises of anyone offering your level of opposition to Conservatives on forums such as this ?

The Left want people to sleepwalk into continued non-awareness of the nature of the enemy you face. It's high time that ended.

Now what are you trolling err, on about? Lefties don't typically sing the praises of the Constitution and rule of law... come to think of it neither do you.

On another note, what conservatives am I opposing? Examples? Certainly not you of course, you're a big government hack.

Never mind, I shouldn't ask that question... again. You've failed so many times that you need to constantly drag up unrelated threads that you've previously dropped in embarrassment. :)

[revelarts]

Just as YOU are continually ignoring 3 CIA leaders, 3 CIA deputies and a man that actually waterboarded KSM himself.
Good move in preferring dead Americans. I'm sorry if I disagree and would prefer dead terrorists and Americans coming home safely.

To hell with ALL this BULLSHIT and FOCK BOTH of the two lovers of stupidity.
Here's the bottom line.
These people H. A. T. E. us, as in ALL of us. For NO DAMN GOOD REASON other than some perverted religious doctrine from a make believe false, pagan religion, put together by a common pedophile.
WHATEVER it takes, WHEREVER it takes, as REQUIRED by circumstance(s) WHENEVER it takes ANY MEANS to save even ONE American life, it's justified. Period.
Be as self-righteous as you feel you need to be, corpse's rarely are afforded the opportunity to argue their moral equivalencies and I see no different result headed your way, despite all of your intentions.
Where I hail from, we refer to it as "a fools' errand".


riiight, Bottom line fight terrorist? are you sure?

I'll toss more reasons into the brick walls

"...They call themselves militia members, oath keepers, protesters and patriots. Senator Harry Reid calls them “domestic terrorists (http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/reid-calls-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists).” U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists” because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way. “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal Hashtags &Headlines event at the Paris Las Vegas.
He said, “I repeat: What went on up there was domestic terrorism....”"
............

"At the Tribune, I was covering breaking news, shootings, murders and local government, and it was all horribly depressing. It was not the type of thing I went into journalism to do. I had a background in college in environmental activism, and protesting the World Trade Organization and the economic sanctions on Iraq, and I wanted to be involved in something positive like that again. So I went out leafletting with a group of people. We just passed out pieces of paper in a residential neighborhood about animal testing. I thought that was the most I could do as a working journalist — something so benign. And of course, since I have the worst luck ever, we were all arrested and charged. It was the only time I’ve been arrested. Those charges were later thrown out, of course. It was a frivolous arrest. And it’s still lawful to pass out handbills.

A couple weeks later, I was visited by two FBI agents at my home, who told me that unless I helped them by becoming an informant and investigating protest groups, they would put me on a domestic terrorist list. They also made some threats about making sure I wouldn’t receive a Fulbright I had applied for, and making sure my girlfriend at the time wouldn’t receive her PhD funding. I really want to think that I wouldn’t be affected by something like that, especially given my activist background, but it just scared the daylights out of me. It really did. That fear eventually turned into an obsession with finding out how this happened, how nonviolent protestors are being labeled as terrorists." link (http://blog.ted.com/2014/01/31/will-potter-on-of-treating-environmentalists-like-terrorists/)
.......................................

keep saying torture's legit if you want to.
Keep thinking it'll only be used against the terrorist you think deserve it ... to maybe once save one American life. (when you have clear evidence other ways are better and torture creates Unintended consequences of more dead soldiers).
Chickens come home to roost in more ways than one folks.

[fj1200]

Keep thinking it'll only be used against the terrorist you think deserve it ...

3. Authorizing torture trusts government too much. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html)

[jimnyc]

As some continue to ignore the words from 3 CIA directors and 3 deputies, and the man who waterboarded the architect of 9/11...

I will say even more confidently now, if even one American life is saved, I'm all for it.

I will add this though: There are endless threads and posts denouncing torture, our government, private entities involved, other techniques, Gitmo... And I'm not saying that some are FOR it, but odd that some spend and eternity condemning our government, our intelligence groups, our military and how we conduct business in trying to win wars. Now think for a minute, about ALL of the deaths, even in just the past couple of years alone. The beheadings and attacks on Americans alone is more than enough, but add in the same from our allies. I'm confident in saying that these deaths poured upon us are a hefty number.

Again, NOT laying blame and such, seeking a serious answer...

WHY is it that some can post and debate about how bad our side is - but VERY rarely, if ever, do I see the same types of threads starting in order to condemn the filth of the world, the actual terrorists? Sure, if pushed, some will say "of course I hate the terrorists" - but generally these threads aren't started, nor are posts in reply to others.

Odd that!

[jimnyc]

3. Authorizing torture trusts government too much. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html)

We still mixing Christianity and war?

Are the endless things I listed that America does "christian" like? Is a bayonette through the eye christian like? A bomb that leaves 50 dead, and some burning with skin falling off? Shooting off limbs? What about red mist from a mile away - very christian like to shoot off a head from so far? Is there are guide somewhere that shows what killings are OK via Christianity and which ones are off limits? It's odd that some of the artillery we use to blow apart bodies and annihilate other armies is somehow christian like.

[fj1200]

We still mixing Christianity and war?

Are the endless things I listed that America does "christian" like? Is a bayonette through the eye christian like? A bomb that leaves 50 dead, and some burning with skin falling off? Shooting off limbs? What about red mist from a mile away - very christian like to shoot off a head from so far? Is there are guide somewhere that shows what killings are OK via Christianity and which ones are off limits? It's odd that some of the artillery we use to blow apart bodies and annihilate other armies is somehow christian like.

Are we divorcing Christianity when it is inconvenient?

And good questions. Good wars, bad wars. Good actions, bad actions. Overall I'd say it's not unchristian to go to war.

What is the Christian perspective on war? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/bible-answers/personalconcerns/perspectivewar.html)

[jimnyc]

Are we divorcing Christianity when it is inconvenient?


I solely ask these questions of those invoking Christianity. Now you are asking similar in return. Can you show where I ever did use it, which would need to have been done for me to be now saying it's inconvenient? I don't recall ever adding religion into war as a tool of sorts.

But you didn't answer my questions. IS IT Christian like to blow off someones head with a .50cal from a distance and leave only red mist? What about taking down a building filled with about 50 people with a tank shell? Is literally incinerating folks with missiles christian like? What if you turn a corner and are faced with a terrorist and shoot him between his eyes, point blank range, is that christian like? What about if the gun misfires and you stab someone to death? A grenade that blows off someones leg, ok in christianity? Where do I find a list of things that are ok in war and things that aren't, based on christianity? I'd hate to think we're just guessing here. I now see articles about how torture is not very christian like. Since this leaves people alive, I'm wondering where similar articles are when talking about blowing someones head off their body, or other limbs... Surely there must be something out there that determines specifically what acts are A-ok by Christianity and which are forbidden.

[revelarts]

As some continue to ignore the words from 3 CIA directors and 3 deputies, and the man who waterboarded the architect of 9/11...
.....

Odd that!

Jim i replied to that in another thread.
#90 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47949-Unconscionable-Top-Republicans-lash-out-ahead-of-release-of-CIA-report&p=718021#post718021)
why do you keep bringing it up like I've never addressed it.
And I replied to it with reason based on facts at hand.
not by calling it "mumbo jumbo" or saying things "I don't care" as some have or by claiming that the the law doesn't mater any more because terrorist don't like us.

[jimnyc]

Jim i replied to that in another thread.
#90 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47949-Unconscionable-Top-Republicans-lash-out-ahead-of-release-of-CIA-report&p=718021#post718021)
why do you act like I've never addressed it.
And I stressed it with reason based on facts at hand.
not by calling it "mumbo jumbo" or saying things "I don't care" as some have or by claiming that the the law doesn't mater any more because terrorist don't like us.

What I meant was that you read it and basically dismissed it, and yet take words from others in articles and run with it as if it's the only thing out there talking about what happened. These are facts at hand as well, as well as words from the man himself who waterboarded KSM. You don't outright say you don't care, but obviously you didn't believe what they had to say.

Let me ask you this, Rev. They published their comments right after the results were released, Their comments and memory of the events differ from the inquiry. Some outright state it was a wash job. Now, in fairness to all involved, they should seek out all the facts and testimony. I'm wondering why these men had to release such information the way they did. 3 CIA directors, and this testimony wasn't simply asked of them? The same with 3 CIA deputy directors. The same with the man who waterboarded the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. You don't find it odd that people of this caliber and importance don't have their words in the inquiry? If the interrogator stated this - was it stated in the inquiry to these events? If the directors of the CIA published such information - what was it that they stated to the investigators? Did they state the same? Why wasn't this included in the results? And I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you questions these results, and my belief is because it kind of supports what side you like.

And you say you addressed this already in the linked to post. Forgive me, but I don't see where you addressed Tenet, Gross and Hayden, nor the deputies. So NO, you don't seem to have addressed it. All you did was read my post and give other information in reply. Nor a few other posts where I showed the man who waterboarded KSM himself stated that it DID result in useful information and saved lives.

Can you quote post #90- for me and perhaps highlight where you addressed these 7 folks and their testimony or lack thereof?

[revelarts]

Good grief.

I look forward, Revelarts, to your putting so much as TEN PERCENT of the effort into supporting the VICTIMS of terrorism, as you put into finding any way you possibly can to support so-called 'terrorists' rights'...
Do you see anyone promoting that illegal, immoral things should be done terrorist victim's?
see below for more.


....
WHY is it that some can post and debate about how bad our side is - but VERY rarely, if ever, do I see the same types of threads starting in order to condemn the filth of the world, the actual terrorists? Sure, if pushed, some will say "of course I hate the terrorists" - but generally these threads aren't started, nor are posts in reply to others.
Odd that!

In nearly ever thread i've posted on this topic i've PROMOTED the normal alternative actions to torture used in really dealing with actual terrorist.
Can you tell me why you don't folks don't see those actions --solid investigation, interrogation, infiltration, surveillance, capture, trial, prison and or execution-- as a serious reaction against terrorist and PRO victim?
Is promoting torture somehow now the NEW christian american STANDARD for showing you have "real" disgust with terror?

so Jim and Drummond I'd like some links to where you acknowledge Reagan, the FBI interrogators, the WWII Nazi interrogators etc as having merit.

[revelarts]

What I meant was that you read it and basically dismissed it,
not my words at all Jim.

..and yet take words from others in articles and run with it as if it's the only thing out there talking about what happened. These are facts at hand as well, as well as words from the man himself who waterboarded KSM. You don't outright say you don't care, but obviously you didn't believe what they had to say.

