waterboarding: the poll

[sailor]

three part poll. multiple choice to allow yes/no votes on each part.

is waterboarding:


torture?
acceptable?
effective?


i don't see it as torture, and have no problem with it being used. my only issue is every study i've ever heard of says torture or other coercive interrogation simply doesn't work. what say you?

[epo]

1. Torture? It is torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
2. Acceptable? Since we are a nation of laws, and torture is illegal via international law, it is not acceptable.
3. Effective? And is it especially stupid since no study has ever shown it to be effective.

The triple play of stupidity really.

[underdog]

1. Torture? It is torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
2. Acceptable? Since we are a nation of laws, and torture is illegal via international law, it is not acceptable.
3. Effective? And is it especially stupid since no study has ever shown it to be effective.

The triple play of stupidity really.

You're amazingly predictable.

[epo]

You're amazingly predictable.

Logic hurts that way.

Now ask me for my opinion on how to deal with the prior administrations problems on torture and I might just surprise you.

[sailor]

what of the supposed info gained from khalid mohammed thru waterboarding?

[Crispy123]

It is torture. It has not proven to be a reliable means of obtaining accurate information. Is it acceptable to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammad 183 times???? Fuck yeah.

[moochcassidy]

i don't see it as torture, and have no problem with it being used. my only issue is every study i've ever heard of says torture or other coercive interrogation simply doesn't work. what say you?

i know im going to regret this but how is it not torture?

[underdog]

Logic hurts that way.

Now ask me for my opinion on how to deal with the prior administrations problems on torture and I might just surprise you.

I don't even disagree with you in this instance. It's just that your response in any political discussion could just be "Current Democratic Party stance on this issue". You're like SP1!'s other.

[sailor]

i know im going to regret this but how is it not torture?

if you're gonna condescend when asking a question, where's my incentive to answer?

[boosterp]

Torture yes
Acceptable no
Effective yes

I do not think that it is acceptable because when our own people are captured we do not have the higher ground to take when our own are tortured and brutally treated.

Many forms of torture are effective but that does not mean we should use torture to extract information.

[tanless1]

torture is the sawing of limbs, bamboo shoots under nails, beatings, breaking of limbs, fileting of body parts while still attached.
water boarding is fear.
torture doesnt work cause once you pass fear and apprehension to reality , the subject constituition hardens. pain only lasts awhile and the result is now definable.
water board is only apprehension and fear... highly motivating.
if we found a peanut butter sandwich was just as effective...... surely that wld be the first choice.

[ToiletCrusher]

I can't wait for Waterboarding II: with milk.

[epo]

I want people to listen to Shephard Smith from Fox News on this topic:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aEtFMj6ZiHM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aEtFMj6ZiHM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"We are America, we do not fucking torture!" Once he calmed down he gave us this one.....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hCWN9UWtWkc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hCWN9UWtWkc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And the nugget from it is this:

We are America. We don't torture, and the moment that that's not the case, I want off the train. This government is of, by and for the people. That means it's mine. That means- I'm not saying what is torture and what's not torture, but I'm saying whatever it is, you don't do it for me. I want off the train when the government starts. I want off. Next stop, now.

[ToiletCrusher]

What a nut. Was that curse live on the air?

[epo]

What a nut. Was that curse live on the air?

It was live yesterday during the show "Freedom Watch".

[angrymissy]

Main Entry:
1tor·ture Listen to the pronunciation of 1torture
Pronunciation:
\ˈtȯr-chər\
Function:
noun

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Now tell me pouring water repeatedly down someones nose and throat isn't torture.

[A.J.]

We don't need to use borderline torture/torture techniques like waterboarding. All you have to do is threaten to rub a piece of bacon or pork on a detainee. If he cares anything about his precious afterlife, he'll talk.

pee on a wet cloth draped over my mouth

For some, that's torture. For others, it's a reward.

[angrymissy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

Also, we signed this treaty.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1


Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6]

The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[6]

[RhinoinMN]

The last poll option will come in handy when I get done blowing a jellyfish.

[ToiletCrusher]

It was live yesterday during the show "Freedom Watch".

Did he make an apology for his coarse language?

[epo]

Did he make an apology for his coarse language?

No idea.

[TheMojoPin]

We don't need to use borderline torture/torture techniques like waterboarding. All you have to do is threaten to rub a piece of bacon or pork on a detainee. If he cares anything about his precious afterlife, he'll talk.

Joking aside, you're basically at the crux of my take on the matter. Putting aside any moral or legal debate, my biggest issue with torture is that it typically doesn't work. It's a horribly ineffective way to gather information. I someone actually knows something, some trace of information will be found in their belongings or records or a skilled interrogator will be able to get them to to trip up and reveal something or convince them to do so. If someone hasn't given you anything by the time they're tortured, you've either jumped the gun way too early and you're making things even harder for yourself or, more likely, they don't have the information you want. The information gathered from torture is typically faulty since it's usually the person being tortured telling the torturer what they THINK the torturer wats to hear. It's a self-fullfilling system that doesn't really accomplish anything.

[A.J.]

Joking aside, you're basically at the crux of my take on the matter. Putting aside any moral or legal debate, my biggest issue with torture is that it typically doesn't work. It's a horribly ineffective way to gather information. I someone actually knows something, some trace of information will be found in their belongings or records or a skilled interrogator will be able to get them to to trip up and reveal something or convince them to do so. If someone hasn't given you anything by the time they're tortured, you've either jumped the gun way too early and you're maming things even harder for yourself or, more likely, they don't have the information you want. The information gathered from torture is typically faulty since it's usually the person being tortured telling the torturer what they THINK the torturer wats to hear. It's a self-fullfilling system that doesn't really accomplish anything.

Well said. And if you've ever been through a polygraph session, you'll end up admiting to being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

[TheMojoPin]

Well said. And if you've ever been through a polygraph session, you'll end up admiting to being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Heh, I've definitely though about my polygraph sessions when I've read those studies that argue that. I felt like such a guilty heel after the first one even though I hadn't done anything wrong. Those annual polygraphs are notorious in the Agency in terms of how much people hate them. My dad was a 25-year Senior Intelligence Official and that was still far and away his least favorite day at work.

[A.J.]

Heh, I've definitely though about my polygraph sessions when I've read those studies that argue that. I felt like such a guilty heel after the first one even though I hadn't done anything wrong. Those annual polygraphs are notorious in the Agency in terms of how much people hate them. My dad was a 25-year Senior Intelligence Official and that was still far and away his least favorite day at work.

I had mine when I interned at State and I almost had a few "Fez moments".

Worse than Catholic guilt even.

[ANC]

I thought this was a poll about Butchie Yost getting back in the game... :down:

[Thebazile78]

I had mine when I interned at State and I almost had a few "Fez moments".

Worse than Catholic guilt even.

I didn't think there was anything that could top Catholic guilt.

Even my grandmother's subtle hints that maybe it's time she had another great-grandchild.

[A.J.]

I didn't think there was anything that could top Catholic guilt.

Even my grandmother's subtle hints that maybe it's time she had another great-grandchild.

Tell her Sheepy's working on it.

[Syd]

1. Torture?

One of the reasons why we carpet-bombed Cambodia was because the Khmer Rouge was in there torturing people, including waterboarding. So, if we're bombing people over it we should probably not do it ourselves.

2. Acceptable?

Absolutely not. One of the principles of the constitution is that all humans have inalienable rights, regardless of who they are. The US gov't has no right to infringe upon those.

3. Effective?

The CIA itself said torture interrogations had little to no usable information gained from them.

[Snoogans]

i dont know much about waterboarding. I like wakeboarding and surfing though, so its gotta be pretty cool

[DrDrew319]

It has to be done. If they have information that the US needs, we need to get it from them no matter what we do. I would consider it torture, but if that is what it takes, do it.

[ChrisTheCop]

Main Entry:
1tor·ture Listen to the pronunciation of 1torture
Pronunciation:
\ˈtȯr-chər\
Function:
noun

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Now tell me pouring water repeatedly down someones nose and throat isn't torture.

Definitions don't work round these parts. I've tried.

[Snoogans]

Definitions don't work round these parts. I've tried.

dont even start. You know why your definitions were way too vague

[sailor]

what i think would be more interesting than questioning those who don't think it's torture would be looking at those who think it's torture yet still acceptable. or the one fella who voted it was acceptable and torture even though he thinks it ineffective. you guys want to chime in with your reasoning behind your thoughts? i'd love to hear them.

myself, i don't see it as torture because it's really more mental than any physical/permanent thing. heck, don't certain people in the military undergo this as part of their training? to me that's like cops who have to get shot with tasers; it's certainly not pleasant, but after it's done there's no long-term impact. i can't imagine we'd subject our own soldiers to bamboo shoots under their fingernails or hook them up to electrodes, because those are really what torture's all about.

[epo]

It has to be done. If they have information that the US needs, we need to get it from them no matter what we do. I would consider it torture, but if that is what it takes, do it.

Which could be acceptable under some crazy rationale...but waterboarding has been proven ineffective which makes your point moot.

[Thebazile78]

Tell her Sheepy's working on it.

The last time anyone hinted that I should be having babies already I directed them to my brother Gerald and his potential for having spawned intergalactic space bastards.

That shut them up really fast. It was kinda fun, actually.

[Ogre]

no
yes
and yes

shocker huh?

The Geneva Convention gets thrown around alot but it is my opinion that it does not apply to these terrorists.

I think the definition of torture would be standing in the window of the 76th floor knowing you either jump or burn to death. I think torture would be the last 10 seconds of that trip down. I think torture would be a firefighter's family not being able to have a proper funeral because said firefighter's remains were pulverized when the towers fell. Even though I personally did not experience those things, I remember that day like it was yesterday. I think that alot of people have short memories about what these animals are capable of. If putting a bug in a box with someone or blowing bubbles up someones nose prevents this from happening again. (which it has) so be it.

According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention,( (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) prisoners of war are: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

It also states it applies to:

"Persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:


Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.


Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:


That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;


That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;


That of carrying arms openly;


That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[Ogre]

Which could be acceptable under some crazy rationale...but waterboarding has been proven ineffective which makes your point moot.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html)

[angrymissy]

Of course the guy who is in charge is going to say that. It also doesn't make it right. From your same article:

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

How about this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

[CurseoftheBambi]

“Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands.”
— George Washington, January 8, 1777
“Military necessity does not admit of cruelty — that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.”
— Abraham Lincoln, April 24, 1863

http://crooksandliars.com/node/27609

And by the way...(if someone mentioned this already i'm sorry to repeat it) but the US back in WW2 executed japanese who water boarded our soilders...now if it was wrong for them its wrong for us too.

[SatCam]

what i think would be more interesting than questioning those who don't think it's torture would be looking at those who think it's torture yet still acceptable. or the one fella who voted it was acceptable and torture even though he thinks it ineffective. you guys want to chime in with your reasoning behind your thoughts? i'd love to hear them.

myself, i don't see it as torture because it's really more mental than any physical/permanent thing. heck, don't certain people in the military undergo this as part of their training? to me that's like cops who have to get shot with tasers; it's certainly not pleasant, but after it's done there's no long-term impact. i can't imagine we'd subject our own soldiers to bamboo shoots under their fingernails or hook them up to electrodes, because those are really what torture's all about.

Actually it can physically harm and be potentially fatal.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:HU_-SNkJKfUJ:intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf+http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf%23page%3D6&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of
imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected,
including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for
breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage
to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and
PTSD.

Why does torture have to be physically painful? How is psychological pain not equal if not worse? It's called the Chinese Water Torture, not Chinese Water Interrogation Technique That Only Causes Mental Pain and Not Physical Therefore It's Not Torture.

It doesn't matter what you call it, it is still wrong to do that to another human being. Especially with out a trial !!!!!


Also, parts of the military undergo waterboarding because there are some countries who actually use this technique (hmmm....) and the military teaches the them how to withstand the technique. You actually have to KNOW how to survive the technique in order to hold off some of the effects (and survive). Plus, the people who undergo this as part of the training have the ability to say "stop". Do the prisoners?

[Gvac]

Rules are different for a boxing match and a street fight.

Mike Tyson horrified a nation when he bit off a piece of Evander Holyfield's ear. If he did it in an alley fight no one would know about it or be shocked if they did find out.

If you've ever been in a real fight with an insane person you cannot fight by rules or concern yourself with morality.

[ToiletCrusher]

Rules are different for a boxing match and a street fight.

Mike Tyson horrified a nation when he bit off a piece of Evander Holyfield's ear. If he did it in an alley fight no one would know about it or be shocked if they did find out.

If you've ever been in a real fight with an insane person you cannot fight by rules or concern yourself with morality.

But, when certain rules are expected to be followed, you try to play by the rules.

Not everyone does this.

[Gvac]

But, when certain rules are expected to be followed, you try to play by the rules.

Not everyone does this.

Exactly why the rules of war between sovereign nations differ from battles with terrorists and criminals.

[ToiletCrusher]

Exactly why the rules of war between sovereign nations differ from battles with terrorists and criminals.

But what defines a terrorist?

Anyone who brings fear among people is a terrorist. So what is stopping us from doing similar thing to someone who is convicted of murder, rape, etc. ???

[hammersavage]

Crazy Jen survived. Can't be that bad.

[Gvac]

But what defines a terrorist?

Anyone who brings fear among people is a terrorist. So what is stopping us from doing similar thing to someone who is convicted of murder, rape, etc. ???

You said "when certain rules are expected to be followed."

Who expects us to follow rules? Al Qaeda?

I don't think so.

They certainly don't follow any. They simply adore public beheadings and acts of vile cruelty against their enemies.

[ToiletCrusher]

You said "when certain rules are expected to be followed."

Who expects us to follow rules? Al Qaeda?

I don't think so.

They certainly don't follow any. They simply adore public beheadings and acts of vile cruelty against their enemies.

But, playing their side...

Are we playing by their rules?

[TheMojoPin]

So then people should just admit that they want it done for some type of personal satisfaction of "getting even" as opposed to pretending that it's not almost totally useless as a means of gathering useful intelligence.

[Gvac]

So then people should just admit that they want it done for some type of personal satisfaction of "getting even" as opposed to pretending that it's not almost totally useless as a means of gathering useful intelligence.

Don't take out your anger over the Reds dominance of the Cubs in this thread.

Thank you.

[ToiletCrusher]

I would agree but...

Everyone plays by different rules. So, unless we all agree on a set of rules that all are expected to abide by, we will keep running into these type of problems.

And, yes, I am drinking!

[TheMojoPin]

Don't take out your anger over the Reds dominance of the Cubs in this thread.

Thank you.

Oh my God, you guys unleashed hell. Cubs fans left and right here are acting like losing two games to the Reds fourteen games into the season is the end of the world. I've got to totally shut out any Chicago sports media until they win again due to the overwhelming stupidity.

[biozombie]

Those little puppets in Team America: World Police never had to waterboard anybody & they got results, goddamnit.

[Syd]

I think the definition of torture would be standing in the window of the 76th floor knowing you either jump or burn to death. I think torture would be the last 10 seconds of that trip down. I think torture would be a firefighter's family not being able to have a proper funeral because said firefighter's remains were pulverized when the towers fell. Even though I personally did not experience those things, I remember that day like it was yesterday. I think that alot of people have short memories about what these animals are capable of. If putting a bug in a box with someone or blowing bubbles up someones nose prevents this from happening again. (which it has) so be it.

I think the definition of torture is dying in an accident from a drunk driver. I think torture would be the last 10 seconds as your heart pumps blood lifelessly into your chest cavity because you have a severed aorta. I think torture would be a secretary's family not being able to have a proper funeral because said secretary's remains were pulverized when the cars collided. Even though I personally did not experience those things, I remember that day like it was yesterday. I think that a lot of people have short memories about what these animals are capable of. If putting a bug in a box with someone or blowing bubbles up someones nose prevents this from happening again, so be it.

[SonOfSmeagol]

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.”

Awwww. Poor babies!

My only regret is that these are the only three who had the opportunity to enjoy the experience.

F U C K them.

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/images/waterboardingsuspects.jpg

[TripleSkeet]

1. Torture? It is torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
2. Acceptable? Since we are a nation of laws, and torture is illegal via international law, it is not acceptable.
3. Effective? And is it especially stupid since no study has ever shown it to be effective.

The triple play of stupidity really.

This.

[Recyclerz]

Either we are a nation that respects the rule of law or we are not. Waterboarding (and certain other techniques presumably employed because some of these detainees had the annoying habit of dying while under our control) is clearly illegal under US law and treaties that have the force of US law. If we have leaders who get bumrushed by a bunch of evil maniac criminals and then decide to prove their manhood by being willing to wipe their asses with the same Constitution that they swore to uphold (and then get to brag about it), then what is it about the USA that makes it better than any other country that we choose to look down upon? Respect for the rule of law was the banner that our Republican congressional friends were flying when we were told it was a moral imperative to impeach the guy two administrations ago for telling a lie under oath in a deposition in a civil law suit. What exactly has changed to flip the analysis so that the last Administration gets a free pass and a medal?

