Fiorina defends CIA waterboarding

[jimnyc]

And yet another +1 for Fiorina!!!

----

Positioning herself as a steely advocate of aggressive counterterrorism programs, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina offered a vigorous defense of CIA waterboarding as a tactic that helped “keep our nation safe” in the aftermath of 9/11.

“I believe that all of the evidence is very clear — that waterboarding was used in a very small handful of cases [and] was supervised by medical personnel in every one of those cases,” Fiorina told Yahoo News. “And I also believe that waterboarding was used when there was no other way to get information that was necessary.”

A Senate report last year portrayed waterboarding as “near drownings” that were tantamount to torture and concluded that the agency’s often brutal interrogations produced little actionable intelligence. But Fiorina rejected those conclusions, calling the report “disingenuous” and “a shame” that “undermined the morale of a whole lot of people who dedicated their lives to keeping the country safe.”

Fiorina’s remarks drew an immediate rebuke from Naureen Shah, director of the security and human rights program at Amnesty International USA, which last week filed a complaint with the Justice Department requesting an investigation into why prosecutors have not reopened a criminal probe of those responsible for waterboarding and other abusive practices — such as “rectal feeding” and rectal searches — based on new details documented in the Senate report.

“It’s outrageous for anybody to claim that torture was limited or that this is the way the U.S. should have conducted business after 9/11,” said Shah about Fiorina’s comments to Yahoo News. “This is completely rewriting the history of what happened.”

Fiorina’s comments came during an interview with Yahoo News in which she discussed a close, if little-known, relationship she maintained with U.S. intelligence agencies during her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

They also come at a moment when Fiorina is seeking to emphasize her hawkish national security credentials in the crowded GOP presidential field. During this month’s CNN debate, Fiorina distinguished herself from rival Donald Trump after he said he would meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin to resolve the Syria crisis. “Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all,” Fiorina shot back, adding she would instead “begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet” and “conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states,” among other steps, so he would “get the message.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/carly-fiorina-defends-bush-era-torture-and-spying-130015256041.html

[NightTrain]

I like her more and more as we go along. That's a pretty ballsy move on her part, since that topic is a political minefield... still, I believe most Americans have no problem with waterboarding Achmed in Gitmo to gain intelligence - it's generally your typical moonbat with no reasonable notions of National Security or how the real world works when dealing with terrorists that fret about such things. This shows me that Fiorina knows her base and believes like I do that most conservatives don't really care how a terrorist feels, so long as we get the info we need to save lives.

Another example of the 'outsiders' in this race that show a willingness to wade into controversial subjects while the career politicians keep such discussions at arm's length to avoid possibly losing votes.

I'll wager the other candidates, with the exception of Trump and possibly Carson, are cringing now because the subject is going to be discussed at the next debate and now they'll have to pick a stance. :coffee:

[jimnyc]

I like her more and more as we go along. That's a pretty ballsy move on her part, since that topic is a political minefield...

Yup, similar to Carson with the muslim in the WH. They have their beliefs and aren't afraid to speak them, similar to Trump. And I agree 50,000%, the majority aren't going to care about a few terrorists getting waterboarded for valuable information. Well, maybe a few liberal weenies afraid of their own shadows, or folks like Obama who want to let them loose...

[Motown]

I'd like to hear someone say that GITMO was a huge waste of time. GITMO was too good for these guys. Capture them in battle, start cutting bodyparts off until they start talking and then put a bullet in their head. The problem I have is even if you're for GITMO staying open and holding these prisoners you're still for coddling these assholes who should have been dead years ago. I don't give a crap about their religious needs or their dietary restrictions or their "right" to legal counsel...kill them on sight. If you think they have important information interrogate them first, then kill them. Waterboarding is a damn vacation compared to what they should have had happen to them.

[NightTrain]

I'd like to hear someone say that GITMO was a huge waste of time. GITMO was too good for these guys. Capture them in battle, start cutting bodyparts off until they start talking and then put a bullet in their head. The problem I have is even if you're for GITMO staying open and holding these prisoners you're still for coddling these assholes who should have been dead years ago. I don't give a crap about their religious needs or their dietary restrictions or their "right" to legal counsel...kill them on sight. If you think they have important information interrogate them first, then kill them. Waterboarding is a damn vacation compared to what they should have had happen to them.

That's pretty hardcore! I like your attitude.


The problem with going medieval on their asses like that is it's a slippery slope... and I don't want our soldiers or agents to be ordered to dismember a terrorist - they see enough traumatic shit on the battlefield as it is. Besides, we do want to adhere to the Geneva Convention as a civilized society, because we ARE better than our enemies. If we engaged in the same sort of thing that they do, then we'd be no better than them.

Why I like waterboarding is that there is no actual physical harm done to the terrorist. Sure, they're panicking at the time from simulated drowning, but there's no lasting harm other than the shame of giving us intel that they were bound & determined to withhold. And they should feel shame anyway, for being a terrorist.

Rarely do I think the Russians had the right idea about anything, but there's once incident that comes to mind that they were right on the money. They had some diplomats kidnapped in the Middle East, so the KGB found out who the terrorists were, kidnapped their family members and began mailing them body parts - an ear, a finger, etc. The Russian diplomats were released next to the embassy and they didn't have any more incidents like that.

Brutal, but very effective - and undoubtedly preemptively saved many Russian lives and billions fighting future terrorist attacks against Russian interests.

[revelarts]

Whelp, She's crossed off my list as another unconstitutional, willing to break the law as she sees fit, republican.

[NightTrain]

Whelp, She's crossed off my list as another unconstitutional, willing to break the law as she sees fit, republican.


Waterboarding foreign terrorists is unconstitutional? Where?

[jimnyc]

Whelp, She's crossed off my list as another unconstitutional, willing to break the law as she sees fit, republican.

I'm sure her heart is bleeding from losing the vote of someone that never intended on voting for her anyway. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Waterboarding foreign terrorists is unconstitutional? Where?

Some think waterboarding is murder.

I love knowing that our intel agencies are willing to do what's necessary in order to protect us. And sure, some politicians and other dummies will proclaim it's over and done with... blah blah blah... but truth is, until such time that terrorism and similar are gone from the face of the earth, the spooks and equivalent will do what is necessary. And I say give them yearly bonuses.

[revelarts]

Waterboarding foreign terrorists is unconstitutional? Where?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." 8th amendment of the constitution
its a universal amendment. It doesn't EXCLUDE "foreign terrorists" or "foreign visitors" or "death row inmates" or "pedophiles" or "traitors" ...or any other persons. It binds the hands of those in U.S. government. government reps have ZERO constitutional authority to torture anyone.


Plus it's against the law.
from the geneva convention.
and then the U.N. Convention on torture signed by Reagan.
and by the Military code of conduct among others.


From his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:
"The United States participated actively and effectively in thenegotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in thedevelopment during this century of international measures againsttorture 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."My italic (bold). Reagan was admant about prosecuting torture, but also prosecuting inhuman treatment that some might claim was not full-on torture.

So yeah, any candidate excusing it is Unconstitutional and advocating breaking the law.

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes: ........... :laugh:

[NightTrain]

Emmm... so, our Constitution guarantees rights for foreign nationals engaging in warfare against us overseas while they are detained in a foreign country?


I realize you're struggling because there is no legal basis for what you're saying... but do you want to take another shot at it?

[revelarts]

Emmm... so, our Constitution guarantees rights for foreign nationals engaging in warfare against us overseas while they are detained in a foreign country?


I realize you're struggling because there is no legal basis for what you're saying... but do you want to take another shot at it?

Foreign nationals in custody of people in any brach of U.S. service who all swore to abide by the constitution as a the foundational part of their jobs.
uh no, I have no struggle at all.

you and other have to shut your eyes to the obvious.

[jimnyc]

Emmm... so, our Constitution guarantees rights for foreign nationals engaging in warfare against us overseas while they are detained in a foreign country?


I realize you're struggling because there is no legal basis for what you're saying... but do you want to take another shot at it?

If it were even a real war, I 'might' think they get a few rights. But these are fucking terrorists. They get jack shit, 'cept for a mouth full of water so that they are tricked into thinking they are drowning.

[NightTrain]

Foreign nationals in custody of people in any brach of U.S. service who all swore to abide by the constitution as a the foundational part of their jobs.
uh no, I have no struggle at all.

you and other have to shut your eyes to the obvious.


It is not unconstitutional, Rev.

You undermine your whole argument by claiming that it is.

If the terrorist was a US national, then you would be correct. And that's precisely why American terrorists aren't whisked away to Gitmo for a productive waterboarding session.

[NightTrain]

If it were even a real war, I 'might' think they get a few rights. But these are fucking terrorists. They get jack shit, 'cept for a mouth full of water so that they are tricked into thinking they are drowning.


Yes, they would get rights under the Geneva Convention, but those rights are outlined by the treaty - not the US Constitution.

[revelarts]

It is not unconstitutional, Rev.

You undermine your whole argument by claiming that it is.

