Who Supports Torture?
By Tbone Posted in Archived — Comments (80) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
OK Redstaters, Russert posed the following question to Bill Clinton's Better Half,(pretty funny when you consider that):
"We have captured the number three man in Al Qaeda; a bomb is set to go off somewhere in the country; and we know he knows where it is."
So fess up now, what would you be willing to do personally or support by proxy? After all, if it is a fair question for the candidates, it is a fair question for each of us.
Of course, Russert, being the putz he is, made the guy the #3 Al Queda man but what if he is just the 3rd man up on the Camel Humps bowling team in the Dearborn Jihadists Thursday Night League?
I'm sure you must agree with at least one of Hillary's stated positions. After all, you have several from which to choose.
PS. Me? I would bid on Ebay for the opportunity.
I hope I'm never in a position where there is a need to torture someone.
I want trained military and intelligence professionals, who know and understand pain limits, fear, and the signals a person will give when they are broken, who are detached, with no passion (not the same as a vested interest) involved, to administer the torture methods.
In the scenario stated, I'm not opposed to starting softly. Basic interrogation methods, just shorten the time frame. Instead of an hour or so, 15 minutes. The methods increase with each passing 15-minute interval.
What irks me is how torture became a policy issue (due to Abu G. publicity, but also McCain and other Republican's grandstanding). Torture should always be in the shadows. It shouldn't be government policy either way. The military and said professionals should have standards and rules, but I could care less if I ever know what they are. This is something I want to be naive and ignorant about.
R.J.
It should always be an option, but not one that is pursued openly and evidence collected in this manner should never be offered in court at all, let alone permitted.
But we should always have that back-up option...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
all traditional forms of interrogation are irrelevant. If we have days and weeks to get information, then we can try that sort of thing, but when we have hours and minutes, we simply cannot wait to get rapport or to have them be broken.
First, as full disclosure, my favorite show is 24. I will not let the incredible drama that torture creates affect my judgement. The simple fact of the matter is that in a ticking time bomb situation, the only thing we can do is do whatever it takes to break that person in time. That is not for me to know since that is not something I am trained for, however if I am President, I tell the interrogators that they need to do whatever it takes. At that point the only thing that matters is results. If the rest of the world needs to cry foul afterwards, so be it, bad publicity is much better than dead Americans. If an American President actually takes anything off the table in a situation like that, they will have blood on their hands if the bomb is not discovered.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
As long as there is accountability.
If you're going to torture somebody, sign your name on the line and say that you did.
That way, when the world is saved, you can get credit.
or
If it was a mistake, you better have a good reason.
When politicians talk about torture, I want to hear the active, not passive, voice.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Those who wanted the information gained from Abu Grahib were promoted. Those who got it were brought up on charges. I have no problem with getting information by whatever means necessary, but everyone involved should be accountable, not just those who actually have to do the dirty work. I say this as someone who has never served in the military, but I would like to believe that if I gave people the order to get information by whatever means necessary, I would step up and make sure that they were not criticized or charged for doing so.
From what I saw it was a few twisted guards running amok, so it's not really relevant.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I saw a documentary on this on HBO a few months ago, and no, it wasn't produced my Michael Moore. They interviewed a number of those involved with the incidences in the photos. By their accounts, interrogators would tell them things like, "This guy needs to have a bad night." So to answer your question, it is my understanding that the photographed incidences were not conducted as part of the interrogation itself but were "suggested" by those actually conducting the collection of information. If you or anyone else knows otherwise, by all means correct me. In such a situation, though, whether I am correct about Abu Grahib in particular or whether it is just hypothetical, those giving the orders or "requests", as they may be, must take responsibility for their roles in it. Again, I don't have a problem with the acts themselves if they are part of gathering important information, but we can not have a situation in which those who want the information are rewarded while those who get the information, or at least create the conditions that enable others to get the information, are punished.
Sorry but I don't believe anything those people say.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I wasn't there, so I cannot confirm or deny what those involved. What you are saying, though, is that those involved are "freaks" because they did what they may or may not have been told to do.
You can tell by the photos it was more like Marti Gras than a serious intelligence operation. You don't collect information by staging pledge night at the Omega house and sending photos of your participation back home to your friends.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I won't argue on the sending photos home portion of it, but as to the acts themselves, since you're such an expert on the subject, by all means please elaborate on what the most effective 24/7 conditions for enemy combatants are.
This has nothing to do with the "most effective 24/7 conditions for enemy combatants;" it has everything to do with the attitude of those involved... which you can pretty easily determine from the souvenir photos.