If there any claims that assert a plausible argument that the disregard of the rule of law actually enhanced the physical safety of our population I'd love to hear it. All of the claims being forwarded by apologists of the last Administration in the last few days have gotten disproved about an hour after they have been uttered. And episodes of "24" are not real evidence, I'm afraid.

[SonOfSmeagol]

This haughty righteousness makes me sick.

Actually, larry, moe, and curly (see above) have absolutely ZERO rights “under the law”.

Their “discomfort” is the least of my worries. Especially, as we speak, they are enjoying three square meals, a cot, a nice cell, and a Koran. Courtesy of YOU.

I would be happy if info they have in the past provided under “torture” enough info to save even one mangy, wild dog in Waco, TX .

NEVER forget WHO you are talking about here.

My preference, going forward for each of them is (1) bullet to the back of the head and bill their mamas for the expense, (will save taxpayer money) or; (2) have them break big rocks into little rocks in the hot sun for the rest of their miserable fucking lives (and sell the resulting gravel by the bag, 1 cent each, in Lowe's under the 'al-qaeda' brand name.)

Not likely, oh well.

[underdog]

This haughty righteousness makes me sick.

Actually, larry, moe, and curly (see above) have absolutely ZERO rights “under the law”.

Their “discomfort” is the least of my worries. Especially, as we speak, they are enjoying three square meals, a cot, a nice cell, and a Koran. Courtesy of YOU.

I would be happy if info they have in the past provided under “torture” enough info to save even one mangy, wild dog in Waco, TX .

NEVER forget WHO you are talking about here.

My preference, going forward for each of them is (1) bullet to the back of the head and bill their mamas for the expense, (will save taxpayer money) or; (2) have them break big rocks into little rocks in the hot sun for the rest of their miserable fucking lives (and sell the resulting gravel by the bag, 1 cent each, in Lowe's under the 'al-qaeda' brand name.)

Not likely, oh well.


Shocking that you'd come out against the filthy arabs.

[Serpico1103]

three part poll. multiple choice to allow yes/no votes on each part.
is waterboarding:

torture?
acceptable?
effective?

i don't see it as torture, and have no problem with it being used. my only issue is every study i've ever heard of says torture or other coercive interrogation simply doesn't work. what say you?
I am confused. Everything you have heard says it is not effective. But, you would use it anyway?
So, waterboarding for fun is ok?
I think it is a step below real torture, but it is beyond acceptable behavior towards a person in government custody.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Shocking that you'd come out against the filthy arabs.

Ya right. News Flash: I was very specific (Abu Zubaydah (larry), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (moe), Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (curly)). YOU generalized.

[sailor]

I am confused. Everything you have heard says it is not effective. But, you would use it anyway?
So, waterboarding for fun is ok?
I think it is a step below real torture, but it is beyond acceptable behavior towards a person in government custody.

no, i would not use it. maybe that should have been a 4th option, but i didn't think of it. i was going for something a little different than that with the acceptable question.

[IamFogHat]

Oh wait, I want the pee wash cloth on my mouth but it won't be to make things come out of my mouth, meh meh.

[TheMojoPin]

This haughty righteousness makes me sick.

As many have pointed out here, look beyond it as a moral debate.

Torture simply does not work in terms being a reliable information-gathering tactic. It can often actually be detrimental to obtaining information.

[SonOfSmeagol]

As many have pointed out here, look beyond it as a moral debate.

Torture simply does not work in terms being a reliable information-gathering tactic. It can often actually be detrimental to obtaining information.

As many have pointed out here – do not forget, specifically, who you are talking about! The three "waterboardees":

Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri?

How, exactly, do you know what works and doesn’t work? Do you have access to all the details, all the classified info, etc etc involved in the debriefs of these three assholes? Please share.

[TheMojoPin]

As many have pointed out here – do not forget, specifically, who you are talking about! The three "waterboardees":

Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri?

How, exactly, do you know what works and doesn’t work? Do you have access to all the details, all the classified info, etc etc involved in the debriefs of these three assholes? Please share.

Never said I have any of the above. What we all have access to are numerous studies of torture-based interrogation that shows that the use of torture usually doesn't produce any information or, most often, produces faulty information as the person being tortured to tell the interrogator what they think their captor wants to hear. This leads to the interrogators thinking they're getting somewhere and to continue with that prisoner even though the information is bad. If a prisoner actually knows something of value, they are probably in posession of physical evidence that points in that direction or can be tripped up in interviews by skilled interrogators. If nothing is revealed or discovered after all that, odds are the person does not likely have any important information that would merit "extrem interrogation." In short, torture is a waste of time that can actually mke us more at risk since time is being wasted on it as opposed to pursuing methods far more likely to provide workable intel.

Look at KSM. He's almost a textbook example of someone who would give up some info without torture. He's caught completely off guard so he likely has material in his posession that will give interrogators an inside track and things to work off of in questioning him. He was supposedly boasting about plans that Al-Queda had in the works. That's not the actions of some ironbrained mastermind that's not going to give anything up unless he's tortured...that's an idiot caught redhanded he can be tripped up by any interrogator worth their salt.

Again, subtract any moral or legat debates or partisan issues...torture typically does not work and is often actually detrimental to getting information. I want our intelligence servies to get valuable information. Torture is typically counterproductive in that regard. I'd prefer if they went with the methods that are far more likely to be successful.

[Serpico1103]

As many have pointed out here – do not forget, specifically, who you are talking about! The three "waterboardees":

Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri?

How, exactly, do you know what works and doesn’t work? Do you have access to all the details, all the classified info, etc etc involved in the debriefs of these three assholes? Please share.

Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent and perhaps the most successful U.S. interrogator of al-Qaeda operatives, says the use of those techniques was unnecessary and often counterproductive. Detainees, he says, provided vital intelligence under non-violent questioning, before they were put through "walling" and waterboarding.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html

What I have read is that all the people actually doing interrogations did not think the "harsh" methods worked.

[SonOfSmeagol]

And I still say that if one miniscule piece of info was gleaned from waterboarding (which I personally don’t consider “torture”) these three assholes -- One place name, one timeframe, one name of some other asshole towelhead terrorist that could be caught/killed/whatever -- Then it was well fucking worth it.

Someone said
“Torture simply does not work in terms being a reliable information-gathering tactic. It can often actually be detrimental to obtaining information.”

And I said
“How, exactly, do you know what works and doesn’t work? Do you have access to all the details, all the classified info, etc etc involved in the debriefs of these three assholes? Please share.”

And absolutely ALL that has been offered is generalities. Not one word about the specifics of these three assholes and what they had to say when pressed.

Well worth it I say. Actually far too good and kind for the likes of these three assholes.


I have to add, that to say this in any context about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”), the accepted mastermind of Sep 11 and all that happened that day – to try to downplay this evil asshole in any way is truly mindboggling:
“He was supposedly boasting about plans that Al-Queda had in the works. That's not the actions of some ironbrained mastermind that's not going to give anything up unless he's tortured...that's an idiot caught redhanded he can be tripped up by any interrogator worth their salt.”

[Serpico1103]

And I still say that if one miniscule piece of info was gleaned from waterboarding (which I personally don’t consider “torture”) these three assholes -- One place name, one timeframe, one name of some other asshole towelhead terrorist that could be caught/killed/whatever -- Then it was well fucking worth it.
Someone said
“Torture simply does not work in terms being a reliable information-gathering tactic. It can often actually be detrimental to obtaining information.”
And I said
“How, exactly, do you know what works and doesn’t work? Do you have access to all the details, all the classified info, etc etc involved in the debriefs of these three assholes? Please share.”
And absolutely ALL that has been offered is generalities. Not one word about the specifics of these three assholes and what they had to say when pressed.
Well worth it I say. Actually far too good and kind for the likes of these three assholes.

There was a NYT article about Abu Zubaydah, one of the "three assholes, that suggests most, if not all, of the interrogators involved with his interrogations felt the extreme techniques, i.e. waterboarding, were counterproductive or unnecessary. The orders to keep using more harsh techniques came from CIA HQ or the White House, not from the experts directly involved.

It is not about these "three assholes" anymore than our justice system is about any one individual. It is always what is better for society. Would there be less crime if ever crime was punishable with death, yes. Would it be a better society, I'll say no.

Torturing, or using techniques that many see as torture, can cause more problems than it solves. Why do we try to give prisoners skills to reenter society, because we feel bad for them? No. Because it is better for society.

[SonOfSmeagol]

The waterboarding debate is, in fact, all about these Three Asshole Fucking Towelhead Terrorists (notice – NO quotes). Since no others were waterboarded, it is, in fact, all about these Three Assholes.

Broad generalizations about some NYT piece do not a position make. NYT? - pleeease. As I said, one miniscule piece of info from these Three Assholes makes it far fucking worth it in my view.

Let’s wait and see what the govt has to say. The same administration that has so agonized over releasing SOME of the info. How fucking convenient. Let’s see ALL the info.

[Serpico1103]

The waterboarding debate is, in fact, all about these Three Asshole Fucking Towelhead Terrorists (notice – NO quotes). Since no others were waterboarded, it is, in fact, all about these Three Assholes.

Broad generalizations about some NYT piece do not a position make. NYT? - pleeease. As I said, one miniscule piece of info from these Three Assholes makes it far fucking worth it in my view.

Let’s wait and see what the govt has to say. The same administration that has so agonized over releasing SOME of the info. How fucking convenient. Let’s see ALL the info.


"Quoting a 2004 report on the interrogation program by the CIA inspector general, the footnote says that " although the on-scene interrogation team judged Zubaydah to be compliant, elements within CIA HQ still believed he was withholding information."
Another broad generalization from the article.

It appears that the Bush information wanted to hear about an Al Qaeda-Iraq link and was willing to go to extreme measures to "create" one.

[SonOfSmeagol]

What? Mere crumbs of a response. Still generic, with the ole anti-Bush statement thrown in. Yawn.

[underdog]

What? Mere crumbs of a response. Still generic, with the ole anti-Bush statement thrown in. Yawn.

We get it.

<3 Jews
< /3 Dirty A-rabs.

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

It's torture. The Japanese were condemned by us for it during WWII.

I would so LOVE LOVE LERVVVVVVVVVVVV to see Hannity warterboarded for charity. I dare him to say it wasn't a big deal.

Which is what he'll probably say.

[SonOfSmeagol]

We get it.

<3 Jews
< /3 Dirty A-rabs.

WTF?!

YOUR fucking words - not mine. YOU DO NOT get it. ass

[SonOfSmeagol]

It's torture. The Japanese were condemned by us for it during WWII.

I would so LOVE LOVE LERVVVVVVVVVVVV to see Hannity warterboarded for charity. I dare him to say it wasn't a big deal.

Which is what he'll probably say.

What, exactly is your message here???

So you would love to see someone subject to this so called "torture" while you simultaneously condemn it???

fucked up perspective clouded by politics I would say. Jesus fucking christ give me a break

[Serpico1103]

What? Mere crumbs of a response. Still generic, with the ole anti-Bush statement thrown in. Yawn.

Ok. I will write up a 200 page report on it for you.
Or, you could read the information presently available.

Yawn, your "crumbs", "generalizations", and other excuses are sad.
Stick with your visceral response and keep ignoring facts.

[thejives]

All you torturers just voted with LordJezo.

Think about that.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Ok. I will write up a 200 page report on it for you.
Or, you could read the information presently available.

Yawn, your "crumbs", "generalizations", and other excuses are sad.
Stick with your visceral response and keep ignoring facts.

Still waiting to see it. Your report is already late.

Enlighten me, if you can tear yourself away from that Che Guevara poster on your wall

[Serpico1103]

Still waiting to see it. Your report is already late.

Enlighten me, if you can tear yourself away from that Che Guevara poster on your wall

Oh I love it. Tell me what a monster Che was. Please, I am sure there is plenty of information out about Che. Enlighten me as to how monstrous he was.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Oh I love it. Tell me what a monster Che was. Please, I am sure there is plenty of information out about Che. Enlighten me as to how monstrous he was.

I put very little thought into "Che" on a daily basis. You? Did I touch a nerve?

:laugh:
:laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Serpico1103]

I put very little thought into "Che" on a daily basis. You? Did I touch a nerve?

:laugh:
:laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

A nerve? No, you just showed more of your hand. Sad little boy. Thinking binary must be easier. Shades of gray get complex.
And since you brought him up , when he couldn't be more unrelated to the discussion, it does appear he is on your brain more than you want to admit.

[SonOfSmeagol]

A nerve? No, you just showed more of your hand. Sad little boy. Thinking binary must be easier. Shades of gray get complex.
And since you brought him up , when he couldn't be more unrelated to the discussion, it does appear he is on your brain more than you want to admit.

Son, he is no more on my brain than you are.

[Serpico1103]

Son, he is no more on my brain than you are.

That is a non-answer. Since, I don't know how much I am on your mind, I cannot deduce how much Che is on your mind.
While you seem to demand for answers from me about my opinion, you get quite evasive when asked for your own opinion and to substantiate it.
"Grrr terrorists bad. We must kill terrorists. Communism is evil. We must build many missiles and hide under our desks to protect us from the Red Menace." Better?

[SonOfSmeagol]

That is a non-answer. Since, I don't know how much I am on your mind, I cannot deduce how much Che is on your mind.
While you seem to demand for answers from me about my opinion, you get quite evasive when asked for your own opinion and to substantiate it.
"Grrr terrorists bad. We must kill terrorists. Communism is evil. We must build many missiles and hide under our desks to protect us from the Red Menace." Better?

Let me make this clear - I demand nothing from you. And never have. You want to counter what I say, and quote me, then come up with specifics. Which you have not. A little TIME article here (ugghh) and a vague reference to NYT there - I think not. I made my statements as opinions and viewpoints: in essence that the Three Asshole Fucking Towlelhead Terrorists have nothing coming to them and deserve nothing and anything ANYTHING we can get from them to save EVEN ONE LOUSY DOG would put us ahead.

We have given them too much quarter as it is. You don't like that too bad. I await more info from our "esteemed" government since they have now chosen to expose the situation I expect to see ALL the facts.

[underdog]

WTF?!

YOUR fucking words - not mine. YOU DO NOT get it. ass



I'm just going by your posts.

[SonOfSmeagol]

We get it.

<3 Jews
< /3 Dirty A-rabs.

WTF?!

YOUR fucking words - not mine. YOU DO NOT get it. ass



I'm just going by your posts.


Huh??!! MY POSTS??!! Interesting – since I NEVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. MY POSTS??!! YOUR POST is more like it!

Shame on you!

[SP1!]

what of the supposed info gained from khalid mohammed thru waterboarding?

People conveniently forget it does get some information, its not the best way but it does work.

No matter what we do there will always be guys out there torturing our military for information if they get caught but still we will end up looking like the bad guys.

Bottom line, dont get caught and for gods sake, QUIT WRITING MEMOS ABOUT HOW YOU ARE TORTURING PRISONERS!

Morons.

[Serpico1103]

Let me make this clear - I demand nothing from you. And never have. You want to counter what I say, and quote me, then come up with specifics. Which you have not. A little TIME article here (ugghh) and a vague reference to NYT there - I think not. I made my statements as opinions and viewpoints: in essence that the Three Asshole Fucking Towlelhead Terrorists have nothing coming to them and deserve nothing and anything ANYTHING we can get from them to save EVEN ONE LOUSY DOG would put us ahead.

We have given them too much quarter as it is. You don't like that too bad. I await more info from our "esteemed" government since they have now chosen to expose the situation I expect to see ALL the facts.


Too bad GW didn't react quick enough to save 3,000 people, then you wouldn't have to worry about that one dog you like in TX so much.
:bye:
Back to reading my communist manifesto.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Too bad GW didn't react quick enough to save 3,000 people, then you wouldn't have to worry about that one dog you like in TX so much.
:bye:
Back to reading my communist manifesto.


Oh Ya , and too bad BUBBA FUCKING CLINTON let 20,000 al qaeda terrorists freely train up in Afghanistan during the 90s! Gimme the dog any day.

[underdog]

Huh??!! MY POSTS??!! Interesting – since I NEVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. MY POSTS??!! YOUR POST is more like it!

Shame on you!



I don't know where I ever got that idea from.

The waterboarding debate is, in fact, all about these Three Asshole Fucking Towelhead Terrorists

Three Asshole Fucking Towlelhead Terrorists

[underdog]

Oh Ya , and too bad BUBBA FUCKING CLINTON let 20,000 al qaeda terrorists freely train up in Afghanistan during the 90s! Gimme the dog any day.