Let me ask you this, Rev. They published their comments right after the results were released, Their comments and memory of the events differ from the inquiry. Some outright state it was a wash job. Now, in fairness to all involved, they should seek out all the facts and testimony. I'm wondering why these men had to release such information the way they did. 3 CIA directors, and this testimony wasn't simply asked of them? The same with 3 CIA deputy directors. The same with the man who waterboarded the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. You don't find it odd that people of this caliber and importance don't have their words in the inquiry? If the interrogator stated this - was it stated in the inquiry to these events? If the directors of the CIA published such information - what was it that they stated to the investigators? Did they state the same? Why wasn't this included in the results? And I could be wrong, but I haven't seen you questions these results, and my belief is because it kind of supports what side you like.

And you say you addressed this already in the linked to post. Forgive me, but I don't see where you addressed Tenet, Gross and Hayden, nor the deputies. So NO, you don't seem to have addressed it. All you did was read my post and give other information in reply. Nor a few other posts where I showed the man who waterboarded KSM himself stated that it DID result in useful information and saved lives.

Can you quote post #90- for me and perhaps highlight where you addressed these 7 folks and their testimony or lack thereof?
Show me where you've addressed half of my references Jim and then maybe we can start to have real conversation.

[jimnyc]

Do you see anyone promoting that illegal, immoral things should be done terrorist victim's?
see below for more.



In nearly ever thread i've posted on this topic i've PROMOTED the normal alternative actions to torture used in really dealing with actual terrorist.
Can you tell me why you don't folks don't see those actions --solid investigation, interrogation, infiltration, surveillance, capture, trial, prison and or execution-- as a serious reaction against terrorist and PRO victim?

so Jim and Drummond I'd like some links to where you acknowledge Reagan, the FBI interrogators, the WWII Nazi interrogators etc as having merit.

They have merit, already stated so in several threads, although I disagree. Must I agree with EVERYTHING Reagan? And I already stated that likely no matter what we are told, the shit is going to continue behind the scenes. And I've also acknowledged what you have posted for quite some time now, which was words from interrogators from the past and such, as well as others. I never said they lied nor have I ignored it. I simply disagree. And regardless of prior testimony, we also have current testimony that goes in the complete opposite direction. But there have been endless discussions, on my old board and of course on this board.

As for "really" dealing with a terrorist - the latest that I'm aware of, which was dealing with KSM, and a current interrogator, and he outright states his results. CIA directors from early 2000's all the way until 2009 - all state the inquiry released was shit. They all disagree. They all state the techniques saved lives. You believe folks from prior or after - and I believe the directors that were in charge throughout, their deputies and the man in charge of the EIT's. And I'm sure we'll continue to read about how it's ineffective from other stories, and more stories saying how it saved lives. In the spy game, I highly doubt we'll ever hear 100% of the truth.

But personally, I have no doubt that this can save lives. I have no doubt that some lives were saved, if not the thousands that these directors point to. And I stick by my original words, that even if it were just ONE, I'm all for it.

Or should we go the more Christian route, and maybe just carpet bomb the entire region and likely put EIT's on the back burner for awhile?

[revelarts]

....

As for "really" dealing with a terrorist - the latest that I'm aware of, which was dealing with KSM, and a current interrogator, and he outright states his results. CIA directors from early 2000's all the way until 2009 - all state the inquiry released was shit. They all disagree. They all state the techniques saved lives. You believe folks from prior or after - and I believe the directors that were in charge throughout, their deputies and the man in charge of the EIT's. And I'm sure we'll continue to read about how it's ineffective from other stories, and more stories saying how it saved lives. In the spy game, I highly doubt we'll ever hear 100% of the truth.

But personally, I have no doubt that this can save lives. I have no doubt that some lives were saved, if not the thousands that these directors point to. And I stick by my original words, that even if it were just ONE, I'm all for it.

Or should we go the more Christian route, and maybe just carpet bomb the entire region and likely put EIT's on the back burner for awhile?

So how can you have "no doubt" when you've stated that we can't know %100 the truth from the people doing the interrogation in secret?

and the Head CIA people you've quoted have all been caught in baldfaced lies before congress and elsewhere i believe.

[jimnyc]

not my words at all Jim.

Show me where you've addressed half of my references Jim and then maybe we can start to have real conversation.

No thanks. I'm not going backwards, not when you're busted claiming you replied to something that you obviously never did. I ALWAYS post in a comprehensive manner, and legible. I always post links to support my facts. I always address both sides. But because I don't reply to ALL of the stuff you post, somehow that makes the discussion "not real"?

In other words, you claimed to have replied to my stuff, even gave a post number and a link. Looking at your post it's obvious that you never replied at all. I pointed this out and asked you to clarify things for me - and now suddenly you claim we weren't having a real conversation. I might react the same if I were just busted with such a mistake.

You can wait and have a real discussion with others willing to chime in. No point wasting my time.

[jimnyc]

So how can you have "no doubt" when you've stated that we can't know %100 the truth from the people doing the interrogation in secret?

and the Head CIA people you've quoted have all been caught in baldfaced lies before congress and elsewhere i believe.

Save it, seriously. I'm not going to engage, only to be dismissed later on if you feel I need to answer more or this isn't a real discussion somehow. I'm confident others will be willing to play that game.

[Drummond]

So how can you have "no doubt" when you've stated that we can't know %100 the truth from the people doing the interrogation in secret?

A simple couple of points in reply to the bolded text of yours above, Revelarts. It seems to me ...

1. If, in fact, you're taking the 'less than 100%' estimate as at all representative of any truth at work ... then, by the same token, YOU are in a comparable position of uncertainty. Yet .. you bafflingly persist in believing - you say - that torture must be seen to be an unproductive method of interrogation.

2. Alternatively, could it be that the point you've made is a purely opportunistic one ? From which, I must ask ....

WHY ARE YOU SO DETERMINED TO FIGHT FOR TERRORISTS' WELFARE, OVER AND ABOVE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ?

[fj1200]

I solely ask these questions of those invoking Christianity. Now you are asking similar in return. Can you show where I ever did use it, which would need to have been done for me to be now saying it's inconvenient? I don't recall ever adding religion into war as a tool of sorts.

But you didn't answer my questions. IS IT Christian like to blow off someones head with a .50cal from a distance and leave only red mist? What about taking down a building filled with about 50 people with a tank shell? Is literally incinerating folks with missiles christian like? What if you turn a corner and are faced with a terrorist and shoot him between his eyes, point blank range, is that christian like? What about if the gun misfires and you stab someone to death? A grenade that blows off someones leg, ok in christianity? Where do I find a list of things that are ok in war and things that aren't, based on christianity? I'd hate to think we're just guessing here. I now see articles about how torture is not very christian like. Since this leaves people alive, I'm wondering where similar articles are when talking about blowing someones head off their body, or other limbs... Surely there must be something out there that determines specifically what acts are A-ok by Christianity and which are forbidden.

Actually I wasn't invoking Christianity, I was invoking a conservative position which happened to have been written by a Christian.

But I can't really answer your questions, I acknowledged that it was a good question possibly worthy of its own thread. All I can say is maybe/maybe not. Now I don't really think torture is a Christian thing when you take into account factors of effectiveness and morality, you can take a look at the rest of the link to see some other Christian reasons against torture. Nevertheless I think many of your questions come down to imminent threat and self defense. Was the bombing of Dresden necessary? IIRC I've read arguments that it wasn't. Was Nagasaki/Hiroshima necessary? I've argued before that it was. There is a whole lot of depends in your questions.

[jimnyc]

Actually I wasn't invoking Christianity, I was invoking a conservative position which happened to have been written by a Christian.

But I can't really answer your questions, I acknowledged that it was a good question possibly worthy of its own thread. All I can say is maybe/maybe not. Now I don't really think torture is a Christian thing when you take into account factors of effectiveness and morality, you can take a look at the rest of the link to see some other Christian reasons against torture. Nevertheless I think many of your questions come down to imminent threat and self defense. Was the bombing of Dresden necessary? IIRC I've read arguments that it wasn't. Was Nagasaki/Hiroshima necessary? I've argued before that it was. There is a whole lot of depends in your questions.

Fair enough... I would assume your typical firefight. Let's say the USA is advancing on Baghdad for example, just like we did this past decade. As we advanced, we are met with 100,000 soldiers (making this up). This turns into a 7 day fight. All the examples I have given are within a back and forth fight.

I don't see where ANYthing or any war that is "christian like", but we are being told that torture is NOT christian like, and having articles and such posted to show how it's wrong. I believe there should also be articles showing how ALL of the other things I've mentioned are not Christian like either - unless of course we are trying to cherry pick, and use the Christian thing as a tool to condemn the enhanced techniques, which is what I believe is EXACTLY what is happening here. I don't believe one can condemn these techniques based on Christianity, while at the same time remaining tight lipped about other atrocities that leave people dead and limbless. IMO, it's nothing more than using the religion as a tool to support ones beliefs in the war. It's just odd that someone would invoke Christianity to convince others pouring water on someone and scaring the crap out of them is non christian like, but those christian reasons were never brought up when some of the most evils of war occurred.

Enhanced techniques aka turture and leaving prisoner alive = non christian like

Dropping a 10,000lb MOAB (or similar) and likely evaporating the enemy = No claims about christianity that I know of

In fact, in the past 11 years or so, out of all the artillery we heaved and dropped, all the bullets fired and all the damage done - this I believe is the first time that I can recall that our military actions were called into question, based on religion.

But again, are we just guessing here? You said basically "it depends". But is that on YOUR guesses and opinions, or literally a guide somewhere? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like folks condemning torture based on Christian values, and implying other military activities are fine by christian values - but nothing to base this on, other than religious beliefs? And since I haven't heard a peep about whether certain things were "christian like" or not until very recently, one can only assume that everything in the past decade outside of that is acceptable by christian values.

[revelarts]

No thanks. I'm not going backwards, not when you're busted claiming you replied to something that you obviously never did. I ALWAYS post in a comprehensive manner, and legible. I always post links to support my facts. I always address both sides. But because I don't reply to ALL of the stuff you post, somehow that makes the discussion "not real"?

In other words, you claimed to have replied to my stuff, even gave a post number and a link. Looking at your post it's obvious that you never replied at all. I pointed this out and asked you to clarify things for me - and now suddenly you claim we weren't having a real conversation. I might react the same if I were just busted with such a mistake.

You can wait and have a real discussion with others willing to chime in. No point wasting my time.
OK so calling others legal and historical references "mumbo jumbo" is what you call "always address(ing) both sides." and "links to support my facts"? OK.
Concerning my supposed non-reply lets review.


