NationStates Jolt Archive

Not surprising, of course (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080307/47d0cbd0_3ca6_15526200803071829755674).

Thoughts?

Not surprising, of course (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080307/47d0cbd0_3ca6_15526200803071829755674).

Thoughts?

That Dubya is an idiot.

"The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.Right, torture always gives accurate, reliable information...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

That Dubya is an idiot.

Agreed.

Right, torture always gives accurate, reliable information...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't know if it does or not, and frankly could not care less. Effective or not, it's immoral and entirely without justification (I assume you feel about the same).

Agreed.



I don't know if it does or not, and frankly could not care less. Effective or not, it's immoral and entirely without justification (I assume you feel about the same).

It doesn't...
And I do.

Waterboarding! I guess group hugs, firewalking, and falling back hoping your co-worker catches you are all techniques of the past. Looks like civilians will still use it, even if the government eventually doesn't. Let's waterboard the least productive salesperson this quarter!

Now we take the lowest performing employee, and the other employees get to "team build" by waterboarding him.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8385103



Yeah, like anyone would volunteer to be waterboarded...

*raises hand*
Me, me, me.... wait, waterboarding isn't another name for waterskiing? Nevermind
*leaves quietly*

Not surprising, of course (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080307/47d0cbd0_3ca6_15526200803071829755674).

Thoughts?

Congress just needs a 2/3 majority to override the veto, right? How much did it pass by the first time around?

Waterboarding! I guess group hugs, firewalking, and falling back hoping your co-worker catches you are all techniques of the past. Looks like civilians will still use it, even if the government eventually doesn't. Let's waterboard the least productive salesperson this quarter!

Now we take the lowest performing employee, and the other employees get to "team build" by waterboarding him.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8385103

Employee's suit: Company used waterboarding to motivate workers
By Erin Alberty
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/27/2008 07:13:46 PM MST

Posted: 7:14 PM- A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.
In a lawsuit filed last month, former Prosper, Inc. salesman Chad Hudgens alleges his managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees' faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle "because it resulted in increased revenues for the company."
Prosper president Dave Ellis responded that the allegations amount to "sensationalized" versions of events that have gone uncorroborated by Hudgens' former coworkers.
"They just roll their eyes and say, 'This is ridiculous . . . That's not how it went down,' " Ellis said.
The suit claims that Hudgens' team leader, Joshua Christopherson, asked for volunteers in May for "a new motivational exercise," which he did not describe. Hudgens, who was 26 at the time, volunteered in order to "prove his loyalty and determination," the suit claims.
Christopherson led the sales team to the top of a hill near the office and told Hudgens to lie down with his head downhill, the suit claims. Christopherson then told the rest of the team to hold Hudgens by the arms and legs.
Christopherson poured water from a gallon jug over Hudgens' mouth and nostrils - like the interrogation strategy known as "waterboarding" - and told the team members to hold Hudgens down as he struggled, the suit alleges.
"At the conclusion of his abusive demonstration, Christopherson told the team that he wanted them to work as hard on making sales as Chad had worked to breathe while he was being waterboarded," the suit alleges.
Ellis said the exercise was a dramatization of a story in which a young man asks Socrates to become his teacher. Socrates responds by plunging the student's head underwater and telling him he will learn once his desire for knowledge is as great as his desire to breathe.
However, Ellis said Christopherson explained the exercise before Hudgens volunteered, no one held Hudgens down and Hudgens was free to get up if he was uncomfortable.
"It was meant to be a team-building exercise," Ellis said. "Everybody was . . . involved and enthusiastic."
Hudgens claims he complained to Prosper managers about the exercise, but no action was taken against Christopherson until Hudgens left Prosper.
Prosper attorney George Brunt said Hudgens lodged the complaint six weeks after the exercise; in the meantime, Hudgens joined his team on a water skiing retreat and drove the boat, Brunt said. Ellis said Christopherson was suspended for two weeks while managers investigated Hudgens' complaint. Christopherson returned to work and remains the sales team leader, Ellis said.
"It's incredible to even suggest that he would put anyone under a level of discomfort," Ellis said. "He's a really nice, pleasant, polite young man. He's very dedicated and takes his job very seriously."
However, the suit claims Christopherson "intentionally engaged in physically and emotionally abusive conduct" to punish workers who did not meet company performance goals.
"Prosper's management passed by and through Christopherson's team area and was able to see mustaches on its employees, missing chairs and Christopherson's paddle," the suit alleges.
Ellis said no managers have said they saw the activities described in Hudgens' suit, and the employees reported they are "more along the lines of fun."
"It's voluntary, it's humorous, it's team and camaraderie-building," Ellis said.
Hudgens left Prosper because of sleeplessness, anxiety and depression he experienced after the waterboarding, the suit claims. He required psychological counseling for emotional trauma, the suit claims.
The suit accuses Christopherson and Prosper of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful termination. It and accuses Christopherson of interfering with Hudgens employment relationship with Prosper.
Prosper "provides executive-level coaching for individuals," according to its Web site. Personal coaches offer mentoring that focuses on business and finance.
"Our mission is to provide our students with the education and hands-on experiences they need to achieve their personal and professional goals," the Web site claims. "We strive to make the road to personal achievement meaningful, rewarding, and enjoyable."

Yeah, like anyone would volunteer to be waterboarded...

Congress just needs a 2/3 majority to override the veto, right? How much did it pass by the first time around?

Senate 51-45
House 222-199

America. Does. Not. Torture.



:rolleyes:


God I hate my country's leader.

Senate 51-45
House 222-199

That could be a problem.

Man, he should have made this announcement right before he endorsed McCain, that would have been awkward...

Man, he should have made this announcement right before he endorsed McCain, that would have been awkward...


Its already going to be tough for McCain.


"So Senator, you do not approve of torture?"
"No."
"Well George Bush does and he endorsed you."
"I like to forget that Bush endorsed me, thank you."

America. Does. Not. Torture.






God I hate my country's leader
We all do Knights, we all do.
Right, torture always gives accurate, reliable information...

Exactly! Nobody who is innocent would EVER tell us lies under torture, I mean, no one who is innocent would smudge their name in exchange for avoiding psychological or physical pain!:rolleyes:

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

Behold the rise of totalitarianism, ladies and gents!

Many posting here are either very young or very idealist and have no concept of the real world. :(


I have to agree. :(

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

They're not terrorists until they've been unanimously convicted by a jury.

Many posting here are either very young or very idealist and have no concept of the real world. :(

Nice try. But military experts and experts in interrogation generally agree that torture is not a productive or reliable technique and is counter-productive.

This is in addition to the moral wrong and the practical undesirability.

Nothing naive or overly idealistic required.

I have to agree. :(

My concept of the real world is that if someone is waterboarding me I will spout off useless bullshit information to stop them.

Not surprising, of course (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080307/47d0cbd0_3ca6_15526200803071829755674).

Thoughts?

He is going to veto it because it doesn't include banning anyone from riding in Senator Kennedy's car. :D

My concept of the real world is that if someone is waterboarding me I will spout off useless bullshit information to stop them.

I'm sure that you truly feel that way.

I'm sure that you truly feel that way.

And experience teaches us that Sagittarya is right.

I don't even understand Bush anymore. Everyone hates him. The liberals hate him, the Democrats hate him, his own party hates him, South America hates him, the Middle East hates him, Europe hates him... what is he out for? He may as well just fold up and shut up.

Never in my life will I understand the motives of politicians...

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

Many posting here are either very young or very idealist and have no concept of the real world. :(

And experience teaches us that Sagittarya is right.

I'm sure you truly feel that way also.

He is going to veto it because it doesn't include banning anyone from riding in Senator Kennedy's car. :D

Oh hey it's that guy who draws that unfunny comic about a duck hi guy who draws unfunny comic about a duck.

And experience teaches us that Sagittarya is right.

Very true. I sure hope McCain didn't tell the Vietcong our nuclear weapons codes. :o

Here's news for all ya right-wing torture lovers: Over half of gitmo is made of people who were caught with cheap homemade bombs who don't know jack shit. Even the al-Queda leaders won't get that much.

Al-Queda is fucking dying, Bin Laden is dead. Al-Queda would be virtually non-existant if we didn't give them a safe haven in Iraq by creating the chaos and disorder of war.

He is going to veto it because it doesn't include banning anyone from riding in Senator Kennedy's car. :D

lolz

Many posting here are either very young or very idealist and have no concept of the real world. :(
Yes, it would appear that way to me too...

Yes, it would appear that way to me too...
Something I also noticed in my short time here.

I don't even understand Bush anymore. Everyone hates him. The liberals hate him, the Democrats hate him, his own party hates him, South America hates him, the Middle East hates him, Europe hates him... what is he out for? He may as well just fold up and shut up.

Never in my life will I understand the motives of politicians...

Did you ever take the time to notice that Bush's approval rating is HIGHER than the approval rating of Congress? I am disgusted by Bush, but I'm more disgusted by Congress and many of the people here who would bash Bush, won't bash Congress. I wonder why? :(

I'm sure you truly feel that way also.

Apparently it isn't just the young or naive that feel this way:

Q: [to Romney]: Considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject of waterboarding, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position against torture?

ROMNEY: I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

McCAIN: I am astonished that Mitt would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone who we held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law. If we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people. It's clear the definition of torture. [Waterboarding] is in violation of laws we have passed.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Q: You say you're going to vote for Michael Mukasey's nomination to become the next Attorney General, even though you are strongly opposed to waterboarding [which Mukasey would not condemn as torture]. Explain to our viewers why.

A: Mukasey said that he believes that the president does not have the authority to violate existing law concerning treatment of prisoners. That means clearly that waterboarding is illegal. He also has said that he finds waterboarding repugnant. I have written him saying then there is no doubt that once you get briefed then you will declare waterboarding as torture. And so I am confident that he will declare that practice illegal, and therefore I will vote to support his nomination.

Q: You yourself say there is no doubt about it, waterboarding is torture.

A: It is torture. There's no doubt about it. Mr. Mukasey will get briefed on the specific procedures that are being used. And I have every anticipation that he will say that it's illegal and that it is torture

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Nov 4, 2007

TANCREDO: [to McCain]: I would certainly waterboard--I don't believe that is "torture." I would do what is necessary to protect this country.

McCAIN: It was interesting during the debate on torture, retired military, from Colin Powell on down, and others, sided with me. Those who had no military experience took the other side. [The military consensus is that] any information that we may gain through the use of torture can never, ever be counterbalanced by the damage it does to America's reputation

Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Q: Let's say terrorists mounted 3 successful suicide attacks in the US, and a 4th attack was averted and the terrorists captured. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held about where the next attack might be?

A: That is a million-to-one scenario. But I would take that responsibility [to authorize aggressive interrogations. However,] we could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we underwent torture, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know. We have procedures for interrogation, adequate in 999,999 [out of a million] cases, and if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Q: Former CIA Director Tenet now says that the intelligence that they got from harsh interrogation techniques was more valuable than all other CIA programs. Were you wrong to limit what CIA interrogators could do?

A: If you torture someone, they're going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in. Every retired military officer, everybody who's been in war doesn't want to torture people and think that it's the wrong thing to do. And history shows that. We cannot torture people & maintain our moral superiority in the world.

Q: But George Tenet says...

A: I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior.

Q: But Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

A: I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history. That's just a fundamental fact. We've gotten a huge amount of misinformation from these techniques

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Apr 2, 2007

link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Homeland_Security.htm)

Did you ever take the time to notice that Bush's approval rating is HIGHER than the approval rating of Congress? I am disgusted by Bush, but I'm more disgusted by Congress and many of the people here who would bash Bush, won't bash Congress. I wonder why? :(

Well, we often overlook that approval rating of Congress thing...