I had no idea Afghanistan was an American territory.

[TheMojoPin]

Smeagol, follow this link. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=torture+does+not+work)

Go nuts.

The idea that torture is a poor intelligence-gathering method is nothing new.

Again, I don't know why you want to make this so partisan. I'm not opposed to torture for political reasons; I'm opposed to it above all else because it doesn't work and it's a waste of time and can actually hamper out intellegence operatives and agencies with bad information.

[Serpico1103]

I had no idea Afghanistan was an American territory.

Don't bother. It's like talking to the Fox News scroll.

If 20K al-qaeda terrorists were there when Clinton was president, where did they go when GW became president. Oh, that's right. They were still there, and GW did nothing.
Clinton- 8 years, no real terror attack on American soil
GW- 8 years, oops, but right wing idiots buy that he was keeping us safe, while Clinton was making us weaker. Odd.

[TheMojoPin]

Don't bother. It's like talking to the Fox News scroll.

If 20K al-qaeda terrorists were there when Clinton was president, where did they go when GW became president. Oh, that's right. They were still there, and GW did nothing.
Clinton- 8 years, no real terror attack on American soil
GW- 8 years, oops, but right wing idiots buy that he was keeping us safe, while Clinton was making us weaker. Odd.

There were major terrorist attacks in America while Clinton was in office.

That said, almost nobody on either side of the aisle gave a shit about Osama and Al-Queda (or much less knew that they existed in the first place) up through Sept. 10th, 2001. Yes, there were increasing reports, but as critical as I am of the last adminstration, those reports were very vague and the US' intelligence capabilities regarding Al-Queda at tha point were as shitty as can be.

[TripleSkeet]

I dont get why this is even an argument. It doesnt matter if its effective or not. The bottom line is, our country is a world leader. We are supposed to follow the laws of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention. That means even if by torturing a prisoner you can save 1 million lives, its not worth it. And we shouldnt do it. Ever.

Dont you get it? It doesnt matter what they do to our prisoners. (Dont get me wrong it matters, but it shouldnt have any impact on how we treat ours) If we lower ourselves to their level not only have we become no better then them but weve basically lost whatever fight it was we were fighting.

To make it short and understandable:

waterboarding = torture
torture = ALWAYS unnacceptable. No exceptions.

The end.

[TripleSkeet]

There were major terrorist attacks in America while Clinton was in office.

That said, almost nobody on either side of the aisle gave a shit about Osama and Al-Queda (or much less knew that they existed in the first place) up through Sept. 10th, 2001. Yes, there were increasing reports, but as critical as I am of the last adminstration, those reports were very vague and the US' intelligence capabilities regarding Al-Queda at tha point were as shitty as can be.

You cant blame any administration for those attacks. Anyone that honestly thinks they can stop terrorist attacks on our soil when the terrorist is willing to kill himself is a fucking dope. Its impossible to stop. If I really wanted to, and knew how to make a bomb, I could blow up Philadelphias City Hall tomorrow. As a matter of fact I could blow up just about any building in this city, as long as Im willing to take myself too. Theres no way to stop it.

[Crispy123]

Again, subtract any moral or legat debates or partisan issues...torture typically does not work and is often actually detrimental to getting information. I want our intelligence servies to get valuable information. Torture is typically counterproductive in that regard. I'd prefer if they went with the methods that are far more likely to be successful.

Would you consider the use of drugs on suspects being interrogated as torture? Its success rate isn't 100% but generally thought of as effective.

[Serpico1103]

There were major terrorist attacks in America while Clinton was in office.

That said, almost nobody on either side of the aisle gave a shit about Osama and Al-Queda (or much less knew that they existed in the first place) up through Sept. 10th, 2001. Yes, there were increasing reports, but as critical as I am of the last adminstration, those reports were very vague and the US' intelligence capabilities regarding Al-Queda at tha point were as shitty as can be.

I said there were no major attacks on American soil during Clinton's 8 years. Yet, GW is credited with keeping us safe after 9/11.
And if you want to point to attacks overseas during Clinton's reign, then how many terror attacks have been committed in Iraq since 9/11, but GW still gets to claim he is keeping us safe.

My point is, the right wing tries to point to Clinton's inaction as the cause of 9/11, yet they can't point to one policy change that GW made when got into office before 9/11 that really addressed terrorism. So every mistake Clinton made GW made, and more.

[TheMojoPin]

Would you consider the use of drugs on suspects being interrogated as torture? Its success rate isn't 100% but generally thought of as effective.

I'm not sure how those fall legally. If they're not considered "cruel and unusual" and, most importantly, they tend to work, go for it.

[TheMojoPin]

I said there were no major attacks on American soil during Clinton's 8 years. Yet, GW is credited with keeping us safe after 9/11.
And if you want to point to attacks overseas during Clinton's reign, then how many terror attacks have been committed in Iraq since 9/11, but GW still gets to claim he is keeping us safe.

My point is, the right wing tries to point to Clinton's inaction as the cause of 9/11, yet they can't point to one policy change that GW made when got into office before 9/11 that really addressed terrorism. So every mistake Clinton made GW made, and more.

I understand your larger point, but you can't say no major attacks occured on US soil under Clinton. Oklahoma City and the 1st WTC bombing both occured while he was in office. Regardless of who was behind them, those are VERY major terrorist attacks on US soil while Clinton was in office.

[The Jays]

I think the definition of torture would be standing in the window of the 76th floor knowing you either jump or burn to death. I think torture would be the last 10 seconds of that trip down. I think torture would be a firefighter's family not being able to have a proper funeral because said firefighter's remains were pulverized when the towers fell. Even though I personally did not experience those things, I remember that day like it was yesterday. I think that alot of people have short memories about what these animals are capable of. If putting a bug in a box with someone or blowing bubbles up someones nose prevents this from happening again. (which it has) so be it.



Nice to see you get your opinion from The Weekly Standard. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/422ggyuo.asp)

The argument on one side seems to be that we should torture alleged terrorists because 1) we can get actionable information from them and 2) they deserve it.

The argument on the other side is 1) any actionable information can be obtained through more humane means and 2) just because we've failed to find Osama bin laden doesn't mean we should take out our aggressions on people who aren't even associated with the attacks on our country.


If we can get actionable information about potential terrorist attacks, then we should do whatever in necessary to get the information as soon as possible, but, I do think any form of torture should be sorta of a last resort, or if we need the information, like right away, in order to save American lives.

If it's about trying to get information about attacks that have already happened, I don't think there's a need to torture, it's charging human beings with a crime that hasn't been proven in any court of law. And we cannot go saying that the law does not apply to certain groups of people, just because they are not Americans, because we should not descend into the realm of non-humans just because our enemies are already there. Doing that is what removes us from our position as a just and righteous country, and makes us thugs just like our enemies are.

And if we do have to torture to save human lives, DO NOT write a report on what happened!!!! Whatever happened to keeping shit on the DL?

We can't go on doing these terrible acts just because we failed to get the #1 guy who did 9/11. We can't take out our anger on every single Muslim or Middle Easterner just because we project that bearded devil's face onto every brown mug we come across with an AK-47. And now it looks like we're going to start doing that to the pirates, charging them with terrorism, even before anyone understand the motive behind why they do it. That's what gets us into this predicament where groups throughout the world hate us and we don't know why so we assume they hate us for our freedom and proceed to plug into them with our M-16s.

[TheMojoPin]

If we can get actionable information about potential terrorist attacks, then we should do whatever in necessary to get the information as soon as possible, but, I do think any form of torture should be sorta of a last resort, or if we need the information, like right away, in order to save American lives.

If the need is for immediate actionable intel, torture is about the worst tactic that can be used and will more than likely send investigators in the wrong direction.

[The Jays]

If the need is for immediate actionable intel, torture is about the worst tactic that can be used and will more than likely send investigators in the wrong direction.

I'm just saying, whatever is needed to get that intel out is what is needed, and if torture works, do it. If giving him boxes of animal crackers works, do it. I'm not an expert in the area of information extraction, but I'm just saying, we need to do whatever we need to do, and that's the only time I say torture is fine, if it's gonna save lives.

If you say it's the worst means of extraction, then whatever we need to do to get the intel. BUT KEEP HUSH HUSH about it.

[TripleSkeet]

I'm just saying, whatever is needed to get that intel out is what is needed, and if torture works, do it. If giving him boxes of animal crackers works, do it. I'm not an expert in the area of information extraction, but I'm just saying, we need to do whatever we need to do, and that's the only time I say torture is fine, if it's gonna save lives.

If you say it's the worst means of extraction, then whatever we need to do to get the intel. BUT KEEP HUSH HUSH about it.

Sorry I couldnt disagree more. In my opinion there is no acceptable situation for it. NONE.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm just saying, whatever is needed to get that intel out is what is needed, and if torture works, do it. If giving him boxes of animal crackers works, do it. I'm not an expert in the area of information extraction, but I'm just saying, we need to do whatever we need to do, and that's the only time I say torture is fine, if it's gonna save lives.

If you say it's the worst means of extraction, then whatever we need to do to get the intel. BUT KEEP HUSH HUSH about it.

This is a false argument for torture that people keep falling back on. Saying "if it's the best option" means one is ignoring all the evidence that shows it's basically never the "best option" when it comes to information gathering.

[Serpico1103]

I understand your larger point, but you can't say no major attacks occured on US soil under Clinton. Oklahoma City and the 1st WTC bombing both occured while he was in office. Regardless of who was behind them, those are VERY major terrorist attacks on US soil while Clinton was in office.

I don't want to beat this into the ground, but I will anyway.

Oklahoma City I guess qualifies, but it was domestic terrorism, not what I was referencing, and I think it was not part of a major movement, making it really impossible to prevent.

1st WTC was not a "major" attack, as far as I am concerned. It was an attack, but not a major attack. Again, you can't prevent every attack, but you can hope to prevent large attacks that are part of a larger scheme.

And, just be clear, Clinton is/was not a favorite of mine. Republicans vilify him not because of his politics as much as because of his popularity.

Lastly, I fear terrorists as much as I fear home invaders or superstore "aisles of death." Poor eating habits kill more people. But, the picture of a hamburger isn't as scary as a machete wielding muslim.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't want to beat this into the ground, but I will anyway.

Oklahoma City I guess qualifies, but it was domestic terrorism, not what I was referencing, and I think it was not part of a major movement, making it really impossible to prevent.

1st WTC was not a "major" attack, as far as I am concerned. It was an attack, but not a major attack. Again, you can't prevent every attack, but you can hope to prevent large attacks that are part of a larger scheme.

And, just be clear, Clinton is/was not a favorite of mine. Republicans vilify him not because of his politics as much as because of his popularity.

Lastly, I fear terrorists as much as I fear home invaders or superstore "aisles of death." Poor eating habits kill more people. But, the picture of a hamburger isn't as scary as a machete wielding muslim.

Like I said, I understad and agree with many of your larger points, but you're setting yourself in a bad spot debate-wise if you're making a statement as broad as "no major terrorist attacks occured under Clinton's watch on American soil." It forces you then defend that point since people can so easily make it a legit tangent.

[The Jays]

This is a false argument for torture that people keep falling back on. Saying "if it's the best option" means one is ignoring all the evidence that shows it's basically never the "best option" when it comes to information gathering.

ARRRRGH!!! Stop! Then go with whatever is the best option! If the best fucking option to to not torture, then do it!!! Do whatever the scientific fucking evidence says is the best fucking option, but DO NOT make me fucking argue with you because I do not want to fucking lose!

[The Jays]

And I don't agree with using torture, but I agree with saving American lives at all costs. It seems that torture doesn't work, so then we should not do it, but if torturing some dude for a bit because we know without a shadow of a doubt that he is holding some piece of intel that could save people's lives and he is withholding, then do whatever it takes to get the right information out of him.

I'm not going to go all human rights on a guy if do so is going to let thousands of people die, and then have to live with the knowledge that we let all those people die, but at least the asshole who could have saved them is able to sit in his cell and pray to Allah.


But we shouldn't be torturing just for the fuck of it, just because some fucking douchebags killed thousands of our people and we can't get douchebag #1. We should be punishing them correctly, not holding them indefinitly saying they have important intel when they don't and torturing the fuck out of them just so the torturers can feel like the did something good by teaching the douchebags a lesson.

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

So you would love to see someone subject to this so called "torture" while you simultaneously condemn it???

Hannity, someone who supports waterboarding, has freely offered to subject himself to this. I see nothing wrong with it since it's of his own free will.

Besides, it's just a stupid stunt by a narrow-minded pundit who"ll probably tell the world it wasn't so bad.

[A.J.]

Hannity, someone who supports waterboarding, has freely offered to subject himself to this. I see nothing wrong with it since it's of his own free will.

Besides, it's just a stupid stunt by a narrow-minded pundit who"ll probably tell the world it wasn't so bad.

Hannity might want to reread this article by Christopher Hitchens. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808)

[Serpico1103]

Hannity might want to reread this article by Christopher Hitchens. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808)

Hannity's love for the greatest country in the history of the planet will protect him from the perceived horror of waterboarding.

[epo]

Hannity might want to reread this article by Christopher Hitchens. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808)

While I think that Christopher Hitchens is among the great smug assholes of our time, I was thoroughly impressed by him when he did that.

[Crispy123]

Ex-FBI interrogator says harsh methods didn't work (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8SP2D0uKiFrSELRXbEMrv0JE0iAD985HPQO0)

Dont take the pundits and hacks opinion on the matter, the FBI dude that actually interrrogated KSM and others says the shit dont work.

in addition

Soufan testified that "many of the claims made" by the Bush administration were inaccurate or half-truths.

He cited these examples:

_The administration said Abu Zubaydah wasn't cooperating before Aug. 1, 2002, when waterboarding was approved. "The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him" before that date.

_The administration credited waterboarding for Zubaydah's information that led to the capture of Padilla, who received a 17-year, four-month sentence, although prosecutors did not present any dirty-bomb information. Padilla was arrested in May 2002, months before waterboarding was authorized, Soufan said.

_Bush officials contended that waterboarding revealed the involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks of al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Soufan said the information was discovered in April 2002, months before waterboarding was introduced.

[nixonfingers]

1. Torture? It is torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
2. Acceptable? Since we are a nation of laws, and torture is illegal via international law, it is not acceptable.
3. Effective? And is it especially stupid since no study has ever shown it to be effective.

The triple play of stupidity really.

I agree with all the above.

[sr71blackbird]

If waterboarding a terrorist saved your child from dying, would you object to it?

[epo]

If waterboarding a terrorist saved your child from dying, would you object to it?

That's a stupid hypothetical.

[badmonkey]

That's a stupid hypothetical.

So is the one where radical islamic terrorists wouldn't saw people's heads off, blow people up, or otherwise torture our soldiers/citizens if only we didn't waterboard.

They don't do it cuz we're "so mean" to them.

[epo]

So is the one where radical islamic terrorists wouldn't saw people's heads off, blow people up, or otherwise torture our soldiers/citizens if only we didn't waterboard.

They don't do it cuz we're "so mean" to them.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hmUTCqVblWw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hmUTCqVblWw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[badmonkey]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hmUTCqVblWw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hmUTCqVblWw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Exactly. We don't torture. They do.

[epo]

So is the one where radical islamic terrorists wouldn't saw people's heads off, blow people up, or otherwise torture our soldiers/citizens if only we didn't waterboard.

They don't do it cuz we're "so mean" to them.

Actually they do because they are savages. We should never lower ourselves to the point where we are purposefully breaking international law of the civilized world. Now couple that with the fact that we know it doesn't work, and its just a fucking retarded idea.

[epo]

Exactly. We don't torture. They do.

If we waterboard, we are no better than them. That's why we shouldn't do it.

[badmonkey]

Actually they do because they are savages. We should never lower ourselves to the point where we are purposefully breaking international law of the civilized world. Now couple that with the fact that we know it doesn't work, and its just a fucking retarded idea.

If it doesn't work, then do what works. I'm not arguing that terrorists should be waterboarded. I just don't understand why anybody gives a shit that it happened to these 3 assholes. People in this country are bitching that they played music too loud for them and made it too hot or too cold in their cells, etc too. You're not allowed to talk about 9/11 anymore and people are crying about the treatment of the poor terrorists that are currently gaining weight in Gitmo eating food that has been flown there after being blessed by a fucking cleric. The men and women that duck flying feces, urine and glass everyday while guarding these animals have to make sure they take every care not to desecrate the Koran.

If we waterboard, we are no better than them. That's why we shouldn't do it.

Sorry dude. That's just silly. You should do some looking into what they do and have done to not just our soldiers but to citizens. Look up maybe some of the stories of the reporters that have been kidnapped and executed. Look at the pictures of our soldiers hanging burned from the bridge at Fallujah. We don't lose the moral high ground by waterboarding these 3 douches. We treat these pieces of human trash better at Gitmo than we treat our own citizens in prisons accross America and yet we still have people crying for them. Your sympathy is horribly misplaced.