Apparently not fully true:

Ex-CIA officials say torture report is one-sided, flawed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of former top-ranking CIA officials disputed a U.S. Senate committee's finding that the agency's interrogation techniques produced no valuable intelligence, saying such work had saved thousands of lives.

Former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, along with three ex-deputy directors, wrote in an op-ed article published on Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that the Senate Intelligence Committee report also was wrong in saying the agency had been deceptive about its work following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"The committee has given us ... a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation - essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks," they said.

The report concluded the CIA failed to disrupt any subsequent plots despite torturing captives during the presidency of George W. Bush.

But the former CIA officials said the United States never would have tracked down and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 without information acquired in the interrogation program. Their methods also led to the capture of ranking al Qaeda operatives, provided valuable information about the organization and saved thousands of lives by disrupting al Qaeda plots, including one for an attack on the U.S. West Coast that could have been similar to the Sept. 11 attacks.


that's interesting
it appears someones lying

Leon Panetta former CIA Director and John Brennan current CIA Director have both stated that it did not.
so have many others.
I guess you can choose who you want to believe and make up stories why one or all are lying.
If you just want to be partisan about the issue then we know which way it'll go. if you want to find the truth then it might be more work.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Leon Panetta former CIA Director in Letter to John McCain

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

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

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

....In 2011, John Brennan agreed (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/obama-advisor-waterboarding-didnt-lead-to-bin-laden-kill/):
White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan Tuesday knocked down the myth that waterboarding provided crucial intelligence that led to the location of Osama bin Laden.
“So we’ve been talking about the different details and methods that lead up to this moment, and obviously there is word out today that waterboarding played a very big role or role in actually getting the information,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Brennan. “Is that the case?”
“Not to my knowledge,” Brennan explained.

Brennan is now the current director of the CIA.
Likewise, former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld – who had a big hand in the torture program (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/22/madden) – stated (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRumsfeld-gitmo-waterboarding-osamabinladen/2011/05/02/id/394820?s=al&promo_code=C30F-1):
“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”
Senator Lindsey Graham – a vocal proponent of waterboarding (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lindsey+Graham%22+waterboarding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)– said (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/senate-intel-chair-torture-did-not-lead-to-bin-laden-in-any-way.php):
This idea we caught bin Laden because of waterboarding I think is a misstatement. This whole concept of how we caught bin Laden is a lot of work over time by different people and putting the puzzle together. I do not believe this is a time to celebrate waterboarding, I believe this is a time to celebrate hard work.
The New York Times noted (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html):
“The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003,” said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. “It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there.”
Huffington Post reported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/administration-bin-laden-waterboarding_n_857529.html):
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, produced a 263-page report in 2009 on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody in the years following 9/11. He too dismissed the idea that the interrogation techniques used at that time were efficacious. “If they had any information under the Bush administration that could have led to bin Laden it would have been terribly neglectful for them not to use it,” Levin noted in an interview on the “Bill Press Show.”
The confirmation of the courier’s significance appears to have come in 2004, from an al Qaeda operative who was not waterboarded: Hassan Ghul.
Dan Froomkin argued (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/torture-may-have-slowed-h_n_858642.html) that – rather than helping catch Bin Laden – torture actually delayed by years more effective intelligence-gathering methods which would have resulted in finding Bin Laden:
Defenders of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.
But that sequence of events — even if true — doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.
“I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden,” said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.
It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier — information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, “they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us,” Alexander told The Huffington Post.
“We know that they didn’t give us everything, because they didn’t provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information,” he said.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...F04G_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html)


seems like a fairly through reply to the few sentences presented.
and after looking at your post a 2nd time. it seem the main quote itself is fairly lawyer like.
"But the former CIA officials said the United States never would have tracked down and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 without information acquired in the interrogation program.""
link WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644)

"the interrogation program." It doesn't specifically say the "enhanced interrogation" portions of the interrogations just "the interrogation program." Which technically could mean all of the normal methods the CIA FBI military etc used as well. the letter seems to use it both ways, so I'm not so sure that this specific statement backs what you and others are defending "enhanced interrogation"/torture. AND they claim that none of the methods used we're illegal anyway... the white house and DOJ said so. white house and doj are never wrong or self serving.

So anyway do you have a more specific quote concerning "enhanced interrogation techniques" because I'm not saying that the CIA didn't get any info at all using normal techniques.
But i repeat again the fact that the CIA and individually it's heads have LIED again and again to congress and the public.

Tenet was in charge when some taping of torture was done. Porter Goss was in charge when the torture tapes we're destroyed (92 tapes). so we'll never know what info was or not gained except by their word there. what do you think they'll say? the current Report says the destruction came after CIA lawyer Rizo voiced concerns about possible problems with congress moving ahead in investigations link (http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2014/12/10/levin-interrogation-cia-tapes-torture/20207577/). Hayden also covered for the destroyed tapes after the fact. Why destroy the tapes IF JUST ONE MORE LIFE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED by people reviewing the techniques that "NO DOUBT" saved lives. And do you think they have OTHER video tapes from all of the times where this LIFE saving type of Interrogation took place. NOPE. If it worked so well that'd be the way to PROVE it, so people can really have "NO DOUBT" that it works. But no, no tapes, destroyed or mysteriously blank, OOOPPS... BUT it WORKED! trust me. and don't put me in prison.

sorry these are the REASONS why i don't just simply buy the directors story here Jim. you may have FULL confidence in their word.
And i remember Tenet lied about WMDs (knew curveball was lying), and he told congress he never spoke to Bush between July and Sep 2001. Goss working with people on the BCCI banking scandal. Hayden misquoting the 4th amendment to his advantage and covering for NSA and CIA misdeeds.
So sorry I just don't feel comfortable taking their word for it.
the other 3 people mentioned as co-signers are former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes. Mr. Kappes was convicted in absentia by an Italian court for his headquarters-based role in the rendition and torture of an Egyptian citizen who was kidnapped from Italian soil by the CIA. All of them were there between the 2002- 2006 period and would be subject to prosecution if the report sent things butt up. Is it POSSIBLE that their comments are a CYA attempt? is it possible? Shouldn't we at least have a gain of salt at the ready?

[revelarts]

They have merit, already stated so in several threads, although I disagree. Must I agree with EVERYTHING Reagan? And I already stated that likely no matter what we are told, the shit is going to continue behind the scenes. And I've also acknowledged what you have posted for quite some time now, which was words from interrogators from the past and such, as well as others. I never said they lied nor have I ignored it. I simply disagree. And regardless of prior testimony, we also have current testimony that goes in the complete opposite direction. But there have been endless discussions, on my old board and of course on this board.

As for "really" dealing with a terrorist - the latest that I'm aware of, which was dealing with KSM, and a current interrogator, and he outright states his results. CIA directors from early 2000's all the way until 2009 - all state the inquiry released was shit. They all disagree. They all state the techniques saved lives. You believe folks from prior or after - and I believe the directors that were in charge throughout, their deputies and the man in charge of the EIT's. And I'm sure we'll continue to read about how it's ineffective from other stories, and more stories saying how it saved lives. In the spy game, I highly doubt we'll ever hear 100% of the truth.

But personally, I have no doubt that this can save lives. I have no doubt that some lives were saved, if not the thousands that these directors point to. And I stick by my original words, that even if it were just ONE, I'm all for it.

Or should we go the more Christian route, and maybe just carpet bomb the entire region and likely put EIT's on the back burner for awhile?


Fair enough... I would assume your typical firefight. Let's say the USA is advancing on Baghdad for example, just like we did this past decade. As we advanced, we are met with 100,000 soldiers (making this up). This turns into a 7 day fight. All the examples I have given are within a back and forth fight.

I don't see where ANYthing or any war that is "christian like", but we are being told that torture is NOT christian like, and having articles and such posted to show how it's wrong. I believe there should also be articles showing how ALL of the other things I've mentioned are not Christian like either - unless of course we are trying to cherry pick, and use the Christian thing as a tool to condemn the enhanced techniques, which is what I believe is EXACTLY what is happening here. I don't believe one can condemn these techniques based on Christianity, while at the same time remaining tight lipped about other atrocities that leave people dead and limbless. IMO, it's nothing more than using the religion as a tool to support ones beliefs in the war. It's just odd that someone would invoke Christianity to convince others pouring water on someone and scaring the crap out of them is non christian like, but those christian reasons were never brought up when some of the most evils of war occurred.

Enhanced techniques aka turture and leaving prisoner alive = non christian like

Dropping a 10,000lb MOAB (or similar) and likely evaporating the enemy = No claims about christianity that I know of

In fact, in the past 11 years or so, out of all the artillery we heaved and dropped, all the bullets fired and all the damage done - this I believe is the first time that I can recall that our military actions were called into question, based on religion.

But again, are we just guessing here? You said basically "it depends". But is that on YOUR guesses and opinions, or literally a guide somewhere? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like folks condemning torture based on Christian values, and implying other military activities are fine by christian values - but nothing to base this on, other than religious beliefs? And since I haven't heard a peep about whether certain things were "christian like" or not until very recently, one can only assume that everything in the past decade outside of that is acceptable by christian values.

I think i replied to similar questions in another thread as well.

but the summery is
The Bible seems to say that we should defend with force after an attack.
And when in a battle over land or persons your intent is to harm or kill while in the heat of each battle.
But after the enemies are defeated in battles or captured THEN you treat with them with decency. You don't mistreat enemies you have in you custody.

it's pretty strait forward.

[aboutime]

I think i replied to similar questions in another thread as well.

but the summery is
The Bible seems to say that we should defend with force after an attack.
And when in a battle over land or persons your intent is to harm or kill while in the heat of each battle.
But after the enemies are defeated in battles or captured THEN you treat with them with decency. You don't mistreat enemies you have in you custody.

it's pretty strait forward.

rev. Would that, by any chance be the Strait of Dover? Educated people should get it Straight.

[fj1200]

Fair enough... I would assume your typical firefight. Let's say the USA is advancing on Baghdad for example, just like we did this past decade. As we advanced, we are met with 100,000 soldiers (making this up). This turns into a 7 day fight. All the examples I have given are within a back and forth fight.

I don't see where ANYthing or any war that is "christian like", but we are being told that torture is NOT christian like, and having articles and such posted to show how it's wrong. I believe there should also be articles showing how ALL of the other things I've mentioned are not Christian like either - unless of course we are trying to cherry pick, and use the Christian thing as a tool to condemn the enhanced techniques, which is what I believe is EXACTLY what is happening here. I don't believe one can condemn these techniques based on Christianity, while at the same time remaining tight lipped about other atrocities that leave people dead and limbless. IMO, it's nothing more than using the religion as a tool to support ones beliefs in the war. It's just odd that someone would invoke Christianity to convince others pouring water on someone and scaring the crap out of them is non christian like, but those christian reasons were never brought up when some of the most evils of war occurred.