Only someone who is truly desperate to pin this on the evil Bush administration would think this was legitimate intelligence gathering, which would include most of the left and apparently a few RP supporters.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Have the person who gives the go-ahead For the torture sign on the dotted line.
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
I assumed the President would give the order, and would take the credit or the fall.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I have really strong feelings about this issue. Our adherence to the Geneva Conventions was at one time a great strength, but unfortunately it's now our greatest weakness.
I have read the Al-Qaeda manuals that listed most of the countries in the world and the interrogation techniques used by each. The manual discussed how much it was permitted to reveal depending on how much pain you were in or if you just couldn't take it anymore.
In the section about the U.S. it said you have nothing to fear if you are captured, because they are not allowed to harm you. You have no reason to ever reveal anything to your interrogators. Then it went on to describe the mental techniques used by the CIA and army and how to resist that.
The Geneva Conventions are useless and outdated documents that have no bearing on the conflicts we find ourselves in. We are no longer at war with individual countries that have an army.
It goes without saying that when we capture someone we should feed them, etc. and we don't need any Geneva Conventions to know that.
However, when it comes to interrogation I don't believe we should have any rules. I have read every single book that has come out in the last few years by interrogators from Afghanistan and Iraq. Our current techniques are great if you have weeks or months to wear someone down, but we end up wasting valuable time to do follow-up raids or use time critical information.
We are pretty much the only country that fights wars with there hands tied. We are also pretty much the only country that follows the damn conventions anyway in reality.
The biggest argument against torture is always that if we torture then our guys will be tortured if they're captured.
That argument doesn't hold any water, because if our guys are captured they're dead. Regardless of what we do or don't do Al Qaeda will torture and kill any soldier that they capture.
The other argument cited is that a detainee will tell you anything to make the pain stop. Most interrogators from Vietnam and earlier say they will say anything, but if they do know something 99% of the time they will start with the truth.
Anybody we pick up on a foreign battlefield that is believed to have information we need should be made to give up that information in a timely fashion.
The personal well being of a piece of shit terrorist is irrelevant and my only concern is finding out what he knows.
I don't think it's any of our business what methods the Army or CIA uses as long as they get the information. It sure as shit has no business being splashed all over the front page of the NY Times.
My only caveat to this policy is that it should never be used on an American citizen under any circumstances. Even guys like Jose Padilla, because once you go down the road of torturing American citizens it could go to far.
Torture is not a pretty thing or something to be proud of doing, but we have to recognize we are at war with people who observe absolutely no rules of warfare or human decency whatsoever.
I only care about winning this war and we should be willing to do whatever it takes to do that. Liberals are always more concerned with what other countries think of us, instead of worrying about what is best for us.
Incidentally, I'm putting my money where my mouth is and I'm about to join the Army National Guard to become an Army Interrogator.
Feed your brain at The Hot Joints
The Geneva Conventions are NOT out of date for a couple of reasons.
1. The Geneva convention gets twisted a lot by our media, politicians, and so called "civil liberties" groups. The truth is that the Geneva Convention takes terrorism into account. For example, because terrorists are not associated with a specific country and don't fight under a nation's banner by wearing a uniform, said terrorist are "illegal combatants" and LOSE protections under the convention.
2. Those who fight dirty (like firing from a mosque or a hospital) lose protections under the Convention. According to the Convention, all bets are off if the opposition isn't playing by the rules. It is only by political correctness and NOT under the conventions that people believe we can't fire on a mosque harboring terrorists, or torturing someone who is an illegal combatant.
When you get your training they'll make those distinctions. Unfortunately, policy may have changed from when I was involved in training simular to yours (though not interrogation per se). With politicians like John McCain so quick to trash the Convention in favor of their ignorant policy of applying protections well beyond the original documents we may have too much of a touchy feely approach today in anything less than "black ops" interrogations.
The Geneva Convention remains a great body of rules. People typicaly aren't aware that the rules take into account cheaters, and states that cheaters aren't protected.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
If only we'd just put a bullet in their heads more often, we'd have fewer problems with respect to detention.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
If you actually read the regulations, many of them are totally ridiculous, even when only applied to legal combatants. Things like allowing them to display badges that show rank and nationality, allowing them recreational activities like sports and games, and "ministers of religion" not being required to do any work and being allowed to preach freely and obtain the same kind of treatment as military chaplains.