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

If you already know that, then you already know where the bomb is, and are only carrying your sick fetishes.

Apparently it isn't just the young or naive that feel this way:

<snip>



The comment regarding naivety and youth was directed at comments on this thread in this forum, not anyone else.

I have my opinion and it isn't so different from 45 Senators and 199 Representatives obviously. This issue is hardly as cut and dried as you would make it. It is only to you that it is.

So some don't agree, some do. Both sides have their experts and their reasons.

Did you ever take the time to notice that Bush's approval rating is HIGHER than the approval rating of Congress? I am disgusted by Bush, but I'm more disgusted by Congress and many of the people here who would bash Bush, won't bash Congress. I wonder why? :(

You are right: there are too many Republicans in Congress and the Democrats that are there aren't doing enough. ;)

I'm sure that is what you mean. :p

I am disgusted by Bush, but I'm more disgusted by Congress and many of the people here who would bash Bush, won't bash Congress. I wonder why? :(

I'm very willing to bash congress...specifically those members who didn't vote for this the first time and those who wont vote for it next time.

The comment regarding naivety and youth was directed at comments on this thread in this forum, not anyone else.

So instead of being completely stupid, your comment was just mostly stupid?

I have my opinion and it isn't so different from 45 Senators and 199 Representatives obviously. This issue is hardly as cut and dried as you would make it. It is only to you that it is.

So some don't agree, some do. Both sides have their experts and their reasons.

Feel free to cite some of these experts that say waterboarding is moral and effective.

Satan, for one.

roflmfao

Feel free to cite some of these experts that say waterboarding is moral and effective.

Umm, well in the article for one thing, at least some in the CIA find it effective. And in the history of warfare it has certainly been effective, do you really believe that it would have survived for so long if it had never produced valuable information?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

I am not saying it isn't controversial, it is. What I am saying is everyone does not agree that it is torture and isn't that the real question here?

I am curious, is there any form of psychological interrogation that won't eventually be considered torture?

Feel free to cite some of these experts that say waterboarding is moral and effective.

Satan, for one.

I am curious, is there any form of psychological interrogation that won't eventually be considered torture?

Waterboarding is no more psychological than sticking someone in a well neck deep in freezing water and watching them try not to drown when fatigue and hypothermia gets them.

You are right: there are too many Republicans in Congress and the Democrats that are there aren't doing enough. ;)

I'm sure that is what you mean. :p

How about we clean out the whole mess and start over? After all the reality is "Congress is not doing their job, that is every Congressman and Senator except the ones from my state." :rolleyes:

Clean them all out and start over or realize a viable third party can and should be a reality. We bitch and moan about politics but if and when we go to the polls we seem to pull that same D or R lever. :( Shame on those that do.:mad:

Not once in your article does it state that individuals in the CIA believe that it is effective at gathering good intelligence. What it DOES say is:



Did you even read your own source?

Sure I read it, and I said it is controversial without question. But it does not say all agree it says many see it as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you. That is not "all" by a long shot.

Did you ever take the time to notice that Bush's approval rating is HIGHER than the approval rating of Congress? I am disgusted by Bush, but I'm more disgusted by Congress and many of the people here who would bash Bush, won't bash Congress. I wonder why? :(

Probably because one of the biggest reasons why people hate congress is because they won't defy Bush. At least, not often enough for the public's liking.

Umm, well in the article for one thing, at least some in the CIA find it effective. And in the history of warfare it has certainly been effective, do you really believe that it would have survived for so long if it had never produced valuable information?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

Not once in your article does it state that individuals in the CIA believe that it is effective at gathering good intelligence. What it DOES say is:

many see it as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you

Did you even read your own source?

Waterboarding is no more psychological than sticking someone in a well neck deep in freezing water and watching them try not to drown when fatigue and hypothermia gets them.



Depending on the exact setup, the water may or may not actually get into the person's mouth and nose; but the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water seems to be secondary to the psychological experience. The person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face.


http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm

Probably because one of the biggest reasons why people hate congress is because they won't defy Bush. At least, not often enough for the public's liking.

And/or they keep playing the politics as usual game of telling us what we want to hear and doing things as they damn well please. Oh, and both parties are guilty of that. :mad:

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!


Because you ca claim the moral high ground when youre no better than your enemy.
Oh wait, we're white and Christian, so its ok:rolleyes:

Just saw this video about waterboarding and wanted to share.

Harry Shearer's take (one of the voice actors for the Simpsons) (http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Harry_Shearer/Music_Videos/WaterboardinUSAVideo_426.aspx)

Umm, well in the article for one thing, at least some in the CIA find it effective. And in the history of warfare it has certainly been effective, do you really believe that it would have survived for so long if it had never produced valuable information?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

I am not saying it isn't controversial, it is. What I am saying is everyone does not agree that it is torture and isn't that the real question here?

I am curious, is there any form of psychological interrogation that won't eventually be considered torture?

Some people still use torture even though it is illegal and recognized as ineffective. Just like some people still commit crimes. It has nothing to do with being proven by history.

Are you aware that the law in question merely confirms the policies of the Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.html)(my link is to the 1987 version) regarding interrogation?

Its guidelines cover battlefield capture and screening logistics and the third chapter details the planning, approach, questioning, and termination phases of an interrogation. According to the FM 34-52, the interrogator's goal during the approach phase is to establish rapport with the detainee, which can be done via 17 different methods, including:

"Emotional": taking advantage of a source's strong feelings;

"Fear-up": exploiting a source's fears, real or imagined;

"Pride and ego": flattering a source or attacking his pride, both to serve the purpose of putting him in a frame of mind to reveal information;

"Futility": using facts to prove to the source that his or her current situation is hopeless.

These methods each have several sub-categories, such as "fear-up (harsh)" or "ego-down," and are recommended to be used in combination with each other for the best effect.

The Manual clearly explains, however:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm), emphasis added)

There are time-tested techniques that have been proven to work and are used in compliance with the law. These techniques are not only legal and ethical, but more effective.

For Dubya's 61st birthday, someone needs to give him a "my first waterboarding kit" and so he can try it out on himself. :(

Waterboarding and saving 5 or 10 lives or not waterboarding and killing 5 or 10 people. Which would I chose? Not a difficult decision. Where is the water, the board, and the rags?

For Dubya's 61st birthday, someone needs to give him a "my first waterboarding kit" and so he can try it out on himself. :(

How about we clean out the whole mess and start over? After all the reality is "Congress is not doing their job, that is every Congressman and Senator except the ones from my state." :rolleyes:

Clean them all out and start over or realize a viable third party can and should be a reality. We bitch and moan about politics but if and when we go to the polls we seem to pull that same D or R lever. :( Shame on those that do.:mad:

A-fucking-men.

Some people still use torture even though it is illegal and recognized as ineffective. Just like some people still commit crimes. It has nothing to do with being proven by history.

Are you aware that the law in question merely confirms the policies of the Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.html)(my link is to the 1987 version) regarding interrogation?

Its guidelines cover battlefield capture and screening logistics and the third chapter details the planning, approach, questioning, and termination phases of an interrogation. According to the FM 34-52, the interrogator's goal during the approach phase is to establish rapport with the detainee, which can be done via 17 different methods, including:

"Emotional": taking advantage of a source's strong feelings;

"Fear-up": exploiting a source's fears, real or imagined;

"Pride and ego": flattering a source or attacking his pride, both to serve the purpose of putting him in a frame of mind to reveal information;

"Futility": using facts to prove to the source that his or her current situation is hopeless.

These methods each have several sub-categories, such as "fear-up (harsh)" or "ego-down," and are recommended to be used in combination with each other for the best effect.

The Manual clearly explains, however:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm), emphasis added)

There are time-tested techniques that have been proven to work and are used in compliance with the law. These techniques are not only legal and ethical, but more effective.

I appreciate your efforts to link up everything you can find that backs your position. I can appreciate your position even. I am not unaware of the controversy surrounding this issue. I simply do not agree that it should be outlawed.

Waterboarding and saving 5 or 10 lives or not waterboarding and killing 5 or 10 people. Which would I chose? Not a difficult decision. Where is the water, the board, and the rags?

False premise: Waterboarding is less likely to save lives than more effective and ethical techniques.

Wasn't somebody going on about a lack of real world knowledge?

And/or they keep playing the politics as usual game of telling us what we want to hear and doing things as they damn well please. Oh, and both parties are guilty of that. :mad:

True enough.

'Cuz Wayne Allyn Root will lead us to the promised land! W00t! :headbang:

It's better than voting for the Republicrats over and over and over again and getting the same old and tired shit.

How about we clean out the whole mess and start over? After all the reality is "Congress is not doing their job, that is every Congressman and Senator except the ones from my state." :rolleyes:

Clean them all out and start over or realize a viable third party can and should be a reality. We bitch and moan about politics but if and when we go to the polls we seem to pull that same D or R lever. :( Shame on those that do.:mad:

'Cuz Wayne Allyn Root will lead us to the promised land! W00t! :headbang:

What we Americans must ask ourselves is do we want to win this war, or be nice to people who would kill us as soon as look at us.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm

And? The well example isn't any different, except you fish them out before they actually drown.

True enough.

Ah! I'm not at demented as some would think. :p

It's better than voting for the Republicrats over and over and over again and getting the same old and tired shit.

Or voting for the Demorats over and over and over again and getting the same old and tired shit.:rolleyes:

Or voting for the Demorats over and over and over again and getting the same old and tired shit.:rolleyes:

Democrats = Republicans

Whatever differences may exist between the two are purely cosmetic.

What we Americans must ask ourselves is do we want to win this war, or be nice to people who would kill us as soon as look at us.

And the way to win a war is by doing what now kids? Why, by alienating the local populace, along with the world at large, of course!

this is great some people just need to be tortured i personally think that if you have highly trained people let them do whatever they want in order to protect america

My concept of the real world is that if someone is waterboarding me I will spout off useless bullshit information to stop them.

Problem with that is you don't just turn them loose after they talk. You find out if what they told you is true or not, and if it isn't, then you either lock them up or give it another go. If you spout off useless b/s, well, go to your cell and wait to get the hose treatment again.
Remember that we don't randomly pick people off the streets and waterboard them. The guys that we nab have been studied and observed to the point where we make the call that they need to be brought in due to thier affiliations or activities. It's only in very grave extremes that they are then waterboarded.
A buddy of mine was waterboarded at SERE school because he is an idiot, and he said that it was a terrifying experience, but (and this is his caveat, not mine) he would rather be terrified out of his skin than be raped, have his fingers broken, nails ripped out, electrocuted, etc.
I'm torn on it really because I do believe that this is one of those slippery-slope arguments: if we continue to allow it, will it lead to other forms of abuse? I would say very likely. Is it better than other forms of torture? Yes, for sure, and that's where the trouble begins.
Some argue that it is always morally wrong to torture someone, and with that I disagree. There are times and places when it is appropriate (such as getting information that may immediately save lives, as we see Jack Bauer do every five goddamned seconds :rolleyes:), but how that can be ascertained in a timely manner is beyond me. I suppose that there should be a system wherein a case officer, MI or CI officer can determine or has sufficient reason to believe, through collaboration with other sources, agreement of his/her colleagues in theater,etc. wether or not the detainee has relevant information crucial to saving lives and there is not sufficient time to get the information through non-violent methods.
And then there is the problem of acting on the intel that you get out of people. We had a source who gave up (for a set of new tires for his toyota truck, no less) an IED factory in Basrah. We went to our action group, which was some Royal Horse Artillery unit of the British Army, whose commanding officer said he'd take care of it 'in the next couple days.' Of course, he didn't, and by the time he finally rolled an op to the residence it had been cleaned out. Trace explosive elements found there were the same as several IEDs that had taken out some Warrior fighting vehicles previously and again about a week later. There's nothing more frustrating than getting intel and then see some asshole not act on it, but that's a digression...