If the terrorist was a US national, then you would be correct. And that's precisely why American terrorists aren't whisked away to Gitmo for a productive waterboarding session.


So when some one from England is arrested in the U.S. or even in a foreign country.
Can they be tortured because they are "foreign nationals"?


No, each U.S. gov't representative is bound by the constitution. the constitution is a LIMIT on the authority a gov't rep has over ANY person. period. The U.S. gov't can't legally imprison without trial someone from England France Germany Japan. the constitution applies to the gov't officials authority. Not the accused nation of origin.

If anything some foreign national at times have MORE rights under diplomatic immunity NOT to be charged or held under U.S. law.

[DLT]

I like her more and more as we go along. That's a pretty ballsy move on her part, since that topic is a political minefield... still, I believe most Americans have no problem with waterboarding Achmed in Gitmo to gain intelligence - it's generally your typical moonbat with no reasonable notions of National Security or how the real world works when dealing with terrorists that fret about such things. This shows me that Fiorina knows her base and believes like I do that most conservatives don't really care how a terrorist feels, so long as we get the info we need to save lives.

Another example of the 'outsiders' in this race that show a willingness to wade into controversial subjects while the career politicians keep such discussions at arm's length to avoid possibly losing votes.

I'll wager the other candidates, with the exception of Trump and possibly Carson, are cringing now because the subject is going to be discussed at the next debate and now they'll have to pick a stance. :coffee:

I don't much care for Carly, but her stance on this issue is definitely a plus in my book. Sadly, it's not enough to sway me back to her though. I want Cruz! (dammit)

[NightTrain]

So when some one from England is arrested in the U.S. or even in a foreign country.
Can they be tortured because they are "foreign nationals"?


No, each U.S. gov't representative is bound by the constitution. the constitution is a LIMIT on the authority a gov't rep has over ANY person. period. The U.S. gov't can't legally imprison without trial someone from England France Germany Japan. the constitution applies to the gov't officials authority. Not the accused nation of origin.

If anything some foreign national at times have MORE rights under diplomatic immunity NOT to be charged or held under U.S. law.


The Constitution does not protect the rights of enemy combatants.

Show me where it does.

[NightTrain]

I don't much care for Carly, but her stance on this issue is definitely a plus in my book. Sadly, it's not enough to sway me back to her though. I want Cruz! (dammit)


I like Carly, and she's gaining ground with me. I also like Cruz... he's doing okay, but needs to up his game. But, again, the race is young.

[fj1200]

The Constitution does not protect the rights of enemy combatants.

Show me where it does.


Yes, they would get rights under the Geneva Convention, but those rights are outlined by the treaty - not the US Constitution.

Treaties are ratified by the Senate as outlined by the Constitution.

[aboutime]

Treaties are ratified by the Senate as outlined by the Constitution.



Maybe you should use that statement to explain how Obama ignored the Senate to make the Iran deal??

[Gunny]

Maybe you should use that statement to explain how Obama ignored the Senate to make the Iran deal??

You didn't hear? He's got a pen and a phone and backdoored our government through the Useless N.

[Black Diamond]

You didn't hear? He's got a pen and a phone and backdoored our government through the Useless N.

You're censoring yourself, Chief.

[NightTrain]

Treaties are ratified by the Senate as outlined by the Constitution.


I know that.

What does that have to do with it?

[revelarts]

The Constitution does not protect the rights of enemy combatants.
Show me where it does.
the constitution protects the rights of human beings when dealing with the U.S. gov't and it's representatives.

but here's the thing that your missing or avoiding I think .

the constitution GRANTS powers to the government.
if the power is not granted by the people by the constitution then no one in the gov't has the AUTHORITY to do it.

So you need to show me in the constitution the power the U.S. gov't has to torture.
Which Branch was grated that power?
it's not there.
It's forbidden by the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment".
it's as clear as the sun.
and has been understood to be that way for 200 years until WBush and crew.


and BTW
can you show me "enemy combatant" in the constitution?
it's not there.
If you're going to use that recently made up dodgy shyster designation then you can not honestly ignore all of the U.S. laws and U.S. signed treaties I mentioned that forbid torture that came after the constitution as well.

if you can use some slip shod modern label then the Laws and treaty SURELY apply. and cannot be dismissed out of hand.

[aboutime]

the constitution protects the rights of human beings when dealing with the U.S. gov't and it's representatives.

but here's the thing that your missing or avoiding I think .

the constitution GRANTS powers to the government.
if the power is not granted by the people by the constitution then no one in the gov't has the AUTHORITY to do it.

So you need to show me in the constitution the power the U.S. gov't has to torture.
Which Branch was grated that power?
it's not there.
It's forbidden by the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment".
it's as clear as the sun.
and has been understood to be that way for 200 years until WBush and crew.


and BTW
can you show me "enemy combatant" in the constitution?
it's not there.
If you're going to use that recently made up dodgy shyster designation then you can not honestly ignore all of the U.S. laws and U.S. signed treaties I mentioned that forbid torture that came after the constitution as well.

if you can use some slip shod modern label then the Laws and treaty SURELY apply. and cannot be dismissed out of hand.



Guess you are one who agrees with Obama on closing Gitmo too...huh rev?

We are in an UNDECLARED war on TERROR. And anyone who performs terrorist acts, or aids in the Terror of the United States in any way...if not a citizen of this nation. DOES NOT GET TO HIDE behind our constitution as Obama, and Holder wished. That all began with Clinton who only used the FBI to find and punish those who attacked the WTC in 1993, and those who attacked the COLE. Both were acts of WAR, declared by OBL. But all Clinton, and now Obama want to do is SEND THEM TO AMERICAN COURTS..using the constitution.
Enemies/Prisoners of WAR...do not get to choose which court of law they can FOOL to get their day in court.

[Perianne]

I don't know what the big deal is with waterboarding. It's just Arabs we are talking about.

[revelarts]

Guess you are one who agrees with Obama on closing Gitmo too...huh rev?

Obama promised to close it but he didn't do it.
just another lie of Obama's in my book.

Yes I do think Gitmo should be closed.
And the terrorist ...who can be tried... put in prison on the mainland like the 100+ other convicted terrorist rotting in U.S. prisons today.
What's the problem with that AT?
These terrorist are not super villains or horror movie monsters that need some special cages.

Gen Patratus and many others in Military think it should be closed as well.
It's just fear mongering hype that says any different. IMHO.

[Perianne]

Obama promised to close it but he didn't do it.
just another lie of Obama's in my book.

Yes I do think Gitmo should be closed.
And the terrorist ...who can be tried... put in prison on the mainland like the 100+ other convicted terrorist rotting in U.S. Prisons today.
What's the problem with that AT?
These terrorist are not super villains or horror movie monsters that need some special cages.

Gen Patratus and many others in Military think it should be closed as well.
It's just fear mongering hype that says any different. IMHO.

They're not????

[revelarts]

I don't know what the big deal is with waterboarding. It's just Arabs we are talking about.

so if the terrorist were white guys and gals it'd be wrong to waterboard?
but since they are Arabs then torture is OK.

[Perianne]

so if the terrorist were white guys and gals it'd be wrong to waterboard?
but since they are Arabs then torture is OK.

If the white guys and gals are doing to us what Arabs are doing, same thing. But the fact is it is Arabs who are the world's terrorists. C'mon, revelarts, you know that to be true.

[fj1200]

I know that.

What does that have to do with it?

It's the A=B and B=C; therefore A=C theory of Constitutional protections. I'm sure there's a better term for it though. :)

[NightTrain]

It's the A=B and B=C; therefore A=C theory of Constitutional protections. I'm sure there's a better term for it though. :)


No.

Here's what the USSC had to say about it in 1990 :


Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican citizen reputed to be a drug-lord involved in the torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar, was arrested and brought to the United States. The DEA decided that it would be a good idea to search the defendant's home, so agents received authorization from the Mexican government to conduct the search. The agents found documents believed to be the defendant's records of his marijuana shipments.

When the government sought to introduce the documents as evidence in court, the defendant objected, asserting that they were obtained without a warrant, and therefore could not constitutionally be used at trial. The United States District Court agreed, and invoked the exclusionary rule to suppress the documents (i.e. to prevent them from being used as evidence). The government appealed this ruling, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.




The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applied, where, United States agents searched and seized property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.




Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the Opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.[1]


Justice Kennedy also authored a concurring opinion, contending that the application of the Fourth Amendment in cases such as this would interfere with the ability of the U.S. to engage in actions designed to protect the nation's interests abroad.


Justice Stevens also authored a concurring opinion, contending that the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does apply in such cases, but concluding that this search and seizure was reasonable, because it was done with the permission and assistance of the government of Mexico, and because no U.S. court would have had the authority to issue a warrant for such a search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez

[fj1200]

No.

Here's what the USSC had to say about it in 1990 :

You're making a semantic argument.

/Gunny :scared:


Nobody is really suggesting that enemy combatants are entitled to every protection in the Constitution, the suggestion is that they are protected under the GC which is a ratified treaty and Constitutional.