With the state of the world as it is today, with a single superpower that abides by the regulations who will only go to war against rogue nations that have no intention of abiding by that treaty or any other, it is hopelessly out of date.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Discipline is important for the jailer as much as for the prisoner. Let them keep their ranks, their structure, their chain of command within the prison.
Now, illegal combatants, we ought to just start shooting on the battlefield instead of taking prisoners, as Geneva allows and even intended. If we can't count on being able to keep the camp at Guantanamo going, we can't afford to leave them alive.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Let them keep their ranks, their structure, their chain of command within the prison.
That should be ultimately be up to the CinC, not some international body. We certainly shouldn't be bound by a treaty to do so. I can think of plenty of circumstances where these regulations might not make any sense.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Just because they are wearing an Iraqi army uniform, a NVA uniform, or a SS uniform, doesn't mean they aren't criminals. And even if they "aren't criminals," that's no reason to give up control of prison regulations to an international body.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That reason is that we want our people treated humanely.
Now, don't give me that line about our enemies not always following it. That's another matter. If we think our enemies are wrong to deviate from the conventions, then wouldn't that make us wrong to sink to their level?
And if we *were* to withdraw, wouldn't that make it absolutely open season on our volunteers? And wouldn't it also jeopardize our key legal arguments against illegal combatants?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Now, don't give me that line about our enemies not always following it.
Not always following it? How about never following it? Much of the body of regulations I couldn't care less about. I'd just be happy if they didn't torture or kill our soldiers. Having time set aside to play organized sports and allowing them to retain their rank doesn't really make the list, given what our enemies do to us today.
If we think our enemies are wrong to deviate from the conventions, then wouldn't that make us wrong to sink to their level?
I'm not suggesting we treat our prisoners like the Vietnamese or Iraqis treat our guys, so this is a straw man. We don't certainly don't need this treaty to treat our prisoners humanely. We can certainly treat prisoners very humanely and still be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. If our own soldiers fell under the Conventions, we'd probably be in violation of the Geneva convention on dozens of points. The Conventions contain lots of ridiculous things that shouldn't be in there.
And if we *were* to withdraw, wouldn't that make it absolutely open season on our volunteers?
You mean our enemies would behead our soldiers twice while being videotaped instead of just once? Or they'd torture them for 6 days instead of 5? Seriously... this line doesn't make any more sense than when I hear it from Al Franken or Michael Moore. Our soldiers are already going to get treatment far, far, far outside of what we would ever consider acceptable, treaty or no. That's the nature of our enemies. We aren't going to war against Great Britain or France. We go to war against people like Saddam Hussein.
And wouldn't it also jeopardize our key legal arguments against illegal combatants?
Whether someone is entitled to access to US courts is not determined by the Geneva Convention. It's a whole separate set of criteria which is, ultimately, whether we like it or not, up to the courts themselves in the role they've adopted as final arbiter of all things constitutional.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
What we have here is a difference of priorities, not a difference of logic or fact.
I just think your view of this is short-sighted, as though we'll never again have a war with a developed nation like our own.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's about how civilized they aren't. War is the last resort. Unless you buy into the left's belief that we are on the road to becoming another Nazi Germany, we aren't going to be at war with any civilized, law abiding enemies at any point in the future.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't think we've fought our last war in Europe, personally. One day we'll have to fight again, and it'll be WWI all over again.
Maybe not this century, but history tends to work that way.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Absolutely, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And all I'd need to stiffen my spine, if it needed stiffening, would be the mental image of my grandchildren. Expand that to all the children of the Gold Star moms I know who will never celebrate another birthday with their son or daughter, the children who will never have their dad or mom at their life's most important moments, the children who were killed on 9/11--well, the list could go on indefinitely. This one time, I'd do it for the children if for no other reason.
The other reason is that it's just good common sense.
heck yes...women and torture?...my ex wrote the Domestic Field Manual on the topic.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Just out of curiosity, how many men do you know named "Janis?" I'm not hiding behind that name, that's my name. Also out of curiosity, why is it surprising that I am a woman?
'yes' a gal could play the torture game....they know alllll about it.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Don't be to hard on them Janis. They have forgotten that in many cultures, prisoners were turned over to the women. Most prisoners tried to suicide before they let that happen.
A point that is missing in this whole debate is the definition of "torture"
Depending on how broadly or narrowly you draw that will determine in most cases how people will respond to the question.
In my case, given the scenario, there is no doubt in my mind that I would do whatever is necessary to elicit the desired information.