Remember that we don't randomly pick people off the streets and waterboard them. The guys that we nab have been studied and observed to the point where we make the call that they need to be brought in due to thier affiliations or activities. It's only in very grave extremes that they are then waterboarded.

Right, like half of those in Gitmo who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocents, who never had their guilty proven, because it was assumed that they were 'ebil terrorists'.

Some argue that it is always morally wrong to torture someone, and with that I disagree. There are times and places when it is appropriate (such as getting information that may immediately save lives, as we see Jack Bauer do every five goddamned seconds :rolleyes:)

Mostly false, as has been proven time and time again. How do you save lives with false information?

Right, like half of those in Gitmo who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocents, who never had their guilty proven, because it was assumed that they were 'ebil terrorists'.



Mostly false, as has been proven time and time again. How do you save lives with false information?

Half in Gitmo are there because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Okay...only because they chose to be! Most of the guys in Gitmo are from the core of 'Arab-Afghans' who remained in Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War, forming the core of Al-Qaeda's foreign fighters in Afghanistan. And they weren't fighting for Afghan liberation or social justice (as the Taliban did before its corruption), but rather to bring about Said Qutb's 'four pahses' by creating a pure Islamic society that could then 'reeducate' the rest of the jahilliyah Muslims worldwide, beginning a process which they believe will cause the rise of the global Islamic Caliphate.
If you want to know more about this subject, there are some great books on it. I highly recommend Ahmed Rashid's Taliban, Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, Gary Bernsten's Jawbreaker, and Gary Schroen's First In.
Said Qutb's book Milestones is available for download free at http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/, and the Strategic Studies Institute wrote a great article called 'The Military Strategy of Global Jihad' (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB809.pdf )that you may want to read.
Qutb is important to read because he codified the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose ideals and goals have become manifest in almost every Islamist organization worldwide.

And as far as false information...I have gotten false information out of people who weren't being hurt, either. Like I said in my post, I hold it as a last resort when someone is out of options and they believe that a person has vital information that may save lives. I didn't say that it would always work, but an option to be kept available.

Mostly false, as has been proven time and time again. How do you save lives with false information?

Because sometimes they tell the truth. Not everybody is tough enough to lie under interrogation like you think you are.

Post Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/11/ST2007121100844.html)

Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks, said John Kiriakou, who served as a CIA interrogator in Pakistan.



Is torture, still works. Do anyway.

Because sometimes they tell the truth. Not everybody is tough enough to lie under interrogation like you think you are.

Post Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/11/ST2007121100844.html)




Is torture, still works. Do anyway.

I was looking for that story, thanks for posting it!

Did you ever take the time to notice that Bush's approval rating is HIGHER than the approval rating of Congress? I am disgusted by Bush, but I'm more disgusted by Congress and many of the people here who would bash Bush, won't bash Congress. I wonder why? :(

cus congress is 2 used to bending over for bush! you just stop caring after a while

I don't even understand Bush anymore. Everyone hates him. The liberals hate him, the Democrats hate him, his own party hates him, South America hates him, the Middle East hates him, Europe hates him... what is he out for? He may as well just fold up and shut up.

Never in my life will I understand the motives of politicians...

there is Asia and Africa left, the man has a dream! a dream to be hated on all 7 continents. i say! let that dream come true

Ah! I'm not at demented as some would think. :p

WHo am I to judge? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-006.gif

Half in Gitmo are there because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Okay...only because they chose to be! Most of the guys in Gitmo are from the core of 'Arab-Afghans' who remained in Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War, forming the core of Al-Qaeda's foreign fighters in Afghanistan. And they weren't fighting for Afghan liberation or social justice (as the Taliban did before its corruption), but rather to bring about Said Qutb's 'four pahses' by creating a pure Islamic society that could then 'reeducate' the rest of the jahilliyah Muslims worldwide, beginning a process which they believe will cause the rise of the global Islamic Caliphate.

Or, you know, they were sheep herders and farmers who, once the US put a bounty on terrorists, were captured by rival tribes who wanted some money and figured that the US would take almost anyone without any evidence.

KALID AL UDAH: The details are sketchy, but Khalid says his son and some other Kuwaitis were working for a charity on the Afghan-Pakistan border when they were snatched by bounty hunters who handed them to the Americans for cash. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2524241.stm) November 28th, 2002

In all some 775 prisoners have been at the camp since 11 January 2002. Just under half, 379, have been released. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6241123.stm) February 21st, 2007

It seems I was right: Half of them were in there for no good reason and were released, most of them probably caught by warring tribes who thought "Hey! Let's make some cash!"

The other half remains to actually be shown to be terrorists or even criminals for that matter. I have no doubt that some of them are, but the vast majority of them are innocents who got caught up in a war and when the war comes to your doorstep, you don't really have the choice of not being there.

And as far as false information...I have gotten false information out of people who weren't being hurt, either. Like I said in my post, I hold it as a last resort when someone is out of options and they believe that a person has vital information that may save lives. I didn't say that it would always work, but an option to be kept available.

It is NOT an option to be kept available, unless you want me to put you at the same level as the terrorists. To use violence and intimidation as a means to an end is pretty much exactly what terrorists do.

How did I know this would happen?:mad:

Or, you know, they were sheep herders and farmers who, once the US put a bounty on terrorists, were captured by rival tribes who wanted some money and figured that the US would take almost anyone without any evidence.

KALID AL UDAH: The details are sketchy, but Khalid says his son and some other Kuwaitis were working for a charity on the Afghan-Pakistan border when they were snatched by bounty hunters who handed them to the Americans for cash. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2524241.stm) November 28th, 2002

In all some 775 prisoners have been at the camp since 11 January 2002. Just under half, 379, have been released. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6241123.stm) February 21st, 2007

It seems I was right: Half of them were in there for no good reason and were released, most of them probably caught by warring tribes who thought "Hey! Let's make some cash!"

The other half remains to actually be shown to be terrorists or even criminals for that matter. I have no doubt that some of them are, but the vast majority of them are innocents who got caught up in a war and when the war comes to your doorstep, you don't really have the choice of not being there.



It is NOT an option to be kept available, unless you want me to put you at the same level as the terrorists. To use violence and intimidation as a means to an end is pretty much exactly what terrorists do.

What you have said has some merit, especially when the competing tribes were turning travelers and merchants over to U.S. forces in late 2001 and early 2002. But the lion's share of these guys were released while still in Afghanistan.
Al-Udah's family and lawyers proclaim his innocence, but if he was legitimately working for a chairty on the Afghan-FATA border, why did a simple check with that agency not clear him? To me, it means that the charity either denied his involvement or it is one of the 'charities' that smuggled weapons and supplies to the Taliban, but Googling al-Udah's name brings up little beyond the BBC story you posted and copies of that story on websites such as ratical.org and cageprisoners.com. Lacking further information on it, I can't back that claim up, but it appears to me that his story didn't check out with the investigators. The BBC didn't comment on which charity he worked for, unfortunately, so I have no direction for that either, which is again unfortunate.
In the second article you posted dealing with Sami al-Hajj was interesting. I pulled this up http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_000394-000494.pdf#17, a DOD brief talking about the accusations against him, paraphrasing of his testimony, etc (pp 17-20 deal with al-Hajj). Of particular importance, in my opinion, are his deliveries of money to al-Haramayn, Wafa, and a passport that was suspect.
Googling al-Haramayn brings up a plethora of for-and-against articles about the organization, mainly dealing with Chechnya. Doing the same for al wafa brings up the same, depending on the source.
Neither of these people were simple farmers or shepherds, but foreigners who were questionably in Afghanistan, and in the case of al-Hajj, working for questionable organizations. Proof of guilt? No. Definite reasons of suspicion? I would say yes. Is it a legal gray area? Absolutely, and it does need to be clarified and examined, as do the stories of these two men.
As for you wanting to put me on the same level as terrorists, well, I find this deploring on so many levels, but I do believe in the freedom of speech and expression. You are welcome to feel that way if you wish. Before I went on my first overseas tour I shared many of the sentiments that you espouse. Experience really changed the way I looked at it, as did studying Afghanistan's recent history as my historical concentration for my degree.

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Alleged-yet-not-proven-in-a-court-of-law-or-to-the-satisfaction-of-international-law Terrorist just had his body tricked into thinking it was drowning in an ocean, causing him temporary discomfort and psychological trauma, because he won't give us information that will be, at best, as accurate as we could have gotten in a more human way!

I fixed it for you.

Waterboarding and saving 5 or 10 lives or not waterboarding and killing 5 or 10 people. Which would I chose? Not a difficult decision. Where is the water, the board, and the rags?

It's on that shelf where you used to keep your dignity. Ba-ziiinnnnng!

Sorry. I have urges sometimes.


As for you wanting to put me on the same level as terrorists, well, I find this deploring on so many levels, but I do believe in the freedom of speech and expression. You are welcome to feel that way if you wish. Before I went on my first overseas tour I shared many of the sentiments that you espouse. Experience really changed the way I looked at it, as did studying Afghanistan's recent history as my historical concentration for my degree.

He's not putting you on the same level; you are. When you start using the same methods that we deplore when the terrorists use, then you forfeit the moral high ground because you essentially become the exact same as them.

Because sometimes they tell the truth. Not everybody is tough enough to lie under interrogation like you think you are.

Post Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/11/ST2007121100844.html)




Is torture, still works. Do anyway.
Makes one wonder why the Army Field Manual that someone referred to earlier specifically tells the reader not to torture the 'source'. I guess the Army must just be run by morons, since your one case of torture providing useful information clearly proves that torture is always useful.

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

You have a point, but isn't the idea to be above what they do and set a moral example.

Not saying I'm worried about the terrorists, I'd shoot them on sight if I had a choice between capturing and killing them, but you have never experienced the feeling of drowning, have you Doom?

Waterboarding is a horrible procedure. If anyone were to do that to an American soldier, they would be executed.

I'm alright with making life miserable for the terrorists (They don't deserve comfy cells and high-quality food) but not to the point where it crosses the line of torture (Beatings, waterboarding, forced "Barney" watching)

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Its not always true, but it usually seems to work.

The waterboarding issue is not the only one being addressed in the bill, it's just the one that the proponents of the bill are presenting to the media.

The waterboarding issue is not the only one being addressed in the bill, it's just the one that the proponents of the bill are presenting to the media.

Waterboarding is also the issue the Bush responded to.
Bush has said the bill would harm the government's ability to prevent future attacks. Supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States' right to collect critical intelligence while boosting the country's moral standing abroad.

"The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.

What I've learned from the Federal Government: Terrorism includes Torture, but Torture is not Terrorism.

I can't wait til my final lesson in the class, "How to drop your pants, squat down and take a gigantic pile of shit on every single thing good and decent and right."

Waterboarding is also the issue the Bush responded to.

I stand corrected. Still, it's not like this is the only issue that he could've had with the bill.

I stand corrected. Still, it's not like this is the only issue that he could've had with the bill.