Hamdan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld):


On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5–3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#cite_note-AP-4)

[NightTrain]

You're making a semantic argument.

/Gunny :scared:


Nobody is really suggesting that enemy combatants are entitled to every protection in the Constitution, the suggestion is that they are protected under the GC which is a ratified treaty and Constitutional.

Hamdan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld):


Scroll back. Rev is claiming exactly that.

[fj1200]

Scroll back. Rev is claiming exactly that.

OK. But you acknowledge that torture is against the GC and combatants are subject?

I think there may be a legal difference between say the Taliban and enemy combatants though.

[Motown]

That's pretty hardcore! I like your attitude.


The problem with going medieval on their asses like that is it's a slippery slope... and I don't want our soldiers or agents to be ordered to dismember a terrorist - they see enough traumatic shit on the battlefield as it is. Besides, we do want to adhere to the Geneva Convention as a civilized society, because we ARE better than our enemies. If we engaged in the same sort of thing that they do, then we'd be no better than them.
　
I don't want soldiers to engage in torture either but I don't mind CIA interrogators doing it if they think they can get something useful out of it. I can see the value in capturing someone like KSM and torturing the shit out of that guy but how many high value targets did we really get? With the money we spend on our intel agencies I think wasting anytime at all housing and feeding terrorist bottomfeeders in order to learn what little they know is not necessary.
　
I don't agree with extending any protections to non-uniformed combatants. They're entitled to three things: a brick wall, a blindfold and a bullet. I think uniformed combatants are a different matter.


Why I like waterboarding is that there is no actual physical harm done to the terrorist. Sure, they're panicking at the time from simulated drowning, but there's no lasting harm other than the shame of giving us intel that they were bound & determined to withhold. And they should feel shame anyway, for being a terrorist.
　
I have no opinion on waterboarding but I don't care if there's harm done or not. We've become a laughing stock, we care about their religious needs, make sure they're fed halal and even went so far as to shove food up their asses so they don't die during hungerstrikes, I say let them die because they should have been executed as soon as they were caught engaging in combat without a uniform.


Rarely do I think the Russians had the right idea about anything, but there's once incident that comes to mind that they were right on the money. They had some diplomats kidnapped in the Middle East, so the KGB found out who the terrorists were, kidnapped their family members and began mailing them body parts - an ear, a finger, etc. The Russian diplomats were released next to the embassy and they didn't have any more incidents like that.

Brutal, but very effective - and undoubtedly preemptively saved many Russian lives and billions fighting future terrorist attacks against Russian interests.


Russians are pretty hard core, even I have a problem with going after family members just because they're family members.

[NightTrain]

OK. But you acknowledge that torture is against the GC and combatants are subject?

Of course lawful combatants are protected by the GC. AFAIK, we don't waterboard lawful combatants and we have historically treated POWs better than anyone, while at the same time our soldiers were abused horribly.


I think there may be a legal difference between say the Taliban and enemy combatants though.

That's a whole new can o' worms, and it's not clear whether or not 'unlawful combatants' are subject to protections of the GC. That's a grey area. Personally, I don't think they should be treated better than the rabid animals that they are, but that's just me.

If I were king, they'd all be interrogated until the last scrap of intel was wrung from them, and then summarily executed by female soldiers with bullets soaked in pig's blood to terrify the rest of them. The pieces of the ones we didn't catch before they committed their suicide atrocity would be buried in a bacon coffin. The level of terrorism against America would plummet to zero overnight.

[fj1200]

Besides, we do want to adhere to the Geneva Convention as a civilized society, because we ARE better than our enemies. If we engaged in the same sort of thing that they do, then we'd be no better than them.

Sometimes it's hard to set a good example.

[jimnyc]

I sleep better and laugh better at night, simply knowing that some of these scumbags are not left being dehydrated. :) Put them on a ship out in international waters. Hire mercenaries from foreign countries. Make it an international floating prison. Use a floating oil container ship with a prison below deck. (saw this in "Escape Plan"). No laws, no escape, no rules. Just hell for terrorists and other scumbags. I would pay top dollar if I myself were allowed to go somewhere and waterboard one of them.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes it's hard to set a good example.

Set a good example for who, the terrorists? Does anyone believe they'll magically be better folks, or adhere to better laws of war, if we set a good example?

[fj1200]

Of course lawful combatants are protected by the GC. AFAIK, we don't waterboard lawful combatants and we have historically treated POWs better than anyone, while at the same time our soldiers were abused horribly.


That's a whole new can o' worms, and it's not clear whether or not 'unlawful combatants' are subject to protections of the GC. That's a grey area. Personally, I don't think they should be treated better than the rabid animals that they are, but that's just me.

If I were king, they'd all be interrogated until the last scrap of intel was wrung from them, and then summarily executed by female soldiers with bullets soaked in pig's blood to terrify the rest of them. The pieces of the ones we didn't catch before they committed their suicide atrocity would be buried in a bacon coffin. The level of terrorism against America would plummet to zero overnight.

I believe Bush acknowledged that enemy combatants would be subject to the GC but I don't recall if it was because of a ruling like Hamdan.

To the latter, as you say we are better than the enemy and it's hard to live up to that but I think we should. That and the problems themselves with torture being effective but there are a couple twenty other threads about that. :)

[fj1200]

Set a good example for who, the terrorists? Does anyone believe they'll magically be better folks, or adhere to better laws of war, if we set a good example?

The world, allies, those who are not against us, those we want to be for us...

[jimnyc]

The world, allies, those who are not against us, those we want to be for us...

Ok, that I can agree with, to an extent. I think the majority of the "civilized world" sees Islamic terrorism for what it is, and knows what we are dealing with. I'm sure they ALL wish and hope we can settle things "perfectly", but that's not always the case, sometimes extreme measures are necessary.

[revelarts]

Scroll back. Rev is claiming exactly that.

Yes I am. the case you site is a BAD SCOTUS decision.
Same as the SCOTUS decision on the Obmacare, the Dred Scott case and others.
It's a case that goes against others historically. You have to go to 1990 to find it.

it's not the intent or in the spirit of the constitution.
the dissenting and even concurring arguments in the case make it clear.

concurring
Justice Stevens disagreed with the plurality's definition of"the people" and found that "the people" included aliens law- fully present in the United States.

dissenting
Justice Brennan argued that the Bill of Rights did not bestow rights upon individuals, but acknowledged the existence of rights that inhered in each person.' ' He concluded that theBill of Rights, rather than establishing new rights applicableonly to citizens, prohibited the U.S. government from infringing on these pre-existing rights and liberties.'


This is the whole foundation of our founding documents.
the 1st lines of the declaration of independence states.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... etc..."

The constitution doesn't GRANT rights to foreigners or U.S. citizens it RECOGNIZES the God given rights of ALL humans. And being free from torture while in gov't captivity seems to me a God granted HUMAN right that the founders clearly codified in the bill of rights.

But if you want to argue that God didn't give the some people in the world the same basic right to be torture free as U.S. citizens. and the supreme court can somehow cut out exceptions for some people.
well OK, I guess we disagree.

[jimnyc]

Enemy combatants entitled to every single constitutional protection? LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[NightTrain]

　Russians are pretty hard core, even I have a problem with going after family members just because they're family members.


I see what you're saying, but the end result is the Russians are feared and hardly have any problems because of it. Sure, they've had a couple of incidents, but I'm pretty sure that's because the incident isn't well-known and repeated in horrified whispers among muzzies anymore. Time fades the fear and the lesson. A quick reminder of the story would have the same effect as when it was done 30+ years ago.

I guess the same argument could be made for nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima - we wanted them to surrender and we got it, because we cared enough about our own people that we were willing to kill a lot of theirs in great swaths. If you look at it from a numbers perspective, what the Russians did was a hell of a lot more humane. The difference is that the victims were coldly identified and selected simply based on their familial relations instead of a random geographic location.

[revelarts]

...The constitution doesn't GRANT rights to foreigners or U.S. citizens it RECOGNIZES the God given rights of ALL humans. And being free from torture while in gov't captivity seems to me a God granted HUMAN right that the founders clearly codified in the bill of rights.....


Enemy combatants entitled to every single constitutional protection? LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh:

so Jim, how do you jump from a specific to a general and pretend that's what i said?

But this is why i write long post sometimes. because people LIKE you sometimes assume a negative generalization. And even when i am specific you ignore it and comment on the straw man of the generalization.

you did the same with the Protect and serve thread .
i can't comment on bad cops without you implying that i have problem with ALL cops and saying i or others ignore cops death.
It's stupid and wrong.
And you're not a stupid person so i don't know why you do it?
but i get sick of it.

[NightTrain]

The constitution doesn't GRANT rights to foreigners or U.S. citizens it RECOGNIZES the God given rights of ALL humans. And being free from torture while in gov't captivity seems to me a God granted HUMAN right that the founders clearly codified in the bill of rights.

