Can You Be A Christian and Support State Torture?

[Yonivore]

Because the information is always accurate right?

The administration's claim is that in these 14 cases there was actionable intelligence gained that saved lives. So, it's right enough for me.

[MannyIsGod]

The administration's claim is that pink bunny rabbits flew out of George Bush's magical anus and saved lives. So, it's right enough for me.

Fixed it for you.

[Guru of Nothing]

Can I extract more intelligence from alleged terrorists with porn and hookers, or torture?

How do I get a cash grant to carry out research which may enhance our national security?

[Yonivore]

They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.

For argument's sake, let's call this the video you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mi ary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to cons ute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article. Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special cir stances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

[Yonivore]

Can I extract more intelligence from alleged terrorists with porn and hookers, or torture?

How do I get a cash grant to carry out research which may enhance our national security?

One man's pleasure is another man's torture.

[Yonivore]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks. You're a witty one, aren't you?

[ChumpDumper]

Arar was deported to Syria, this wasn't a rendition.

You mean the deportation of a Canadian citizen done without the knowledge of the Canadian government? Why did that happen?

[Yonivore]

You mean the deportation of a Canadian citizen done without the knowledge of the Canadian government? Why did that happen?

Actually, I believe the Canadian government is the one that ratted him out as a terrorist...and, they didn't want him. Talk to them about their laws.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, you didn't answer the question.

And of course it was a rendition. One of the "extraordinary" renditions.

[Yonivore]

Actually, you didn't answer the question.

And of course it was a rendition. One of the "extraordinary" renditions.

Not according to him.

My family and I are very happy that the Canadian government has undertaken a public inquiry which will examine events surrounding my arrest and deportation to Syria and the torture and deprivation that ensued.

[Yonivore]

I'm going to repost this because I'm interested in responses before this thread rolls over due to Chumpy's semantics antics.

They aren't the most effective methods and they are far from least damaging.

For argument's sake, let's call this the video you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mi ary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to cons ute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article. Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special cir stances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

[ChumpDumper]

Former CIA agent Bob Baer told The New Statesman, "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Deportation is a component of extraordinary rendition.

[Yonivore]

Former CIA agent Bob Baer told The New Statesman, "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Deportation is a component of extraordinary rendition.

He was deported to Jordan.

And, Bob Baer plays a role in the Brian Ross post I posted below. What makes him credible?

[Yonivore]

Former CIA agent Bob Baer told The New Statesman, "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Deportation is a component of extraordinary rendition.

I would say that if our government is as vicious as you seem to believe, Arar would never have been seen again. Nor would have the 14 terrorists we interrogated using "harsh" techniques.

[ChumpDumper]

He was deported to Jordan.

How can he be deported to a country he wasn't born in and of which is not a citizen?

He can certainly be rendered to Jordan though.

Thanks for proving my argument for me.

I would say that if our government is as vicious as you seem to believe, Arar would never have been seen again.

I would say you are in serious denial about what your government has already done and that you like killing and torture and death as much or more as the real terrorists do, no matter who is on the waterboard.

[Yonivore]

How can he be deported to a country he wasn't born in and of which is not a citizen.

He can certainly be rendered to Jordan though.

Thanks for proving my argument for me.

You're welcome. It really seems, however, you have an issue with the Canadians, not the U.S.

I would say you are in serious denial about what your government has already done and like killing and torture as much or more as the real terrorists do, no matter who is on the waterboard.

Really, then why are any of the Guantanamo detainees even breathing?

I think you're a Nbadan conspiracist. Talk about me thinking 24 was a do entary.

[ChumpDumper]

You're welcome. It really seems, however, you have an issue with the Canadians, not the U.S.

No, but I don't expect you to be smart enough to realize what was going on.

Really, then why are any of the Guantanamo detainees even breathing?

Because you aren't there, dip .

[Yonivore]

No, but I don't expect you to be smart enough to realize what was going on.