I can't claim to know what else is in the bill, but I believe it's pretty well established that the Bush admin is in favour of waterboarding terror suspects. It's not exaclt far fetched to believe that he would veto a bill just because it banned waterboarding.

Waterboarding is a horrible procedure. If anyone were to do that to an American soldier, they would be executed.

Interesting point. Do the people in support of waterboarding agree that it is an appropriate method of interrogation for use against American troops?

Interesting point. Do the people in support of waterboarding agree that it is an appropriate method of interrogation for use against American troops?

One can only assume they do. They'd surely never hold such a blatant double standard.

He's not putting you on the same level; you are. When you start using the same methods that we deplore when the terrorists use, then you forfeit the moral high ground because you essentially become the exact same as them.[/QUOTE]

No. That's like saying that the person who defends themselves against a violent attack with violence is just as bad as the original perpetrator. It isn't, because the defender did not initiate the violence, but responded to it. And to be honest, when someone attacks a person, they should respond with as much violence as they can summon, as a lesson to that person and others that they deserve to be secure in thier person and property.
When someone chooses to commit a heinous act against a group of humans, then I sincerely believe that it is justifiable to use violence against them, as I said before, as a last resort in an effort to save innocent lives.
What kind of moral high ground can you have to let innocent people die because you did not attempt to use all the neccessary tools to get information that may save lives?
As I have argued previously, I do recognize that this does not apply in all cases and that care needs to be exercised. I see the slippery slope that this rests upon. But what about the rights of the potential victims? Shall we uphold a terrorist's and violate the victim's right to life?

No. That's like saying that the person who defends themselves against a violent attack with violence is just as bad as the original perpetrator. It isn't, because the defender did not initiate the violence, but responded to it.
Ah, so if you punch me it's ok for me to punch your friend. Gotcha.
And to be honest, when someone attacks a person, they should respond with as much violence as they can summon, as a lesson to that person and others that they deserve to be secure in thier person and property.
You go right ahead and think that. Do us a favour and ask your lawyer to inform NSG when you get put in jail for killing someone who kicked you in the shins.
When someone chooses to commit a heinous act against a group of humans, then I sincerely believe that it is justifiable to use violence against them, as I said before, as a last resort in an effort to save innocent lives.
Except that torturing prisoners of war isn't the same as responding to violence with violence, as much as you may want it to be.
What kind of moral high ground can you have to let innocent people die because you did not attempt to use all the neccessary tools to get information that may save lives?

What kind can you claim of moral high ground can you have if you abandon any pretence of respect for basic human rights for the sake of a small possibility of getting useful information?
As I have argued previously, I do recognize that this does not apply in all cases and that care needs to be exercised. I see the slippery slope that this rests upon. But what about the rights of the potential victims? Shall we uphold a terrorist's and violate the victim's right to life?
Why bother upholding any rights at all if you'll just drop them at the slightest hint of a possibility of terrorism?

You have a point, but isn't the idea to be above what they do and set a moral example.

Not saying I'm worried about the terrorists, I'd shoot them on sight if I had a choice between capturing and killing them, but you have never experienced the feeling of drowning, have you Doom?

Waterboarding is a horrible procedure. If anyone were to do that to an American soldier, they would be executed.

I'm alright with making life miserable for the terrorists (They don't deserve comfy cells and high-quality food) but not to the point where it crosses the line of torture (Beatings, waterboarding, forced "Barney" watching)

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Its not always true, but it usually seems to work.

ROFL

And to be honest, when someone attacks a person, they should respond with as much violence as they can summon, as a lesson to that person and others that they deserve to be secure in thier person and property.

Uh. No.

One must respond with the *minimum* force deemed necessary for defense, not the *maximum*.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that what you are advocating is nothing short of violent felonies. "Had to teach them a lesson" might work in some fantasy frontier Texas courtroom, but in the real world you're going to get imprisoned for that kind of thing.

And rightfully so.

This is quite strange to be honest. My bad if anyone's brought this up earlier in the thread, I was too lazy to read :P

The US prosecuted a Japanese officer in 1947 for apparently waterboarding American personnel, and he received a 15 year sentence of hard labor, and the use of waterboarding was explicitly forbidden in the Vietnam War by the generals there. I find it weird that a country with quite a history of going against this, would still have a debate over its legality

But if we can't waterboard, the terrorists win.

But if we can't waterboard, the terrorists win.

We could replace it with another form of torture: The Cat Mosh Pit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LQSoMakoIU&feature=related

:)

"So Senator, you do not approve of torture?"
"No."
"Well George Bush does and he endorsed you."
"I like to forget that Bush endorsed me, thank you."
http://www.newsfollowup.com/id/images_14/mccain_bush_hand_butt.jpg
Thanks be to LG, of course.

1. It's not torture. Torture causes extreme physical pain. Waterboarding causes minor mental discomfort.
2. Even if it was torture, I couldn't care less. If it's torture that stops a nuke from going off in New York and killing me and 8,500,000 other people, oh well.

1. It's not torture. Torture causes extreme physical pain. Waterboarding causes minor mental discomfort.
2. Even if it was torture, I couldn't care less. If it's torture that stops a nuke from going off in New York and killing me and 8,500,000 other people, oh well.

Keep that in mind when due to a case of mistaken identity, you're next. :)

Yes, having the moral high ground definitely helps save american lives!

Having a "moral high ground" doesn't do anything more than let the rest of the world call us hypocrites. If waterboarding saved so much as one American life, which I'm sure it has, then it is worthwhile.

Also: if our opponents aren't going to follow the Geneva convention, why should we? All it does is put us at a disadvantage. It would be much easier, to say, rake through the human sheilds with heavy MGs than to coordinate strikes behind the civilians.

"Had to teach them a lesson" might work in some fantasy frontier Texas courtroom

How do I poorly stereotyped? And no, you wont get imprisoned for that. Say someone breaks into my house and I drop them with my 12 gauge. Am I going to go to jail? No.

Also note that if you were out in a harsh battlefield, and you lost a bud to the enemy as a POW, and they refused to exchange prisoners, I garauntee that 99% of the people in this thread would do whatever it took to get the information on where they were keeping your bud from the POWs you held, be it waterboarding, beatings, or whatever else you might dream up.

And to be honest, when someone attacks a person, they should respond with as much violence as they can summon, as a lesson to that person and others that they deserve to be secure in thier person and property.


Hear that people? Free grounds to burn people alive for slapping you. The more violence, the better. Better start fueling those flamethrowers. Slaughter the world!

1. It's not torture. Torture causes extreme physical pain. Waterboarding causes minor mental discomfort.


People who say this never actually undergo it. I think they'd be surprised to learn that a small lump of metal smaller than their pinkie can kill them too.

Also note that if you were out in a harsh battlefield, and you lost a bud to the enemy as a POW, and they refused to exchange prisoners, I garauntee that 99% of the people in this thread would do whatever it took to get the information on where they were keeping your bud from the POWs you held, be it waterboarding, beatings, or whatever else you might dream up.

Another argument based on the faulty "torture works" premise. And no, I wouldn't. Nor would a large portion of the people posting in this thread, I suspect.

Another argument based on the faulty "torture works" premise. And no, I wouldn't. Nor would a large portion of the people posting in this thread, I suspect.

Torture produces results! Well, innocent people will just admit to anything to stop being tortured so the evidence produced is either true or just some made-up rubbish.

And to be honest, when someone attacks a person, they should respond with as much violence as they can summon, as a lesson to that person and others that they deserve to be secure in thier person and property.

*sigh* another one for the ignore list.


You are in desperate need of professional help. For your own sake, and for the safety of those around you, please get it.

Good, Bush did something right for once, waterboarding is too nice for them terrorists sons of bitches,I say set them on fire,and then put them out with gasoline.

But then again, I want to waterboard Paris Hilton too.

* shrugs*



Btw you have to take into account that I am a bastard,who has a low opinion of the human race at a whole, so waterboard terrorists all you want, just dont waterboard kitties, I draw the line there. MUAHAHAHAHAH.

The sooner that Dubya is out of office the better. Torture's a terrible thing to introduce to any nation - especially one that has a prohibition in its founding documents against cruel and unusual punishment.

Bring on the next Prez!

Lets put this arguement to rest. It IS torture and is recognized internationally as such. The US itself has prosecuted people for waterboarding. It IS torture by any measure. The real arguement here is , is this torture acceptable. Lets stop trying to spraypaint shit pretty colors and then try to call it something else. Its torture plain and simple. If you see it happen in front of your own eyes, there would be no doubt even for one second in your mind that the person writhing in agony in front of you is being tortured. The debate is, is this brand of torture considered acceptable to our society and is it worth deviating from internationally accepted norms and be branded a country that tortures like Syria?

Also: if our opponents aren't going to follow the Geneva convention, why should we? All it does is put us at a disadvantage. It would be much easier, to say, rake through the human sheilds with heavy MGs than to coordinate strikes behind the civilians.

And yet the US was able to survive the most destructive and unimaginable wars in the entire Earths history all while supporting and following these principals



How do I poorly stereotyped? And no, you wont get imprisoned for that. Say someone breaks into my house and I drop them with my 12 gauge. Am I going to go to jail? No.

No but if you tie him up, then tie his eyelids open and shine bright lights into his eyes or lock him in your basement without food or water for a week you sure are going to jail.

Also note that if you were out in a harsh battlefield, and you lost a bud to the enemy as a POW, and they refused to exchange prisoners, I garauntee that 99% of the people in this thread would do whatever it took to get the information on where they were keeping your bud from the POWs you held, be it waterboarding, beatings, or whatever else you might dream up.

And hence the reason we have Army manuals to govern behavior to prevent EXACTLY this. If you do this to the enemy then its time to visit the brig for dereliction of duty.

Waterboarding is a horrible procedure. If anyone were to do that to an American soldier, they would be executed.

They have. About a dozen Japanese officers were executed after WW2 for waterboarding American POWs.

As for waterboarding being mroe effective than other interrogation techniques, I once saw a documentary about Nazi POWs that were being questions by CIA agents. One of the agents said that he got more information out of a nazi officer over a game or two of chess than he would have if he was allowed to torture them.

Waterboarding! I guess group hugs, firewalking, and falling back hoping your co-worker catches you are all techniques of the past. Looks like civilians will still use it, even if the government eventually doesn't. Let's waterboard the least productive salesperson this quarter!

Now we take the lowest performing employee, and the other employees get to "team build" by waterboarding him.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8385103



Yeah, like anyone would volunteer to be waterboarded...

I can see Scott Adams making a storyline from this.

How do I poorly stereotyped? And no, you wont get imprisoned for that. Say someone breaks into my house and I drop them with my 12 gauge. Am I going to go to jail? No.

Because that is different. That's not using the "maximum force possible" in order to "teach" anyone a "lesson." That's simple self defense. What the poster said allowed for so much more - literally, anything more - that your example doesn't begin to defend it.

Also note that if you were out in a harsh battlefield, and you lost a bud to the enemy as a POW, and they refused to exchange prisoners, I garauntee that 99% of the people in this thread would do whatever it took to get the information on where they were keeping your bud from the POWs you held, be it waterboarding, beatings, or whatever else you might dream up.

Big deal. Most people in such situations would be too emotionally involved and stressed to have a sound judgement at all.

Also note that making human pyramids and taking pictures of the guys anuses does not qualify as valiantly doing whatever it takes to save innocents from the grip of a brutal enemy. And also note that the incidents of waterboarding to not qualify as such either. These are CIA interrogators and not a single one of them used waterboarding to rescue some "bud" of theirs.