Enhanced techniques aka turture and leaving prisoner alive = non christian like

Dropping a 10,000lb MOAB (or similar) and likely evaporating the enemy = No claims about christianity that I know of

In fact, in the past 11 years or so, out of all the artillery we heaved and dropped, all the bullets fired and all the damage done - this I believe is the first time that I can recall that our military actions were called into question, based on religion.

But again, are we just guessing here? You said basically "it depends". But is that on YOUR guesses and opinions, or literally a guide somewhere? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like folks condemning torture based on Christian values, and implying other military activities are fine by christian values - but nothing to base this on, other than religious beliefs? And since I haven't heard a peep about whether certain things were "christian like" or not until very recently, one can only assume that everything in the past decade outside of that is acceptable by christian values.

I don't think I've made a Christian argument against torture, but I could be mistaken. I've made arguments that it's counterproductive, ineffective, wrong, etc. I guess "wrong" could be considered a Christian argument or it could just be an acknowledgement that human beings shouldn't treat other human beings in that manner in a deliberate manner when it serves no purpose.

Overall I think you're overstating the whole Christian thing. Christians to some extent have made Christian arguments about war for centuries. This particular question isn't about war, it's about torture. FWIW I've had discussions on-line before with non-Christians questioning war referencing thou shalt not kill which is a misreading in that the commandment typically references murder which is a whole different thing.

[revelarts]

rev. Would that, by any chance be the Strait of Dover? Educated people should get it Straight.
I misspelled 'your' as 'you' as well.
If you're going to be the spelling police at least be thorough about it AT.

[jimnyc]

I don't think I've made a Christian argument against torture, but I could be mistaken. I've made arguments that it's counterproductive, ineffective, wrong, etc. I guess "wrong" could be considered a Christian argument or it could just be an acknowledgement that human beings shouldn't treat other human beings in that manner in a deliberate manner when it serves no purpose.

Twice you used a Christian source article to show how torture is wrong. I consider that invoking christianity into an argument.


Overall I think you're overstating the whole Christian thing. Christians to some extent have made Christian arguments about war for centuries. This particular question isn't about war, it's about torture. FWIW I've had discussions on-line before with non-Christians questioning war referencing thou shalt not kill which is a misreading in that the commandment typically references murder which is a whole different thing.

Perhaps, but it was only as of recent that these article have been posted around here stating that torture is wrong as per christianity and using christian sources. Odd that we wouldn't have seen these arguments and sources long before this. But VERY rarely if ever have I seen anyone ever post here that how we fight our wars was wrong as per christianity. Not until it was invoked against torture.

[jimnyc]

I think i replied to similar questions in another thread as well.

but the summery is
The Bible seems to say that we should defend with force after an attack.
And when in a battle over land or persons your intent is to harm or kill while in the heat of each battle.
But after the enemies are defeated in battles or captured THEN you treat with them with decency. You don't mistreat enemies you have in you custody.

it's pretty strait forward.

You call that pretty straight forward? Ok, if so simple, then you just admitted that if someone is in the heat of battle, it's quite ok to cut the head off of every enemy that you defend yourself against, and then piss on the corpse of course. And if in a battle, christian like is to incinerate bodies if we can. And it's christian like to shoot someone in the head with a .50cal and make them look like a headless horsemen, so long as in the heat of battle. And when battling, if you drop your gun, stab your bayonet directly into the enemies eyeball and out the back of his head.

You're right, it IS straight forward! So long as we don't torture, there are so many awesome ways to kill and maim people that are christian like!! God must be thrilled that we didn't torture, but chose to massacre the bodies instead!

[fj1200]

Twice you used a Christian source article to show how torture is wrong. I consider that invoking christianity into an argument.

Perhaps, but it was only as of recent that these article have been posted around here stating that torture is wrong as per christianity and using christian sources. Odd that we wouldn't have seen these arguments and sources long before this. But VERY rarely if ever have I seen anyone ever post here that how we fight our wars was wrong as per christianity. Not until it was invoked against torture.

Points of order: I didn't mean to invoke Christianity, I was invoking a leftie making a conservative argument. :laugh: And I've posted that link before.
Second: War isn't specifically non-Christian whereas torture might be. IMO. :)

[jimnyc]

Points of order: I didn't mean to invoke Christianity, I was invoking a leftie making a conservative argument. :laugh: And I've posted that link before.
Second: War isn't specifically non-Christian whereas torture might be. IMO. :)

I didn't know if you posted it before or not. I was just pointing out that as of the past couple of weeks, all of a sudden the argument about torture has turned into a Christian argument, to an extent. And if we are going to use religion to gauge "bad things" in war, I would think we would use it for ALL bad things, not just things some of us disagree with.

And while torture might be non-christian, some might thing being incinerated on purpose is non christian, or popping out someones eyeball, or turning them into charcoal, or having them separate into 99 pieces...

[revelarts]

You call that pretty straight forward? Ok, if so simple, then you just admitted that if someone is in the heat of battle, it's quite ok to cut the head off of every enemy that you defend yourself against, and then piss on the corpse of course. And if in a battle, christian like is to incinerate bodies if we can. And it's christian like to shoot someone in the head with a .50cal and make them look like a headless horsemen, so long as in the heat of battle. And when battling, if you drop your gun, stab your bayonet directly into the enemies eyeball and out the back of his head.

You're right, it IS straight forward! So long as we don't torture, there are so many awesome ways to kill and maim people that are christian like!! God must be thrilled that we didn't torture, but chose to massacre the bodies instead!

I don't see how pissing on a corpse helps win a battle Jim.
War and killing is the LAST resort. EVERY OTHER method to stop an aggressor should be on the table BEFORE violence. As i've mentioned before there are many Christians who ARE in FACT true pacifist. Many christens are not. tragically war has always been violent .

But are you saying that God would be more thrilled for us to lie down for evil and let bad people shoot you and your family and 1000s or millions of other innocents with a 50cals and bombs, put a knife through our children's eyes? and do nothing?
Is that what your saying?

If you have a humane way to stop someone from raping an innocent women, or bombing your town then use it. If an EMP can disable the enemy guns you don't have kill anyone. The point is to bring an end to the aggressive violence using only what violence is needed to do the job. In war or policing. so yes I think in this corrupt world God is pleased with that. what about you Jim?

[Drummond]

War and killing is the LAST resort. EVERY OTHER method to stop an aggressor should be on the table BEFORE violence.

Just picking you up on this .... I consider that you're being naïve. What does history have to say about aggressors who are met by those who think that way ?

How well did Neville Chamberlain fare against Hitler, when HE tried it ??

More recently, how about Iran ? How many years have they spent in talks ??? Where has it got anyone... other than to give Iran ALL of that time to work on their nuclear capabilities ??

Revelarts, your approach only works if the aggressor is as interested in peace as you are .. but HOW LIKELY IS THAT ??

Imagine Al Qaeda as 'peacemakers', and ISIS, ditto. Or the Taliban.

Try to. If you can.

Most of us understand how ridiculous that is. Most of us have SOME comprehension of what the enemy truly is.

But it seems that YOU do NOT. Does THIS explain your tireless efforts to work for their welfare ?????

[revelarts]

Just picking you up on this .... I consider that you're being naïve. What does history have to say about aggressors who are met by those who think that way ?
How well did Neville Chamberlain fare against Hitler, when HE tried it ??
More recently, how about Iran ? How many years have they spent in talks ??? Where has it got anyone... other than to give Iran ALL of that time to work on their nuclear capabilities ??
Revelarts, your approach only works if the aggressor is as interested in peace as you are .. but HOW LIKELY IS THAT ??
Imagine Al Qaeda as 'peacemakers', and ISIS, ditto. Or the Taliban.
Try to. If you can.
Most of us understand how ridiculous that is. Most of us have SOME comprehension of what the enemy truly is.
But it seems that YOU do NOT. Does THIS explain your tireless efforts to work for their welfare ?????
But we are talking about torture here.

And you seem to miss the "VIOLENCE" that follows "Before" in my comment Drummond.
it's what the U.S. did in WW2. We were attacked by Japan THEN we went to war.
see how that works.
Chamberlin sold out Allies the U.K. was in treaty with who had already been attacked.
He Sold out Allies to a Guy that was a known liar. It was stupid. the deal, if any, should have been Hitler retreats or else. nothing else made sense.

But concerning ISIS and the Tailiban, they are not in Hawaii or NewYork or even Cuba.
I say we don't really have a dog in this fight. And if we hadn't been there already via Iraq and Syria there'd BE no ISIS to speak of since they seem to be using our equipment and training. And i've mentioned SEVERAL times that we should pressure the M.E. dictators and rich to STOP funding the violent extremist. but somehow people would rather bail water than fix the leaks.
can you explain that to me Drummond?

[Drummond]

But we are talking about torture here.

We are indeed. And in that regard, we're talking about your bending over backwards to care for the welfare of terrorists ... in defiance of all decency, reality and commonsense.


And you seem to miss the "VIOLENCE" that follows "Before" in my comment Drummond.
it's what the U.S. did in WW2. We were attacked by Japan THEN we went to war.
see how that works.

I'm sure it did no favour to all the casualties suffered as a result of the US's previous reluctance to involve itself in a just war, being fought against evil forces elsewhere in the world (e.g in my own part of it ! You think of WWII as being 1942-45. For me, it's 1939-45)


Chamberlin sold out Allies the U.K. was in treaty with who had already been attacked.
He Sold out Allies to a Guy that was a known liar. It was stupid. the deal, if any, should have been Hitler retreats or else. nothing else made sense.

And Hitler would have agreed .. ?

You make my point for me. There are times where to do anything other than to meet hostility with comparable opposition only leads to needless harm, death, injuries .... all wholly avoidable.


But concerning ISIS and the Tailiban, they are not in Hawaii or NewYork or even Cuba.

And you know this HOW, exactly ?

How do you know they're not busily creating terrorist cells in one or more of those locations ?

Besides, we in the UK have a great concern over the extent of threat returning ISIS fighters will pose to us. British individuals, radicalised, heads full of subhumanity which they're itching to play out on the streets of Britain, once they return from fighting in places such as Syria.

Can you guarantee NO likelihood of ANY of that phenomenon happening in US territory ??


I say we don't really have a dog in this fight. And if we hadn't been there already via Iraq and Syria there'd BE no ISIS to speak of since they seem to be using our equipment and training.

RUBBISH.

September 10th, 2001. How many Americans would've shared your mindset ? And did the events of the following day, prove them right ??

