Talking about pussies anonymously from behind a keyboard.
True grit from Mr. Marion Morrison...
Appealing to human decency was bound to fail on wing-nuts.....were gonna lose the wars because we lost the moral authority in Iraq and Afghanistan because we tortured and murdered making the new guy worse than the old guy...
The old guy was running people through plastics shredders...alive. The old guy was delivering your loved ones to your front porch, in pieces, in plastic bags. The old guy had rape rooms and torture, REAL torture chambers. The old guy diverted OFF funds to his regime while approximately 50,000 Iraqi children died each year.
The new guy was a little harsh to the remnants of the old guy's regime.
They weren't seeking confessions, the enhanced interrogation techniques were intended to elicit actionable intelligence.
Those involved say it did.
I'm cool with that.
Let's see...
Rape rooms. check.
torture. check.
1,000,000+ dead Iraqi in 6 years. check
1000's of dead Iraqi Children. check
How is the new guy any better than the old guy again?
It takes a liar to believe a liar.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/22/torture.htmlPrisoners suffered imposing disintermediation analysis.
Never before has an individual been more above the law than this .
Cite the specific law Vice President Cheney violated.
(locked away safely in the man-sized safe Cheney showed to GWB one time...)
A confession in the present context means "actionable intelligence." I wonder... are torturers supposed to say they were wrong?
What actionable intelligence did they receive through their efforts? Did they stop the shoe bomber or another complot? Did they stop any other obvious threat to us? If you can't cite anything meaningful, why defend a program whose utility is indemonstrable?
Are you "cool" with something you cannot demonstrate because you refuse to doubt people who are in charge? If so, why don't you believe the bureaucrats that say that the health and finance reforms were unqualified successes?
Confession of past acts and actionable intelligence on future or on-going acts are very different. I would not support enhanced interrogation techniques to extract a confession of a past act. People are more apt to "confess" if they believe the discomfort will stop...even if it means a long prison sentence or confession to something they did not do.
In seeking "actionable intelligence" of ongoing or future acts, there's no such guarantee. If you're wrong, more than likely, you're going to be uncomfortable again, in the near future...particularly if the interrogators believe you know something and that there is something crucial to know.
Words mean something and "confession" doesn't fit anywhere in the context of this discussion.
I'd be interested to know if Obama has authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Given the recent close call and the claim there was actionable intelligence gained from a prisoner in Saudi Arabia that resulted in the "nick-of-time" discoveries, it makes me wonder. After all, from what I hear, we still have secret prisons, rendition, and Gitmo -- other "atrocities" Obama promised to end when you people voted him into office.
George W. Bush: waterboarding saved London from attacks
I'm "cool" with waterboarding terrorists.In his new book he writes: “Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.”
Last edited by Yonivore; 11-09-2010 at 06:49 AM.
Words do mean something, and the fact that you frame them so myopically suggests you only seek to protect your pride. A confession means a disclosure of something that has remained hidden.
Is quoting the most inept president in my lifetime supposed to be a response to why you are "cool" with waterboarding terrorists? Actually, to save myself the trouble, let me just ask: do you also believe in his allegations of WMDs in Iraq?
I'm sorry, I edited my response even further.
And, President Bush isn't the only one claiming they resulted in actionable intelligence, that's just the first quote I googled. You're dislike for Bush clouds your opinion, I think.
As for WMD's, I believed everyone, prior to March 2003, that said Saddam Hussein had WMD's -- including Bush and just about every other world leader and expert on the subject.
Since you're a fan of google, try searching the phrase "efficacy of torture."
Perhaps my dislike for Bush clouds the issue. Or perhaps I just still remember the Downing St. memo and thus have ample reason to rebuke any position he publicly posed as a policy justification.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us the proportion of developed nations that supported the war compared with developing nations that both supported the war and depended on the US for support.
I don't claim to be a politico nor do I hold the credentials to argue intensively with the majority of you in here but help me understand why waterboarding is such a crime especially when used against enemies of our country? I am having a difficult time comprehending this. Last time I checked CIA was an agency formed to ultimately protect the interests of the United States both foreign and domestic to include it's citizens. Knowing this, what does it matter that we use (what is being deemed as inhumane I guess...) or how we use certain tactics to extract information from enemies that mean us harm? I know I am not in "the meat" of this topic but why can't it be about supporting "whatever means necessary to protect us all".
I don't get it. If we have to strap guys to chairs and pull their toe-nails because we have evidence to prove that these guys want to blow up a school with kids and we know there are more of thier kind and the guy strapped in chair knows where the majority of these guys are and he refuses to tell us we need to be patient and try other means deemed humane? I forgot....blowing schools up with kids is humane.....forgive me.
.....I just don't understand my fellow Americans sometimes I guess.
Last edited by TheManFromAcme; 11-09-2010 at 09:19 AM.
It's not that the terrorists are humane... them and their cowardly methods. It's more that torture doesn't work. If it did, I'd be much less certain in my position. That it doesn't only redoubles the fact that our engaging in it makes our guys even less safe in the battlefield while undermining the greatest asset we have against terrorists -- namely our principles.
I see your points admiral but I sometimes think about the unseen battles that are won by our CIA field agents that we as citizens will never be privy to. I mean, how do we know that many a sinister plots have been spoiled by "torture" because that is the only way we were able to infiltrate said plot?
I guess if you and I were in the intelligence business we would know.
I honestly wonder about that, too -- but then you have interrogation experts from said agency writing books saying it doesn't work.
There certainly aren't enough of these experts making their opinions public to make a strong generalization of consensus tenable, but the ones that have spoken up do give accounts that dovetail nicely with data we've gathered from studies of our own public, lower-level, law-enforcement agencies, not to mention our historical understanding of the efficacy of torture as a means of extracting intel.
When I try to find information justifying our adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques," I find very little by way of fact and a great deal of rhetoric, which is at best su ious, and at worst, morally galling.
Aren't these studies as good as the source or sources? I mean, for sake of national security would it be safe to assume that at some point people who worked in intelligence will be briefed on how "not to divulge in certain information that may compromise a pending project once your retired" be it for a memoir a interview, etc. etc.
As much as I do support the workings of the CIA I would be foolish to think it's not the shady and mysterious agency it's been known to be be it legendary or folklore.
What I would give to be invinsible and walk the halls of CIA and peek into cubicles and read a "for eyes only" folder or better yet glance at whatever is on the desk of the DOI.
If waterboarding is so awesome, why did the US stop doing it after only waterboarding three people?
Why wasn't Saddam Hussein waterboarded during the increasingly desperate search for WMDs?
Good question.
Like I said, until we have badges that gives us clearance into the halls of that certain buidling in Langley, we will probably never really know.
Perceptions matter. You might not consider it torture because that is what you have been told to believe, but most of the rest of humanity does.
One of the stated beliefs, if not THE main thesis, of the AQ ideology is that "The US is evil".
Many outside the US and out of range of Fox "news" propaganda, find this idea credible.
The more credible this idea, the more money, people, and resources flow their way, or to groups with similar agendas, all holding that common idea, i.e. the US is evil.
How does torture fight the idea that the US is evil?
The obvious answer to that question to anybody with a modi of common sense is:
"Torture does not fight the idea that the USA is evil, it contributes to that idea's credibility."
Yoni is patently incapable of being honest enough to admit this, because he is, quite frankly, a partisan hack, with no interest in honesty that I have been able to discern.
That should speak volumes about the things he advocates.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