Props to President Bush for keeping all options open and not tying our hands in dealing with terrorists.

And a big fat raspberry to San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry and the other Dems, who are once again exposed as the impotent posturers that they are. Good luck trying to override this veto :p

And a big fat raspberry to San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry and the other Dems, who are once again exposed as the impotent posturers that they are. Good luck trying to override this veto :p

You mean besides by waiting it out for another 8 months? The new Democrat or Republican President will certainly not veto a similar bill in the future.

Props to President Bush for keeping all options open and not tying our hands in dealing with terrorists.

Aw how pathet- er, cute.

Aw how pathet- er, cute.

I'm not quite sure what's cute about a 'guilty until proven innocent' stance.

I'm not quite sure what's cute about a 'guilty until proven innocent' stance.
None really at all - it was more a response to a literal reading of his/her statement.
There's plenty of historical references pointing out how un-cute "guilty until proven innocent" is.

my though is well you know, cops have to be tazered as part of their training to be licensed to carry one. certainly the least for bush would be for him to be waterboarded himself. but then i'm of the opinion he needs to be exrordinarally rendered himself to gitmo. perhapse as part of the warcrimes conviction he so richly deserves.

=^^=
.../\...

Props to President Bush for keeping all options open and not tying our hands in dealing with terrorists.

And a big fat raspberry to San Fran Nan, Dingy Harry and the other Dems, who are once again exposed as the impotent posturers that they are. Good luck trying to override this veto :p

I'd respectfully suggest that you go live in some country that's more sympathetic to your complete disregard for the rule of law.

my though is well you know, cops have to be tazered as part of their training to be licensed to carry one. certainly the least for bush would be for him to be waterboarded himself. but then i'm of the opinion he needs to be exrordinarally rendered himself to gitmo. perhapse as part of the warcrimes conviction he so richly deserves.

=^^=
.../\...

I really actually like the idea there. About the cops I mean. In a way it's sort of a chance for them to see how the other half lives where that thing is concerned and makes them less likely to abuse it in practice, knowing how it feels. In theory.

"In a press conference today, North Korean leader Kim Jun Il welcomed the US as the newest member of the axis of evil. In responce, president Bush commented: Kim and me see eye to eye over so many things, it really waas inevitable that we joined him in his heroic efforts to turn the world into a facist dictatorship, lead by humble old me ofcourse."

It's offical ladies and gentlemen, the US is a barbaric state. I hope the rest of the world will comdemn them for it.

Right, torture always gives accurate, reliable information...

Sure the information is accurate and reliable, what do you think?
The Spanish Inquisition showed us this many times discovering uncounted withc... ahem terrorists. ;)

Isn't Dubya related to Torquemada?

Props to President Bush for keeping all options open and not tying our hands in dealing with terrorists.

Yes those pesky laws stopping the President from doing anything useful like murder and torture...

...there is a reason why the US Constitution doesn't say "and the president should be able to do whatever they damn well like".

Having a "moral high ground" doesn't do anything more than let the rest of the world call us hypocrites. If waterboarding saved so much as one American life, which I'm sure it has, then it is worthwhile.

You are sure on ground of what?

Also: if our opponents aren't going to follow the Geneva convention, why should we? All it does is put us at a disadvantage. It would be much easier, to say, rake through the human sheilds with heavy MGs than to coordinate strikes behind the civilians.

Yeah, and get back those Dum-Dum ammo, and the nerve gas...
If you stop following the Geneva convention your opponents will say just the same.

How do I poorly stereotyped? And no, you wont get imprisoned for that. Say someone breaks into my house and I drop them with my 12 gauge. Am I going to go to jail? No.

In Italy and Czech Republic for sure, if the guy wasn't armed and aiming at you that's "excessive defence" and is treated as manslaughter (not homicide but still you'd get YEARS of jail).

Also note that if you were out in a harsh battlefield, and you lost a bud to the enemy as a POW, and they refused to exchange prisoners, I garauntee that 99% of the people in this thread would do whatever it took to get the information on where they were keeping your bud from the POWs you held, be it waterboarding, beatings, or whatever else you might dream up.

Yes, I'd do whatever except torture. That's because I strongly believe that the info I'd get would be tainted at best. Come on not even KGB used to torture people they wanted info from, that's why they come out with sleep deprivation, penthotal and hypnotyc techniques.

Yes, having the moral high ground definitely helps save american lives!

Having a "moral high ground" doesn't do anything more than let the rest of the world call us hypocrites. If waterboarding saved so much as one American life, which I'm sure it has, then it is worthwhile.

Also: if our opponents aren't going to follow the Geneva convention, why should we? All it does is put us at a disadvantage. It would be much easier, to say, rake through the human sheilds with heavy MGs than to coordinate strikes behind the civilians.

Wait, wait.

The USA shouldn't bother to be moral because the rest of the world will call them hypocrites.

However, not following the Geneva Convention - because that's what the enemy is doing - is A-OK.

whuh?

Come on not even KGB used to torture people they wanted info from, that's why they come out with sleep deprivation, penthotal and hypnotyc techniques.

Yes, they did

Yes, they did

No, they didn't torture people they wanted information from.
Unless you count sleep deprivation as torture (which somebody does, as it causes permanent physiological damage).

Something I've always wondered...

I remember during military training, there's a short class on what to expect as a POW.

You're told that almost everyone will torture you, especially if they believe that you know something.

Chances are, you'll know some small bit of information, and you'll know what that it.

They tell you, "it's ok, everyone talks. So hold out for about a day, and then it's ok to talk, because your information will be too old to be of use. Everyone talks, so don't feel bad about it".

So, if "everyone talks", does that mean that torture is effective? Or can everyone hold out for a day?

From the sound of the waterboarding, it sounds like people can't even hold out a few minutes.

So does everyone talk?

Props to President Bush for keeping all options open and not tying our hands in dealing with terrorists.

should we keep 'killing every single person outside of USia' as an open option? is it 'tying our hands' to not operate industrialized death camps?

Props to President Bush for keeping all options open and not tying our hands in dealing with terrorists.

You are in fact saying that when in 1947 the US set a legal precedent by judging this behavior to be a Crime of War, it was wrong and the US didn't know what a War Crime was back then.

Or perhaps you're saying that the same behavior is a War Crime in 1947, and "keeping all options open" in 2008 simply through the sheer force of denial.

Or perhaps you're saying that GW Bush > US Law, because you love GW Bush so much on a personal level that you don't care what even the military or the government might say, he's right 100% on everything that ever dribbles out of his cute, pouty mouth.

But here's what you're not doing - you're not "laying smack down" on anyone here. Your signature is quite amusing for the sheer force of willful ignorance it suggests, but it only gets the "unpleasant" part right. You're unpleasant alright, in the same way that anyone who advocates criminal behavior is.

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

I think you are confusing waterboarding with Chinese water torture. IT's been shown time and time again that torture does not produce the best results. It's a little more than temporary discomfort. At least McCain has denounced torture.

At least McCain has denounced torture.

not really. for example, he voted against the bill in question here, because he thinks we should use torture. he actually urged bush to veto the ban.

Everyone talks to make the torture stop. What's the best way to make the torture stop? Say what the torturer wants to hear. Hence why it's unreliable at best, and fucking pisspoor on a regular basis.

We were told that we'll actually tell them what they want to know.

It's not as though they take answers, and then never check up on whether they're true or not. We were told that they will absolutely check the answers.

If it turns out we told them something useless or false, we'll get worse.

I like this bit.

'The bill would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.'

Fuck me! Only the other 19 methods of torture to elicit answers, seems a shame huh that they are allowed only 19.

So does everyone talk?

Everyone talks to make the torture stop. What's the best way to make the torture stop? Say what the torturer wants to hear. Hence why it's unreliable at best, and fucking pisspoor on a regular basis.

We were told that we'll actually tell them what they want to know.

It's not as though they take answers, and then never check up on whether they're true or not. We were told that they will absolutely check the answers.

If it turns out we told them something useless or false, we'll get worse.

And if you expend all your usefulness, they'll let you go with a gold star?

Aside from the glaring, moral hypocrisy of advocating torture (but maintaining that the US is a beacon of democracy), the factual evidence says that it's one of the least effective methods of getting information from a suspect. And usually the people advocating it are trying to put a legitimate spin on their irrational desires.

And if you expend all your usefulness, they'll let you go with a gold star?

No, traditionally, you die then.

Aside from the glaring, moral hypocrisy of advocating torture (but maintaining that the US is a beacon of democracy), the factual evidence says that it's one of the least effective methods of getting information from a suspect. And usually the people advocating it are trying to put a legitimate spin on their irrational desires.

I'm not trying to justify it. I want you to answer the question I've asked:

I've been told many, many times that it will quite effectively get anyone to tell the information that is desired. This is repeated so often in training that it might as well be a mantra.

And then people like you, who don't have any skill set or experience with torture (as opposed to the SERE instructors who tell you everyone talks) will say that it doesn't ever work.

Which one of you is right?

Yes, I agree it's immoral, etc. Shouldn't be done. Yes. But I'm asking if it's effective.

I get the very strong impression that torture without questions is ineffective. But if someone smart and competent is asking and verifying the information, it's probably far more effective than you know.

It is amazing how, in only a few short years, a single administration has managed to dismantle every single one of the "Fundamental American Values" I was taught about in grammar school.

I find it depressing that there are so many people that think torture is OK. I wonder how they would like to get waterboarded.

I'm not trying to justify it. I want you to answer the question I've asked:

I've been told many, many times that it will quite effectively get anyone to tell the information that is desired. This is repeated so often in training that it might as well be a mantra.

Then that's what you've been told. It'd be very stupid of me to deny that.

I can repeat that the evidence I've seen tells me that torture isn't as effective as a well-thought out interrogation.

And then people like you, who don't have any skill set or experience with torture (as opposed to the SERE instructors who tell you everyone talks) will say that it doesn't ever work.

One, don't do that "people like you" trick. I'm not part of a hivemind.

Two, don't assume that I know fuck-all about the subject, same as I'm not assuming that you're pulling your SERE story out of your arse.

Finally, I'm not saying it doesn't ever work. I'm saying that the cases where it works, and someone talks, they're not saying the whole truth most of the time. They're saying what they think you want to hear.

Which one of you is right?

Yes, I agree it's immoral, etc. Shouldn't be done. Yes. But I'm asking if it's effective.

I get the very strong impression that torture without questions is ineffective. But if someone smart and competent is asking and verifying the information, it's probably far more effective than you know.

The best evidence suggests that it's very, very ineffective, it's largely discounted by the rest of the world, and it's been historically shown to be a bad move.

But I don't have a shiny declaration from God saying "Torture is shit, m'kay?"

Which essentially damns this debate to an endless cycle.

If the Western response to explicitly Islamic barbarism is implicitly Christian barbarism, the moral high ground cannot be claimed by either.

This post cheered me up on a thoroughly manky night. Cheers to you!

It is amazing how, in only a few short years, a single administration has managed to dismantle every single one of the "Fundamental American Values" I was taught about in grammar school.

And how they've gotten millions of people in this country to cheer it on like a 16-year-old playing GTA on his XBox.

If the Western response to explicitly Islamic barbarism is implicitly Christian barbarism, the moral high ground cannot be claimed by either.

It is issues like this that have caused the reputation of America as a whole to be utterly destroyed. But the fact of the matter is that everyone, despite overwhelming proof of the opposite, will always try to push their own agenda. Some will cite that torture works, others will cite that it does not. Will either sway the other into thinking they are wrong? Here lies the overwhelmingly difficult task of debate, which this forum seems to be heading towards. The answer, of course, is no. If someone believes torture truly works, they will consequently always believe so, regardless of other 'facts' or theories.