But if you want to argue that God didn't give the some people in the world the same basic right to be torture free as U.S. citizens. and the supreme court can somehow cut out exceptions for some people.
well OK, I guess we disagree.


Okay, have it your way.

By the same logic, the USA needs to demand that ALL Europeans have unfettered access to firearms - because our 2nd Amendment applies to everyone, everywhere.

Or are you going to pick and choose which parts of our Constitution apply to foreign nationals? Nope, you can't do that.

See how silly that argument is?

[jimnyc]

so Jim, how do you jump from a specific to a general and pretend that's what i said?

But this is why i write long post sometimes. because people LIKE you sometimes assume a negative generalization. And even when i am specific you ignore it and comment on the straw man of the generalization.

you did the same with the Protect and serve thread .
i can't comment on bad cops without you implying that i have problem with ALL cops and saying i or others ignore cops death.
It's stupid and wrong.
And you're not a stupid person so i don't know why you do it?
but i get sick of it.

FJ Wrote:

Nobody is really suggesting that enemy combatants are entitled to every protection in the Constitution

NT replied with:

Scroll back. Rev is claiming exactly that.

And then you wrote:

Yes I am

You not only didn't correct them, you even stated that's what you meant.

[jimnyc]

Okay, have it your way.

By the same logic, the USA needs to demand that ALL Europeans have unfettered access to firearms - because our 2nd Amendment applies to everyone, everywhere.

Or are you going to pick and choose which parts of our Constitution apply to foreign nationals? Nope, you can't do that.

See how silly that argument is?

And apparently the enemy combatants then have constitutional rights to their guns too. :)

[revelarts]

Okay, have it your way.

By the same logic, the USA needs to demand that ALL Europeans have unfettered access to firearms - because our 2nd Amendment applies to everyone, everywhere.

uh No.
look, this is part of what the american experiment was all about. we don't DEMAND that other countries follow our RECOGNITION of human rights. we are the "shinning city on the hill" that other counties are suppose to follow our good example.

But also one of the reasons why we've proposed and signed onto treaties (the good ones at least) IS to promote the recognition of God given human rights around the world.
right?



Or are you going to pick and choose which parts of our Constitution apply to foreign nationals? Nope, you can't do that.
See how silly that argument is?

Are you going to pick which parts don't?
see how horrific that is?

But which part of the bill of rights shouldn't apply to a foreign national from England, France, Japan, Israel or even Iran?

free speech, religion, petition, bear arms, putting solders in their homes, the right to trial, jury, search, excessive bail, speedy trial,

So far you say 'cruel and unusual punishment' doesn't apply.
Shesh start at the bottom why don't cha.

look NT, I don't see that it's silly at all that ALL.
The bill of rights should apply to those U.S. gov't captives abroad or on U.S. soil. Just as it does, to the constitutional degree it does for U.S. prisoners.

Not to mention the geneva conventions, the Military code of conduct, George Washington's admonition on the proper treatment of captives, the treaty against torture. torture goes against all that the country CLAIMS it stands for.

[NightTrain]

Rev, you're confusing treaties and Constitutional rights.


They are entirely different things. Muddy the water all you like, our Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil. Treaties, on the other hand, can and do apply to certain foreign nationals on foreign soil.

You can rail against 'bad decisions' from the USSC all you want, but they are certainly more learned about such matters than you or I. And there are certainly topics that I strongly disagree with on some of their decisions on different things; but that doesn't change the fact that it's a done deal and only Congress can change their rulings by legislation.

So until you lobby Congress and get them to write up a brand new amendment saying that all our freedoms and rights as Americans apply equally to everyone the world over, your argument is baseless.

Accept the reality.

[revelarts]

Rev, you're confusing treaties and Constitutional rights.

I'm saying they BOTH apply.
No confusion at all. They are in agreement, alignment, in legal concert.

you and the USSC are trying to make an UNNATURAL distinction that's clearly not there.

A distinction that's logically and historical dishonest to make.
But sadly the reality is that the USSC and the presidents have been ignoring the Bill of rights in various ways for quite some time.
and I have accepted that and it's the reason I said that i can not support Fiorina or others who want to continue to do the same.

[NightTrain]

I'm saying they BOTH apply.
No confusion at all. They are in agreement, alignment, in legal concert.

you and the USSC are trying to make an UNNATURAL distinction that's clearly not there.

A distinction that's logically and historical dishonest to make.
But sadly the reality is that the USSC and the presidents have been ignoring the Bill of rights for in various ways for quite some time.
and I have accepted that and it's the reason I said that i can not support Fiorina or others who want to continue to do the same.


Sometimes I think you argue for the sake of arguing.


It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. The USSC determines what is Constitutional and what is not. They've already spoken. Accept it.

[revelarts]

Sometimes I think you argue for the sake of arguing.


It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. The USSC determines what is Constitutional and what is not. They've already spoken. Accept it.

do you accept that the Obamacare decision was correct?

and make no mistake i'm very sincere in my opinion. I really wish you could see my points.

[aboutime]

Enemy combatants are only subject to our laws, on our soil, during a DECLARED war. So far. Congress, and Obama have never declared anything except Appeasing the Politically Incorrect Liberals who pretend only specific parts of the constitution apply.

As long as Obama denies the use of ENEMY TERRORISTS, ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, or ILLEGALS just to suit his desire to Destroy America...they will pretend there are no TERROR THREATS to any of us. Which lets him pretend HE doesn't need to follow his OATH OF OFFICE.

[DragonStryk72]

Whelp, She's crossed off my list as another unconstitutional, willing to break the law as she sees fit, republican.

Yeah, pretty much. Beyond the complete lack of ethics involved in torture, there's the complete lack of actual results. So beyond her ability to silence her morals on a whim, there's the doubling down on methods proven repeatedly, for centuries, to be ineffective.

So basically, even if you don't mind the torture, why are we so happy about employing the least effective tool. Imagine someone try to run an auto repair shop, using the "hit it til it works method". How much faith do you really have that the person is competent to run a shop?

Sorry guys, but again, I refuse to compromise my morals and ethics for the weakest, smallest, and most cowardly opponent we've faced in the entire history of the United States. It's sad that you all apparently think we're so weak that we need these sorts of tactics.

[Black Diamond]

Yeah, pretty much. Beyond the complete lack of ethics involved in torture, there's the complete lack of actual results. So beyond her ability to silence her morals on a whim, there's the doubling down on methods proven repeatedly, for centuries, to be ineffective.

So basically, even if you don't mind the torture, why are we so happy about employing the least effective tool. Imagine someone try to run an auto repair shop, using the "hit it til it works method". How much faith do you really have that the person is competent to run a shop?

Sorry guys, but again, I refuse to compromise my morals and ethics for the weakest, smallest, and most cowardly opponent we've faced in the entire history of the United States. It's sad that you all apparently think we're so weak that we need these sorts of tactics.

People who are willing to blow themselves up are many things, but cowards is not one of them. You think these radicals are weak? Those who jumped from the world trade center at 120 mph to the concrete below may disagree

[NightTrain]

Yeah, pretty much. Beyond the complete lack of ethics involved in torture, there's the complete lack of actual results. So beyond her ability to silence her morals on a whim, there's the doubling down on methods proven repeatedly, for centuries, to be ineffective.

So basically, even if you don't mind the torture, why are we so happy about employing the least effective tool. Imagine someone try to run an auto repair shop, using the "hit it til it works method". How much faith do you really have that the person is competent to run a shop?

Sorry guys, but again, I refuse to compromise my morals and ethics for the weakest, smallest, and most cowardly opponent we've faced in the entire history of the United States. It's sad that you all apparently think we're so weak that we need these sorts of tactics.


I really see no problem with waterboarding terrorists we've captured.

It does no harm to them. Our own military goes through that - so is it safe to say we're torturing our own soldiers? Nonsense. It's damned unpleasant, for sure, but it's psychological and it gets results.

How else are you going to get intel on the organization and info regarding upcoming attacks that they're privy to? Ask them nice? Bribe them with a falafel?

It's not done because it would be nice to have the intel they refuse to give up. It's needed to save American lives, and their comfort means nothing when weighed against that.

[revelarts]

I really see no problem with waterboarding terrorists we've captured.

It does no harm to them. Our own military goes through that - so is it safe to say we're torturing our own soldiers? Nonsense. It's damned unpleasant, for sure, but it's psychological and it gets results.

How else are you going to get intel on the organization and info regarding upcoming attacks that they're privy to? Ask them nice? Bribe them with a falafel?

It's not done because it would be nice to have the intel they refuse to give up. It's needed to save American lives, and their comfort means nothing when weighed against that.



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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGRQY67VOA

[NightTrain]

You don't like that we nailed Osama Bin Laden, Rev?


We nailed him because the CIA extracted time-sensitive info from him via "enhanced interrogation techniques".

[revelarts]

http://waterboarding.org/files/waterboarding/images/1968.01.21%20vietnam.jpg

"On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." This picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier."


But Today presidents and presidential candidates endorse or condone what was just a few years ago was a Court Martial offense.