Okay, then why are you arguing with me?

Because you aren't there, dip .

But our government is. Our government brought them there. Our government, the one you claims kills and tortures with impugnity has moved the 14 most egregious terrorist cases there where they are fed three squares, pointed to Mecca and provided with urine-free Korans.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, then why are you arguing with me?

Boredom.

But our government is.

I didn't say our government is as bloodthirsty or as stupid as you, dip .

[Yonivore]

And 30% of the people in the country agree with you!

Yeah, about that thirty percent.

Leaders of the Democratic Party apparently think that attacking the Iraq war is the ticket to electoral success; over recent weeks, they have coordinated a series of attacks on the war, including the selective leak of misleading portions of the National Intelligence Estimate and Bob Woodward's just-released rehash of anti-war arguments. But how unpopular, in fact, is the war?

Michael Barone takes a look at recent poll numbers from belwether Ohio, and concludes: not as unpopular as the Democrats seem to think. On the questions whether we were right to invade Iraq and how well the war is going, respondents broke essentially 50/50. On the question whether we will ultimately succeed in establishing a secure democracy in Iraq, a clear majority say we will. And on the question whether we should stay in Iraq until the country is stabilized or cut and run, 61% say the former, and only 38% want to cut and run. In view of he present positions of the parties, those numbers break for the Republicans, not the Democrats.

As only Barone can, he shifts effortlessly from an analysis of this week's poll numbers to a delightful contemplation of the ways in which Bill Clinton and George W. Bush resemble Charles II and William III, respectively. Do yourself a favor and read it!

This--the Ohio poll, that is, not the 17th century history--ties in, I think, with the votes in the House and Senate on the Military Commissions Act. Today's New York Times, optimistic as usual, headlines Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush, in connection with yesterday's Senate vote:

The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

Well, maybe. But the Times' own acknowledgement of which Democrats parted company with their party to support the President belies the article's headline and lead:

Yet the minority of Democrats who joined with Republicans in passing the bill again illustrated that the party is unable to speak with one voice on security issues. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat up for re-election who often breaks with his party, said he was willing to follow the lead of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who lent the final legislation his strong endorsement. Mr. McCain is a potential Republican presidential candidate.

“I think people respect Senator McCain on these issues,” Mr. Nelson said, “and I think he probably represents the views of a lot of people in Nebraska.”

Four other Democrats facing voters this year — Bill Nelson of Florida, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Robert Menendez of New Jersey — voted for the bill.

To be sure, other Democrats who are up for re-election, like Hillary Clinton, voted against the bill. But those are the Democrats who, with the possible exception of Maria Cantwell, aren't facing tough races. And the Times didn't mention the fact, which was pointed out last night, that the two Democratic House members who are seeking Senate seats in November both voted with the administration. So Democratic politicians themselves are perhaps not as confident as their leadership and the New York Times that challenging President Bush on security issues is the way to get elected.

[gtownspur]

I hate Yoni,...but seriously, he pwned you all.

[Phenomanul]

I hate Yoni,...but seriously, he pwned you all.

Again, as a Christian do I support the war.... YES.

Do I support torture.... WWJD?.... NO.
(Of course, Jesus wouldn't have needed to extract any information at all... He knows all).

[gtownspur]

Again, as a Christian do I support the war.... YES.

Do I support torture.... WWJD?.... NO.
(Of course, Jesus wouldn't have needed to extract any information at all... He knows all).

Jesus wouldn't also become a cop, lawyer, prosecute the guilty, etc according to your hallmark description of the Son of GOd.

[PixelPusher]

For argument's sake, let's call this the video you must see to be informed on whether “harsh interrogation” works. Why? Because...well...you'll see in a minute. Suffice it to say the administration's not in a position to demonstrate to the general public how well the harsh techniques work so, I'm willing to hand that duty over to a journalist who, only a year ago, engaged in a hit piece with another journalist on the administration's use of these techniques.