[joeybadass]

if those queers cant take being water borded they shouldnt be terrorists. I volunteer to be water borded by any of you lady boys and I garauntee I wont cry like a pussy.

[epo]

If it doesn't work, then do what works. I'm not arguing that terrorists should be waterboarded. I just don't understand why anybody gives a shit that it happened to these 3 assholes. People in this country are bitching that they played music too loud for them and made it too hot or too cold in their cells, etc too. You're not allowed to talk about 9/11 anymore and people are crying about the treatment of the poor terrorists that are currently gaining weight in Gitmo eating food that has been flown there after being blessed by a fucking cleric. The men and women that duck flying feces, urine and glass everyday while guarding these animals have to make sure they take every care not to desecrate the Koran.

Sorry dude. That's just silly. You should do some looking into what they do and have done to not just our soldiers but to citizens. Look up maybe some of the stories of the reporters that have been kidnapped and executed. Look at the pictures of our soldiers hanging burned from the bridge at Fallujah. We don't lose the moral high ground by waterboarding these 3 douches. We treat these pieces of human trash better at Gitmo than we treat our own citizens in prisons accross America and yet we still have people crying for them. Your sympathy is horribly misplaced.

Trust me, I'm not playing the "poor them" card. I'm playing the "we're better than them" card. Big difference.

[foodcourtdruide]

if those queers cant take being water borded they shouldnt be terrorists. I volunteer to be water borded by any of you lady boys and I garauntee I wont cry like a pussy.

Wow, what a badass.

[epo]

Wow, what a badass.

He won't cry like a pussy. He will however tell us that he has a gigantic pussy.

[joeybadass]

fuck u I bet youre a real fairy.

[badmonkey]

If we waterboard, we are no better than them. That's why we shouldn't do it.

Fact: We waterboarded 3 terrorists.

Trust me, I'm not playing the "poor them" card. I'm playing the "we're better than them" card. Big difference.

You may not be playing the "poor them" card, but the face value of the card you just played says "we are no better than them".

Out of about 650 prisoners cycled through Gitmo, we have waterboarded three.

I can't find statistics on how many they tortured, beheaded, mutilated, blew up, etc. Apparently we are too busy tracking American atrocities for anybody to notice what the assholes we're fighting are doing anymore.

[Crispy123]

Fact: We have done it to more than 3 terrorists. (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/cia.waterboarding/index.html)

We dont do it because its illegal (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834).

A Punishable Offense

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

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. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.


I don't think anyone disputes that the Al'Qaida and Taliban are peices of shit.

[foodcourtdruide]

fuck u I bet youre a real fairy.

Are you talking to epo or badmonkey?

[cougarjake13]

use whatever means neccessary

[epo]

fuck u I bet youre a real fairy.

Actually sir, on this board while arguing like a child against a liberal you refer to them as a "socialist little faggot".

It reminds us of your lack of depth.

[foodcourtdruide]

Actually sir, on this board while arguing like a child against a liberal you refer to them as a "socialist little faggot".

It reminds us of your lack of depth.

Or you could call them stupid, mods won't care.

[johnnyangel]

Yes I think its Torture

Yes its acceptable in my eyes.

I don’t think we will ever really know if its been effective

Do we really have to concern ourselves with the rightness of it?

At some point in our society we went way wrong, caring to much about PC, being humane to our enemies, caring what the world thought. We are the only country to have nuked another and in my opinion should be carrying that around on our sleeve.

It’s funny, I mean remember the evening of 911, the day after, everyone in this country wanted to see blood, I’m sure we wanted to see babies burning in the streets of those responsible, we wanted to show the world how ugly we can be. We forgot that feeling. They didn’t forget their hate.

Then later we see the pics of those dudes on leashes being led around and were up in arms.
No I’ve never been water boarded and probably wouldn’t last 10 seconds but fuck what do we say next, fight our enemies but don’t kill them? Shoot them but only shoot to wound.

We can’t have it both ways

[TheMojoPin]

I don't think anyone disputes that the Al'Qaida and Taliban are peices of shit.

Doesn't matter. As you can see on this page of this thread people will still insist on reminding everyone how awful the terrorists are, as if anyone has forgotten or that it justifies the US' actions so long as they're not as bad as the terrorists'.

The thing that boggles my mind right now are people flipping out about imprisoning terrorists on US soil, as if these guys are supervillain masterminds that are likely to escape or can run their diabolical, James Bond villain-esque empires from inside of a supermax facility. It's the same terrified line of thought that gets people thinking like these guys "need" to be tortured like there's NO way that they'll crack otherwise.

[TheMojoPin]

I don’t think we will ever really know if its been effective

Why not?

[johnnyangel]

We wont know because will we never really see any infomration they have collected from interogations.

[Crispy123]

Doesn't matter. As you can see on this page of this thread people will still insist on reminding everyone how awful the terrorists are, as if anyone has forgotten or that it justifies the US' actions so long as they're not as bad as the terrorists'.

The thing that boggles my mind right now are people flipping out about imprisoning terrorists on US soil, as if these guys are supervillain masterminds that are likely to escape or can run their diabolical, James Bond villain-esque empires from inside of a supermax facility. It's the same terrified line of thought that gets people thinking like these guys "need" to be tortured like there's NO way that they'll crack otherwise.

I agree. These are not masterminds by a long shot. The reason we need to be on top of our government agencies and making them do shit the right way is because 9/11 wouldn't have even been an issue if the CIA and FBI were doing their jobs on 9/10.

The worst thing about it is the terrorists are winning. Bush has fucked this country with the Patriot Act and his Executive memos. Our economy has gone to shit over lining the pockets of the rich. That has been the Republican Administration's MO for the last 8 years, not national defence or 9/11 justice.

Osama has been on the loose since 9/11, not because hes an evil genius but because the Bush administration said fuck it we'll get Saddam instead.

If you ask me why am I upset about the actions of the US government, I would have to ask you why the hell your not.

[Recyclerz]

FBI Breaks Up Terrorist Plot IN NYC (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/4-arrested-in-new-york-terror-plot/?hp)

I'm sure the FBI got the information they needed for this excellent result by waterboarding the bastards ... ohh wait, they don't do that.

Kudos to the FBI and the other heroes that are really keeping us safe from these maniacs.
:thumbup:

[johnnyangel]

From the 1st WTC in 93 we didn’t learn our lesson.

Louis Freeh the NY FBI field Director told the Clinton administration that links went to Osama, Saddam and Saudi Arabia.

Now on a side note I miss Saddam, the world doesn’t have a evil dictator like Saddam at the moment and really we need someone to point the finger at.

Anyway the Clintons said there was no more state sponsored terrorism and thats that.

War and espionage are ugly. I have my own crazy theories as many of us do about 9/11 but as far as the torture thing goes I don’t really give a fuck if we torture our "enemies". Should we really give a fuck?

Right I know I know if we don’t watch the government then our freedom is next. So you think your free? Our freedoms have already been taken away

I would rather see us making a stink over homeless and hungry people or no health insurance then some motherfucker that’s been water boarded.

We should water board some execs here in this country.

[TheMojoPin]

We wont know because will we never really see any infomration they have collected from interogations.

But you've got the interrogators themselves saying that torture doesn't work.

[TheMojoPin]

From the 1st WTC in 93 we didn’t learn our lesson.

Louis Freeh the NY FBI field Director told the Clinton administration that links went to Osama, Saddam and Saudi Arabia.

Now on a side note I miss Saddam, the world doesn’t have a evil dictator like Saddam at the moment and really we need someone to point the finger at.

Anyway the Clintons said there was no more state sponsored terrorism and thats that.

War and espionage are ugly. I have my own crazy theories as many of us do about 9/11 but as far as the torture thing goes I don’t really give a fuck if we torture our "enemies". Should we really give a fuck?

Right I know I know if we don’t watch the government then our freedom is next. So you think your free? Our freedoms have already been taken away

I would rather see us making a stink over homeless and hungry people or no health insurance then some motherfucker that’s been water boarded.

We should water board some execs here in this country.

You're kind of all over the place here.

Most of us are against the US torturing people because we've agreed in the past not to do it, we've prosectured people for doing the same, it makes us look like hypocrites, lowers our standing on the international scene, turns more people and nations against us and it doesn't work. It has nothing to do with being "PC" or "our freedoms."

[conman823]

The thing that boggles my mind right now are people flipping out about imprisoning terrorists on US soil, as if these guys are supervillain masterminds that are likely to escape or can run their diabolical, James Bond villain-esque empires from inside of a supermax facility. It's the same terrified line of thought that gets people thinking like these guys "need" to be tortured like there's NO way that they'll crack otherwise.

Got to agree with that. I really wouldn't care if they jailed them next door to me. Its not like they are gonna get someone to break them out like its Arkham Asylum. The only thing about them being on US soil that bothers me is that we aren't processing most of them out. If there is a charge, "question" them, have the trial, serve the time then fucking deport them. Tax payer $$ is being spend to detain them without formal charges etc just so we can have fun Waterboarding them to tell us nothing of relevance. Even if you have a high ranking "leader" of a Terror Group, his information is worthless almost the next day as the cells keep moving and changing members.

As for the argument of "Well you release them and they go right back to the cells." Well we release Human Shit out of a jail in this country everyday that go right back out and Rape, murder and Molest again. Whats the difference?

[johnnyangel]

OK let me slow down a little


First when you say most of us are you talking about the people on this board or citizens?

Cause most of the people I talk to don’t really care if some terrorists gets tortured.

Because we’ve said its inhumane to torture people as a country so we shouldn’t do it? We put people to death here in the great ole USA. Take a look at what other countries have the death penalty, we are in great company. Up until what like 6 or 7 years ago we were one of I think 12 countries that put children to death.

Ok let me slow down again, you don’t think that alone is hypocrisy?

So why the fuck do we care about water boarding some motherfucker that given a chance would fly a plane into a building and kill thousands?

Because it’s inhumane because we’ve said so? We haven’t at times suspended American rights in the name of war? When at war I would think that those that play by the rules loose. We can’t worry about inhumane, how we look to other countries or for that matter even citizens here, that’s the effect of the PC.

We as a country get our information from biased sources on both sides, it’s all related in the much deeper sense, whether it’s how you feel about gay marriage, water boarding some terrorists, whatever. It goes on and on.
We should leave warfare and espionage to those that are in it daily, if they feel water boarding or making a motherfucker watch brady buch reruns till he breaks they know what they’re doing and should be left to do it without interference from ignorant citizens who think something is inhumane.
Again I’m sure the eve of 9/11 we all wanted to see torture live in CNN and would have been fucking cheering but once again we have forgotten the pain of yesterday and care about some inhumane bullshit

It all depends what side of the fence your sitting on weather right is right

[TheMojoPin]

OK let me slow down a little


First when you say most of us are you talking about the people on this board or citizens?

Cause most of the people I talk to don’t really care if some terrorists gets tortured.

Because we’ve said its inhumane to torture people as a country so we shouldn’t do it? We put people to death here in the great ole USA. Take a look at what other countries have the death penalty, we are in great company. Up until what like 6 or 7 years ago we were one of I think 12 countries that put children to death.

Ok let me slow down again, you don’t think that alone is hypocrisy?

Yes. I'm opposed to the death penalty, too. I hold my country to the higher standards we claim sets it apart from all other nations.

[TheMojoPin]

We should leave warfare and espionage to those that are in it daily, if they feel water boarding or making a motherfucker watch brady buch reruns till he breaks they know what they’re doing and should be left to do it without interference from ignorant citizens who think something is inhumane.

Again, it's the interrogators themselves who are saying that it doesn't work.

[johnnyangel]

Dude my beef isn’t whether it’s a tool that works or not, my beef is we shouldn’t as citizens be putting pressure on the people doing the dirt on how to do there dirt.

Were all Monday morning quarterbacks, if its ineffective than its ineffective. Like I said we don’t know, we will never see all the papers to know what they have gathered.

US citizens are placed in jail and convicted of crimes all the time who are innocent due to interrogations, but where are the bleeding hearts screaming on CNN or Fox or for that matter our commander in chief.

And there’s no water boarding involved. My point to it is I’m so tired of people bitching about non citizens while we get raped here every day.

[TheMojoPin]

Were all Monday morning quarterbacks, if its ineffective than its ineffective. Like I said we don’t know, we will never see all the papers to know what they have gathered.

Why do we need to see any "papers" when the very people gathering the information are saying they're not getting anything? We don't need to guess. We're being told by the people you're saying we're second guessing.

[keithy_19]

Why do we need to see any "papers" when the very people gathering the information are saying they're not getting anything? We don't need to guess. We're being told by the people you're saying we're second guessing.

WHERE ARE ZE PAPERS?!
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/docroot/dulcinea/fd_images/news/on-this-day/May-June-08/On-this-Day--Israel-Announces-Capture-of-Nazi-Leader-Adolf-Eichmann-/news/0/image.jpg

[sailor]

FBI Breaks Up Terrorist Plot IN NYC (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/4-arrested-in-new-york-terror-plot/?hp)

I'm sure the FBI got the information they needed for this excellent result by waterboarding the bastards ... ohh wait, they don't do that.

Kudos to the FBI and the other heroes that are really keeping us safe from these maniacs.
:thumbup:

just saw this here after i went and made it a thread of it's own.

[Mikemantis]

Torture- yes
Acceptable-Maybe
Effective- Yes

I am for it but, it is on intentions. are we torturing cause we enjoy it no. we are trying to get information from TERRORISTS, from Jihadists, from EVIL PEOPLE. Not a SOLDIER. a person who is hell bent on killing every american he can. If they may have information, or they are a key player in the group it may be necessary.

If it could stop attacks you wouldn't want to stop it. You wouldn't stop pearl harbor, 9/11, Holocaust. I am not saying go back and change history. but there are some things if we could prevent we should

[TheMojoPin]

How can anyone still vote "effective?' The interrogators themselves are saying it simply does not work when it comes to getting good intel. What is up with this continued delusion? Who else needs to come forward and explicitly say, "this doesn't work as an interrogation tactic" for people to grasp that?

[TheMojoPin]

we are trying to get information from TERRORISTS, from Jihadists, from EVIL PEOPLE. Not a SOLDIER. a person who is hell bent on killing every american he can. If they may have information, or they are a key player in the group it may be necessary.

Why do we keep acting like these guys are comic book supervillains? They're just as succeptable to the same standard interrogation and investigation tactics as anyone else.

[Death Metal Moe]

Why do we keep acting like these guys are comic book supervillains? They're just as succeptable to the same standard interrogation and investigation tactics as anyone else.

Because Rush beat it into their heads and O'Reiley backed it up at night.

[shortchaz]

the people we ask to gather information are the only ones that should be talking. clearly they think its effective or they wouldnt do it. is it torture? of course it can be defined as that, the word has a very broad definition. to say "we dont torture" is silly because we do things like sleep deprivation, and playing loud music that could also be defined as torture. if the people we ask to gather information say they need it then we should let them have it because it falls in a gray area.

[TheMojoPin]

the people we ask to gather information are the only ones that should be talking. clearly they think its effective or they wouldnt do it.

Oh my good God.

If they think it's effective, why are they saying the exact opposite?

if the people we ask to gather information say they need it then we should let them have it because it falls in a gray area.

They're the ones saying that it doesn't work.

[Death Metal Moe]

the people we ask to gather information are the only ones that should be talking. clearly they think its effective or they wouldnt do it. is it torture? of course it can be defined as that, the word has a very broad definition. to say "we dont torture" is silly because we do things like sleep deprivation, and playing loud music that could also be defined as torture. if the people we ask to gather information say they need it then we should let them have it because it falls in a gray area.

That's kinda the point. Some of the interrogators did say it wasn't as effective as other methods, but for some reason we have a bloodthirsty public howling for the blood of "someone."

[Drunky McBetidont]

That's kinda the point. Some of the interrogators did say it wasn't as effective as other methods, but for some reason we have a bloodthirsty public howling for the blood of "someone."

blood of christ every sunday morning. fucking vampire christians.

[Death Metal Moe]

blood of christ every sunday morning. fucking vampire christians.

Or Willie Nelson

http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/780/780474/aqua-teen-hunger-force-20070413005544179.jpg

JUICE!!!!!!!

[Drunky McBetidont]

angrymissy, betidont, biozombie, Brad_Rush, DarkHippie, Donnie Iris, Rube, SatCam, who6489, Yosammity
10 10.10%
see

[epo]

Or Willie Nelson

http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/780/780474/aqua-teen-hunger-force-20070413005544179.jpg

JUICE!!!!!!!