The Inquisition called it what it is: tortura del aqua. In English: Water Torture.
Works Great for getting people to say what you want them to say. Soviet psychologist and torturers knew this.
Today we get our info on torture from TV shows and movies.... and CIA agents and officials trying to CYA.

[NightTrain]

American officials have said that one of the crucial clues that led to bin Laden was a piece of information about an al-Qaeda courier that came from September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or from the so-called 20th hijacker, Mohammad al-Qahtani.
It is acknowledged that both Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Mohammad al-Qahtani had been subjected to enhanced interrogation, a policy authorised by Mr Bush.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-CIA-admits-waterboarding-yielded-vital-information.html

[DragonStryk72]

People who are willing to blow themselves up are many things, but cowards is not one of them. You think these radicals are weak? Those who jumped from the world trade center at 120 mph to the concrete below may disagree

Yes, they're weaklings. They get a lucky strike once every 15 years to do some sort of damage that actually matter beyond the people directly effected.

Yes, they're cowards. They're hiding behind the strawman of religion to convince others to die for them, all because they want power.

I remember 9/11, that was the day I nearly became an only child. I'll thank you not to keep trying to use it as a billy club on me.

They're weak, pathetic cowards who get their asses kicked every single time they pop their head up. They exist only due to their ability to run and fucking hide. I will not acknowledge strength where there is none.

[DragonStryk72]

You don't like that we nailed Osama Bin Laden, Rev?


We nailed him because the CIA extracted time-sensitive info from him via "enhanced interrogation techniques".

ACtually, that was more on the Seals who hunted for him. We also suspected him to be in Pakistan since, oh, about 2002. Information from torture victims was notoriously unreliable, as, obviously, they said whatever got the pain to stop.

That's the central point of torture, and its inherent weakness and time-wasting. It's also a sign of moral and ethical weakness on our own part. We are better off, in a hunt, using the same tactics that police officers do for getting information: Offering lenient sentencing, and other points, in order to get the informants to want to give us the right information.

[aboutime]

Allow me to be honest, and get something straight here to everyone who has feelings about the CIA waterboarding techniques. And, allow me to admit. IF a member of my family, my wife, sons, or grandchildren were being held captive somewhere; and I had access to the person with information that would lead me to save those members of my family or...ANY OTHER AMERICAN...because I used WATERBOARDING.

I would have no hesitation in using that technique. And...for those of you who only see it as useless. If you were held captive, and I had someone like a terrorist under my control. I WOULD USE IT to find out where YOUR SORRY BUTT IS too!

If you still disagree with that. Good for you. You have the same RIGHTS to disagree with me, as I have the SAME RIGHTS to disagree with you.

Nobody here can change any of that. PERIOD.

[NightTrain]

ACtually, that was more on the Seals who hunted for him. We also suspected him to be in Pakistan since, oh, about 2002. Information from torture victims was notoriously unreliable, as, obviously, they said whatever got the pain to stop.

That's the central point of torture, and its inherent weakness and time-wasting. It's also a sign of moral and ethical weakness on our own part. We are better off, in a hunt, using the same tactics that police officers do for getting information: Offering lenient sentencing, and other points, in order to get the informants to want to give us the right information.


You clearly don't really understand what SEALs do, Dragon.

They're not spooks. They didn't uncover where OBL was, they are the ass-kickers that landed there, killed him, and brought back his carcass strapped across the Black Hawk's hood.

Our intelligence services found him, and they admitted that waterboarding was directly responsible for extracting the info they needed to nail him before circumstances changed.

[gabosaurus]

Positioning herself as a steely advocate of aggressive counterterrorism programs, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina offered a vigorous defense of CIA waterboarding as a tactic that helped “keep our nation safe” in the aftermath of 9/11.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/04/medium_george-w-bush.jpg

[aboutime]

You clearly don't really understand what SEALs do, Dragon.

They're not spooks. They didn't uncover where OBL was, they are the ass-kickers that landed there, killed him, and brought back his carcass strapped across the Black Hawk's hood.

Our intelligence services found him, and they admitted that waterboarding was directly responsible for extracting the info they needed to nail him before circumstances changed.


U.S. Navy SEALS can only operate, and succeed with their missions...based on Intelligence Gathering by the CIA, and other sources. In other words for those who refuse to understand. SEALS have no place to go, nor do they know what to do unless SOME OTHER AGENCY, like the CIA gives them the intelligence information.

Some people will always refuse to admit they aren't as smart as they want the rest of us to believe they are.:laugh:

[NightTrain]

U.S. Navy SEALS can only operate, and succeed with their missions...based on Intelligence Gathering by the CIA, and other sources. In other words for those who refuse to understand. SEALS have no place to go, nor do they know what to do unless SOME OTHER AGENCY, like the CIA gives them the intelligence information.

Some people will always refuse to admit they aren't as smart as they want the rest of us to believe they are.:laugh:


Well, I do think Dragon is quite intelligent... but I am surprised that he would say SEALs did the spook work, especially as a former Navy man, like yourself.

Possibly a typo on his part, I expect he'll be along to clarify what he meant.

[revelarts]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-CIA-admits-waterboarding-yielded-vital-information.html

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.pngLeon 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 became 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)

[NightTrain]

Rev, you know that making me read anything from Salon or HuffPo makes me nauseous... that's not nice.

At any rate, despite the howls of protests from liberals about waterboarding being a key component to capturing OBL, don't you think it was worth it with the knowledge that it enabled us to kill him? Right here with this example, we have the benefit of 20/20 hind vision.

Surely you wouldn't wave your magic wand and erase the waterboarding with the result of having OBL still hiding out and conducting American-slaughtering operations today? Do you really care so much for the comfort of known terrorists at the expense of your fellow Americans' lives? Would you feel differently if you had lost family in 9-11 or one of the many other operations he was responsible for?

[revelarts]

Rev, you know that making me read anything from Salon or HuffPo makes me nauseous... that's not nice.

At any rate, despite the howls of protests from liberals about waterboarding being a key component to capturing OBL, don't you think it was worth it with the knowledge that it enabled us to kill him? Right here with this example, we have the benefit of 20/20 hind vision.

Surely you wouldn't wave your magic wand and erase the waterboarding with the result of having OBL still hiding out and conducting American-slaughtering operations today? Do you really care so much for the comfort of known terrorists at the expense of your fellow Americans' lives? Would you feel differently if you had lost family in 9-11 or one of the many other operations he was responsible for?

NT you should re-read what the interrogators Rumsfeld, CIA heads and even Lindsey Graham says.
You wouldn't be repeating that the water boarding helped capture Bin Laden. They don't say that.

Those in the gov't say it SLOWED it DOWN. and was not indispensable.
and that there were BETTER ways of getting intel.

It's just not true to say we WOULD NOT have gotten Bin Laden if it had not been for torture.
Seems Torture was NOT a real help at all.

Should we make up a scenario world where it does help just to justify it's use.
why do that when the professional interrogators say there are BETTER ways to get intel.
Even in the worse situations from the most hard core terrorist.

In the real world it's well known that torture is NOT as effective as the as non-torture techniques.
It wasn't crucial to capturing anyone.
It's well known to be COUNTER productive in interrogation.
It's made heroes and martyrs of the victims and has helped recruit more terrorist.
There's nothing pragmatically good about torture in the long or short term.
It's COMPLETELY unnecessary.

And at bottom it should not even come to a question of pragmatism because it's Immoral, Illegal ...and yes... unconstitutional.

[Motown]

If waterboarding doesn't work then why did we do it for so long? And that was after going out of our way to find a legal justification for doing it. If it doesn't work great, let's not do it, but on the other hand when politicians say it doesn't work yet our government keeps doing it then something is wrong here.

[revelarts]

If waterboarding doesn't work then why did we do it for so long? And that was after going out of our way to find a legal justification for doing it. If it doesn't work great, let's not do it, but on the other hand when politicians say it doesn't work yet our government keeps doing it then something is wrong here.


One reason politicians and those that allowed or ordered it keep justifying it is because people don't want to go to prison for doing it.
Saying "it worked" gives them a thin cover for breaking all the laws on books, nationally and internationally, against it.

So yes something is very wrong here.

[Motown]

One reason politicians and those that allowed or ordered it keep justifying it is because people don't want to go to prison for doing it.
Saying "it worked" gives them a thin cover for breaking all the laws on books, nationally and internationally, against it.

So yes something is very wrong here.

Their innocence or guilt is not dependent upon whether or not it worked.

[revelarts]

Their innocence or guilt is not dependent upon whether or not it worked.

i agree, You're absolutely right.
But many americans, politicians and judges are willing to give them a legal pass if they believe that it "gathered vital intel" or "saved lives".

[NightTrain]

The cat's out of the bag, Rev. Remember Leon Panetta, the CIA head honcho?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mXyufICYrW8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>


And then back in 2011, there is this :


Obama CIA chief admitted today that intelligence gleaned from enhanced interrogating techniques led the US to Osama Bin Laden.Today reported:


Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.