ISIS exists as it does today, as strong as it is today, BECAUSE AMERICA'S MILITARY PULLOUT MADE IT POSSIBLE !! It is one hell of a lesson showing how much harm not staying the course has caused. And yes, the world in general, and ISIS in particular, is experiencing the situation LEFTIE SELLOUT WEAKNESS HAS CREATED.

You must be proud, Revelarts.


And i've mentioned SEVERAL times that we should pressure the M.E. dictators and rich to STOP funding the violent extremist. but somehow people would rather bail water than fix the leaks.
can you explain that to me Drummond?

Nothing to explain. You do what you MUST to fight terrorism. Whatever it takes.

And why do you insist on the Leftie trick of calling them 'extremists' .... to play the bog standard propagandist game of saying that 'mainstream' Islam 'is a religion of peace' ... is that it ???

[jimnyc]

I don't see how pissing on a corpse helps win a battle Jim.
War and killing is the LAST resort. EVERY OTHER method to stop an aggressor should be on the table BEFORE violence. As i've mentioned before there are many Christians who ARE in FACT true pacifist. Many christens are not. tragically war has always been violent .

But are you saying that God would be more thrilled for us to lie down for evil and let bad people shoot you and your family and 1000s or millions of other innocents with a 50cals and bombs, put a knife through our children's eyes? and do nothing?
Is that what your saying?

If you have a humane way to stop someone from raping an innocent women, or bombing your town then use it. If an EMP can disable the enemy guns you don't have kill anyone. The point is to bring an end to the aggressive violence using only what violence is needed to do the job. In war or policing. so yes I think in this corrupt world God is pleased with that. what about you Jim?

I don't think God is going to look at ANYTHING in war as christian like, no matter the circumstances. War is hell, that's a fact. It's ALL not very christian like. That's why it's dumb to turn around and pick and choose what we feel God may or may not approve of. While some want to single one thing out as non-christian like, it's merely a cherry picking tool is all - as NONE of what happens in war is christian like. To say that one action is not very christian like, while approving of other methods of death and destruction, is actually just dumb. I can easily have a huge issue with the use of drones, and then claim it's not very christian like. Or placing someone in a cell for 10 years with no charges. Or dropping a 5,000lb bomb on them.

My point through all of this - don't cherry pick to invoke religion. Let's face it, ALL killing is not very christian like. And ALL that is accomplished by this "torture is not very christian like" stuff is for some to find another way/reason to disapprove of torture. And I think it's not very christian like to use ones religion as a tool to condemn something, while remaining silent on other means of death, and remaining silent on the enemy being 6,000x worse.

Either invoke Christianity and go all the way with it, which some do, or don't use it as a tool for an excuse to defend ones POV. And if one is going to condemn things that are bad based on religion, they should condemn ALL things in war based on religion - hence me pointing out the other things. To say one thing is not christian like, while silently approving of other methods of massacres and deaths, seems a bit dishonest to me.

[revelarts]

.
Can you guarantee NO likelihood of ANY of that phenomenon happening in US territory ??

Can you guarantee that that a Neo Nazi won't set a bomb off in London tomorrow.
no?
And can you guarantee NO likelihood of a TV falling on you and killing u tomorrow
Can you guarantee no lightening will strike you tomorrow
Can you guarantee a police officer won't kill someone at my office tomorrow.
statistically ALL of those are MORE likely than an ISIS attack in the US Drummond.

Plus you need to understand there is no such thing as GUARANTEES in this life drummond. and you don't take extreme measures for Unlikely events. You don't dress in a rubber suit and stay out of open feilds just because IT MIGHT RAIN today.


.
ISIS exists as it does today, as strong as it is today, BECAUSE AMERICA'S MILITARY PULLOUT MADE IT POSSIBLE !! ...
Isis came out of AQ in syria which we supported Drummond. also other fighters we gave training too in Jordan to fight Assad AND other old Iraqi fighters spurred on from a war that NEVER should have occurred.



.
Nothing to explain. You do what you MUST to fight terrorism. Whatever it takes.
But you don't support pressure on the Saudi's why?


.
And why do you insist on the Leftie trick of calling them 'extremists' .... to play the bog standard propagandist game of saying that 'mainstream' Islam 'is a religion of peace' ... is that it ???
Yes that old trick of pointing out the real dangerous enemy among the general population of MILLIONS, yes a lefty trick.:rolleyes: You sound ridiculous Drummond.
So you're saying that EVERY muslim is your enemy and are the exact same threat as the men that have behead americans and shoot Christian and Muslim children?

ridiculous.

[revelarts]

Drummond this is from Reagan's 1st inaugural address. bolded is something that I think you --and some others maybe-- continually misunderstand maybe the way he puts it will clear it up for you.


...Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children, and our children's children. And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.
To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.
Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors....


do you get that?

[jimnyc]

do you get that?

Lives were saved.

Do you get that?

If even ONE American life is saved, I'm ALL for it.

[aboutime]

Drummond this is from Reagan's 1st inaugural address. bolded is something that I think you --and some others maybe-- continually misunderstand maybe the way he puts it will clear it up for you.




do you get that?


rev. If you, and others hate, and despise Reagan so much. Why then, do you always use his words to prove how your Hypocrisy is always demanded to be accepted by everyone else?
Think about my question before you use your standard excuses.

[jimnyc]

rev. If you, and others hate, and despise Reagan so much. Why then, do you always use his words to prove how your Hypocrisy is always demanded to be accepted by everyone else?
Think about my question before you use your standard excuses.

I don't think he despises Reagan, but I do think that he believes all people who call themselves conservatives must somehow take his words as gospel. Reagan has a shitload of awesome things we can quote from over the years, he was one of the best presidents ever, IMO. But it's hard to take quotes from the past and perfectly fit them into today's world. And we also can't claim the bible knows what is best in each individual situation in a war.

[Drummond]

Can you guarantee that that a Neo Nazi won't set a bomb off in London tomorrow.
no?

Nope. Nor yet an Islamic terrorist. After all, there were a gang of them who did JUST THAT, on July 7th, 2005 (had you forgotten ?) ... just the sort of thing we have MI5 for, to guard against !!


And can you guarantee NO likelihood of a TV falling on you and killing u tomorrow

Yep.


Can you guarantee no lightening will strike you tomorrow

Yep (.. currently, I plan to stay indoors .. besides, there's no likelihood of such a storm tomorrow, according to the Met Office weather forecast ...)


Can you guarantee a police officer won't kill someone at my office tomorrow.

Haven't got the foggiest idea, sorry ...


statistically ALL of those are MORE likely than an ISIS attack in the US Drummond.

Even leaving aside my disagreement .. I fail to see how you arrive at such a conclusion. Explain to me how you KNOW such an attack is so 'very' unlikely !!

Who, on 10th September 2001, would've said the VERY SAME THING about the impending, and ACTUAL, Al Q attack of the following day ???


Plus you need to understand there is no such thing as GUARANTEES in this life drummond. and you don't take extreme measures for Unlikely events.

Actually ... doesn't your argument suggest the very opposite conclusion ? [Or, should nobody have ever considered guarding against a possible 9/11 ??] You've just made a case to say that some (though not as many as you suggested) improbable events, MAY WELL HAPPEN. Now .. of those potentially lethal, what could induce me to take unnecessary chances with my welfare ?


You don't dress in a rubber suit and stay out of open feilds just because IT MIGHT RAIN today.

Now, there, I freely concede you're correct - no power on earth would persuade me to wear a rubber suit outdoors. Nor yet indoors. I'm just not that kind of man ...:laugh:


Isis came out of AQ in syria which we supported Drummond. also other fighters we gave training too in Jordan to fight Assad AND other old Iraqi fighters spurred on from a war that NEVER should have occurred.

The US is not responsible for any and all crazed mentalities out there, Revelarts. However .. it was the military withdrawals - and VERY publicised ones, at that - which gave ISIS the chance to form itself as it has, grow to be a strong presence, as it also has.

The very thing you're lamenting, namely, US military involvement in the region, was the very presence WHICH KEPT SUCH TERRORISM AT BAY. It is the LACK of enthusiasm for its continuation, not its opposite, that created today's mess !!!!


But you don't support pressure on the Saudi's why?

I do, if or when it's appropriate. I accept that Saudi hands are not squeaky clean in all of this. That said ... especially in recent years, they HAVE taken an anti-terrorist stance, as Al Qaeda has been learning to its cost. I for one am not determined to alienate a would-be ally in the fight against terrorism if it can be helped.


Yes that old trick of pointing out the real dangerous enemy among the general population of MILLIONS, yes a lefty trick.:rolleyes: You sound ridiculous Drummond.

Ah, good. You're now resorting to an attempt at denigration. I must be winning ...

So tell me. How big is the population of America ? How many terrorists were involved in 9/11 ??


So you're saying that EVERY muslim is your enemy and are the exact same threat as the men that have behead americans and shoot Christian and Muslim children?

ridiculous.I'm saying that they all have such a potential, yes. The creed which fuels and inspires Islamic terrorism wherever it appears, is the very same one that those 'other' Muslims see as the faith they follow. Unless ... there's a 'moderate' version of the Koran, distinct from a 'militant extremist' one ??

-- H'mmm ??

[Drummond]

Lives were saved.

Do you get that?

If even ONE American life is saved, I'm ALL for it.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly the point. And, I could expand the argument to include my own countrymen. Or, any Westerner ...

[Drummond]

Drummond this is from Reagan's 1st inaugural address. bolded is something that I think you --and some others maybe-- continually misunderstand maybe the way he puts it will clear it up for you.




do you get that?

Jim's pretty much beaten me to it, with the answer I'd give you, with ...


But it's hard to take quotes from the past and perfectly fit them into today's world.
In other arguments, I've made just the same point in reference to Margaret Thatcher.

Both Maggie and Ronnie -- stellar partnership that they were, in their time -- lived IN A DIFFERENT AGE. Neither could have comprehended, or forseen, the sheer subhuman savagery that Islamic terrorists were going to inflict on America and other locations a good generation later.

Their words, their beliefs, suited THEIR age. But, the world moves on .. not always for the better. Newer, different realities assert themselves. Either we evolve to meet them, or, we become much the worse off for failing to.

[fj1200]

Well rev, it's become clear to me. Ron and Mags don't matter anymore. Unless they do and you model your entire being after them and then they matter... up until the point that they don't matter.

[Drummond]

Well rev, it's become clear to me. Ron and Mags don't matter anymore. Unless they do and you model your entire being after them and then they matter... up until the point that they don't matter.

Tut tut, FJ. And you, 'the one true Thatcherite' ... ?? From you, that's 'pure blasphemy' ... :rolleyes:

But my argument stands. If 'Ron and Mags' are outdated on one single issue, this doesn't negate their wisdom in other areas.