And yet they still send him bills!

[shortchaz]

Oh my good God.

If they think it's effective, why are they saying the exact opposite?



They're the ones saying that it doesn't work.i dont think "they" speak with one voice on the matter either way, but that is something that should be handled by them, they are the experts, not us. its obviously not as clear cut as either side is trying to make it.

[shortchaz]

That's kinda the point. Some of the interrogators did say it wasn't as effective as other methods, but for some reason we have a bloodthirsty public howling for the blood of "someone."
the people who are against it are more vocal about it, thats for sure, its a hard thing to be very supportive of because it makes you look psycho. i think its something for that community to decide, not the public. maybe it should be left to the individual interrogator, maybe it should be handled case to case, who knows what the protocol/history of it is. thats why the people who have all the information should make the decision, not the fickle public.

[TheMojoPin]

i dont think "they" speak with one voice on the matter either way, but that is something that should be handled by them, they are the experts, not us. its obviously not as clear cut as either side is trying to make it.

What sides? We're talking about the interrogators.

They say it doesn't work. Law enforcement agencies on all levels say it doesn't work. Military officials say it doesn't work.

This really isn't a partisan issue when you get down to it. The majority of people in the fields who have the most use for torture seem to be saying it does not work.

[rick9669]

Would you eat aids dooty to save your family...well?

[rick9669]

And watch a film called slandered operating procedger

[shortchaz]

What sides? We're talking about the interrogators.

They say it doesn't work. Law enforcement agencies on all levels say it doesn't work. Military officials say it doesn't work.

This really isn't a partisan issue when you get down to it. The majority of people in the fields who have the most use for torture seem to be saying it does not work.so they are being made to do something that isnt effective just because? that doesnt make sense, you would think that if it wasnt effective it would of already been eliminated as an option. you would think at that level the interrogators would have some say in what methods they find most effective.

[epo]

so they are being made to do something that isnt effective just because? that doesnt make sense, you would think that if it wasnt effective it would of already been eliminated as an option. you would think at that level the interrogators would have some say in what methods they find most effective.

Or maybe we dig a little deeper? Maybe our government used waterboarding to get "results" that we wanted?

Understanding that our government used information to get information before the Iraq War that was used to sell the Iraq War, maybe just maybe....our government used waterboarding information that they knew was bullshit to sell in something that was bullshit.

The ends and the means........

[Recyclerz]

so they are being made to do something that isnt effective just because? that doesnt make sense, you would think that if it wasnt effective it would of already been eliminated as an option. you would think at that level the interrogators would have some say in what methods they find most effective.


Or maybe we dig a little deeper? Maybe our government used waterboarding to get "results" that we wanted?

Understanding that our government used information to get information before the Iraq War that was used to sell the Iraq War, maybe just maybe....our government used waterboarding information that they knew was bullshit to sell in something that was bullshit.

The ends and the means........

David Brooks made some interesting points in the NY Times on Friday. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1) Bush's Administration quietly backed away from some of the more egregious interogation techniques during their second term as W started siding with the less Crazies (eg. Condi Rice) as the Iraq War went badly following the Cheney/Rumsfeld "plan". If waterboarding was so effective, why did W walk away from it?

Several sources have alleged that orders (from Cheney's office) to step up the interrogations of the three al-Qaeda types came as W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. were looking for convincing data to get support behind invading Iraq (and an Iraq-9/11 connection was the Holy Grail they were searching for).

Cheney is a desperate old man on a quixotic mission to convince the public that he is the heroic defender of the nation that he sees himself as rather than let the current view of him stand = that he isn't half as wise as he thinks he is and allowed himself and W to get bumrushed by a gang of Islamic sociopaths after 9/11 into a series of strategic mistakes that we will spend a generation fixing. It's interesting that his backers seem to only consist of his family, the remaining Neo-Cons who still want to invade Iran and those right-wing entertainers (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.) who make an excellent living by ginning up political controversies and ad hominem attacks against whoever points out that they're not wearing any clothes.

[TheMojoPin]

so they are being made to do something that isnt effective just because? that doesnt make sense, you would think that if it wasnt effective it would of already been eliminated as an option. you would think at that level the interrogators would have some say in what methods they find most effective.

Sure they do, hence why it's not always used. And the end of the day, however, they're not in charge.

[Zorro]

How can anyone still vote "effective?' The interrogators themselves are saying it simply does not work when it comes to getting good intel. What is up with this continued delusion? Who else needs to come forward and explicitly say, "this doesn't work as an interrogation tactic" for people to grasp that?

This "continued delusion" is the result of the selective releasing of information. Some intelligence guys say it works and some say it doesn't. Some say it provides a tactical advantage, but fucks up long term goals. I'll reserve judgement. After all, the information released has been selective...so you're making decisions without the facts and trying to get everyone else on the uniformed bus with you.

[TheMojoPin]

This "continued delusion" is the result of the selective releasing of information. Some intelligence guys say it works and some say it doesn't. Some say it provides a tactical advantage, but fucks up long term goals. I'll reserve judgement. After all, the information released has been selective...so you're making decisions without the facts and trying to get everyone else on the uniformed bus with you.

This is just another cop-out to justify a pointless and useless interrogation tactic. It's not just intelligence officials saying it doesn't work. You've got military invesitogators and higher-ups saying it doesn't work. You've got various law enforcement and government agencies saying it doesn't work. You've got numerous intensive studies showing that it doesn't work. The evidence and testimony that it does not work far outweighs any claims that it does. Claiming that it's a "murky issue" is only possible if you ignore the flood of information showing that it does not work when it comes to gathering usable intelligence.

[shortchaz]

Sure they do, hence why it's not always used. And the end of the day, however, they're not in charge.
it may not always be used because what works is subjective, and maybe so to is each case. at the end of the day it seems like we're doing a bunch of guess work, thats why the community needs to handle it internally, imo.

[TheMojoPin]

it may not always be used because what works is subjective, and maybe so to is each case. at the end of the day it seems like we're doing a bunch of guess work, thats why the community needs to handle it internally, imo.

Or it's being done with little effort being made at actual interrogation. Or suggestions are being overruled from above.

Ultimately it makes little sense to think all of the people who have spoken out against it in the intelligence, law enforcement and military sectors don't know what they're talking about since they're the ones on the interrogation "frontlines." Unfortunately, as with any other organization, they're probably running up against stubborn higher-ups who think otherwise. The endorsements of torture and the orders to do so seem to be coming from people who aren't versed in interrogation.

[shortchaz]

Or it's being done with little effort being made at actual interrogation. Or suggestions are being overruled from above.

Ultimately it makes little sense to think all of the people who have spoken out against it in the intelligence, law enforcement and military sectors don't know what they're talking about since they're the ones on the interrogation "frontlines." Unfortunately, as with any other organization, they're probably running up against stubborn higher-ups who think otherwise. The endorsements of torture and the orders to do so seem to be coming from people who aren't versed in interrogation.no one has said that their pov is invalid, just that they are not 100% correct, and that there needs to be a discussion on policy, but the discussion needs to be had by the people who are better suited to make it. there is a reason the practice is in place, and it shouldnt be removed without proper reason. im sure that there is a procedure for things like this, and i doubt very highly that any of them involve "public opinion"

[TheMojoPin]

no one has said that their pov is invalid, just that they are not 100% correct, and that there needs to be a discussion on policy, but the discussion needs to be had by the people who are better suited to make it. there is a reason the practice is in place, and it shouldnt be removed without proper reason. im sure that there is a procedure for things like this, and i doubt very highly that any of them involve "public opinion"

Wait, so you're basically saying that the public shouldn't know about these things, nor should we discuss it or voice our opinions?

Again, you keep talking about this as if many of the people most in the know aren't making their positions abundantly clear. The "professional" opinion on torture is well into the corner of being against it due to it being ineffective.

[shortchaz]

Wait, so you're basically saying that the public shouldn't know about these things, nor should we discuss it or voice our opinions?

Again, you keep talking about this as if the people most in the know aren't making their positions abundantly clear.at no point did i say that, i just think its a bad idea to let the public dictate policy based on emotion. these practices were in place for a long time, and they may very well need to be changed. let the people who do that do their job without the burden of public opinion (often an ignorant public) swaying their vote.

like i said earlier; supporting water boarding as an effective form of interrogation isnt something people who live private lives want to publicly back do to all the emotion that goes along with the topic. there are plenty of reasons why you dont see people supporting it, that doesnt mean it is/isnt effective.

[TheMojoPin]

at no point did i say that, i just think its a bad idea to let the public dictate policy based on emotion.

This isn't about emotion. Again, it's about information from people in the know.

these practices were in place for a long time, and they may very well need to be changed.

A long time?

let the people who do that do their job without the burden of public opinion (often an ignorant public) swaying their vote.

That's a ridiculous expectation. We're a democratic republic. Public influence has helped shape policy since day one.

like i said earlier; supporting water boarding as an effective form of interrogation isnt something people who live private lives want to publicly back do to all the emotion that goes along with the topic. there are plenty of reasons why you dont see people supporting it, that doesnt mean it is/isnt effective.

You're spinning this. You're trying to say any oposition is driven by emotion, and that's not the case. Wanting something stopped because it is ineffective and causes more hamr than good is being practical and sensible. Not everyone who is opposed to this is doing so simply based on some kneejerk "TORTURE IS BAD" reaction. You're also attamepting to support your argument with a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence in the face of an opposing view with excessive evidence means that that first perspective is weak and ill-supported. You're trying to get around that by chalking everything up to emotion or seemingly implying that the truth is hidden.

[shortchaz]

This isn't about emotion. Again, it's about information from people in the know.
some of the people in the know

That's a ridiculous expectation. We're a democratic republic. Public influence has helped shape policy since day one.
thats a good thing only if the public is educated, and has all the information, which isnt the case. you want the public deciding the cia/fbi policy on interrogation?


You're spinning this. You're trying to say any oposition is driven by emotion, and that's not the case. Wanting something stopped because it is ineffective and causes more hamr than good is being practical and sensible. Not everyone who is opposed to this is doing so simply based on some kneejerk "TORTURE IS BAD" reaction. You're also attamepting to support your argument with a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence in the face of an opposing view with excessive evidence means that that first perspective is weak and ill-supported. You're trying to get around that by chalking everything up to emotion or seemingly implying that the truth is hidden.i'm spinning this? you are only presenting one side of the argument, but i'm spinning? what a strange thing for you to say.

i didnt make the case for either side, im making a case for having a process that isnt influenced by having biased douche bags on both sides of the argument screaming at each other on television, then having the public form their opinion based on that.

im saying that it is in practice is an argument for it, and that should stand for something, or at least that all people in the know arent against it . im saying maybe the argument that supports having this in practice isnt "something interrogators are being forced to do against their will, even though they all know it doesnt work".

[The Happening]

Obama handled the waterboarding issue poorly on a few counts. For one, he should have simply said that waterboarding doesn't/hasn't happened as much as it's been made out to have happened. The notion of it is overblown. American as a country will not waterboard terrorist, because we are above it. Now is some of that false? Sure. But you have to keep a certain front. Their is no need to call out CIA agents, or have a memo that contains past deeds(deeds that were done to ensure our safety). Obama in a way sold out his own people, for the sake of his own popularity. Obama should have said the whole "we will not waterboard terrorist" while simultaneously winking at CIA agents. That's how this should have been handled. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. But what you don't do is tell people that you're going to do it.

As for people who think they are "in the know" as to if waterboarding works or not: Stop it! You don't have an inside scoop. Their are alot of wacko's in alot of different countries, yet American's have remained relatively safe for the past few years. Do you think that's by accident? Some of you simply take that for granted!

[TheMojoPin]

some of the people in the know

So what's stopping the "other side" from just coming out and saying that it works and being able to argue that at all? They're not even doing that at anywhere near the number of insiders and professionals who are explaining why it does not work.

thats a good thing only if the public is educated, and has all the information, which isnt the case. you want the public deciding the cia/fbi policy on interrogation?

I've never said the public should decide policy. What I am saying is that public opinion does and should INFLUENCE policy.

i'm spinning this? you are only presenting one side of the argument, but i'm spinning? what a strange thing for you to say.

I'm presenting the side that has a case. The other side doesn't have a case. They're not "hiding" their arguments. They don't have anything that trumps the insiders explaining how it doesn't work. There's almost no opposing side to present.

i didnt make the case for either side, im making a case for having a process that isnt influenced by having biased douche bags on both sides of the argument screaming at each other on television, then having the public form their opinion based on that.

And yet again, this has zero to do with pundits and everything to do with intelligence officers, military officials and law enforcement agencies saying that it does not work.

im saying that it is in practice is an argument for it, and that should stand for something, or at least that all people in the know arent against it .

So because something is done at some point, it must be justified or valid? If that were the case, the concept of the mistake wouldn't even exist.

im saying maybe the argument that supports having this in practice isnt "something interrogators are being forced to do against their will, even though they all know it doesnt work".

That's a willfully overly simplistic view as to how government and military bureaucracy works. The average interrogator isn't in a position to refuse to allow someone to be tortured if it's being ordered from higher up.

[shortchaz]

I'm presenting the side that has a case. The other side doesn't have a case. They're not "hiding" their arguments. They don't have anything that trumps the insiders explaining how it doesn't work. There's almost no opposing side to present.really?

then why are we talking? if the issue wasnt up for debate, then it should've already been changed, clearly there is an argument to support its existence.

And yet again, this has zero to do with pundits and everything to do with intelligence officers, military officials and law enforcement agencies saying that it does not workwhy do you keep saying this like its the only side of the argument? are you saying that 100% of the people are against it, but its still policy "just because?"

So because something is done at some point, it must be justified or valid? If that were the case, the concept of the mistake wouldn't even exist. no, im saying that there must be an argument to support it, and whether its a mistake or not shouldnt be decided by human testimonial alone, and that all the facts should be present when making the decision.

your logic also suggest that you may be fighting for a mistake, just fyi.

That's a willfully overly simplistic view as to how government and military bureaucracy works. The average interrogator isn't in a position to refuse to allow someone to be tortured if it's being ordered from higher up the quote was a representation of your argument, "willfully overly simplistic" was my thought as well. most of the people who are "higher up" were once themselves interrogators, and probably also have knowledge on the subject.

i neither support, or reject water boarding, i'm simply calling for a process that doesnt involve public opinion on the matter, until we get a clear answer on whether or not its something they want.

[TheMojoPin]

really?

then why are we talking? if the issue wasnt up for debate, then it should've already been changed, clearly there is an argument to support its existence.

The absence of a supportive, backed up argument in favor of the practice is obviously not support of its use.

why do you keep saying this like its the only side of the argument? are you saying that 100% of the people are against it, but its still policy "just because?"

I didn't say that it's the only side. What I am saying is only one side has scores of people in the know saying that it doesn't work and explaining why it doesn't work. Only one side has an overwhelming well-argued case.

no, im saying that there must be an argument to support it, and whether its a mistake or not shouldnt be decided by human testimonial alone, and that all the facts should be present when making the decision.

What facts are not present? The argument in support is not present because it's a faulty argument at this point that has next to nothing to back it up. You can't force a crappy argument to become a sound one.

your logic also suggest that you may be fighting for a mistake, just fyi.

the quote was a representation of your argument, "willfully overly simplistic" was my thought as well. most of the people who are "higher up" were once themselves interrogators, and probably also have knowledge on the subject.

The bolded statement is completely incorrect. Government and military officials have, by and large, not worked in most of the positions they have command over or necessarily have direct knowledge or experience in all fields under their command. I don't see how you think this is a realistic expectation at all. People make bad and uninformed decisions all the time. It's very natural for people to think that torture can work or "maybe if we do just this little bit more they'll crack" and so on.

i neither support, or reject water boarding, i'm simply calling for a process that doesnt involve public opinion on the matter, until we get a clear answer on whether or not its something they want.

You're the one that public opinion into this. That's a moot strawman. I keep saying look to the opinions of the experts and you keep bringing up public opinion.

[shortchaz]

dude, seriously, a strawman? at least learn what it means.

you are saying that "something" is 100% wrong; based on the testimonial of a relatively small amount of "experts" then youre saying my argument for a better system of judging "something" is "spin". not only that, you keep saying that i provide 0 evidence, which is true, but then you base your argument on testimonial.

i'm calling for a more accurate, "scientific method" account, and youre trying to use scientific language to dismiss me? really?:thumbdown:

lets get all the information out, then decide. better yet; lets have the people that handle this do it themselves....

[TheMojoPin]

dude, seriously, a strawman? at least learn what it means.

I know exactly what it means. Continually bringing up an unrelated point that has little to no bearing on the ongoing discussion is a strawman. You created the "public opinion" issue despite how nobody here was hinging their points on anything along those lines.

you are saying that "something" is 100% wrong; based on the testimonial of a relatively small amount of "experts" then youre saying my argument for a better system of judging "something" is "spin". not only that, you keep saying that i provide 0 evidence, which is true, but then you base your argument on testimonial.