Now that you’ve seen the video . . . Oh, not yet? Ok, I’ll wait a bit longer.

Finished now?

All right. Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast. Brian Ross confirms that not only did those methods work on the 14 high-level detainees just transfered to Guantanamo and sound intelligence was gained from each one of them, Ramzi Binalshibh even cried, but that he was told the methods worked by CIA operatives who didn’t necessarily agree with the methods.

Those same CIA agents told Ross that they just wanted to know whether they are legal or illegal, and not work in the grey area of not knowing whether they should attain legal counsel or not. Enter the Mi ary Commissions Act of 2006.

That seems fair, very fair actually, but what Ross told O’Reilly is in direct contrast to an article he wrote with Richard Esposito published on November 18, 2005. In the November article, Ross and Esposito reported:


Also citing Larry Johnson, former CIA agent turned schill against the Bush Administration who called those tactics similar to the Nazis and the Soviets (oh pahleeeeze!), we were told those methods will get any type of information out of suspects and it won’t be reliable. Ross and Esposito also reported that in at least one instance, “ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.”

Here's the article. Sense of fairness and all...

Maybe Ross was just confused in the interview when he said the complete opposite of what was in an article on the same subject nearly one year ago? Or maybe the editors got ahold of what he planned to submit and made a few changes? At present I’m just trying to grapple what exactly the report Ross filed said, because from his showing last night, he does indeed say the methods used and advocated to be allowed in special cir stances have worked in the past to not just break detainees, but also get valuable information that have prevented attacks.

Ross informed us what an ABC investigation uncovered, and it’s very different from what most media outlets have repeatedly told us and even what ABC News reported just one year ago.

Is Ross lying then or now? And, why?

Go figure.

You must really love this, since you've posted 3 times in 2 different threads. Oh well, here's my response repeated:
---
Maybe you should take a minute to rewatch that video.

(paraphrasing) O'Reilly: "...the ACLU, Human Rights Watch say 'It's garbage. They told them what they wanted to hear; it wasn't truthful' and such"

Ross: "That has happened, in some cases, where the material given has not been acurate; has been essentially to stop the torture..."

(later on in the interview, O'Reilly brings up the "human rights people" again)

Ross: "I think it's an open debate, because there's sometimes the information doesn't hold up..."

(at the end of the interview, O'Reilly asks if "O'Reilly's arguement" (yes, he refers to himself in the 3rd person) is fallacious)


Ross: "The arguement is, at least to one or two people I know as a fact, is not fallacious."
----

Listen to learn. Learn to listen. That "one or two people I know" part should be a clue. But in Yoni's world those 2 sources trump everyone else simply because they agree with him.

[Yonivore]

You must really love this, since you've posted 3 times in 2 different threads. Oh well, here's my response repeated:
---
Maybe you should take a minute to rewatch that video.

(paraphrasing) O'Reilly: "...the ACLU, Human Rights Watch say 'It's garbage. They told them what they wanted to hear; it wasn't truthful' and such"

Ross: "That has happened, in some cases, where the material given has not been acurate; has been essentially to stop the torture..."

(later on in the interview, O'Reilly brings up the "human rights people" again)

Ross: "I think it's an open debate, because there's sometimes the information doesn't hold up..."

(at the end of the interview, O'Reilly asks if "O'Reilly's arguement" (yes, he refers to himself in the 3rd person) is fallacious)


Ross: "The arguement is, at least to one or two people I know as a fact, is not fallacious."
----

Listen to learn. Learn to listen. That "one or two people I know" part should be a clue. But in Yoni's world those 2 sources trump everyone else simply because they agree with him.

None of that changes the interview's contradiction of he earlier article. Taken in it totality, Ross says the harsh interrogation techniques have worked and have garnered valuable actionable information.

Given that I don't believe any of the techniques cons ute torture, I'm good with it.