JP
It's an equal opportunity sort of thing. My first husband really introduced me to some of the more subtle aspects of it, and my son as a teenager took it to a whole new level. That kind of torture, however, pales in comparison to what is referred to in this diary, for the most part.
EPU, you hav'n that first cold one yet?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
It's chillin' at the house tough. With its 11 buddies. Haha, all this talk of torturing bad guys is making me thirsty.
For the record, as to the main question of the thread, I've seen too many beheading videos (about 6 or 7, and that's as many as a person should ever need to see). I've read extensively the writings of Michael Yon, with the pics. Al Queda members are the lowest of all low scum.
It's not idle words, or poorly considered words. There are no limits for me when it comes to Al Queda. And I would and could do it by my own hands.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I admit that since 9/11, I've become more callous...I think if you see slaughter enough, you can't help but be changed.
We must not forget though that it's not just AQ as we have seen it...they have been brutal in th P.I.'s, and many other places.
I don't think you can use one instance either, like TBONES scenario...I would use anything at my disposal to gain intel, be it a nuke, a bomb attack, kidnapping for ransom..anything from their playbook. I fthey want to strike fear in the hearts of innocents, right back at you.
Let me as you this...would you have tortured McVeigh right after his arrest?...remember, you don't know if there are others out there, another attack coming soon....
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Hmmmm, at first blush, this is my thought:
At the time, the immediate suspicion by everybody was that the OKC bombing was Islam-based (I realize there's a conspiracy theory still out there, but on this one, I tend to go with Occam). If I was the Man-in-Charge, and I had McVeigh in custody and knew he was the bomber, yes, I'd be very concerned that this might be bomb #1 of a spectacular multi-bomb contata.
OTOH, the TBone scenario says we know there's a bomb out there, set to go off. In the McVeigh scenario, we only have a suspicion, based on no evidence. So I'll interrogate the crap out of the guy, and water-boarding is not off the table. And since he has no known ties to any Islamic radicals, unless a tie turns up in interrogation, I'm not down to bamboo shoots.
Now, if we adapt the TBone scenario to OKC, and add the condition that we KNOW there's another bomb set to go off -- then there are no limits for me. American lives are at stake, and the bomber, McVeigh, is bird-cage paper for all I care about him.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
but to me it really is..
Tbones scenario is bizarre because we are now conditioned by 9/11. Not only are we aware that there are those out there plotting, planning to do harm, but they are committed and organized...they are as smart or smarter than we are. They can exploit us easier than we can combat them...so, if I knew , or had the ability ...Franz meat.
I for the life of me can't fathom anyone involved in law enforcement that would NOT use torture of some means to get further in solving the issue at hand...
I really believe the isolated incidents of terror are rare.
This reminds me of a post by , I think, Streiff, regarding the movie The Usual Suspects....
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Employ the "Bauer Doctrine."
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Now I can understand how the folks here who go by their real names may find it a needless exposure of the more base parts of their personalities, however, if it is a fair question for Hillary and other candidates you anon types need to belly up and say your piece.
I certainly don't like Hillary, but it is duplitious to condemn her waffling if you can't even bring yourself to confront this very difficult question.
Of course, I can't help but wonder about the look on her face if Russert would have substituted the last guy to see Vince Foster alive for the Al Queda guy.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If you're confronted with a choice between
A. Some terrorist ends up with a few bruises, or
B. Millions of innocent people get blown up by an atom bomb
It's not a hard decision. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Why are we even debating this? Would anybody choose "B"?
I will happily go on the record here and state that I would be all for torture in this type of situation, and many others, in fact.
I was outraged a little while back when the subject of torture was in the news. Hearing about all the rules and regulations we apparently have regarding the torture of prisoners of war was nauseating. With rules like that, why would anyone give up any information to the USA when they've got nothing to lose?
If there's no risk of real injury, no personal loss, no permanent consequences, then there's no reason to give up any information. If I went into a situation where I knew that I'd come out of it the same as when I went in, I wouldn't have any incentive to give up any information I knew.
Now, I didn't know the nice bits about "all-bets-are-off" to cheaters of the Geneva Conventions. I had a few friends in the military and they were always talking about the rules of combat, and what can and can't be done. And it always seemed rather foolish to me. After all, it's a WAR, and wars aren't meant to be pretty. They're meant to be won. Period. At least it's nice to know that we could torture the terrorists without violating the Conventions. And I say we should. Screw 'em. They don't hold back for us. How many prisoners have had their heads removed from their bodies so far?