I've never said anything is 100% right or wrong. You are again inventing talking points. What I have said repeatedly is that one said has right now overwhelmingly more support and evidence based on the sheer number of people who have had experience with torture and "ehanced interrogation" explaining how and why it does not work. You keep dismissing that as if it's essentially meaningless, but who should we expect better perspectives from on the topic since they're the ones who right there dealing with comes of it?

i'm calling for a more accurate, "scientific method" account, and youre trying to use scientific language to dismiss me? really?:thumbdown:

It's also not difficult to find numerous extensive studies showing how torture does not work when it comes to gethering usable intelligence. You keep talking like this is some unknown field of study that few people have knowledge of.

lets get all the information out, then decide. better yet; lets have the people that handle this do it themselves....

There's a derth of information available. I don't know why you insist on approaching this like we're in the dark on the subject. The long and short of it is that you seem to want to throw out the whole debate because it's so lopsided since most of the information supports one side. The debate doesn't have to be fair. If one side can't be argued, that's because it's faulty and lacks the evidence to support it.

[shortchaz]

I know exactly what it means. Continually bringing up an unrelated point that has little to no bearing on the ongoing discussion is a strawman. You created the "public opinion" issue despite how nobody here was hinging their points on anything along those lines.
im suggesting that the public is having the debate, represented by this thread, and they dont have enough information to make a proper opinion. if my whole point is that the process should leave out public opinion, it would seem that the "public opinion issue" is germane.


I've never said anything is 100% right or wrong. You are again inventing talking points. What I have said repeatedly is that one said has right now overwhelmingly more support and evidence based on the sheer number of people who have had experience with torture and "ehanced interrogation" explaining how and why it does not work. You keep dismissing that as if it's essentially meaningless, but who should we expect better perspectives from on the topic since they're the ones who right there dealing with comes of it?no, i dont think its meaningless, i said that there is an opposing view that might not be represented very well for the public, for many possible reasons. in the end the decision should be made by by people who hear both sides of the argument.



It's also not difficult to find numerous extensive studies showing how torture does not work when it comes to gethering usable intelligence. You keep talking like this is some unknown field of study that few people have knowledge of.you assume that everyone agrees that this is torture, i'm not saying its not, i'm suggesting that someone could make an argument for using it if they found the interrogators needed it/wanted it. if they dont then get rid of it.


There's a derth of information available. I don't know why you insist on approaching this like we're in the dark on the subject. The long and short of it is that you seem to want to throw out the whole debate because it's so lopsided since most of the information supports one side. The debate doesn't have to be fair. If one side can't be argued, that's because it's faulty and lacks the evidence to support it.i dont want to throw out the debate, i want it to be has in the proper forum, and to leave public opinion out of it.

i dont really care enough about this issue to keep going on and on about it, and repeating myself over and over. you clearly think you have all the information to have a well formed opinion, and thats your right, i just dont think its as clear cut as everyone (on both sides) is trying to make it, and that we should leave it to the experts to decide what they want/need.

[TheMojoPin]

im suggesting that the public is having the debate, represented by this thread, and they dont have enough information to make a proper opinion. if my whole point is that the process should leave out public opinion, it would seem that the "public opinion issue" is germane.

Why don't they have enough information? There's an abundant amount of information available. I do not understand why you continually insist that this is a topic where people cannot be informed.

no, i dont think its meaningless, i said that there is an opposing view that might not be represented very well for the public, for many possible reasons. in the end the decision should be made by by people who hear both sides of the argument.

Again, you keep talking about public opinion as if it holds sway over every policy decision. It can obviously influence them, but it is not the overwhelming factor. People are going to discuss and express their opinions on the issues of the day. Some will be informed, some will not. At the end, it's irrelevant since they have no say over any final decisions. You keep trying to swerve this topic to the public debate on the issue as if that's some kind of disservice and the bigger concern here. You also keep explaining away the lack of evidence for the "it works" side as that their trumping evidence is purposely being withehld or hidden away. Again, we're not talking about a debate where the opposing viewpoints are almost seeing eye to eye. One side is stomping all over the other in terms of expert analysis and testimony. It's not realistic to think that the other side doesn't have the same because similar experts are just being demure or secretive. It's a legitimate lack of evidence.

you assume that everyone agrees that this is torture, i'm not saying its not, i'm suggesting that someone could make an argument for using it if they found the interrogators needed it/wanted it. if they dont then get rid of it.

But there's no need to make that argument since the interrogation experts are, by and large, saying that it does not work. Nobody can make the successful argument thus far that it is needed.

i dont want to throw out the debate, i want it to be has in the proper forum, and to leave public opinion out of it.

It's an international issue. It's impossible to remove public opinion. People are going to want to discuss it.

i dont really care enough about this issue to keep going on and on about it, and repeating myself over and over. you clearly think you have all the information to have a well formed opinion, and thats your right, i just dont think its as clear cut as everyone (on both sides) is trying to make it, and that we should leave it to the experts to decide what they want/need.

Yet again, I haven't said that I have all the information. You're the one that keeps claiming that I'm saying I have "all" or "100%" of the information, and I've never said such a thing. What I have repeatedly said is that based on the information available, it's overwhelmingly on the side of showing that torture fails as an interrogation tactic. That doesn't mean all of it is, or that there's no significant evidence that will come forward to support its use. As it stands right now, however, no such evidence has come forward and there's really no reason to assume it's out there if there's not even a hint of it. There's nothing stopping a similar number of experts to even just say, "it works" without going into details.

[badmonkey]

Why don't they have enough information? There's an abundant amount of information available. I do not understand why you continually insist that this is a topic where people cannot be informed.



Again, you keep talking about public opinion as if it holds sway over every policy decision. It can obviously influence them, but it is not the overwhelming factor. People are going to discuss and express their opinions on the issues of the day. Some will be informed, some will not. At the end, it's irrelevant since they have no say over any final decisions. You keep trying to swerve this topic to the public debate on the issue as if that's some kind of disservice and the bigger concern here. You also keep explaining away the lack of evidence for the "it works" side as that their trumping evidence is purposely being withehld or hidden away. Again, we're not talking about a debate where the opposing viewpoints are almost seeing eye to eye. One side is stomping all over the other in terms of expert analysis and testimony. It's not realistic to think that the other side doesn't have the same because similar experts are just being demure or secretive. It's a legitimate lack of evidence.



But there's no need to make that argument since the interrogation experts are, by and large, saying that it does not work. Nobody can make the successful argument thus far that it is needed.



It's an international issue. It's impossible to remove public opinion. People are going to want to discuss it.



Yet again, I haven't said that I have all the information. You're the one that keeps claiming that I'm saying I have "all" or "100%" of the information, and I've never said such a thing. What I have repeatedly said is that based on the information available, it's overwhelmingly on the side of showing that torture fails as an interrogation tactic. That doesn't mean all of it is, or that there's no significant evidence that will come forward to support its use. As it stands right now, however, no such evidence has come forward and there's really no reason to assume it's out there if there's not even a hint of it. There's nothing stopping a similar number of experts to even just say, "it works" without going into details.

Former CIA Interrogator says "it works" and goes into details.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA interrogator, went public with the story of how U.S. officials dealt with Abu Zubaydah, the logistical chief of al Qaeda and a top planner of Sept. 11 (http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html)

[foodcourtdruide]

Former CIA Interrogator says "it works" and goes into details.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA interrogator, went public with the story of how U.S. officials dealt with Abu Zubaydah, the logistical chief of al Qaeda and a top planner of Sept. 11 (http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html)

For what it's worth, here's an update ABC put on their original story:

UPDATE: U.S. Government documents released in April 2009 indicate that Kiriakou's account that Abu Zubaydah broke after only one water boarding session was incorrect. According to a footnote in newly released, previously classified "Top Secret" memos, the CIA used the water board "at least 83 times during August 2002 in the interrogation of Zubaydah."

Following the release of the documents, Kiriakou said: "When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=5

[TheMojoPin]

For what it's worth, here's an update ABC put on their original story:

UPDATE: U.S. Government documents released in April 2009 indicate that Kiriakou's account that Abu Zubaydah broke after only one water boarding session was incorrect. According to a footnote in newly released, previously classified "Top Secret" memos, the CIA used the water board "at least 83 times during August 2002 in the interrogation of Zubaydah."

Following the release of the documents, Kiriakou said: "When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=5

Exactly. The guys saying it does not work are largely the interrogators themselves. That's what lends that conclusion so much weight at this point in time.

[badmonkey]

I'm sure there are other ways to get the information... some better, some worse. If waterboarding works, then waterboard the shit out of them. If it doesn't then do whatever works and get the information. I have no problems sleeping at night with the knowledge that these guys were waterboarded and neither should anybody else.

BTW: The CIA took waterboarding off their list of interrogation techniques before 2005, long before Obama took office. Obama's "ban" on torture was largely symbolic as it had already been policy for over 2 years before he was even elected. In other words, it was not necessary for him to throw CIA interrogators under the bus at all. We simply are not using this technique any longer and even when we WERE, it was a rare occasion and was only used on THREE terrorists.

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html)

If you think waterboarding is bad, you should read about extraordinary rendition (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html) under Clinton.
Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. 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."

The only reason this is being pursued at all is because of the possibility of prosecuting somebody from the Bush administration, if not maybe even George W. Bush himself, for war crimes. That will play nicely at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and apparently here at ronfez.net

[underdog]

Former CIA Interrogator says "it works" and goes into details.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA interrogator, went public with the story of how U.S. officials dealt with Abu Zubaydah, the logistical chief of al Qaeda and a top planner of Sept. 11 (http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html)

For what it's worth, here's an update ABC put on their original story:

UPDATE: U.S. Government documents released in April 2009 indicate that Kiriakou's account that Abu Zubaydah broke after only one water boarding session was incorrect. According to a footnote in newly released, previously classified "Top Secret" memos, the CIA used the water board "at least 83 times during August 2002 in the interrogation of Zubaydah."

Following the release of the documents, Kiriakou said: "When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=5

FACE

[badmonkey]

FACE

ass

[underdog]

FACE

ass

feet

[foodcourtdruide]

I'm sure there are other ways to get the information... some better, some worse. If waterboarding works, then waterboard the shit out of them. If it doesn't then do whatever works and get the information. I have no problems sleeping at night with the knowledge that these guys were waterboarded and neither should anybody else.


I don't think I agree with this because you are running under the assumption that everyone that will be/has been waterboarded is guilty of something. I have problems sleeping at night thinking an innocent person could be waterboarded and tortured based on a false accusation. Would I feel an overwhelming sense of guilt if Osama Bin Laden was waterboarded? Of course not. But unfortunately, the approval of the use of waterboarding will effect the falsely accused, as well as the justly accused.

[badmonkey]

For what it's worth, here's an update ABC put on their original story:

UPDATE: U.S. Government documents released in April 2009 indicate that Kiriakou's account that Abu Zubaydah broke after only one water boarding session was incorrect. According to a footnote in newly released, previously classified "Top Secret" memos, the CIA used the water board "at least 83 times during August 2002 in the interrogation of Zubaydah."

Following the release of the documents, Kiriakou said: "When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=5

So they waterboarded him 83 times and THEN it worked revealing information related to a planned terrorist attack. So it works. Doesn't always work fast.

[badmonkey]

I don't think I agree with this because you are running under the assumption that everyone that will be/has been waterboarded is guilty of something. I have problems sleeping at night thinking an innocent person could be waterboarded and tortured based on a false accusation. Would I feel an overwhelming sense of guilt if Osama Bin Laden was waterboarded? Of course not. But unfortunately, the approval of the use of waterboarding will effect the falsely accused, as well as the justly accused.

We've had over 650 people go through Gitmo and three of there were waterboarded. They are obviously not waterboarding innocents accidentally. Sleep. Nobody is being waterboarded anymore at all and the ones that were deserved it. They probably have plenty of information from the "good techniques" to back up their decision to waterboard those three.

These guys aren't just picking up people off the street based on loose evidence and waterboarding them til they confess to masterminding 9/11.

[foodcourtdruide]

We've had over 650 people go through Gitmo and three of there were waterboarded. They are obviously not waterboarding innocents accidentally. Sleep. Nobody is being waterboarded anymore at all and the ones that were deserved it. They probably have plenty of information from the "good techniques" to back up their decision to waterboard those three.

I understand, but if it was more widely and liberally used it would undoubtedly eventually be used on an innocent person.

[TheMojoPin]

The only reason this is being pursued at all is because of the possibility of prosecuting somebody from the Bush administration, if not maybe even George W. Bush himself, for war crimes. That will play nicely at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and apparently here at ronfez.net

I don't give a damn about prosecuting anyone. I just don't want them to lazily resort to torture since it doesn't make us any safer.

[TheMojoPin]

So they waterboarded him 83 times and THEN it worked revealing information related to a planned terrorist attack. So it works. Doesn't always work fast.

If it takes 83 times to "work" then it's a failed interrogation technique. That's taking way too long and odds are if that wasted time was spent with more actual interrogation and investigation then information would have been found sooner. What's also not mentioned in the report is whether or not he simply confirmed information that had already been discovered, which is one of the main problems with thinking torture will reveal more info.

[wehitandrun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muPliLpTSb8

Damn, ronfez.net is difficult with the youtube encoding.

I'd consider it torture. Simulated drowning, plus I've done it.

[badmonkey]

I understand, but if it was more widely and liberally used it would undoubtedly eventually be used on an innocent person.

That's the whole point. The other stuff works on most people, but you do have the occasional extreme case. When somebody has time sensitive information about a terror plot that you need yesterday, you can't sit around building up a rapport. I'm not saying necessarily that waterboarding is the answer because I don't know what is the answer. I doubt the Army Field Manual is the answer. I expect that the people in the CIA will determine that answer and do their jobs and get the information.

[badmonkey]

If it takes 83 times to "work" then it's a failed interrogation technique. That's taking way too long and odds are if that wasted time was spent with more actual interrogation and investigation then information would have been found sooner. What's also not mentioned in the report is whether or not he simply confirmed information that had already been discovered, which is one of the main problems with thinking torture will reveal more info.

It says "he revealed", not "he confirmed."

[badmonkey]

I don't give a damn about prosecuting anyone. I just don't want them to lazily resort to torture since it doesn't make us any safer.

You do understand that we don't use this technique anymore and we only used it on 3 people right? You sound like it's something that we're doing everyday to everybody at Gitmo and we have to stop it now or something.

[The Jays]

That's the whole point. The other stuff works on most people, but you do have the occasional extreme case. When somebody has time sensitive information about a terror plot that you need yesterday, you can't sit around building up a rapport. I'm not saying necessarily that waterboarding is the answer because I don't know what is the answer. I doubt the Army Field Manual is the answer. I expect that the people in the CIA will determine that answer and do their jobs and get the information.

You can't torture because the person being tortured wants to tell you want he think you want to hear in order to get you to stop. That's not reliable information, and will waste resources, money, and put lives in danger if they act on information that is not credible.

[badmonkey]

You can't torture because the person being tortured wants to tell you want he think you want to hear in order to get you to stop. That's not reliable information, and will waste resources, money, and put lives in danger if they act on information that is not credible.

"The Senate Armed Services Committee report concludes that harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA and the U.S. military were directly adapted from the training techniques used to prepare special forces personnel to resist interrogation by enemies that torture and abuse prisoners. The techniques included forced nudity, painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, and until 2003, waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning."

We no longer waterboard. You can put your sword away Don Quixote, the windmill is dead.

[TripleSkeet]

This "continued delusion" is the result of the selective releasing of information. Some intelligence guys say it works and some say it doesn't. Some say it provides a tactical advantage, but fucks up long term goals. I'll reserve judgement. After all, the information released has been selective...so you're making decisions without the facts and trying to get everyone else on the uniformed bus with you.

I cant understand how a country that claims to be the "good guys" can condone using the SAME FUCKING TACTICS as the "bad guys". Doesnt that also make you the fucking bad guys???? Fucking retarded.

[The Jays]

We no longer waterboard. You can put your sword away Don Quixote, the windmill is dead.

I'm glad that we no longer waterboard, but since we did, we need to get to the bottom of who authorized it, because torture is illegal and any information used from those interrogations put US citizens lives at risk.

[badmonkey]

I cant understand how a country that claims to be the "good guys" can condone using the SAME FUCKING TACTICS as the "bad guys". Doesnt that also make you the fucking bad guys???? Fucking retarded.

This is what the "bad guys" do.