“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.


Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing declared “waterboarding is torture and it’s wrong,” said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue.


“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc5df4dd" classid="clsid:D<embed name="msnbc5df4dd" src="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=42886480&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></object>

Even though Panetta is personally against waterboarding and thinks it's wrong, he still acknowledged that it directly led to OBL.


I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my question as to what your thoughts on the subject would be if you'd lost family in one of OBL's attacks against Americans. It's real easy to sit there unaffected on a personal level and make judgement calls as to the methods used to capture a vicious murderer overseas, don't you think?

[Motown]

i agree, You're absolutely right.
But many americans, politicians and judges are willing to give them a legal pass if they believe that it "gathered vital intel" or "saved lives".

It's either legal or it's not. By saying they need a pass you're saying it's illegal and it's not. It's debateable whether or not waterboarding is even torture.

[revelarts]

Fiorina and others should obey the laws and the constitution.
But even If they don't care about that, or being moral, do they at least care about being effective?



June 24, 2008
Top Interrogators Declare Torture Ineffective in Intelligence Gathering

New York City — Fifteen former interrogators and intelligence officials with more than 350 years collective field experience have declared that torture is an "unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive" way to gather intelligence, in a statement of principles released today.
The group of former interrogators and intelligence officials released a set of principles to guide effective interrogation practices at the conclusion of a meeting convened by Human Rights First last week in Washington. The meeting participants served with the CIA, the FBI and the U.S. military.
The principles are based on the interrogators and intelligence officials' experiences of what works and what does not in the field. Interrogation techniques that do not resort to torture yield more complete and accurate intelligence, they say. The principles call for the creation of a well-defined single standard of conduct in interrogation and detention practices across all U.S. agencies. At stake is the loss of critical intelligence and time, as well as the United States' reputation abroad and its credibility in demanding the humane treatment of captured Americans.
The full text of the principles and brief bios of its signers follow below.
The group gathered together in Washington last week for two days to discuss the most effective ways to obtain timely and credible information from suspected terrorists and other individuals who threaten the security of the United States, during which time they also met with Presidential campaign advisors and Members of Congress to discuss these issues.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Summer, 2008
The principles below were developed by 15 individuals who served as senior interrogators, interviewers and intelligence officials in the United States military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The group met at a forum hosted by Human Rights First on June 17 and 18, 2008, in Washington, D.C. to discuss the most effective ways to obtain timely and credible information from suspected terrorists and other individuals who threaten the security of the United States.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
We believe:
1. Non-coercive, traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches provide the best possibility for obtaining accurate and complete intelligence.
2. Torture and other inhumane and abusive interview techniques are unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive. We reject them unconditionally.
3. The use of torture and other inhumane and abusive treatment results in false and misleading information, loss of critical intelligence, and has caused serious damage to the reputation and standing of the United States. The use of such techniques also facilitates enemy recruitment, misdirects or wastes scarce resources, and deprives the United States of the standing to demand humane treatment of captured Americans.
4. There must be a single well-defined standard of conduct across all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in U.S. custody, consistent with our values as a nation.
5. There is no conflict between adhering to our nation's essential values, including respect for inherent human dignity, and our ability to obtain the information we need to protect the nation.
Signed by:

•Frank Anderson
Frank Anderson worked for the CIA from 1968 until 1995. He served three tours of duty in the Middle East as an agency station chief, headed the Afghan Task Force (1987-1989), and was chief of the Near East Division. He now runs a consulting practice that focuses on the Middle East.

•Jack Cloonan
Jack Cloonan served as a special agent with the FBI from 1977 to 2002. He began investigating Al Qaeda in the early 1990's and served as a special agent for the Bureau's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 2002.

•Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, US Army
Stu Herrington served thirty years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he recently taught a three-day seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army's 201st MI Battalion, Interrogation, during its activation at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

•Pierre Joly
Pierre Joly has more than 39 years of military intelligence experience. He currently serves as the Vice President of Phoenix Consulting Group where he leads more than 350 employees involved in providing human intelligence training to members of the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies of the United States. Immediately before joining Phoenix he served as the Chief of Controlled Operations at DIA from 2005- 2006 and the Chief of Operations for the Iraq Survey Group in Baghdad from 2003-2004.

•Brigadier General (Ret.) David Irvine, US Army
General Irvine enlisted in the 96th Infantry Division, United States Army Reserve, in 1962. He received a direct commission in 1967 as a strategic intelligence officer. He maintained a faculty assignment for 18 years with the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School, and taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law to soldiers, Marines, and airmen. He retired in 2002, and his last assignment was Deputy Commander for the 96th Regional Readiness Command. General Irvine served 4 terms as a Republican legislator in the Utah House of Representatives, has served as a congressional chief of staff, and served as a commissioner on the Utah Public Utilities Commission.

•Steven M. Kleinman
Steve Kleinman is an active duty intelligence officer who has twenty-five years of operational and leadership experience in human intelligence, special survival training, and special operations. He has served as a case officer, as a strategic debriefer, and as an interrogator during Operations JUST CAUSE, DESERT STORM, and IRAQI FREEDOM. He previously served as the DoD Senior Intelligence Officer for Special Survival Training and is currently assigned as the Reserve Director of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance at the Air Force Special Operations Command. As an independent consultant, his engagements have included serving as a senior advisor to the Intelligence Science Board's Study on Educing Information and as a member of the faculty for the U.S. Army Behavioral Science Consulting Team Course.

•Dr. George Mandel
Dr. George Mandel, born in Berlin, Germany, came to the US in 1937. He was inducted into the U.S. Army in 1944, and after basic training was transferred to Camp Ritchie, MD, for training in military interrogation because of his knowledge of German. He was then transferred to P.O. Box 1142, outside of Washington, D.C. where he conducted interrogation of German scientists brought to this country as prisoners of war. After a brief stint at Fort Strong, outside of Boston, he returned to 1142 to continue his previous work in military intelligence until the end of the War in Europe. After discharge in 1946 he returned briefly to 1142, and then entered graduate school at Yale University, specializing in organic chemistry. After receiving his Ph.D. he began his career in biochemical pharmacology, at George Washington University School of Medicine, starting as Research Associate in 1949, and promotion to the ranks to Professor. He became chairman of the Department of Pharmacology in 1960, stepped down from that position in 1996 and currently is working there as Professor of Pharmacology & Physiology. His research work has been in drug metabolism, cancer chemotherapy and carcinogenesis.

•Joe Navarro
For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psycopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.

•Torin Nelson
Torin Nelson is a veteran Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Specialist and interrogator with 16-years of experience working with military and government agencies. He has worked in major theaters of operation in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Nelson has worked in tactical and strategic environments, both as a soldier and civilian advisor. Primary assignments include the 66th Military Intelligence and 300th Military Intelligence Brigades. He has also worked for the US Army Intelligence Center, Southern European Task Force (SETAF), the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA, later DTRA), Combined Joint Task Force 170 (later CJTF-Gitmo), CFLCC (Iraq), CJTF-76 (later -82/-101) (Afghanistan), NATO (IFOR, SFOR, and ISAF), as well as numerous military to military joint training exercises. Mr. Nelson is one of the founding members at the Society for Professional Human Intelligence (SPHI). He is currently working in the Middle East as a senior interrogator and mentor.

•William Quinn
William Quinn served in the United States Army from 2001 to 2006 as a human intelligence collector, interrogator, and Korean linguist. He was deployed to Iraq from February 2005 to February 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was stationed at Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper. Will is currently studying International Politics and Security Studies at Georgetown University and is a cadet in Army ROTC.
Buck Revell
Mr. Revell served a 30-year career (1964-1994) in the FBI as a Special Agent and senior executive. From 1980 until 1991, Mr. Revell served in FBI Headquarters first as Assistant Director in charge of Criminal Investigations (including terrorism); then as Associate Deputy Director he was in charge of the Investigative, Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and International programs of the Bureau (1985-91). In September 1987, Mr. Revell was placed in charge of a joint FBI/CIA/U.S. military operation (Operation Goldenrod) which led to the first apprehension overseas of an international terrorist. Prior to joining the FBI, Mr. Revell served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Marine Corps, leaving active duty in 1964 as a Captain. He currently serves as the President of an international business and security consulting group based in Dallas.

•Ken Robinson
Ken Robinson served a twenty-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units. His experience includes service with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. Ken has extensive experience in CIA and Israeli interrogation methods and is a member of the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
Roger Ruthberg
Roger Ruthberg served as an interrogator in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He conducted interrogation and counterintelligence operations during Operations Desert Storm, Joint Endeavor, and Iraqi Freedom. He currently works as an instructor in debriefing operations on contract to the Department of Defense.
Haviland Smith
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA case officer and Station Chief who served for 26 years. He served in East and West Europe and in the Middle East. He also served for three years as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff at the Agency, as well as a tour as Executive Assistant to the DDCI.