At any rate, I am all for torture in this type of circumstance and many, many others. Sure, maybe if we're fighting against someone who plays by the "rules" we can be humane, but otherwise, all bets are off, and you'd better not get caught.
--
Marc Bublitz
So, you know that there is a bomb.
And you know that it is going to go off.
And you know that this guy planted it.
But you don't know where it is? Did your Omniscience Generator suddenly go on the fritz, right at the last minute? Whatever.
Here's another hypothetical for you pro-torture guys. How would you feel if the authorities picked up your kid (who you know is innocent, but who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) and tortured her because they "knew" that she knew where the bomb was?
Anyway, to answer your question... In a ticking time bomb scenario, if you knew the person knew where the bomb was then, of course, nothing should be out of bounds. But, given that terrorists are fanatics who are willing to give their lives just to suicide bomb a few civilians, I don't imagine that a few hours of pain (even horrible pain) would be enough to break them. Just look at what American POWs have endured to protect information that was dramatically less important that "where the ticking time bomb bomb is".
You may wish to inform Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that coercive interrogation techniques don’t work.
On whether coercive interrogations produce useful information:
O'REILLY: So in all 14 cases, coerced interrogation methods, being debated in the Senate right now, were used. And in all 14 cases, according to your report, they gave it up.
Now the opposition, you just heard it. Human Rights Watch, ACLU, they say it's garbage. They told them what they want to hear. It wasn't truthful. Is that true?
ROSS: That has happened in some cases where the material that's been given has not been accurate, has been essentially to stop the torture.
In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe.
And in one particular plot, which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles, known as the Library Tower.
O'REILLY: Well, in fact, you say in your report that more than a dozen plots, a dozen al Qaeda plots to kill people were stopped because of the information they got from coerced interrogation?
ROSS: That's what we were told by sources.
O'REILLY: Do you believe that?
ROSS: I do believe that.
And again on the information that's produced:
O'REILLY: All right, but you're up there. When you hear human rights people come on this program and say it doesn't work, it never works, this is — what do you say?
ROSS: I think it's open debate, because sometimes there is information that doesn't hold up. But it's clear in several cases, with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with people that absolutely beyond a doubt are terrorists, terrorist masterminds, it does seem to have an effect. And that's just the bottom line.
O'REILLY: Has it saved American lives?
ROSS: That's what the administration would say. Certainly if you interrupted a tower - a plot to bomb a tower in Los Angeles, you've saved lives.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
We don't know (due to national security issues) that KSM provided any operation information that helped to prevent attacks. All that we know is that we "coerced" him into taking credit for a bunch of things that he is probably pretty proud of. And telling us about a bunch of hypothetical attacks that hadn't panned out. Good grief, the guy "admitted" his involvement with 9/11 before we captured him.
Anyway, whether long-term "coercive" interrogation is useful or not is irrelevant. We are talking about a "ticking time bomb" scenario here. You don't have weeks or months to wear the person down, you have an hour or two. My opinion is that a religious fanatic that is willing to die to kill a few people would be able to withstand pretty horrible pain in order to kill a few thousand people.
lasted "two and a half minutes" before he began to talk, according to CIA sources. Which is about two minutes longer than most.
I suppose one could attribute the "extra two minutes" to his terrorist training and religious fanaticism.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
is not intense pain because that causes the body to shut down. 10 minutes on the waterboard - 15 min max will do it for most. I only experienced it in a training environment but intense is an understatement. The specific 'buttons' vary a bit for different folks, but it doesn't take long to figure out what works. With a well trained interrogator - everyone talks - they won't let you die.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
a medium sized city... :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Just look at what American POWs have endured to protect information that was dramatically less important that "where the ticking time bomb bomb is".
Anyone even minimally familiar with basic training knows that they teach you not to be a hero, because torture works.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Gonna rise from these ashes likes birds aflame....
...a higher level of trolling. You just had to believe in yourself.
Bye-bye.
Blam.
Moe
PS: Pssst. Zip up your pants.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
We need to have common sense interrogation laws based on the threat. If a terrorist is aprehended with no immediate threat, be a hard ass and threaten him if you have to, but follow the long-term techniques and don't do anything extreme.
On the other hand, if a terrorist operation is underway and we need to know something NOW, then a terrorist who has no problem killing numerous innocent women and children, your sister, best friend, and girlfriend or wife, then that terrorist needs to know that if he doesn't tell you what we need to know then he will be unbearably miserable. Period. In the end, horrific torture should not be necessary, but roughing someone up, waterboarding, and any threat should not be off the table IF we are sure they have information that is needed in a "ticking bomb scenario".