Someone, earlier, had mentioned a scenario in which a nation was attacked by means of terrorism multiple times and a terrorist captured as a result there of. Then the question raised, "should torture be condoned if it prevents another attack?" A terrifying idea, to use one form of terrorism to prevent another. And it was induced that the torture would indeed prevent another attack and therefor be accepted. The flip-side to that, of course, is if the torture had not produced any evidence. What then? Jot it down as a statistical failure and find the next person to torture? That is the true dilemma of the practice.

Not everyone will play by the rules in which another does, that much is given. Has America, as a nation at whole, given into the idealism that "as long as it prevents another attack it is okay?" I once read somewhere that Hitler firebombed his own buildings to incite such hostility towards another nation that the citizens then supported him for invading Poland. I found it horribly ironic that some 60+ years later a theory arose stating that the same practice was used to push America into multi-national wars. BBC reported about a year ago that while trying to interview one of the 9/11 'hijackers', they spotted the very person accused of the actual hijacking. I don't have a website to cite, but I will try to find it. It also mentioned that some 12 of the 19 hijackers were seen and spotted as being alive and living well.

Is that then proof that the American government is in fact torturing it's own people through unconventional means (IE: mass public hysteria, overwhelming news coverage of "sad" news stories, and a general sense of panic) and spreading that idealism throughout the world?

It is arguable, at best, to say one way or the other. There are no facts, rather a lack of facts, to say one way or the other that torture will work 100% of the time. Until such, I find the act repulsive and the very idea of pushing someone to the limit that they fear the act of torture more than death is grossly disgusting.

Sorry for such a lengthy post, but hopefully this will at least make someone think or do more research into the matter.

We were told that we'll actually tell them what they want to know.

It's not as though they take answers, and then never check up on whether they're true or not. We were told that they will absolutely check the answers.

If it turns out we told them something useless or false, we'll get worse.

A cursory glance makes it appear as though you're on a need to know basis, and an attitude supporting "what you were told" reinforces that.

If the Western response to explicitly Islamic barbarism is implicitly Christian barbarism, the moral high ground cannot be claimed by either.

FTW.
An aside, of sorts ... just how many Crusades were there again?

It is amazing how, in only a few short years, a single administration has managed to dismantle every single one of the "Fundamental American Values" I was taught about in grammar school.

But, but ... let them eat cake!

You're told that almost everyone will torture you, especially if they believe that you know something.Well, expect the worst. "No more bad days".

So does everyone talk?
Perhaps that's what the whole "need-to-know basis" thing is. Clearance and all that.
Perhaps enemies are capable of determining rank as well, thus value, thus determining the validity of telling entry-level folks the value of "everybody talks".

Yes, I agree it's immoral, etc. Shouldn't be done. Yes. But I'm asking if it's effective.

I get the very strong impression that torture without questions is ineffective. But if someone smart and competent is asking and verifying the information, it's probably far more effective than you know.

This is what torture will do, assuming you break the will of whoever you're torturing. The victim will say anything and everything to get it to stop. This does not necessarily mean it will hold what you want, or even be truthful. People with broken wills are desperate, and will do whatever it takes to end it. In fact, the human psyche can and will manufacture false scenarios if needed in order bring an end to the torturing with such conviction that they would be hard pressed to disbelieve it. High stress situations are noted as good breeding grounds for delusional behavior/memories.

Even if you ask the right questions, there's no guarantee you have the right person, who may now be giving you directions to Pluto for all you know.

Torture as a means of acquiring valid information is as effective as a blind man playing poker without braille friendly cards. You might get something, but probably not very often.

Sodium thiopental is a somewhat more effective method of acquiring information with a degree of reliability as it suppresses the higher cortical functioning, making the manufacturing of lies (which is more complex than rote truth telling) difficult. However, it is less effective against long term practice liars or those with firmly entrenched stories (i.e. conditioned to believe the false stories).

...there is a reason why the US Constitution doesn't say "and the president should be able to do whatever they damn well like".

…although that would make a pretty snazzy Amendment.

The victim will say anything and everything to get it to stop.Like the result of listening to/watching right-wing media.

Even if you ask the right questions, there's no guarantee you have the right person, who may now be giving you directions to Pluto for all you know.Up?

However, it is less effective against long term practice liars or those with firmly entrenched stories (i.e. conditioned to believe the false stories).Republicans? Paradoxically, most congressional republicans and right wing radio bloviators ducked out of service ... :confused:

Your post does explain, FIRMLY, why Limblob had that exclusive radio play contract those first couple of years, though.

Like the result of listening to/watching right-wing media.

Meaningless drabble from political channels on either side of the spectrum, while certainly a threat to intellectual integrity, is hardly torture.


Up?


How do you define up in a place where up has no meaning?

Meaningless drabble from political channels on either side of the spectrum, while certainly a threat to intellectual integrity, is hardly torture.
I think an argument can be made to refute that, but sadly, i'm feeling more facetious than fastidious at the moment. The best i'll offer, given my notorious wherewithal, is the basis of "intellectual integrity" (which is a huge, huge attractant of mine to places like this one, and posts like mine)

How do you define up in a place where up has no meaning?
Are you saying Pluto has no meaning, NSG has no meaning, or Earth has no meaning?

Poor Democratics, we really to to ban that torture measure.

Poor Democratics, we really to to ban that torture measure.

what?

what?

The Democratics can't pass the bill because of the Republicans, and the President's veto, its all his fault.

because of the RepublicansDon't you mean the Republicanists?

seems to much like classical conditioning...tell us what we want to hear or we continue to kill you slowly. reminds me of Spies Like Us'cept that was funnier. And sexier.

Don't you mean the Republicanists?

seems to much like classical conditioning...tell us what we want to hear or we continue to kill you slowly. reminds me of Spies Like Us

I find it depressing that there are so many people that think torture is OK. I wonder how they would like to get waterboarded.

:rolleyes:

Since I don't plan to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up restaurants or shoot up seminary libraries, I guess I'll never find out what it's like, now will I?

And unless you get involved in doing the same, neither will you.

If the Western response to explicitly Islamic barbarism is implicitly Christian barbarism, the moral high ground cannot be claimed by either.

Assuming pro arguendo the validity of the premise, so what?

The Orkin Man doesn't need to have the moral high ground with respect to termite infestations, either. Do what's expedient to exterminate this enemy and be done with it. :mp5:

I got a friend if you want to find out:D

That's a good point.

Do what's expedient to exterminate this enemy and be done with it. :mp5:
Ah. Such is the lot in life.

I think an argument can be made to refute that, but sadly, i'm feeling more facetious than fastidious at the moment. The best i'll offer, given my notorious wherewithal, is the basis of "intellectual integrity" (which is a huge, huge attractant of mine to places like this one, and posts like mine)

Intellectual integrity loss, is lamentable, but as I have said, hardly torture. Torture implies malicious intent. They just want you to believe what they say is truth.


Are you saying Pluto has no meaning, NSG has no meaning, or Earth has no meaning?

Up has no meaning in space. Or down. The long assumed constants of the world hold no meaning in the infinite boundlessness of space.

The Orkin Man doesn't need to have the moral high ground with respect to termite infestations, either. Do what's expedient to exterminate this enemy and be done with it. :mp5:

Replace a few words for his true meaning, adapt for a slightly different heritage, and there's hardly any difference is there?


The martyr doesn't need to have the moral high ground with respect to infidel infestations, either. Do what's expedient to exterminate this enemy and be done with it. :mp5:

:rolleyes:

Since I don't plan to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up restaurants or shoot up seminary libraries, I guess I'll never find out what it's like, now will I?

And unless you get involved in doing the same, neither will you.

I got a friend if you want to find out:D

Replace a few words for his true meaning, adapt for a slightly different heritage, and there's hardly any difference is there?

All the more reason to crush them while we can.

And as for their "slightly different [ :rolleyes: ] heritage": :sniper:

:rolleyes:

Since I don't plan to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up restaurants or shoot up seminary libraries, I guess I'll never find out what it's like, now will I?

And unless you get involved in doing the same, neither will you.Is this sarcasm, or do you really think they're only torturing terrorists?

Assuming pro arguendo the validity of the premise, so what?

The Orkin Man doesn't need to have the moral high ground with respect to termite infestations, either. Do what's expedient to exterminate this enemy and be done with it. :mp5:

Funny you should make that comparison. Ever had your home treated for termites? It is a major pain in the ass. You have to remove or double-pack everything perishable. Everyone (including pets) has to move out of the house for several days. Then they tent your house, spray it with chemical gas, and the wait for the gas to clear. The whole thing is Very Expensive.

And it only kills termites that were in the home when it was tented. Termites may cross-back over from a fence post or another home the very next day. Termites not infrequently move from house to house in a neighborhood.

Moral high ground aside, your analogy is closer to our attempts to fight al queda than you may have meant. :p

All the more reason to crush them while we can.

And as for their "slightly different [ :rolleyes: ] heritage": :sniper:

Ahem, are you suggesting genociding muslims? They are not the jews of 1933. They will fight back. They ARE fighting back, actually.
Go play with your Hitlerjugend friends and stop thinking, your NSDAP officer will tell you what to do.

All the more reason to crush them while we can.


I have a proposal. Since obviously if one side is crushed, the remaining side will crush everyone else, why not we crush them AND you?

You'd obviously be as bad for the world as your perceived "enemies".


And as for their "slightly different [ :rolleyes: ] heritage": :sniper:

Your statements taken at face value are mirror images of rhetoric that assorted middle Eastern terrorist groups like to say. Swap your labels, and you could be, in public, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's stand in.

:rolleyes:

Since I don't plan to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up restaurants or shoot up seminary libraries, I guess I'll never find out what it's like, now will I?

And unless you get involved in doing the same, neither will you.

As Tongass said, many of the people in Gitmo are not terrorists; many are innocent and/or made the mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And even if they were terrorists, torturing them would not be all right.

All the more reason to crush them while we can.

And as for their "slightly different [ :rolleyes: ] heritage": :sniper:

We should crush them because... they're becoming similar to us? Bleh?

You get more deluded by the day. It's quite moving.

As Tongass said, many of the people in Gitmo are not terrorists; many are innocent and/or made the mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And even if they were terrorists, torturing them would not be all right.

I guess you missed the fact that hundreds of Gitmo residents have been released some time ago - because it was clear they were innocents.

The International Red Cross has been on site, and attends all interrogations at Gitmo for the past few years. If anyone was waterboarded, it wasn't at Gitmo.

I guess you missed the fact that hundreds of Gitmo residents have been released some time ago - because it was clear they were innocents.

And how long were these innocent people held and tortured till the US government said whoops my bad heres a cookie.

The International Red Cross has been on site, and attends all interrogations at Gitmo for the past few years. If anyone was waterboarded, it wasn't at Gitmo.

For several years there was a secret cell block in Gitmo, where they kept "the worst of the worst" whos existence was classified and the Red Cross was unaware of until much later. It is naieve to think no torture occured there during this time period. And is it really important just which facility we choose to torture someone in or the fact that we are doing it anywhere?

Wait, just how does your similarity to the terrorist mindset constitute a reason to crush them?


Competitive jealousy. He wants to be the most backwards, dystopian nation on the block.

All the more reason to crush them while we can.


Wait, just how does your similarity to the terrorist mindset constitute a reason to crush them?