Oh ye of little faith, FJ ...

[fj1200]

Tut tut, FJ. And you, 'the one true Thatcherite' ... ?? From you, that's 'pure blasphemy' ... :rolleyes:

But my argument stands. If 'Ron and Mags' are outdated on one single issue, this doesn't negate their wisdom in other areas.

Oh ye of little faith, FJ ...

Pointing out you being disingenuous is mere sport. Some more cherry picking coming from you soon?

[revelarts]

Well rev, it's become clear to me. Ron and Mags don't matter anymore. Unless they do and you model your entire being after them and then they matter... up until the point that they don't matter.
FJ all we have to say concerning any quote from the past is
"it's hard to take quotes from the past and perfectly fit them into today's world."

It works every time.

FOR LEFTIES!!

seriously the left uses that excuse ALL the time .
with the constitution, the founding fathers, traditions, education, gun rights, sex, the Bible.
especially the Bible.

old and outdated, "it's the 21st century" that's why it's WRONG NOW but was OK then.:rolleyes:
Terrorist are worse now than then? not really, you know the only real difference , it's that the U.S. took a bad hit from it instead of other countries like Israel, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Japan etc..
and the scale jumped in one horrific event.

Made some americans think that terrorist are somehow worse now than then.
nope same type of crazy human beings doing evil stuff to innocents as they have for thousands of years.
So the words of old to deal with them are still just as relevant now as then.... waaaay back in the stone ages of 1980s and wwII.

at least for -cough- REAL conservatives.
But lefties can claim that in this 'MODERN' day we have to "change" and have to "hope" to save 1 american.
when the old ways are PROVEN to save MORE americans.

but there's no talking to lefties on this issue they reject tradition here, and experience, and LAW, and morality. typical left position.
they know better because it's a new day.:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

FJ all we have to say concerning any quote from the past is
"it's hard to take quotes from the past and perfectly fit them into today's world."

Too stupid to use your own words and write a paragraph? Wait, never mind...

[aboutime]

Jim's pretty much beaten me to it, with the answer I'd give you, with ...


In other arguments, I've made just the same point in reference to Margaret Thatcher.

Both Maggie and Ronnie -- stellar partnership that they were, in their time -- lived IN A DIFFERENT AGE. Neither could have comprehended, or forseen, the sheer subhuman savagery that Islamic terrorists were going to inflict on America and other locations a good generation later.

Their words, their beliefs, suited THEIR age. But, the world moves on .. not always for the better. Newer, different realities assert themselves. Either we evolve to meet them, or, we become much the worse off for failing to.


Sir Drummond. fj serves to prove how our society is failing to create any original thoughts due to lack of education that would permit human beings to communicate, face-to-face, with words, rather than TEXTING while hiding behind a keyboard on an IPAD.
How sad the world has become. Limited minds, from limited experience, and education.

[jimnyc]

Well rev, it's become clear to me. Ron and Mags don't matter anymore. Unless they do and you model your entire being after them and then they matter... up until the point that they don't matter.

It would be cool if you would be clear about WHO you are referring to. I'm a huge fan of Reagan. I had a quote of his tossed in my direction. Are you somehow implying that I am back and forth about what I support with this comment? I think I'm VERY consistent in my stances, this included. I think it's absolutely asinine of anyone to think my stance should or could be changed based simply on what Reagan said or believed. And being a supporter of someone like such doesn't mean that one has the exact same stance on every issue, nor does it mean that quotes apply over time and circumstances.

[aboutime]

It would be cool if you would be clear about WHO you are referring to. I'm a huge fan of Reagan. I had a quote of his tossed in my direction. Are you somehow implying that I am back and forth about what I support with this comment? I think I'm VERY consistent in my stances, this included. I think it's absolutely asinine of anyone to think my stance should or could be changed based simply on what Reagan said or believed. And being a supporter of someone like such doesn't mean that one has the exact same stance on every issue, nor does it mean that quotes apply over time and circumstances.


fj. If you didn't come here all the time to be such a condescending snob. Perhaps you might see a different approach to your patronizing posts.

[revelarts]

I don't see how pissing on a corpse helps win a battle Jim.
War and killing is the LAST resort. EVERY OTHER method to stop an aggressor should be on the table BEFORE violence. As i've mentioned before there are many Christians who ARE in FACT true pacifist. Many christens are not. tragically war has always been violent .

But are you saying that God would be more thrilled for us to lie down for evil and let bad people shoot you and your family and 1000s or millions of other innocents with a 50cals and bombs, put a knife through our children's eyes? and do nothing?
Is that what your saying?

If you have a humane way to stop someone from raping an innocent women, or bombing your town then use it. If an EMP can disable the enemy guns you don't have kill anyone. The point is to bring an end to the aggressive violence using only what violence is needed to do the job. In war or policing. so yes I think in this corrupt world God is pleased with that. what about you Jim?


I don't think God is going to look at ANYTHING in war as christian like, no matter the circumstances. War is hell, that's a fact. It's ALL not very christian like. That's why it's dumb to turn around and pick and choose what we feel God may or may not approve of. While some want to single one thing out as non-christian like, it's merely a cherry picking tool is all - as NONE of what happens in war is christian like. To say that one action is not very christian like, while approving of other methods of death and destruction, is actually just dumb. I can easily have a huge issue with the use of drones, and then claim it's not very christian like. Or placing someone in a cell for 10 years with no charges. Or dropping a 5,000lb bomb on them.

My point through all of this - don't cherry pick to invoke religion. Let's face it, ALL killing is not very christian like. And ALL that is accomplished by this "torture is not very christian like" stuff is for some to find another way/reason to disapprove of torture. And I think it's not very christian like to use ones religion as a tool to condemn something, while remaining silent on other means of death, and remaining silent on the enemy being 6,000x worse.

Either invoke Christianity and go all the way with it, which some do, or don't use it as a tool for an excuse to defend ones POV. And if one is going to condemn things that are bad based on religion, they should condemn ALL things in war based on religion - hence me pointing out the other things. To say one thing is not christian like, while silently approving of other methods of massacres and deaths, seems a bit dishonest to me.

Do you think God is please when evil men are stopped in the act of evil Jim? yes or no?
so I'll ask you again do you think God wants you to stand by and allow someone to hurt your family or do you think he'll be please to have you stop them? even by violent means?
you're a Chrsitain correct? Do you think God approves of the men and women in the military protecting the nation or are they all in horrible murderous sin just by being in the military doing their jobs, in horrendous hypocrisy as they pray and ask others for the same?

if your not going to answer those questions honestly, there's no need to comment on the other.
Are your points sincere and consistent here Jim?

Of course you're free to not agree with my view on this. As i've said many christians are FULL blown pacifist, as you seem to demand.
But what i've presented to you IS in fact another widely accepted Christian position derived from centuries of sincere study of scripture.
Even if you do really think God would EQUALLY disapprove of maiming/beating someone in a fight for your life and
holding a man hostage maiming/beating them to get some scrap information.
To me and many others the distinction is VERY clear. George Washington for instance saw the difference.

and it is in fact a Christian position. it's not dragged in 2nd hand to try to win a political point. It's the BASIS of my political point.
Like with abortion and euthanasia, my positions on theses issues grow out of my "religion" they aren't sideshow ideals to make political noise or to back my own feelings.
As i've pointed out to you before. EVEN if the evidence showed that torture "worked" every time (which it does not, but just the opposite). I'd be against it on Christian and moral grounds. But in fact we see the evidence lines up with the truth of God. as it always will on every issue we can have clarity on. Our task as Christians is to try to be as honest as we can with the scriptures and sincerely try see what is really God's view. Not just what's politically or even what seems to be nationally expedient.

[Neo]

riiight, Bottom line fight terrorist? are you sure?

I'll toss more reasons into the brick walls

"...They call themselves militia members, oath keepers, protesters and patriots. Senator Harry Reid calls them “domestic terrorists (http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/reid-calls-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists).” U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists” because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way. “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal Hashtags &Headlines event at the Paris Las Vegas.
He said, “I repeat: What went on up there was domestic terrorism....”"
............

"At the Tribune, I was covering breaking news, shootings, murders and local government, and it was all horribly depressing. It was not the type of thing I went into journalism to do. I had a background in college in environmental activism, and protesting the World Trade Organization and the economic sanctions on Iraq, and I wanted to be involved in something positive like that again. So I went out leafletting with a group of people. We just passed out pieces of paper in a residential neighborhood about animal testing. I thought that was the most I could do as a working journalist — something so benign. And of course, since I have the worst luck ever, we were all arrested and charged. It was the only time I’ve been arrested. Those charges were later thrown out, of course. It was a frivolous arrest. And it’s still lawful to pass out handbills.

A couple weeks later, I was visited by two FBI agents at my home, who told me that unless I helped them by becoming an informant and investigating protest groups, they would put me on a domestic terrorist list. They also made some threats about making sure I wouldn’t receive a Fulbright I had applied for, and making sure my girlfriend at the time wouldn’t receive her PhD funding. I really want to think that I wouldn’t be affected by something like that, especially given my activist background, but it just scared the daylights out of me. It really did. That fear eventually turned into an obsession with finding out how this happened, how nonviolent protestors are being labeled as terrorists." link (http://blog.ted.com/2014/01/31/will-potter-on-of-treating-environmentalists-like-terrorists/)
.......................................

keep saying torture's legit if you want to.
Keep thinking it'll only be used against the terrorist you think deserve it ... to maybe once save one American life. (when you have clear evidence other ways are better and torture creates Unintended consequences of more dead soldiers).
Chickens come home to roost in more ways than one folks.

Your quoting HARRY REID and EXPECT me to take you seriously? REALLLLLYYYYY??? Hey pal, I LIVE in NEVADA, that MAGGOT isn't even knee-high to a grasshopper,honesty-wise, or credibility wise, in THESE parts. The man and his brood of maggots has infested ALL of this state and he's been investigated NUMEROUS TIMES for his snarky, convenient, ALWAYS MURKY/SHADY, Federal land swap hanky panky deals.

You are clueless, yet you are seeming to fill the very definition of useful idiocy that Leftist like you never seem to fail us with..

[jimnyc]

if your not going to answer those questions honestly, there's no need to comment on the other.
Are your points sincere and consistent here Jim?

Are you fucking kidding me? I waste my time having a discussion with you. You turn around and make it sound as if it weren't a "real" conversation, as for whatever reason you don't think I've replied to every bit of your ramblings. I told you fine then, find someone else, and that I made my points clear anyway.

And your way of responding is demanding solely a yes or no answer to one question? And then imply that I wouldn't answer honestly? Sorry, but you should know by now that I don't play games and I won't have my posts dictated in how I answer.