Just as the death penalty has killed untold numbers of innocent people, torture will no doubt be inflicted upon many innocent people as well. How many innocent people should we torture before we decide it is not an acceptable practice? Maybe once people realize we are being tortured in America as well (Uhm, police brutality) and that the boundries are not limited to the war on terror maybe, just maybe people will come to their senses and realize there is no room for torture and that it is a barbaric practice. Especially when the real criminals are the ones in the White House.
How can America set good examples for the world to follow if we torture our self made enemies and promote preemptive war against nations that barely have a military.
But you aren't joking are you?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq, or in some cases, arrested in Pakistan with the aide of Pakistan's intelligence services.
Apparently, you perceive the terrorists to be "innocents" and assign guilt to the very men and women that have made incredible sacrifices to protect your right to spout such nonsense.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
We're not here to debate with "criminals in the White House" jerks. We wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
electronic intercepts in my Zionist cell has your IP address and your physical address. One of these nights you will be hearing a "thawaka thawaka" sound over your pathetic living quarters. That will be followed in short order by breaching charges, flash bangs and blacked out commandos who will be bringing you to the Mother Ship.
You will then be made to understand what real barbarism is. No water boarding. No temperature games. You will be in a well lit area with videos of Hillary Clinton on large screen TV's 24x7.
Be prepared! We're coming for you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
As for Tbone's original question... I'm still thinking about it, actually. I've been thinking about it for several years* now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*Although I should note that my hangup on what to do assumes that "torture" means "bamboo shoots under the fingernails, or similar activities," not that "torture" means "anything that the Left doesn't like, at least when they're not running the executive branch."
with, hopefully, 2 hours of air left. Are you breaking up the old fly rod yet?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Someone else's baby is buried in a box and they pick up your baby by mistake, because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should they torture her, or no?
I don't want her back.
But if she isn't at fault, I'm taking out the guy who authorized the torture. Not neccessarily the torturer himself...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
Don't forget we are dealing with people willing to blow themselvs up.
So you get your guy. You spend a few days torturing him and he finally gives you a location. It takes you 2 days and you loose 12 men to get there search and discover it's not the correct location.
You go back. Spend another day trying to get the truth out of him. Again he gives you a location. etc etc etc
When will you know you have the truth? How many men will you sacrifice checking out every wild goose case he sends you on?
In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labor for waterboarding an insurgent in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labor for waterboarding a US civilian. It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam and a US soldier was court-martialed after The Washington Post (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. According to Chapter 18, section 2340 of the United States Legal Code, torture is defined as “an act committed.
DOJ’s interpretation is that ( regardless of authority or purpose) the performance of theese actions with specific intent to create physical and mental anguish to coerce the subject is in violation of (18)(2340).
http://usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm
Today neither the White House or AG seem to be able to read this law.
If you don't have the courage and integrity to post using your real identity you obviously don't deserve to be listened to or takes seriously.
While we cater to people who go by their real names and people who don't, we don't cater to people with a sexual fetish for repeating talking points, especially when those talking points don't even understand how torture, properly applied, is used to extract information.
Put differently, masturbate somewhere else. And if you come back a third time, we'll drop your ISP a line.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Look me up if you're ever in Phoenix and we'll find out if questioning that is done via various levels of discomfort - none of which are outlawed by international treaty - really work. No big deal, just standard SERE stuff.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
i would be all for the use of torture if it was useful but it appears to be very ineffective according to the experts
I'd venture to say that most posting here do not condone the use of "torture."
Techniques that cause permanent disfigurement or death of the detainee is of little value to interrogators.
However, coercive interrogation techniques are very effective.
As documented here.
"Actionable intelligence" trumps "expert opinion."
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
monsters whether it be torture or worse however most of the experts like the late great CIA Chief William Colby in the above video seem to all agree that it is worthless. The
#3 man in Al Queda would be such a committed fanatic that noi amount of torture would get him to talk but if people think it would it wouldn't make any differnce to me like I said I don't care what they do to the Al Queda thugs as long as they either remove them from the planet or jail them in Cuba.
You didn't bother to read the information provided, or chose to ignore it, because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, you know, the #3 terrorist and the one who planned 9-11, sang like a bird.
According to CIA sources familiar with the interrogation, his "fanatical commitment" to the cause enabled him to hold out for a whopping "two and one-half minutes."
Your faith in "experts" is truly misguided.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
and I'ld have him singing "Onward Christian Soldiers".
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.