•Lieutenant General (Ret.) Harry E. Soyster, USA
Lieutenant General Soyster served as Director, Defense Intelligence Agency during DESERT SHIELD/STORM. He also served as Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Department of the Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and in the Joint Reconnaissance Center, Joint Chiefs of Staff. In Vietnam he was an operations officer in a field artillery battalion. Upon retirement he was VP for International Operations with Military Professional Resources Incorporated and returned to government as a Special Assistant to the SEC ARMY for WWII 60th Anniversary Commemorations completed in 2006.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2008...ence-gathering (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2008/06/24/top-interrogators-declare-torture-ineffective-in-intelligence-gathering)

[NightTrain]

...and yet, here is the CIA chief saying that it DID work. Hmmmm.

[revelarts]

It's either legal or it's not. By saying they need a pass you're saying it's illegal and it's not. It's debateable whether or not waterboarding is even torture.


as i posted earlier soldiers were court martialed for it during Vietnam.
Police in Texas have been jailed for it as well.
It was torture during the inquisition. it's been considered torture since then ....until 2002.
Not sure how it evolved into non-torture today.

[DragonStryk72]

If waterboarding doesn't work then why did we do it for so long? And that was after going out of our way to find a legal justification for doing it. If it doesn't work great, let's not do it, but on the other hand when politicians say it doesn't work yet our government keeps doing it then something is wrong here.

Because it feels righteous, when really, it just shows the weaknesses of the society that engages in it. Morals and ethics only exist when they are tested, and we have thus far mightily failed that test. Sorry, but that's about it. Politicians are not intelligence community members or experts, and most of the experts of the intelligence community, up to and including the head of CIA, flat out stated that torture was ineffective.

All of us have some hate within us, and torture feels "good" from a hateful bent. Sure, throw enough shit at a wall, and it'll eventually hit what you're aiming for, but that doesn't make it a good tactic, or an effective one, and all it does is loudly proclaim your weakness to all in witness to it.

What might shock you, though, is that Bin Laden, were he still here, would greatly approve of our tactic against terrorists. When he was taken out, and his bunker searched, they found his master plan, why he'd done all this, and his ultimate goal. Bin Laden's stated goal was basically to make the US beat itself to death, abandoning all moral and ethics to keep fighting until the very act did the job for him. Really ingenious plan, as it turns out, as this plan was laid out on here, even, and aside from Rev and FJ, pretty much everyone is still, even now, after reading this point, going to continue to fuel hate, and this sort of eternal war.

Further, we're basically doing the terrorists' recruiting for them, by lending legitimacy to what the terrorists say of us to get new recruits. Think about it: if I took your son, then crafted legal loopholes to keep from having to charge, arraign, or try him, as well as to get around the Geneva conventions, specifically so that I can torture him, what would you do to me? Kill me? Go to war with me, and those who support me in whatever way you can?

We have had enemies since the dawn of the United States, all of the bigger, stronger, and more of a threat to us than these piddling terrorists, so why the special place we've given them of being the ones to earn our abandonment of ethical behavior? What have they done that surpasses the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, the Nazis, the French, the English, the Spanish, and even the Mexicans?

Whatever happened to our courageous spirit? "We have naught to fear, but fear itself."

[revelarts]

...and yet, here is the CIA chief saying that it DID work. Hmmmm.
is the CIA covering its Arse? hmmmmm?

Do the professional interrogators have any good incentive to lie or shade the facts?
Does the CIA Chief?

Does Lindsey graham have any reason not to trumpet torture as THE reason why OBL was caught.

NT do you think anything these other folks have said have any merit at all?

[Motown]

Because it feels righteous, when really, it just shows the weaknesses of the society that engages in it. Morals and ethics only exist when they are tested, and we have thus far mightily failed that test. Sorry, but that's about it. Politicians are not intelligence community members or experts, and most of the experts of the intelligence community, up to and including the head of CIA, flat out stated that torture was ineffective.

All of us have some hate within us, and torture feels "good" from a hateful bent. Sure, throw enough shit at a wall, and it'll eventually hit what you're aiming for, but that doesn't make it a good tactic, or an effective one, and all it does is loudly proclaim your weakness to all in witness to it.

What might shock you, though, is that Bin Laden, were he still here, would greatly approve of our tactic against terrorists. When he was taken out, and his bunker searched, they found his master plan, why he'd done all this, and his ultimate goal. Bin Laden's stated goal was basically to make the US beat itself to death, abandoning all moral and ethics to keep fighting until the very act did the job for him. Really ingenious plan, as it turns out, as this plan was laid out on here, even, and aside from Rev and FJ, pretty much everyone is still, even now, after reading this point, going to continue to fuel hate, and this sort of eternal war.

Further, we're basically doing the terrorists' recruiting for them, by lending legitimacy to what the terrorists say of us to get new recruits. Think about it: if I took your son, then crafted legal loopholes to keep from having to charge, arraign, or try him, as well as to get around the Geneva conventions, specifically so that I can torture him, what would you do to me? Kill me? Go to war with me, and those who support me in whatever way you can?

We have had enemies since the dawn of the United States, all of the bigger, stronger, and more of a threat to us than these piddling terrorists, so why the special place we've given them of being the ones to earn our abandonment of ethical behavior? What have they done that surpasses the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, the Nazis, the French, the English, the Spanish, and even the Mexicans?

Whatever happened to our courageous spirit? "We have naught to fear, but fear itself."

This hearts and minds bullshit never worked on me. Not when Bush did it and not when you do it. I don't base my actions upon whether or not my enemy will like what I'm doing. Waterboarding either works or it doesn't, if it works I'm all for us doing it. If it doesn't work then I think we should stop doing it and just execute the little maggots. If it were illegal we wouldn't be doing it. You're not my moral compass, get over yourself.

[NightTrain]

is the CIA covering its Arse? hmmmmm?

Do the professional interrogators have any good incentive to lie or shade the facts?
Does the CIA Chief?

Does Lindsey graham have any reason not to trumpet torture as THE reason why OBL was caught.

NT do you think anything these other folks have said have any merit at all?


No.

[revelarts]

No.
well as they say 'don't let the facts confuse ya.'

[Black Diamond]

I'm saying they BOTH apply.
No confusion at all. They are in agreement, alignment, in legal concert.

you and the USSC are trying to make an UNNATURAL distinction that's clearly not there.

A distinction that's logically and historical dishonest to make.
But sadly the reality is that the USSC and the presidents have been ignoring the Bill of rights in various ways for quite some time.
and I have accepted that and it's the reason I said that i can not support Fiorina or others who want to continue to do the same.
Vote for rand Paul then.

[Black Diamond]

well as they say 'don't let the facts confuse ya.'

You don't know what the facts are.

[NightTrain]

I think I have a firm grasp on the facts, Rev.



You're still dodging the question I posed to you.

[revelarts]

I think I have a firm grasp on the facts, Rev.
You're still dodging the question I posed to you.

So you want to know if i would FEEL like torturing people that killed my family.
Of course i would.

But the real question is not what we feel like doing but what's the right thing to do NT.

The left is the side that openly likes to base law and to twist legal actions on what they feel.
But the right uses feelings of revenge and fear to justify illegal and unconstitutional actions as well.

[Black Diamond]

It's amazing these jihadis want to come over here and cut our heads off and liberals worry about how we treat them.

[Gunny]

...and yet, here is the CIA chief saying that it DID work. Hmmmm.

What else would he say?

It was ruled legal at the time. That's all there is to THAT. Why it's become a question again beats me. The left dredging up the dead to make their same old arguments? We got the racism thing in full swing already.

Personally, I think the CIA Chief is full of it. Systematic torture is a dubious means of gaining information. The person being tortured will eventually tell you what they think you want to hear to make it stop.

Want info? Line 'em up walk up to the first guy and put a K-Bar to his throat and demand answers and if he doesn't talk, cut his throat. The rest will get the message.

I'm just curious as to how many here see poor old John McCain as a hero POW who suffered torture AND support waterboarding.

[Black Diamond]

What else would he say?

It was ruled legal at the time. That's all there is to THAT. Why it's become a question again beats me. The left dredging up the dead to make their same old arguments? We got the racism thing in full swing already.

Personally, I think the CIA Chief is full of it. Systematic torture is a dubious means of gaining information. The person being tortured will eventually tell you what they think you want to hear to make it stop.

Want info? Line 'em up walk up to the first guy and put a K-Bar to his throat and demand answers and if he doesn't talk, cut his throat. The rest will get the message.

I'm just curious as to how many here see poor old John McCain as a hero POW who suffered torture AND support waterboarding.

If these bastards are willing to blow themselves up, will the slitting the throats work?

[jimnyc]

I think anyone involved from anywhere, they would all deny it worked and deny any future use at this point. Fact is though, it'll continue in remote areas of the world, should we get a hold of similar characters. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Literally no harm comes to them, none. I don't care what was stated in the past, who used it and who was prosecuted. It harms no one and is only a simulated drowning. If only 1 out of 20 terrorists come clean, that's OK with me. The other 19 can enjoy their drink.