Nevermind, you have me on ignore. Mostly because you can't handle when I ask questions like that.

I guess you missed the fact that hundreds of Gitmo residents have been released some time ago - because it was clear they were innocents.

You don't find it slightly disturbing that there were "hundreds" of prisoners in Guantanamo that were innocent? And were only recently released, after god-knows how long?

You don't find it slightly disturbing that there were "hundreds" of prisoners in Guantanamo that were innocent? And were only recently released, after god-knows how long?

They were released rather early on. It takes time to find these things out.

They were released rather early on. It takes time to find these things out.
Time and waterboarding.

And why precisely is everyone so concerned about the rights of people trying to kill us? Oh boohoo Mr. Terrorist just got a little water poured on his head, causing him temporary discomfort, because he won't tell us where the bomb that's going to kill 500 people is. What a travesty of human rights!

By your logic, you have no problem with the enemies of America doing that to American soldiers? Because terrorists are what America is to them. We march in there with our planes and our tanks and our idealism, telling them what is right and what is wrong with no cares for any ideas other than our own.

But back on to the subject of torture. If we are indeed "better" than "them", then how is our torturing of prisoners better than their torturing of prisoners? And when studies have shown that torture is not an effective method of interrogation, is what our government is doing really anything other than releasing its own childish aggression?

But then again, I am attempting to apply logic to a debate on government and foreign policy when many of the debaters are willing to stake their reputation on defending a president which, according to the very people who are responsible for his power, is the worst leader in American history.

FTW.
An aside, of sorts ... just how many Crusades were there again?

9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

But back on to the subject of torture. If we are indeed "better" than "them", then how is our torturing of prisoners better than their torturing of prisoners? And when studies have shown that torture is not an effective method of interrogation, is what our government is doing really anything other than releasing its own childish aggression?


Studies? You need studies to prove that torture is an ineffective intelligence gathering technique? I tought that the history of the Inquisition and 500 years of various witch hunting had proved it enough.

Hear that people? Free grounds to burn people alive for slapping you. The more violence, the better. Better start fueling those flamethrowers. Slaughter the world!

Yeah, you and several others are taking what I said and meant way out of context, and you know it.

Yeah, you and several others are taking what I said and meant way out of context, and you know it.

I don't really think they can take you out of context when they quote you directly.

Yeah, you and several others are taking what I said and meant way out of context, and you know it.

We know you're backpedaling now that we've shown how retarded the idea you were championing really is.

See, this is the biggest practical problem with torture (we can debate the human rights aspect till we're blue in the face, but it wont convice those that disagree with us and we'll just get some BS response like "Errr they arent humanz!!!11!!1!.")

America, especially this administration and right wing administrations before it, like to paint America as this shining becon of libery, freedom, morality and all that is good and right in the world.

When we see videos of terrorists brutalizing hostages, we are whipped into a blood hungry frenzy and patriotic furver. Rememeber when we rescued that one captures chick from the Iraqis back in like 04? Dont remember her name, but remember how much press coverage it got that she was allegidly tortured, and everyone was saying "Oh, bad brown people! Bad, bad brown people!"? Remember the Nick Berg beheading? Remember how much press coverage that got?

Well, how can we, ever, ever again, claim the moral high ground and how much better we are than "teh ebil terrorists" if we use the same tactics they do? How can we say, "We, as the United States, condem your actions." without being laughed at by anyone with two brain cells to rub together because of our obvious hypocrisy?

In summary, if you condone the use of torture, you forfit the right to ever get even a little upset when Americans or their allies have their human rights violated.

And for those who haven't heard, Congressional al-Qaeda coddlers once again fail miserably:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336952,00.html

Enjoy another defeat, Donks. Just one of many between now and, oh, at least 2013 :p

And for those who haven't heard, Congressional al-Qaeda coddlers once again fail miserably:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336952,00.html

Enjoy another defeat, Donks. Just one of many between now and, oh, at least 2013 :p

Donks. Cute. Havent heard something so original out of you for some time.

Of course it didnt override the veto. The Republicans in the House arent outnumbered that much, an they still buy into the stupid idea that either A)Waterboarding is not torture or B)Torture produces effective information.

Or, they just dont like brown people and so secretly see no problem with torturing them even if it is for no good reason. Im sure there is a few of those in there.


But all in all NM, remember, the best way to beat Bush's veto will be this: Pass it again in 8 months. No matter who the next president is, Obama, Hillary, or even McCain, they'll sign it. Its really not a defeat, its just means victory will take a bit longer.

Studies? You need studies to prove that torture is an ineffective intelligence gathering technique? I tought that the history of the Inquisition and 500 years of various witch hunting had proved it enough.

Coercive methods like waterboarding work. That's why terrorist sympathizers and enablers want to have them banned.

Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed. Wish I could have seen it when he cracked, cried like a baby and provided valuable, and accurate, information.

Maybe someday it'll be posted on YouTube :D

Coercive methods like waterboarding work. That's why terrorist sympathizers and enablers want to have them banned.

Prove it.

Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed. Wish I could have seen it when he cracked, cried like a baby and provided valuable, and accurate, information.

Prove it.

Maybe someday it'll be posted on YouTube :D

Arent you the one who worries that Muslims want to bring us back to the Middle Ages? Last I checked, enjoying public torturing was something that ended during the Age of Enlightenment because it was...barbaric.

Maybe someday it'll be posted on YouTube :D

Is it just me, or does this read like he wants to see it so he can jack off to it?

Coercive methods like waterboarding work.

Even if they do, which is quite disputable...

The. End. Does. Not. Justify. The. Means.

Even if they do, which is quite disputable...

The. End. Does. Not. Justify. The. Means.


See thats the problem though. The anti-torture groups makes the human rights and ends dont justify the means arguements too much, and they dont work. Simply because they are different philisophical view points where there is no clear definitive answer.


Its better to focus on the fact that torture doesnt work, and that you cant have the moral highground anymore when you do what the enemy you scorn as ignoring human rights does.

See thats the problem though. The anti-torture groups makes the human rights and ends dont justify the means arguements too much, and they dont work. Simply because they are different philisophical view points where there is no clear definitive answer.


Its better to focus on the fact that torture doesnt work, and that you cant have the moral highground anymore when you do what the enemy you scorn as ignoring human rights does.

Actually, those arguments do work. Everywhere in the civilized, democratic western world, they do. Except in the USA.

And let's not even get into the deep-seated hypocrisy about all the treaties and conventions banning torture that the USA has signed, and never rescinded.

If you guys want to say you can torture people, then get the fuck out of the international treaties you signed saying you wouldn't. That way, whenever your own people get caught and tortured as well, you can go cry a freaking river and none of us will give a damn.

The reason worldwide torture bans have been made/attempted is primarily to protect each country's own citizens and soldiers. Basically: "In order to make sure our guys won't be tortured, we promise not to torture anyone else either". You don't get to have it both ways, and keep your own personnel from torture, working yourselves up when radicals and fundamentalists do it to them, all the while yourself inflicting it on your prisoners of war.

Actually, those arguments do work. Everywhere in the civilized, democratic western world, they do. Except in the USA.

And let's not even get into the deep-seated hypocrisy about all the treaties and conventions banning torture that the USA has signed, and never rescinded.

If you guys want to say you can torture people, then get the fuck out of the international treaties you signed saying you wouldn't. That way, whenever your own people get caught and tortured as well, you can go cry a freaking river and none of us will give a damn.

The reason worldwide torture bans have been made/attempted is primarily to protect each country's own citizens and soldiers. Basically: "In order to make sure our guys won't be tortured, we promise not to torture anyone else either". You don't get to have it both ways, and keep your own personnel from torture, working yourselves up when radicals and fundamentalists do it to them, all the while yourself inflicting it on your prisoners of war.



Ok, youre missing the point. I never defended torture. In fact, if you scroll up just a few posts, you'll see a few paragraphs from me on exactly what you just said in your last paragraph.

The fact of the matter is ethics such as if the ends justify the means or not are relative. And arguing something that is relative just leaves it open very much to opinion.

Ergo, dont focus on anything that can be considered relative. Torture not working is backed up with cold, hard facts. Therefore, it should work if arguing with someone who isnt a dimwit. Losing the moral highground is also obvious to anyone with a triple didget IQ.

Coercive methods like waterboarding work.

Sure, if by "work" you mean "indulge New Mitanni's sick need for vicarious crimes of war."

Waterboarding was ruled a crime in 1947 - a WAR CRIME - by the US. Your stupid PC euphemism of "coercive methods" does nothing to change the fact that you are advocating, and support, and seem to have a sexual attraction to, WAR CRIMES no better than those committed by the war criminals of WWII.

And your only defense against this is pure denial and ignorance.

That's why terrorist sympathizers and enablers want to have them banned.

no, people want to ban TORTURE because it is TORTURE and fucking WRONG. It is something that, why, TERRORISTS do.

Your stupid attempt to call anyone who disagrees with you a 'terrorist sympathizer' is pure hypocrisy. YOU are the one advocating THEIR methods.

Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed. Wish I could have seen it

Once again with your own sadistic, criminal, deviant sex preferences. We get it, New Mitanni - you like to masturbate to war crimes and torture and death. I would venture to say that if you haven't committed violent crimes yet, you are likely to at some point.

Ok, youre missing the point. I never defended torture. In fact, if you scroll up just a few posts, you'll see a few paragraphs from me on exactly what you just said in your last paragraph.

The fact of the matter is ethics such as if the ends justify the means or not are relative. And arguing something that is relative just leaves it open very much to opinion.

Ergo, dont focus on anything that can be considered relative. Torture not working is backed up with cold, hard facts. Therefore, it should work if arguing with someone who isnt a dimwit. Losing the moral highground is also obvious to anyone with a triple didget IQ.

So is saying "torturing others is a sure-fire way of making sure our guys get tortured too whenever they're caught".

An eye for an eye ought to be a language most of those crazy pro-torture conservatives understand.

So is saying "torturing others is a sure-fire way of making sure our guys get tortured too whenever they're caught".

An eye for an eye ought to be a language most of those crazy pro-torture conservatives understand.

I don't think they give a shit about anyone but themselves. That's why so many pro-torture folks do nothing but post hate speech on blogs, or come onto forums like these and giggle girlishly while fapping it to the idea of watching torture on video. As long as it's not *their* eye they figure it's just another form of entertainment, along with child porn or whatever other things they're into.

I don't think they give a shit about anyone but themselves. That's why so many pro-torture folks do nothing but post hate speech on blogs, or come onto forums like these and giggle girlishly while fapping it to the idea of watching torture on video. As long as it's not *their* eye they figure it's just another form of entertainment, along with child porn or whatever other things they're into.

Harsh.

But sadly probably true. So explain to me again, please, why we give a shit about their opinion?

Edit: Perhaps all the pro-waterboarding legislations, Mr. President Bush first of all, ought to be submitted to a little half hour of it themselves. And then let's see if they still support it as a "legal coercive interrogation technique".

Harsh.

But sadly probably true. So explain to me again, please, why we give a shit about their opinion?


I dunno. Other peoples' opinions tend to matter to me, even (perhaps especially) if they're incredibly stupid and offensive opinions.

And because they can vote.

Maybe someday it'll be posted on YouTube :D

How about this? For every case of American performed waterboarding, I will kidnap and subject one fundamentalist Christian American to waterboarding, like how the Americans do it, maybe starting with you, and post the results to youtube? Would you like that? I'm sure you'd love to see that to.

What's that? Doing it on Americans is wrong? I wonder why that should be the case. Why, they could be terrorists for all we know. Better to make sure.