Quite frankly and honestly, I DON'T CARE if any of these actions are considered "christian like" or not. I hope we incinerate the enemy and kill each last one of them. And I couldn't care less how many need to be tortured in order to prevent any harm coming to OUR men and women. The ONLY reason I pointed out any of the religious stuff was to shake my head at the sheer amount of hypocrisy being displayed, on how some folks can invoke religion when they like and ignore it at others.

[jimnyc]

Do you think God is please when evil men are stopped in the act of evil Jim? yes or no?

I think God likely wishes we never got to the evil part to begin with. And yes, I also think he's pleased when evil is stopped. And I also think he would be pleased, even if it took EIT's to save lives and get rid of evil. Well, I don't think he would be pleased, but rather I should say he wouldn't be displeased, or that he would ultimately be pleased that lives were saved and the evil has been stopped.


so I'll ask you again do you think God wants you to stand by and allow someone to hurt your family or do you think he'll be please to have you stop them? even by violent means?

I don't think he would want harm, and would understand me using any means to protect my innocent family.


you're a Chrsitain correct? Do you think God approves of the men and women in the military protecting the nation or are they all in horrible murderous sin just by being in the military doing their jobs, in horrendous hypocrisy as they pray and ask others for the same?

More or less. I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic church for communion & confirmation. I went solo with my religion back in 1994 when "they" disapproved of the way my fiance and I were planning our marriage and living together just prior, and disapproved with the fact that I couldn't prove I was giving them money on Sundays. I still go to my local Catholic church now and again. I think my religion comes from inside me and my beliefs, not necessarily from what building I go to for prayer. I don't think God wants war at all. But since it's there, I think he supports those fighting for good and certainly not terrorists. I think he wouldn't be a fan of ANY killing or torture. But I think he would understand the means people had to go to in order to protect lives and prevent the deaths of innocents.


if your not going to answer those questions honestly, there's no need to comment on the other.
Are your points sincere and consistent here Jim?

I believe I just answered 100% honestly and from my religious side, and what my understanding of God would have me believe.


Of course you're free to not agree with my view on this. As i've said many christians are FULL blown pacifist, as you seem to demand.
But what i've presented to you IS in fact another widely accepted Christian position derived from centuries of sincere study of scripture.
Even if you do really think God would EQUALLY disapprove of maiming/beating someone in a fight for your life and
holding a man hostage maiming/beating them to get some scrap information.
To me and many others the distinction is VERY clear. George Washington for instance saw the difference.

Again, I don't think he would like any means of deaths. He would agree with me, that NO means of death is "christian like". But he would surely understand the difference between an American shooting a terrorist from a mile away and blowing him up, and a terrorist beheading a man that has his hands tied behind his back. I further truly believe that he would understand why certain techniques are used by people looking to save their fellow man and woman. Like you said though, feel free to differ. I don't expect people to have the same beliefs, nor do I state to them that they should.


and it is in fact a Christian position. it's not dragged in 2nd hand to try to win a political point. It's the BASIS of my political point.

It's a religious point, not a political one.


Like with abortion and euthanasia, my positions on theses issues grow out of my "religion" they aren't sideshow ideals to make political noise or to back my own feelings.
As i've pointed out to you before. EVEN if the evidence showed that torture "worked" every time (which it does not, but just the opposite). I'd be against it on Christian and moral grounds. But in fact we see the evidence lines up with the truth of God. as it always will on every issue we can have clarity on. Our task as Christians is to try to be as honest as we can with the scriptures and sincerely try see what is really God's view. Not just what's politically or even what seems to be nationally expedient.

That's all fine and dandy, and I respect your beliefs. But there are folks out there who feel like me, that war is hell, people die, and the goal is to defeat the enemy and save American lives. I'm not worried about feelings or scaring a terrorist. If lives are saved, at the end of the day I can sleep well knowing that many people disagree and think lowly of me as a result. I'm ALL for that, if even ONE life is saved. :)

[aboutime]

Rev. How bout you do as GOD teaches and MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS for once?

Asking unknown, total strangers on an Internet Forum questions, or making declarations about other people's faith..as you constantly do here....is beyond Disgusting, and seem totally the opposite of what YOU CLAIM God, or Jesus would do.

In other words. You are free to offer your opinion here....According to the 1st amendment. But you sound more like an Athiest.....or Uninformed, Illiterate version of Archie Bunker on Steroids for Brain disease.

So...take your own words seriously, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You disgust many of us with your pretend, holier-than-thou patronizing, hypocrisy.

[revelarts]

Are you fucking kidding me? I waste my time having a discussion with you. You turn around and make it sound as if it weren't a "real" conversation, as for whatever reason you don't think I've replied to every bit of your ramblings. I told you fine then, find someone else, and that I made my points clear anyway.

And your way of responding is demanding solely a yes or no answer to one question? And then imply that I wouldn't answer honestly? Sorry, but you should know by now that I don't play games and I won't have my posts dictated in how I answer.

Quite frankly and honestly, I DON'T CARE if any of these actions are considered "christian like" or not. I hope we incinerate the enemy and kill each last one of them. And I couldn't care less how many need to be tortured in order to prevent any harm coming to OUR men and women. The ONLY reason I pointed out any of the religious stuff was to shake my head at the sheer amount of hypocrisy being displayed, on how some folks can invoke religion when they like and ignore it at others.

Jim by now i hope you know when i say "honestly" i mean "frankly" and/or "intellectually honestly"

But your going to accuse me of hypocrisy but when i point YOUR OWN inconsistency you get to dodge and act offended by the question?
So you JUST answers potions of my questions that let you slip away and continue your misguided abuse of my position. Well then Jim, NO it's not an real discussion/debate. Ok it's a real one but not an fair or honest one.

Jim this is how i see what just happened.
SOMETHING LIKE WHAT JIM SAID:
Rev your view is hypocritical because of x y and z. can you explain that?

SOMETHING LIKE WHAT REVELARTS SAID:
I think x goes here y goes there and z is not a factor because of M. That's why it's not hypocritical.
so jim you positions implies A B and C is that what your saying yes or no?

SOMETHING LIKE WHAT JIM SAID:
I"M NOT GOING ANSWER THAT, I'll answer like i want too! are you FN kidding me! and btw I always answer completely with links and facts.
I don't care about XYZ ANYWAY or C for that matter. Kill em all! BTW your a still a hypocrite because of XYZ! "I don't care what any of that mumbo jumbo from the past states."

that's what i get from this conversation.
so if it's like that then should i just name call as well since your saying my view is hypocritical and not addressing my point with facts or answers to my question like people do in a serious honest debate.
So it's fair that i call you a hypocrite for NOT CARING if your position is Christian or not? right?
if we are calling each others views names because we don't agree and only answering what we want and not having a conversation over facts or history or Bible verses that apply anymore?
is that FAIR jim?

your view hypocrital Jim.


And BTW here are a few place where you requested or accused me of not replying to your post Jim.
so what's you real problem with my asking you for the same huh?

...I solely ask these questions of those invoking Christianity.....
...Or should we go the more Christian route, and maybe just carpet bomb the entire region and likely put EIT's on the back burner for awhile?...
...You call that pretty straight forward? Ok, if so simple, then you...

..........
...As some continue to ignore the words from 3 CIA directors and 3 deputies, and the man who waterboarded the architect of 9/11...
....What I meant was that you read it and basically dismissed it, and yet take words...
....Forgive me, but I don't see where you addressed Tenet, Gross and Hayden, nor the deputies. So NO, you don't seem to have addressed it....
... you're busted claiming you replied to something that you obviously never did...
I ALWAYS post in a comprehensive manner, and legible. I always post links to support my facts. I always address both sides....
.... Looking at your post it's obvious that you never replied at all. I pointed this out and asked you to clarify things for me...
...Too stupid to use your own words and write a paragraph?...


good for the Goose Jim?

[revelarts]

just posted for the record.
to cover all the bases and fully reply.


...
....As some continue to ignore the words from 3 CIA directors and 3 deputies, and the man who waterboarded the architect of 9/11....

....In other words, you claimed to have replied to my stuff, even gave a post number and a link. Looking at your post it's obvious that you never replied at all. I pointed this out and asked you to clarify things for me - ....
I addressed specifically each of the CIA directors and the deputies earlier,
You never linked to who exactly you're talking about as "'the' man who water boarded ...", at least i didn't see it in this quote.

this might be who you're referring to.

Quote:

<tbody>
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 500-page executive summary of its report on the CIA’s torture program .... also highlights and adds some details about the important role two psychologists had in both developing the “enhanced interrogation” program and carrying it out.....

...But both the New York Times and NBC News have identified them as Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, two psychologists who have been previously singled out for their roles in developing and legitimizing the torture program.


Both men came from an Air Force background, where they worked on the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program in which military personnel are trained to resist enemy questioning by enduring oftentimes brutal mock interrogations. Beyond that, though, they seemed otherwise poorly suited for the task of interrogating al-Qaeda detainees. “Neither psychologist had any experience as an interrogator,” the report notes, “nor did either have specialized knowledge of al-Qa'ida, a background in counterterrorism, or any relevant cultural or linguistic expertise.” Despite their lack of experience in these key areas, Mitchell and Jessen “carried out inherently governmental functions, such as acting as liaison between the CIA and foreign intelligence services, assessing the effectiveness of the interrogation program, and participating in the interrogation of detainees in held in foreign government custody.”...

</tbody>

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/12...a-torture.html (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/12/meet-the-shrinks-who-helped-the-cia-torture.html)

here a 2011 interview with Captain Kerns a AirForce Intel officer that worked with Jessen.


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


Quote:

<tbody>
2011
....Indeed, a report released in 2009 by the Senate Armed Services Committee about the treatment of detainees in US custody said Jessen was the author of a “Draft Exploitation Plan” presented to the Pentagon in April 2002 that was implemetned at Guantanamo and at prison facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. But to what degree is unknown because the document remains classified. Jessen also co-authored a memo in February 2002 on “Prisoner Handling Recommendations” at Guantanamo, which is also classified.

Moreover, the Armed Services Committee’s report noted that torture techniques approved by the Bush administration were based on survival training exercises US military personnel were taught by individuals like Jessen if they were captured by an enemy regime and subjected to “illegal exploitation” in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Jessen’s notes, prepared for an Air Force survival training course that he later “reverse engineered” when he helped design the Bush administration’s torture program, however, go into far greater detail than the Armed Services Committee’s report in explaining how prisoners would be broken down physically and psychologically by their captors. The notes say survival training students could “combat interrogation and torture” if they are captured by an enemy regime by undergoing intense training exercises, using “cognitive” and “exposure techniques” to develop “stress inoculation.”