Al-Qaeda Torture Vs. CIA Interrogation Methods (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/439225/alqaeda_torture_vs_cia_interrogation.html?cat=9)
In one such raid, several civilians, including a child, were found in the midst of torture, which included whippings, beatings with cables, and skin incineration with blowtorches.

there are several recommended tactics for torturing a victim - none of which are necessarily intended to extract confessions, simply to extol pain and punishment. Among the first things a reader is introduced to is the advice to use a power drill on the victim's hands. Another is to simply cut the hand off.

ther recommendations include tying the victim to a car and dragging them, or using a scalpel to slice out his eyeball. If this doesn't achieve the desired effect, other possibilities are simple whippings with cables, or using a clothes iron to leave marks
on someone's skin. Equally effective is the use of a blowtorch to simply carve out a person's flesh.

Torture, Al-Qaeda Style (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)
MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture7.html). The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors. In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses.

It's a pretty big stretch to say we're doing what the "bad guys" are doing.

[TheMojoPin]

It says "he revealed", not "he confirmed."

Language is tricky like that. Besides, I'll take the quicker, more successful methods over the time wasted to waterboard someone 83 times.

[badmonkey]

Language is tricky like that. Besides, I'll take the quicker, more successful methods over the time wasted to waterboard someone 83 times.

You have no choice in that. We don't waterboard.

[TheMojoPin]

This is what the "bad guys" do.

Al-Qaeda Torture Vs. CIA Interrogation Methods (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/439225/alqaeda_torture_vs_cia_interrogation.html?cat=9)




Torture, Al-Qaeda Style (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)


It's a pretty big stretch to say we're doing what the "bad guys" are doing.

And yet again you come back to the old "so long as we don't do anything as bad as them it's OK" argument. Since we thought waterboarding was a punishable offense when the Japanese did it to Allied troops 65 years ago, I can only look forward to when the Al Queada torture methods are consider A-OK in 2075. I mean, we'll only do it a few times.

[TheMojoPin]

You have no choice in that. We don't waterboard.

I know. Waterboarding is not, however, the only use of methods qualified as torture. I want it all dropped so our flawed intelligence services aren't even more hampered than they already are.

[TheMojoPin]

That's the whole point. The other stuff works on most people, but you do have the occasional extreme case. When somebody has time sensitive information about a terror plot that you need yesterday, you can't sit around building up a rapport. I'm not saying necessarily that waterboarding is the answer because I don't know what is the answer. I doubt the Army Field Manual is the answer. I expect that the people in the CIA will determine that answer and do their jobs and get the information.

Again, people talking about terrorists like they're crafty supervillains who can't be tricked or broken by normal interrogation methods. Most of these guys are pissed off schlubs who were tossed a rifle and set loose. If anything, they're often likely easier to crack than trained soldiers since they're in so far over their heads. That's what makes the torture even more frustrating to me because it seems like it would see redundant with most of these guys.

[The Jays]

This is what the "bad guys" do.

Al-Qaeda Torture Vs. CIA Interrogation Methods (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/439225/alqaeda_torture_vs_cia_interrogation.html?cat=9)




Torture, Al-Qaeda Style (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)


It's a pretty big stretch to say we're doing what the "bad guys" are doing.

So, because we don't drill into people's hands or kill their families, waterboarding is A-Ok.

You really need to stop doing the "well, we don't torture anymore, but, even when we did, it wasn't as bad as what they were doing" act.

[badmonkey]

And yet again you come back to the old "so long as we don't do anything as bad as them it's OK" argument. Since we thought waterboarding was a punishable offense when the Japanese did it to Allied troops 65 years ago, I can only look forward to when the Al Queada torture methods are consider A-OK in 2075. I mean, we'll only do it a few times.

After it was said that we were doing what the bad guys do, I pointed out what the bad guys do. I've said multiple times in this thread that if waterboarding doesnt' work, don't use it. We haven't waterboarded anybody since 2003, before Obama was even in the US Senate. The bottom line is that we aren't torturing anybody.

Again, people talking about terrorists like they're crafty supervillains who can't be tricked or broken by normal interrogation methods. Most of these guys are pissed off schlubs who were tossed a rifle and set loose. If anything, they're often likely easier to crack than trained soldiers since they're in so far over their heads. That's what makes the torture even more frustrating to me because it seems like it would see redundant with most of these guys.

You keep comparing them to supervillains. You're the only one that is doing that. The pissed off schlubs were not waterboarded. Three exceptions to the rule were waterboarded. You can't seem to get it through your head that waterboarding was the EXCEPTION not the rule. Oh yeah and again for the brick wall... we don't waterboard anymore. BTW: The citizens of the US are not the only ones that don't want the inmates from Gitmo in their countries. Part of the problem is that their native countries refuse to accept them.

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866)

I'm not sure what else you're talking about that falls under "torture". This Al Qaeda Training Manual 1_4. (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_4.pdf) tells them to say they were tortured (pages 17 & 18).

I'm not saying these are "nice" things, but they're far away from what anybody thinks of when the word torture is mentioned.

[badmonkey]

So, because we don't drill into people's hands or kill their families, waterboarding is A-Ok.

You really need to stop doing the "well, we don't torture anymore, but, even when we did, it wasn't as bad as what they were doing" act.

That's not what I said, but it was more complex than Bush sucks, so I understand if you may be having trouble. Here. I'll make it simple for you.

Tripleskeet: We're "using the SAME FUCKING TACTICS as the "bad guys"."
Badmonkey: No we're not. This is what the "bad guys" are doing. It's a pretty big stretch to say we're doing what the "bad guys" are doing.

I'm not sure how you get from that to
Badmonkey: waterboarding rox!

[TheMojoPin]

After it was said that we were doing what the bad guys do, I pointed out what the bad guys do. I've said multiple times in this thread that if waterboarding doesnt' work, don't use it. We haven't waterboarded anybody since 2003, before Obama was even in the US Senate. The bottom line is that we aren't torturing anybody.

Hopefully we're not. If so, I hope it keeps up and we've learned from our mistakes.

You keep comparing them to supervillains. You're the only one that is doing that.

Except I'm not. I'm using hyperbole in response to the insinuations that terrorists are so tough that torture is needed to break them, or that they're so scary dangerous and influential that we can't dream of imprisoning them on US soil. Nowhere have I said anything that implies I actually think they have extraordinary capabilities.

[TheMojoPin]

Tripleskeet: We're "using the SAME FUCKING TACTICS as the "bad guys"."
Badmonkey: No we're not. This is what the "bad guys" are doing. It's a pretty big stretch to say we're doing what the "bad guys" are doing.

Except nobody is saying we're doing what the bad guys are doing. What the bad guys do is moot because we're supposed to have a higher set of standards and expectations of ourselves.

[TheMojoPin]

BTW: The citizens of the US are not the only ones that don't want the inmates from Gitmo in their countries. Part of the problem is that their native countries refuse to accept them.

Yeah, you know what the biggest problem is that's caused that snafu? The nebulous legal circumstances of holding them. You know what makes that even more complicated? Having attempted to extract confessions through means that are considered as being torture. If we truly want to figure out what do with these guys we'd better hope that any practice or endorsement of torture by us has truly stopped.

[badmonkey]

Except nobody is saying we're doing what the bad guys are doing. What the bad guys do is moot because we're supposed to have a higher set of standards and expectations of ourselves.

I was responding to this quote in this thread.

I cant understand how a country that claims to be the "good guys" can condone using the SAME FUCKING TACTICS as the "bad guys". Doesnt that also make you the fucking bad guys???? Fucking retarded.

Sorry TripleSkeet. Apparently you're nobody.

Yeah, you know what the biggest problem is that's caused that snafu? The nebulous legal circumstances of holding them. You know what makes that even more complicated? Having attempted to extract confessions through means that are considered as being torture. If we truly want to figure out what do with these guys we'd better hope that any practice or endorsement of torture by us has truly stopped.

Nobody wants terrorists in their country. Nobody accepts the risk to their citizens should terrorists somehow break out of prison. They are not being mistreated at Gitmo. Everybody, including Eric Holder, that has been to Gitmo has been impressed with the facility and the way it is run. There's a small but loud percentage of this country that thinks that it's our fault that the terrorists exist anyway, so we shouldn't be mean to them by locking them up.

The terrorists at Gitmo do not hate our freedom. These guys want to kill you and your family because you are not a muslim. The only thing that will stop them from wanting to kill you is to convert to Islam. Being nice to them is not the answer.

[TheMojoPin]

I was responding to this quote in this thread.



Sorry TripleSkeet. Apparently you're nobody.

His point is that you become the bad guys when you embrace tactics that we had in the past viewed as something "they" did. You don't have to go the lengths of Al-Queda to be "bad guys."

Nobody wants terrorists in their country. Nobody accepts the risk to their citizens should terrorists somehow break out of prison. They are not being mistreated at Gitmo. Everybody, including Eric Holder, that has been to Gitmo has been impressed with the facility and the way it is run. There's a small but loud percentage of this country that thinks that it's our fault that the terrorists exist anyway, so we shouldn't be mean to them by locking them up.

The terrorists at Gitmo do not hate our freedom. These guys want to kill you and your family because you are not a muslim. The only thing that will stop them from wanting to kill you is to convert to Islam. Being nice to them is not the answer.

So now you move to the talking point that if they're not being treating one way then the only other option is to "be nice" to them.

If these guys are moved to the US they'll likely be in Supermax facilities. They wouldn't be going anywhere. Thinking them escaping from a facility like that is a likely outcome is just pointless fearmongering.

[badmonkey]

His point is that you become the bad guys when you embrace tactics that we had in the past viewed as something "they" did. You don't have to go the lengths of Al-Queda to be "bad guys."

No. He said we are using exactly the same techniques. I proved that we aren't. I know it would help your argument immensely if either of us had said what you want us to have said, but we didn't. We aren't the "bad guys". We didn't waterboard them because it made us feel better. We did it to extract information. What we did and what they do "ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport."

So now you move to the talking point that if they're not being treating one way then the only other option is to "be nice" to them.

If these guys are moved to the US they'll likely be in Supermax facilities. They wouldn't be going anywhere. Thinking them escaping from a facility like that is a likely outcome is just pointless fearmongering.

And you say I'm using talking points
And we will be ill served by some of the fear mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. -- President Barack Obama (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdg6aZEvHFxEzna1Yg3pG6dKURNQD98AQUE00)
Obama: Fear-mongering lost me Gitmo vote (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1585549,w-obama-guantanamo-gitmo-closing052109.article)

Nice to see you sticking to the official propaganda.

As far as escaping from a supermax. The places they are concerned with them escaping are in places like Yemen where over 100 of the current detainees are from and we'd like to return them. They're already IN a supermax. They call it Gitmo. You think that holding them on US soil is going to be less of a terrorist recruiting issue than holding them at Gitmo? Spending a shitload of money to trade one supermax for another supermax doesn't make any sense. Our prisons are already so overcrowded that California wants to dump theirs out on their tax paying public to save a little cash.

Name one REAL benefit we will see from shutting down Gitmo, and not this rainbows and puppydogs bullshit about how the world will like us better. The world likes us just fine when their holding out their hands for something. I want to hear one thing that will actually change by shutting down Gitmo and putting these guys on US soil. Keep in mind btw that it took less than 20 of them to knock over two buildings. I wouldn't be shocked to see an attack on a supermax to break people out. Wonder how many planes it would take to open a hole in a supermax.

[TheMojoPin]

No. He said we are using exactly the same techniques. I proved that we aren't. I know it would help your argument immensely if either of us had said what you want us to have said, but we didn't. We aren't the "bad guys". We didn't waterboard them because it made us feel better. We did it to extract information. What we did and what they do "ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport."

That's bullshit. That specific tactic is one we charged and tried people over as war crimes after WW2. It shows an awful willingness to lower ourselves to a level we should be above and can be above.

And you say I'm using talking points
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1585549,w-obama-guantanamo-gitmo-closing052109.article"]Obama: Fear-mongering lost me Gitmo vote (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdg6aZEvHFxEzna1Yg3pG6dKURNQD98AQUE00)

Nice to see you sticking to the official propaganda.

Wait...your issue is that I used the word "fearmongering?" I used it because it's a word and I felt it was appropriate. I was in no way a reference to Obama or anything he's said or done.

As far as escaping from a supermax. The places they are concerned with them escaping are in places like Yemen where over 100 of the current detainees are from and we'd like to return them. They're already IN a supermax. They call it Gitmo. You think that holding them on US soil is going to be less of a terrorist recruiting issue than holding them at Gitmo? Spending a shitload of money to trade one supermax for another supermax doesn't make any sense. Our prisons are already so overcrowded that California wants to dump theirs out on their tax paying public to save a little cash.

Gitmo is not a prison. Gitmo is in no way a longterm solution. We have the larger problem of this nebulous, infinite "war on terror" that's just going to keep adding to Gitmo's population. Something has to give. If that means building a new prison or prisons to hold them here, fine.

Name one REAL benefit we will see from shutting down Gitmo, and not this rainbows and puppydogs bullshit about how the world will like us better. The world likes us just fine when their holding out their hands for something. I want to hear one thing that will actually change by shutting down Gitmo and putting these guys on US soil. Keep in mind btw that it took less than 20 of them to knock over two buildings. I wouldn't be shocked to see an attack on a supermax to break people out. Wonder how many planes it would take to open a hole in a supermax.

This is what I'm talking about with fearmongering. Why are terrorists going to waste time, money, people and resources to break into a prison? They're not wanting in terms of finding followers and backers all over the world. It's ludicrous to think that trying to facilitate an attack on a Supermax prison is going to be any kind of a priority.

[The Jays]

No. He said we are using exactly the same techniques. I proved that we aren't. I know it would help your argument immensely if either of us had said what you want us to have said, but we didn't. We aren't the "bad guys". We didn't waterboard them because it made us feel better. We did it to extract information. What we did and what they do "ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport."



And you say I'm using talking points
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1585549,w-obama-guantanamo-gitmo-closing052109.article"]Obama: Fear-mongering lost me Gitmo vote (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdg6aZEvHFxEzna1Yg3pG6dKURNQD98AQUE00)

Nice to see you sticking to the official propaganda.

As far as escaping from a supermax. The places they are concerned with them escaping are in places like Yemen where over 100 of the current detainees are from and we'd like to return them. They're already IN a supermax. They call it Gitmo. You think that holding them on US soil is going to be less of a terrorist recruiting issue than holding them at Gitmo? Spending a shitload of money to trade one supermax for another supermax doesn't make any sense. Our prisons are already so overcrowded that California wants to dump theirs out on their tax paying public to save a little cash.

Name one REAL benefit we will see from shutting down Gitmo, and not this rainbows and puppydogs bullshit about how the world will like us better. The world likes us just fine when their holding out their hands for something. I want to hear one thing that will actually change by shutting down Gitmo and putting these guys on US soil. Keep in mind btw that it took less than 20 of them to knock over two buildings. I wouldn't be shocked to see an attack on a supermax to break people out. Wonder how many planes it would take to open a hole in a supermax.


WTF? Seriously, the phrase "fear mongering" is a talking point? Is propaganda?

It's the fucking truth. 8 fucking years, we've been told to stay afraid because bad men WILL attack us again, that we need to always remember 9/11 for the fear, that we need to remember that fear so that we can wage war on the Middle East and on whatever enemy appears. It's not fucking propaganda if it's the fucking truth, and most of us in this country know its the fucking truth.

So, what, because Mojo keeps shitting out every one of your arguments, now you have to play the propaganda card, that just because him and our President share the idea that the Republicans have been "fear mongering" , he's obviously some mindless person who has to have a fucking talking point fed to him before he makes a fucking point?


And talk about fear mongering, look at what your post does... you start imaging planes being flown into Supermax prisons to bust out the detainees? You oughta be on Fox News with your sick fantasies of more terror attacks.

How does it make us safer to close Gitmo? Well, for one,keeping them there violates the Geneva convention, so if you think the United States not following the Geneva Convention makes us safer, then by all means, keep it open.

[badmonkey]

That's bullshit. That specific tactic is one we charged and tried people over as war crimes after WW2. It shows an awful willingness to lower ourselves to a level we should be above and can be above.

Wait...your issue is that I used the word "fearmongering?" I used it because it's a word and I felt it was appropriate. I was in no way a reference to Obama or anything he's said or done.

Seriously? You say that talking about these guys being terrorists is fear mongering. Obama says the same thing and you want to pretend you're not in lock step? You have used every liberal talking point in existence about waterboarding or Gitmo in this thread to stifle debate. If you don't like being called out on it, then you shouldn't accuse people that disagree with you of using talking points either.

Gitmo is not a prison. Gitmo is in no way a longterm solution. We have the larger problem of this nebulous, infinite "war on terror" that's just going to keep adding to Gitmo's population. Something has to give. If that means building a new prison or prisons to hold them here, fine.