[NightTrain]

So you want to know if i would FEEL like torturing people that killed my family.
Of course i would.

But the real question is not what we feel like doing but what's the right thing to do NT.

There we go, that's real progress. See, Rev, I feel the same way whether or not I personally lost anyone. Waterboard the fuckers until their eyes float, if it gets results. If not, then discontinue it. I think the professionals should be left to their own devices on the matter.

You, on the other hand, are against it - but in the scenario where you lost someone directly to OBL, you'd be okay with waterboarding to further the goal to nail him.


The left is the side that openly likes to base law and to twist legal actions on what they feel.
But the right uses feelings of revenge and fear to justify illegal and unconstitutional actions as well.

We've already established that the Constitution has absolutely no bearing on this. It's very disingenuous to continue to say it's relevant after the fact.

[NightTrain]

What else would he say?Personally, I think the CIA Chief is full of it. Systematic torture is a dubious means of gaining information. The person being tortured will eventually tell you what they think you want to hear to make it stop.


Panetta IS against waterboarding, and has said so publicly numerous times. That's why it rings true when he admits that waterboarding was directly responsible for OBL's capture. Beyond that, he went against Obama's narrative that waterboarding is ineffective - and Bambam was his boss at the time.

He had everything to lose and nothing to gain by admitting that it worked.

We can debate all day about the effectiveness of waterboarding, but all I can go on is the facts - waterboarding allowed us to pinpoint OBL and kill his sorry ass.

I really don't care if that happened to be the ONLY time (doubtful) it ever worked. It worked that time, and I'm grateful for it.

[jimnyc]

We can debate all day about the effectiveness of waterboarding, but all I can go on is the facts - waterboarding allowed us to pinpoint OBL and kill his sorry ass.

And if they had to waterboard every terrorist at Gitmo to gain anything to help kill OBL, I'm all for it. :hyper:

[Gunny]

If these bastards are willing to blow themselves up, will the slitting the throats work?

If they're willing to blow themselves up will systematic torture get you anything?

First off, systematic torture takes time. The first thing anyone with a brain is going to do if you're captured is change every code and make a new plan. By the time any information is gained, true or not, the whole game's been changed.

It isn't that I have any special humanitarian feeling for Arabs. I can smell them coming. I'm just what not for wasting time on an inefficient system that produces dubious results. You torture me I'm going to start making shit up. THINK like a military person. You think I'm telling you what I know? I'm going to tell you everything I've learned since boot camp EXCEPT what you want to know.

Don't underestimate your enemy. Those fanatics are exactly THAT. They're every bit as dedicated as any of us to their cause. You find a weak link, you got lucky. And if they capture one of MY Marines, I'm completely redesigning the gameplan.

The psychology just points to the fact it is inefficient.

[Gunny]

I think anyone involved from anywhere, they would all deny it worked and deny any future use at this point. Fact is though, it'll continue in remote areas of the world, should we get a hold of similar characters. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Literally no harm comes to them, none. I don't care what was stated in the past, who used it and who was prosecuted. It harms no one and is only a simulated drowning. If only 1 out of 20 terrorists come clean, that's OK with me. The other 19 can enjoy their drink.

I disagree. One, I can swim like a fish. I can because of a fear of drowning. I can stay in the water for 12 hours last checked. Maybe not so much anymore.:laugh:

I still go back to the pointlessness of it.

[Gunny]

Panetta IS against waterboarding, and has said so publicly numerous times. That's why it rings true when he admits that waterboarding was directly responsible for OBL's capture. Beyond that, he went against Obama's narrative that waterboarding is ineffective - and Bambam was his boss at the time.

He had everything to lose and nothing to gain by admitting that it worked.

We can debate all day about the effectiveness of waterboarding, but all I can go on is the facts - waterboarding allowed us to pinpoint OBL and kill his sorry ass.

I really don't care if that happened to be the ONLY time (doubtful) it ever worked. It worked that time, and I'm grateful for it.

Like I said, you get any real info from systematic torture, you just get lucky. Going after OBL was the same as him going after the WTCs, Pentagon and White House. Attacking symbols. The fact Panetta claims waterboarding got OBL means nothing.

Besides that, I thought the waterboarding stopped with His Royal Highness, the Duke of Chicago? If that is true, then how did they get OBL from waterboarding someone?

[Black Diamond]

Like I said, you get any real info from systematic torture, you just get lucky. Going after OBL was the same as him going after the WTCs, Pentagon and White House. Attacking symbols. The fact Panetta claims waterboarding got OBL means nothing.

Besides that, I thought the waterboarding stopped with His Royal Highness, the Duke of Chicago? If that is true, then how did they get OBL from waterboarding someone?

My guess: America doesn't torture (or waterboard if you like). We contract it out to other countries.

[NightTrain]

Like I said, you get any real info from systematic torture, you just get lucky. Going after OBL was the same as him going after the WTCs, Pentagon and White House. Attacking symbols. The fact Panetta claims waterboarding got OBL means nothing.

I see no reason why he would lie about it, since saying the reverse would clearly further his own argument against it.


Besides that, I thought the waterboarding stopped with His Royal Highness, the Duke of Chicago? If that is true, then how did they get OBL from waterboarding someone?

Exactly.

It does continue, while Obama maintains that it doesn't to keep his bleeding hearts happy.

[NightTrain]

My guess: America doesn't torture (or waterboard if you like). We contract it out to other countries.


Agreed. No legal ramifications that way.

[Gunny]

I see no reason why he would lie about it, since saying the reverse would clearly further his own argument against it.



Exactly.

It does continue, while Obama maintains that it doesn't to keep his bleeding hearts happy.

Gee. Obama's lying. There's a new one. Were his lips moving?

I ain't losing any sleep over it. My point is merely from a military standpoint. Everyone wants to point out ONE thing as a victory that came from a system that doesn't work. It isn't that I give a crap about these loons. I just got a more efficient plan.

If people would get their damned politics out of the war, the groundpounders could have already won it. All this backdoor BS is exactly THAT.

[Gunny]

Agreed. No legal ramifications that way.

And see, that's just a political/legal game.

Screw that crap. Put us on the battlefield. Hell, I'll go. Ain't doing nothing else but babysitting. AND LET US DO OUR DAMNED JOBS. This shit would be over in 3 weeks, if it took THAT long. Just make sure ISIS has enough bodybags.

[jimnyc]

I disagree. One, I can swim like a fish. I can because of a fear of drowning. I can stay in the water for 12 hours last checked. Maybe not so much anymore.:laugh:

I still go back to the pointlessness of it.

You're not a filthy terrorist who was trained by some robe wearing camel rider. You're a Marine. I know these guys are psycho, and some will even say brave, but they simply aren't marines. Those that may be able to handle such things are likely those that were brain damaged from reading too much of the Quran. :)

[NightTrain]

And see, that's just a political/legal game.

Screw that crap. Put us on the battlefield. Hell, I'll go. Ain't doing nothing else but babysitting. AND LET US DO OUR DAMNED JOBS. This shit would be over in 3 weeks, if it took THAT long. Just make sure ISIS has enough bodybags.


You're preaching to the choir with me.

Once Military action is decided upon, give them a goal and get out of the way. No good comes from a politician in the middle of a battle, especially one that's never even been in the military.

[aboutime]

Got a deal for everyone here who is against any forms of waterboarding..what you call torture.

I will agree with you when....and ONLY WHEN Planned Parenthood stops FARMING human baby parts for profit.

[Gunny]

You're preaching to the choir with me.

Once Military action is decided upon, give them a goal and get out of the way. No good comes from a politician in the middle of a battle, especially one that's never even been in the military.

FDR started that crap with Eisenhower, and Truman expanded it. Eisenhower was a desk jockey picked because of his diplomatic skills, not his ability to lead. Truman through he was smarter than MacArthur.

I don't do politics when I'm in uniform. I carry out a mission.

Dumb football analogy: I ain't Mercury Morris dancing all around the backfield, running outside and getting away with crap. I'm Larry Csonka. I'm running off guard straight at your ass and you can try and tackle me.

All these little games these spooks try to play are just them trying to justify their income and most are worthless. I see waterboarding as just more of the same. And accuse them? They got 3 excuses for every question. And usually they insulate themselves by having military "volunteers" carry out their orders. I trust a spook like I trust Obama.

Let's get the fuck out there and play the damned game to win. We don't need any sneaky bullshit. I can find troop locations on google maps. Then I'm doing what Iran says they want to do to Israel ... I'm taking two Army divisions, I MEF and I'm putting your ass in the drink. THAT is waterboarding.

[Gunny]

Got a deal for everyone here who is against any forms of waterboarding..what you call torture.

I will agree with you when....and ONLY WHEN Planned Parenthood stops FARMING human baby parts for profit.

Hell, I just found out the head of PP is Ann Richards daughter. It took us until the early 2000s to get out of debt from her BS. Guess the nut don't fall far from the tree. I heard more BS non-answers in a 3 minute soundbyte from her than I think even O-blah-blah can spew,