The documents stand as the first piece of hard evidence to surface in nine years that further explains the psychological aspects of the Bush administration’s torture program and the rationale for subjecting detainees to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Jessen’s notes were provided to Truthout by retired Air Force Capt. Michael Kearns, a “master” SERE instructor and decorated veteran who has previously held high-ranking positions within the Air Force Headquarters Staff and Department of Defense (DoD).
...

“Special Mission Units”

Jessen, then the chief of Psychology Service at the US Air Force Survival School, immediately started to work directly with Kearns on “a new course for special mission units (SMUs), which had as its goal individual resistance to terrorist exploitation.”...

“I hadn’t seen these notes for over twenty years,” he said. “However, I’ll never forget that day in September 2009 when I discovered them. I instantly felt sick, and eventually vomited because I felt so badly physically and emotionally that day knowing that I worked with this person and this was the material that I believe was ‘reverse-engineered’ and used in part to design the torture program. When I found the Jessen papers, I made several copies and sent them to my friends as I thought this could be the smoking gun, which proves who knew what and when and possibly who sold a bag of rotten apples to the Bush administration.”......

....A copy of the syllabus for SV-91, obtained by Truthout from another source who requested anonymity, states that the class was created “to provide special training for selected individuals that will enable them to withstand exploitation methods in the event of capture during peacetime operations…. to cope with such exploitation and deny their detainers useable information or propaganda.”....

....Although the syllabus focuses on propaganda and interrogation for information as the primary means of exploiting prisoners, Jessen’s notes amplify what was taught to SERE students and later used against detainees captured after 9/11 . He wrote that a prisoner’s captors seek to “exploit” the prisoner through control and dependence.......

.....The SSTP course was “specifically and intentionally designed to assist American personnel held in hostile detention,” Kearns said. It was “not designed for interrogation, and certainly not torture. We were not interrogators we were ‘role-players’ who introduced enemy exploitation techniques into survival scenarios as student learning objectives in what could be called Socratic-style dilemma settings. More specifically, resistance techniques were learned via significant emotional experiences, which were intended to inculcate long-term valid and reliable survival routines in the student’s memory. The one rule we had was ‘hands off.’ No (human intelligence) operator could lay hands on a student in a ‘role play scenario’ because we knew they could never ‘go there’ in the real world.”...

...., according to the Senate Armed Services Committee report “SERE resistance training … was used to inform” Yoo and Bybee’s torture memo, specifically, nearly a dozen of the brutal techniques detainees were subjected to, which included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, painful stress positions, wall slamming and placing detainees in a confined space, such as a container, where his movement is restricted. The CIA’s Office of Technical Services told Yoo and Bybee the SERE techniques used to inform the torture memo were not harmful, according to declassified government documents....
...

</tbody>

EXCLUSIVE: CIA Psychologist's Notes Reveal True Purpose Behind Bush's Torture Program (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/205:exclusive-cia-psychologists-notes-reveal-true-purpose-behind-bushs-torture-program)



Jim I know you don't care about any facts or history mumbo jumbo you've already made up your mind that anyone who disagrees with you may have some merit but are just finally wrong because the CIA heads are right and morals, laws, the constitution, treaties, effectiveness, etc don't matter here as long as one life might have been saved.

I get your position, i just think it's unreasonable based on the fact at hand.

[jimnyc]

Oh boy, Rev, you're frothing again. I stated my opinion already. Deal with it. The "real" conversation was ended by YOU a long time ago. I really don't give a crap about your frothing lectures and font size seizures you have. Quite frankly, you're much too difficult to discuss things with, and I get a headache from the amount of deciphering I have to go through.

But a Merry Christmas to ya!

[revelarts]

Oh boy, Rev, you're frothing again. I stated my opinion already. Deal with it. The "real" conversation was ended by YOU a long time ago. I really don't give a crap about your frothing lectures and font size seizures you have. Quite frankly, you're much too difficult to discuss things with, and I get a headache from the amount of deciphering I have to go through.

But a Merry Christmas to ya!

Hmm that's weird I don't know how i missed your rely .. after you said you wouldn't.
but OK.

Easy to deal with me if
you deal with facts presented and not call them mumbo jumbo as if that's a reasonable rebut.
and after calling people hypocrites at least acknowledge their reasons for having that opinion once given. (as your did after 3-4 post)
and then replying to honest questions?

simple enough :poke:

Merry Christmas Jim

[jimnyc]

I think God likely wishes we never got to the evil part to begin with. And yes, I also think he's pleased when evil is stopped. And I also think he would be pleased, even if it took EIT's to save lives and get rid of evil. Well, I don't think he would be pleased, but rather I should say he wouldn't be displeased, or that he would ultimately be pleased that lives were saved and the evil has been stopped.



I don't think he would want harm, and would understand me using any means to protect my innocent family.



More or less. I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic church for communion & confirmation. I went solo with my religion back in 1994 when "they" disapproved of the way my fiance and I were planning our marriage and living together just prior, and disapproved with the fact that I couldn't prove I was giving them money on Sundays. I still go to my local Catholic church now and again. I think my religion comes from inside me and my beliefs, not necessarily from what building I go to for prayer. I don't think God wants war at all. But since it's there, I think he supports those fighting for good and certainly not terrorists. I think he wouldn't be a fan of ANY killing or torture. But I think he would understand the means people had to go to in order to protect lives and prevent the deaths of innocents.



I believe I just answered 100% honestly and from my religious side, and what my understanding of God would have me believe.



Again, I don't think he would like any means of deaths. He would agree with me, that NO means of death is "christian like". But he would surely understand the difference between an American shooting a terrorist from a mile away and blowing him up, and a terrorist beheading a man that has his hands tied behind his back. I further truly believe that he would understand why certain techniques are used by people looking to save their fellow man and woman. Like you said though, feel free to differ. I don't expect people to have the same beliefs, nor do I state to them that they should.



It's a religious point, not a political one.



That's all fine and dandy, and I respect your beliefs. But there are folks out there who feel like me, that war is hell, people die, and the goal is to defeat the enemy and save American lives. I'm not worried about feelings or scaring a terrorist. If lives are saved, at the end of the day I can sleep well knowing that many people disagree and think lowly of me as a result. I'm ALL for that, if even ONE life is saved. :)


at least acknowledge their reasons

and then replying to honest questions?

simple enough :poke:

Merry Christmas Jim

Do you mean where you asked me to answer the above questions honestly, only to have you ignore it apparently? THAT is EXACTLY why I don't waste my time with the long drawn out line by line MUMBO JUMBO.

[revelarts]

Do you mean where you asked me to answer the above questions honestly, only to have you ignore it apparently? THAT is EXACTLY why I don't waste my time with the long drawn out line by line MUMBO JUMBO.

Jim I honesty didn't see that reply Only your 1st few replies.

...Are you fucking kidding me?....And your way of responding is demanding solely a yes or no answer to one question? And then imply that I wouldn't answer honestly? Sorry, but you should know by now that I don't play games and I won't have my posts dictated in how I answer....
When i came back later in the day to reply to the above I didn't expect or look for any other responses from you. I missed it, and said so in my previous reply. How often has that happen Jim? I can't think of another time. My apologies.

Anyway Hope your having a good day.

peace

[jimnyc]

Fair enough, Rev. This is why I sometimes hate the "never ending" threads. Things get lost, discussions get angrier, people get flustered... After all of these years, I know I'm dumb enough to believe I can change minds! And then of course I can get flustered when positions remain the same and we end up beating a dead horse. That's why I suck so much at debating, I think I'm too emotional for the job.

MUCH more importantly...

I'm heading off to NJ very shortly to spend some time with family, and my Dad who is in town, and I very rarely see him. Getting dressed up, being with loved ones, being nice to one another, the Christmas music... that's what I love about Christmas. :)

Merry Christmas, Rev!

[fj1200]

It would be cool if you would be clear about WHO you are referring to. I'm a huge fan of Reagan. I had a quote of his tossed in my direction. Are you somehow implying that I am back and forth about what I support with this comment? I think I'm VERY consistent in my stances, this included. I think it's absolutely asinine of anyone to think my stance should or could be changed based simply on what Reagan said or believed. And being a supporter of someone like such doesn't mean that one has the exact same stance on every issue, nor does it mean that quotes apply over time and circumstances.

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I don't recall you stating that you're 'proudly Reaganite.' :)

[fj1200]

Your quoting HARRY REID and EXPECT me to take you seriously? REALLLLLYYYYY???

Do you honestly not understand why he was quoting Reid? In a thread where some are advocating torture based on a government definition of "terrorist" and we have idiots like Reid promoting a government definition of "domestic terrorist"? Be careful what you wish for.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I don't recall you stating that you're 'proudly Reaganite.' :)

I don't really think I'm qualified to say who was the best president we ever had. But based on my limited knowledge, from my lifetime and reading about those prior, I would select him as one of the best we ever had. I would be hesitant to say best when I honestly can't fully assess many of our earlier presidents. My wife is a Reaganite though! LOL

[fj1200]

... I know I'm dumb enough to believe I can change minds!

I like to think I'm not dumb enough to believe that anymore. Nobody wants to change their mind.

[fj1200]

I don't really think I'm qualified to say who was the best president we ever had. But based on my limited knowledge, from my lifetime and reading about those prior, I would select him as one of the best we ever had. I would be hesitant to say best when I honestly can't fully assess many of our earlier presidents. My wife is a Reaganite though! LOL

She truly is your better half. :poke: I've said for a long time that Reagan was the best President of the 20th century. I'll call myself a Reaganite but recognize that maybe not everything done in his 8 years was perfect.

[jimnyc]

I like to think I'm not dumb enough to believe that anymore. Nobody wants to change their mind.

I admit it would be very difficult for someone to get me to change my mind on certain stances. BUT, there are times where you can. Like the Zimmerman case for example... I think some people had their minds set, and as more and more facts came out, I would like to think that the facts may have changed a few minds? I'm not so sure though. Look at recent activities in Missouri, even though the guy pointed a gun at the police, people want to riot anyway. I think sometimes minds are made up and no amount of "debate" will change that.

[jimnyc]

She truly is your better half. :poke: I've said for a long time that Reagan was the best President of the 20th century. I'll call myself a Reaganite but recognize that maybe not everything done in his 8 years was perfect.

I think a lot would like her, at least those big on the COTUS. She basically has it memorized. Her and I have banged heads before, where her interpretation of the COTUS left her on the opposing side of my view, She will NEVER retreat from her constitutional stances. Especially the 2nd though. She's not a crazy gun user, but she is a crazy gun RIGHTS person. :)