Gitmo wasn't a prison. Gitmo is a prison now. Over 750 were there and about 500 have been freed. We're at around 250 left. It doesn't sound like it's bursting at the seams like the prisons on US soil. You say something has to give like they just can't take anymore detainees there without causing some sort of undue burden. You must be confused with the US prisons systems. Easy to confuse as they are both filled with innocent victims and political prisoners.

This is what I'm talking about with fearmongering. Why are terrorists going to waste time, money, people and resources to break into a prison? They're not wanting in terms of finding followers and backers all over the world. It's ludicrous to think that trying to facilitate an attack on a Supermax prison is going to be any kind of a priority.

You don't think they'd try and break out their top guys from prison if they were within reach? On the rare occasions that any of these guys take hostages anymore, their #1 request is release of their "brothers". We just busted up a planned attack on an Fort Dix (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518337,00.html) in Jersey so why not a supermax if it's got their top guys in it?

Why are we going to waste time, money, people and resources to build a new prison on American soil to house these guys? Especially when you can't seem to come up with any benefits for them being moved. Again, what thing will change when Gitmo is closed besides the rainbow and puppydog crap about how the world is going to like us more?

[The Jays]

Seriously? You say that talking about these guys being terrorists is fear mongering. Obama says the same thing and you want to pretend you're not in lock step? You have used every liberal talking point in existence about waterboarding or Gitmo in this thread to stifle debate. If you don't like being called out on it, then you shouldn't accuse people that disagree with you of using talking points either.


You are fear mongering by saying that putting the Gitmo prisoners in our own prisons would put out lives in danger because they obviously will break out and then fly planes into our homes.

[badmonkey]

WTF? Seriously, the phrase "fear mongering" is a talking point? Is propaganda?

It's the fucking truth. 8 fucking years, we've been told to stay afraid because bad men WILL attack us again, that we need to always remember 9/11 for the fear, that we need to remember that fear so that we can wage war on the Middle East and on whatever enemy appears. It's not fucking propaganda if it's the fucking truth, and most of us in this country know its the fucking truth.

So, what, because Mojo keeps shitting out every one of your arguments, now you have to play the propaganda card, that just because him and our President share the idea that the Republicans have been "fear mongering" , he's obviously some mindless person who has to have a fucking talking point fed to him before he makes a fucking point?


And talk about fear mongering, look at what your post does... you start imaging planes being flown into Supermax prisons to bust out the detainees? You oughta be on Fox News with your sick fantasies of more terror attacks.

How does it make us safer to close Gitmo? Well, for one,keeping them there violates the Geneva convention, so if you think the United States not following the Geneva Convention makes us safer, then by all means, keep it open.

I'm not fear mongering. I'm being realistic. I don't see the point in moving them here from Gitmo. Congress is scrambling against this because they know that the American people don't want these guys here. It hasn't got shit to do with FOX News or fear mongering. Just because you say FOX News doesn't make your argument for you. You are gonna have to do better than that. You don't have a problem when Obama says "we gotta have this legislation now or we're doomed" when it comes to the bank bailout, the auto industry bailouts, his $3trillion budget, or health care reform. How are his doomsday speeches any less fear mongering than anything you accuse Republicans?

I'm not sure how violating or not violating the Geneva convention makes us safe or not safe when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Terrorists aren't going to apply the Geneva Convention to our troops, citizens, or anybody else no matter what we do. So again, puppydogs and rainbows. We don't need to remember 9/11 for fear, but the only reason to fear remembering 9/11 is if you're scaling back on efforts to prevent the next one.

You are fear mongering by saying that putting the Gitmo prisoners in our own prisons would put out lives in danger because they obviously will break out and then fly planes into our homes.

Holy shit dude. I can't beleive I wasted my time typing out a response to you. I hit preview and see that you've posted this crap. I never said anything about anybody breaking out of prison and flying planes into our homes. Fear mongering is the least of your worries.

Wow.

[TheMojoPin]

Seriously? You say that talking about these guys being terrorists is fear mongering. Obama says the same thing and you want to pretend you're not in lock step? You have used every liberal talking point in existence about waterboarding or Gitmo in this thread to stifle debate. If you don't like being called out on it, then you shouldn't accuse people that disagree with you of using talking points either.

No, I've pointed that talking about them like they're MORE than terrorists is fearmongering. The histrionics regarding the risks of imprisoning them here is ridiculous. Talking like attacks to set them free or that they're going to be creating a bunch of other terrorists in prison and then breaking out is likely is fearmongering and overreacting.

Gitmo wasn't a prison. Gitmo is a prison now. Over 750 were there and about 500 have been freed. We're at around 250 left. It doesn't sound like it's bursting at the seams like the prisons on US soil. You say something has to give like they just can't take anymore detainees there without causing some sort of undue burden. You must be confused with the US prisons systems. Easy to confuse as they are both filled with innocent victims and political prisoners.

Spin-spin-spin. I don't know why you get so frustrated to the point that nearly every post of yours has to have some kind of shot at "liberals" over some totally unrelated tangent. If you're confident enough in your viewpoint you shouldn't have to resort to such cheap shots.

Gitmo is not a prison. It's never going to be prison. The facilities simply do not exist there for necessary longterm and indefinite on even the scale of 250 prisoners.

You don't think they'd try and break out their top guys from prison if they were within reach? On the rare occasions that any of these guys take hostages anymore, their #1 request is release of their "brothers". We just busted up a planned attack on an Fort Dix (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518337,00.html) in Jersey so why not a supermax if it's got their top guys in it?

Why do they need the people in the prison? They're out of the loop. They have nothing to offer. Why are they going to lose men and money freeing guys (most of them) that have had nothing to do with their activities for years now? It's a ridiculous scenario.

Why are we going to waste time, money, people and resources to build a new prison on American soil to house these guys? Especially when you can't seem to come up with any benefits for them being moved. Again, what thing will change when Gitmo is closed besides the rainbow and puppydog crap about how the world is going to like us more?

You can keep dismissing our international standing, but you'd think that if the last 6 years taught you anything it's that we can use all the help we can get overseas. If closing Gitmo improves that standing, why not just build a prison (yay jobs!) for the guys here and figure out how to charge them as enemy combatants? What are the pros of using Gitmo as a prison outside of avoiding these hyperbolic terrorist attacks to free the prisoners?

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not sure how violating or not violating the Geneva convention makes us safe or not safe when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Terrorists aren't going to apply the Geneva Convention to our troops, citizens, or anybody else no matter what we do. So again, puppydogs and rainbows.

What the terrorists are willing to do should be moot when it comes to what we're willing to do. We have higher expectations as to what we will and won't do, and rightly so. What the "bad guys" are willing to sink to has no bearing on what we should easily be able to live up to. We don't have to sink to their level, or any other level, below the higher ground we should take BECAUSE WE CAN.

[The Jays]

Holy shit dude. I can't beleive I wasted my time typing out a response to you. I hit preview and see that you've posted this crap. I never said anything about anybody breaking out of prison and flying planes into our homes. Fear mongering is the least of your worries.

Wow.

You don't want terrorists in our prisons, you want to keep them in Gitmo. Gitmo violates Geneva Conventions. The only reason for not putting Gitmo detainees in our own prisons is because people like you are afraid they are going to break out, and when people hear about terrorist breaking out of prison, they think they will do more terrorist acts. That can be the only reason you want to keep them in Cuba and not on American soil. so don't give me this "I can't believe I wasted my time posting in response to you" crap. I didn't say you said that, I said you were a fear mongerer. Don't be shy about it, you support the policy that keeps us in fear, so be proud of it.

[badmonkey]

No, I've pointed that talking about them like they're MORE than terrorists is fearmongering. The histrionics regarding the risks of imprisoning them here is ridiculous. Talking like attacks to set them free or that they're going to be creating a bunch of other terrorists in prison and then breaking out is likely is fearmongering and overreacting.



Spin-spin-spin. I don't know why you get so frustrated to the point that nearly every post of yours has to have some kind of shot at "liberals" over some totally unrelated tangent. If you're confident enough in your viewpoint you shouldn't have to resort to such cheap shots.

Gitmo is not a prison. It's never going to be prison. The facilities simply do not exist there for necessary longterm and indefinite on even the scale of 250 prisoners.



Why do they need the people in the prison? They're out of the loop. They have nothing to offer. Why are they going to lose men and money freeing guys (most of them) that have had nothing to do with their activities for years now? It's a ridiculous scenario.



You can keep dismissing our international standing, but you'd think that if the last 6 years taught you anything it's that we can use all the help we can get overseas. If closing Gitmo improves that standing, why not just build a prison (yay jobs!) for the guys here and figure out how to charge them as enemy combatants? What are the pros of using Gitmo as a prison outside of avoiding these hyperbolic terrorist attacks to free the prisoners?

I'm completely confident in my viewpoint because it wasn't fed to me from somewhere else. I don't have any interest in wasting money on a new prison or transporting these guys to a new prison. Gitmo has been running fine since 2002 as a prison for these guys. I haven't heard anywhere but from your mouth that Gitmo doesn't have the facilities to deal with this longterm. 6 years is pretty long term and there hasn't been any evidence presented that "something's got to give". If you put them in US prisons and they'll beg for Gitmo because they're treated FAR better there than they ever will be in a US prison.

It's completely unnecessary to move these guys. The majority of this country are against it. Every single member of congress knows that if they bring the American soil equivalent of Gitmo to their districts, they can kiss their political careers goodbye.

[badmonkey]

You don't want terrorists in our prisons, you want to keep them in Gitmo. Gitmo violates Geneva Conventions. The only reason for not putting Gitmo detainees in our own prisons is because people like you are afraid they are going to break out, and when people hear about terrorist breaking out of prison, they think they will do more terrorist acts. That can be the only reason you want to keep them in Cuba and not on American soil. so don't give me this "I can't believe I wasted my time posting in response to you" crap. I didn't say you said that, I said you were a fear mongerer. Don't be shy about it, you support the policy that keeps us in fear, so be proud of it.

Sorry busy mongering up the fear. Got no time for bullshit. Seeya!

[The Jays]

Your viewpoint was fed to you from the propaganda you read, watch, and listen to that tell you that Gitmo is a perfectly legal place to keep "enemy combatants", that we do not need to follow the Geneva Conventions, that we never have to try these people for whatever crimes they may or may not have committed, that we can detain them forever without any legal reason why they are imprisoned. Our government tells us that they are a danger to us, but we can't go and take away their rights as human beings without charging them.

If they are terrorists, charge them. We've had plenty of instances where we've kept terrorists in our jails. We kept Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and Zaccarias Moussaoui in our prisons. We have the town of Hardin, Montana willing to take 40 of the inmates, because it will create jobs for the town.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm completely confident in my viewpoint because it wasn't fed to me from somewhere else.

Wait...what? We all get out information from "somewhere else." We don't just magically have knowledge and understanding of everything.

I don't have any interest in wasting money on a new prison or transporting these guys to a new prison. Gitmo has been running fine since 2002 as a prison for these guys. I haven't heard anywhere but from your mouth that Gitmo doesn't have the facilities to deal with this longterm. 6 years is pretty long term and there hasn't been any evidence presented that "something's got to give". If you put them in US prisons and they'll beg for Gitmo because they're treated FAR better there than they ever will be in a US prison.

Long story short, I've heard firsthand from numerous intelligence officials who have been down there as to how ill-suited it is for indefinite holding of a significant number of prisoners and how difficult it makes any kind of extensive investigation and interrogation by our intelligence services. It's simply not any kind of a longterm solution.

It's completely unnecessary to move these guys. The majority of this country are against it. Every single member of congress knows that if they bring the American soil equivalent of Gitmo to their districts, they can kiss their political careers goodbye.

Unfortunately, you're right. People flip out if a prison is built anywhere remotely near them for ridiculous reasons, so this is going to be magnified. I just hope that when this mess is sorted out legally that the right thing is done and these guys are put into a Supermax prison which allows our intelligence operatives to best do their job.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Your viewpoint was fed to you from the propaganda you read, watch, and listen to that tell you...
It really is very insulting to express that someone's viewpoint is fed to them. Just exactly how could you possibly know that anyway? Even if you believe it, just say that you think they're fucking wrong. It's much more respectable.

[Fez4PrezN2008]

Torture - yes
Effective - yes & no
Acceptable - yes & no

I don't think you can ever rull anything out completely. It's probably most effective at subject telling perpetrators what they want to hear whether true or not, and while I hate that idea of of and of our nation endorsing it, I can't say with % certaintly that I would not be in favor of it if my family or loved ones or group of innocent people could be saved by it. I think a lot of us would compromise our normal day to day moral code if push came to shove.

[The Jays]

It really is very insulting to express that someone's viewpoint is fed to them. Just exactly how could you possibly know that anyway? Even if you believe it, just say that you think they're fucking wrong. It's much more respectable.

Get with the thread. He accused Mojo of having propaganda fed to him. But no, you decide to go after me when I do it. Nice to see who you choose to side with.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I do see your point, and it's my bad. I actually did not see that.

But, that said, I agree with the other guy on the discussion. (Dammit - I just couldn't leave it alone)

[The Jays]

Well, then you're just a smelly poopy pants.

[SonOfSmeagol]

So I've been told. But rarely that directly

[The Happening]

None of us are "in the loop" with what's going on with the whole waterboarding/handling of prisoners to get information situation. Stop thinking that you are. They tell us only so much. We are bystanders of our own safety. Everyone is ignorant(Including the president and most politicians) as to what it takes to keep this country safe. I'm not about to tell some CIA agent how to do his job from the sidelines. Just like I wouldn't tell a docotor how to save a dying person, or a mechanic how to fix a car. Here's what I do know: This is a world full of crazy people, who try and hurt/kill people who are different than them. For a while now we have been relatively safe from those people. Frankly, it's not my business as to how our safety is maintained. I just care that we are safe. I don't wanna know how hot dogs are made. I don't wanna know how animals are slaughtered. And I don't wanna know how my country stays safe. I also shouldn't have a say in how it stays safe, because I know nothing about what it takes to fight off people who hate you for trivial things. And either do any of you! Sometimes we need to step back, and let the people who know what the fuck they are doing do their job. We couldn't see the things they see, even if we were looking!

[Crispy123]

I'm completely confident in my viewpoint because it wasn't fed to me from somewhere else. I don't have any interest in wasting money on a new prison or transporting these guys to a new prison. Gitmo has been running fine since 2002 as a prison for these guys. I haven't heard anywhere but from your mouth that Gitmo doesn't have the facilities to deal with this longterm. 6 years is pretty long term and there hasn't been any evidence presented that "something's got to give". If you put them in US prisons and they'll beg for Gitmo because they're treated FAR better there than they ever will be in a US prison.

It's completely unnecessary to move these guys. The majority of this country are against it. Every single member of congress knows that if they bring the American soil equivalent of Gitmo to their districts, they can kiss their political careers goodbye.

The reason for closing prisons at Gitmo & military tribunals IMO would be because this is a criminal enterprise and not a sovereign nation that we are at war with. The US prisons are overflowing because of knee jerk drug laws and that is a whole new debate. Ultimately we need to give the investigation of people commiting international crimes to an international law enforcement organization.

I'll say it again, if the US government would have been on duty using the laws and tactics that were in place on 9/10/01 the day after would have gone down in the books as just another day. Now we are knee jerking all over the world and affecting countries of people with our actions.

The FBI whistleblowers were shoved under a rug and the Bush Administration pushed for war, the Patriot Act, and federal monies for churches. WTF??? Lets start to do the right thing for once.

[badmonkey]

Get with the thread. He accused Mojo of having propaganda fed to him. But no, you decide to go after me when I do it. Nice to see who you choose to side with.

Woah there, calm down little buddy. I know there was a lot of big excitement for you yesterday on the forum when I dared offer an opposing view to Mojo's. It was all very fast paced and hard to keep up with for you I'm sure, but what I said was that it was nice to see him using the same talking points as the president. I said that after I was accused of using talking points. You probably didn't catch that tho. It's ok. "Everyone's entitled to one mistake, you've used yours. Let's not dwell on it."

[epo]

On stopping the policy of waterboarding: (http://www.rferl.org/content/transcript_RFERL_Interviews_US_Central_Command_Chi ef_General_David_Petraeus/1738626.html)

I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

On Gitmo: (http://www.rferl.org/content/transcript_RFERL_Interviews_US_Central_Command_Chi ef_General_David_Petraeus/1738626.html)

With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward.

But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.

Sounds like a socialist little faggot, right? Sorry, its conservative hero General David Petraeus.

[Recyclerz]

spam!

Hey Sparky, we're talking waterboarding here not the rack. You should be spamming the ShamWow here not non-existent stretchmark cures. :flush:

[StanUpshaw]

Bumping in light of new data points.

[SonOfSmeagol]

yep. the Panetta comments on this were quite interesting, to say the least.