So is saying "torturing others is a sure-fire way of making sure our guys get tortured too whenever they're caught".

An eye for an eye ought to be a language most of those crazy pro-torture conservatives understand.



Exactly, we're on the same page.

Im just saying making arguemens like The Ends Dont Justify the Means will not work.

How about this? For every case of American performed waterboarding, I will kidnap and subject one fundamentalist Christian American to waterboarding, like how the Americans do it, maybe starting with you, and post the results to youtube? Would you like that? I'm sure you'd love to see that to.

What's that? Doing it on Americans is wrong? I wonder why that should be the case. Why, they could be terrorists for all we know. Better to make sure.

I personally might enjoy that, if only for the aftermath when they tried to justify why it was OK to do it to brown Muslims but wrong to do it to White Christians.

Exactly, we're on the same page.

Im just saying making arguemens like The Ends Dont Justify the Means will not work.

Not with them, maybe. But just because it won't make them change their minds does not mean it is not only necessary but also indispensable to hold that argument, if only for the sake of reminding them that we do not subscribe to their moral and ethical values, and that a significant portion of the world, you know, just consider torture wrong because it's fucking torture.

Most of them are not shy about shoving moral absolutes down our throats. I see no reason why I should not let them know in no uncertain terms that I also have moral absolutes, and the fact that torture is wrong and always unacceptable is one I have no problem trying to shove down the throat of anyone who disagrees.

Not with them, maybe. But just because it won't make them change their minds does not mean it is not only necessary but also indispensable to hold that argument, if only for the sake of reminding them that we do not subscribe to their moral and ethical values, and that a significant portion of the world, you know, just consider torture wrong because it's fucking torture.

Most of them are not shy about shoving moral absolutes down our throats. I see no reason why I should not let them know in no uncertain terms that I also have moral absolutes, and the fact that torture is wrong and always unacceptable is one I have no problem trying to shove down the throat of anyone who disagrees.


I know I know. I feel your pain, really. It seems ethics are only absolute when its their ethics.


I wish that just saying torture is wrong and violates human rights was all you had to say, and they would say "Oh, wow, you are totally right!" Im just trying to say in my experiance, the above ideal situation doesnt work.

I know I know. I feel your pain, really. It seems ethics are only absolute when its their ethics.


I wish that just saying torture is wrong and violates human rights was all you had to say, and they would say "Oh, wow, you are totally right!" Im just trying to say in my experiance, the above ideal situation doesnt work.
It could if enough of us bothered with it. Might in numbers and all that jazz.

You get more deluded by the day. It's quite moving."Moving" like explosive diarrhea, a hemorrhage ....

9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

Ayup. 8 failures in a row.

Intellectual integrity loss, is lamentable, but as I have said, hardly torture. Torture implies malicious intent. They just want you to believe what they say is truth.Yes, as is with religion, there is malicious intent to demonize approximately half of the U.S. population that doesn't agree with so-called "conservative" principles, by which i could find many, many examples ...

Up has no meaning in space. Or down. The long assumed constants of the world hold no meaning in the infinite boundlessness of space.Well, as i occupy space, and am in such immediate proximity to Earth, i contest your premise of meaninglessness regarding "up", and "down". Both serve distinct, separate purposes here.
And as far as infinite goes ... i'd rather go with "unfinished" since there is no countable accurate measure of the perimeter of the "universe". *nudge*

Sure, if by "work" you mean "indulge New Mitanni's sick need for vicarious crimes of war."

Waterboarding was ruled a crime in 1947 - a WAR CRIME - by the US. Your stupid PC euphemism of "coercive methods" does nothing to change the fact that you are advocating, and support, and seem to have a sexual attraction to, WAR CRIMES no better than those committed by the war criminals of WWII.

And your only defense against this is pure denial and ignorance.

Basically it's the "Do As I Say Not As I Do" doublethink defense. If someone else waterboarded an American POW there'd be calls the perpetrators to be executed.

Once again with your own sadistic, criminal, deviant sex preferences. We get it, New Mitanni - you like to masturbate to war crimes and torture and death. I would venture to say that if you haven't committed violent crimes yet, you are likely to at some point.

More specifically he masturbates to the thought of war crimes, torture and death inflicted on Muslims, whether or not they're terrorist.

Basically it's the "Do As I Say Not As I Do" doublethink defense. If someone else waterboarded an American POW there'd be calls the perpetrators to be executed.

We did. And they were executed. After WWII, we executed Japanese officers for...guess what?

Waterboarding American POWs because it was a WAR CRIME

We did. And they were executed. After WWII, we executed Japanese officers for...guess what?

Waterboarding American POWs because it was a WAR CRIME

And yet strangely enough, the "Liberal Media" was awfully silent on this historical tidbit.

And yet strangely enough, the "Liberal Media" was awfully silent on this historical tidbit.

Thats because teh ebil liberal is a myth, as you know.

We did. And they were executed. After WWII, we executed Japanese officers for...guess what?

Waterboarding American POWs because it was a WAR CRIME

Just to clarify a little bit, it should be pointed out that the Japanese that were executed were not executed for 'waterboarding', their charges were much more serious than that and included the following:



Captain Masaharu Tanaka and Lcdr. Yoshinumi Danzaki were convicted of killing seven prisoners of war on Dublon by beating, beheading, and stabbing. Lt. Shinji Sakagami was convicted of strangling two Americans to death with his bare hands. Surgeon Captain Hiroshi Iwanami and eighteen other Japanese were convicted of performing illegal medical experiments on prisoners of war. They murdered six prisoners by injecting streptococcus bacteria into their veins, causing blood poisoning, and by placing tourniquets on the arms and legs of others for periods up to seven hours, resulting in death by shock. Captain Iwanami dissected and mutilated the bodies, cutting off their heads and boiling the flesh off to use as medical specimens. He removed the hearts and other organs and placed them in specimen bottles. Surgeon Commander Chisato Ueno and eight others were convicted of murder of one prisoner by chloroforming him and dissecting him alive on the operating table. Afterward the American was carried out on a stretcher to a place near the hospital where a hole had been dug. Dentist Ensign Takeshi Enriguchi then took his sword and beheaded the body before rolling it into the hole. Captain Iwanami, Lt. Tesuo Oishi and Shunpei Asamura were also convicted of murder.


Of 137 men tried, 129 were convicted. Of the 129, 67 were officers, 39 enlisted men, 24 civilians. The officers included one Lieutenant General, four Vice Admirals and two Rear Admirals. The crimes for which they were convicted included: murder, torture, medical experimentation, cannibalism, command neglect of duty, and other violations of the law and customs of war.
http://nopukob.com/ww2_stories/trial2.htm


No one was executed strictly for torture alone.

Yes, as is with religion, there is malicious intent to demonize approximately half of the U.S. population that doesn't agree with so-called "conservative" principles, by which i could find many, many examples ...

Are we talking about political media in general or about religion?


Well, as i occupy space, and am in such immediate proximity to Earth, i contest your premise of meaninglessness regarding "up", and "down". Both serve distinct, separate purposes here.
And as far as infinite goes ... i'd rather go with "unfinished" since there is no countable accurate measure of the perimeter of the "universe". *nudge*

Not that space you silly, silly, man. Space in the sense of beyond the atmosphere. There is no up or down in space, anything that is up can easily become down and vice versa.

And for those who haven't heard, Congressional al-Qaeda coddlers once again fail miserably.

"Congressional al-Qaeda coddlers?" That's just pathetic. Do you troll deliberately?

Are we talking about political media in general or about religion?
In the dark, dank days of Bush, the fine line has been blurred unduly.

Not that space you silly, silly, man. Space in the sense of beyond the atmosphere. There is no up or down in space, anything that is up can easily become down and vice versa.That sounds like witch talk, the crimen exceptum.
I have here a needle and a large volume of saline-free liquid. C'mere.
Either that or you're on drugs, which witches are notorious for taking.
Or you're casting a spell in your words, which AGAIN is very witchy indeed.

Is it just me, or does this read like he wants to see it so he can jack off to it?

I got the same impression.

Do you troll deliberately?Yes, s/he does.

"Congressional al-Qaeda coddlers?" That's just pathetic. Do you troll deliberately?

NM really, really believes what hes doing is not trolling.

I got the same impression.
Not just you.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520235&postcount=196

"Moving" like explosive diarrhea, a hemorrhage ....

ROFLMAO

In the dark, dank days of Bush, the fine line has been blurred unduly.


I suppose so. But then again, the second and first estate have always been mucking around with each other.


That sounds like witch talk, the crimen exceptum.
I have here a needle and a large volume of saline-free liquid. C'mere.
Either that or you're on drugs, which witches are notorious for taking.
Or you're casting a spell in your words, which AGAIN is very witchy indeed.

Well if we're going down that route...

*casts dire constipation on Straughn*

Yes, s/he does.

I figured as much.

NM really, really believes what hes doing is not trolling.

Wow...just wow.

NM really, really believes what hes doing is not trolling.

Sad but true. It's not like sadists, pedophiles or even sociopathic murderers don't show up on NSG once in a while.

I suppose so. But then again, the second and first estate have always been mucking around with each other.Kinda like the holy sceptre of that pope-like ex youth Nazi, in a way.

Well if we're going down that route...

*casts dire constipation on Straughn*Good thing i came prepared with some right-wing media!
http://www.kidscape.org.uk/assets/commongraphics/zap.gif
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520474&postcount=206
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520603&postcount=221
Well, better bloodlet a smidge to stay on the safe side ... oh wait, my ears and eyes already started.

Kinda like the holy sceptre of that pope-like ex youth Nazi, in a way.


Buh?


Good thing i came prepared with some right-wing media!
http://www.kidscape.org.uk/assets/commongraphics/zap.gif
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520474&postcount=206
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520603&postcount=221
Well, better bloodlet a smidge to stay on the safe side ... oh wait, my ears and eyes already started.

Your right wing media won't protect you from this! (http://ialsosay.com/images/tinky_barney.jpg)

Buh?Establishment clause and militia, you know ... one of my usual oddly-veiled references.

Your right wing media won't protect you from this! (http://ialsosay.com/images/tinky_barney.jpg):eek:
At least it wasn't that un-wrung sponge Dr. Dobson warned me about! *wipes brow*
No worries. As long as right wing media does what it does best ... protects me from my own thoughts.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/676.gif

Establishment clause and militia, you know ... one of my usual oddly-veiled references.

So odd, I can't make the connection.


:eek:
At least it wasn't that un-wrung sponge Dr. Dobson warned me about! *wipes brow*
No worries. As long as right wing media does what it does best ... protects me from my own thoughts.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/676.gif

Your pants are square! (http://www.shivanjaikaran.com/uploads/sponge_bob2.gif)

So odd, I can't make the connection.Probably more work than it's worth at this point.
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/52828267.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A674A2D4D5BD5BFFD88BC3F87336C851A1
http://www.bible-codes.org/pope-bible-code-prophecy-benedict-xvi.htm
http://www.kronosarts.com/enews/112007/yearzeroremixed.jpg
1000 or so ...


Your pants are square! (http://www.shivanjaikaran.com/uploads/sponge_bob2.gif)The best part is how amazingly he'll swell up when you fill him with fluid ... small at first, but large after, and accommodating to any containment vessel's most sublime parameters.

NM really, really believes what hes doing is not trolling.

He's one of the few remaining Busheviks on NSG.

Not just you.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13520235&postcount=196

My original post was considerably nastier than even that, and probably more graphic. I decided against hitting "submit reply", though.

My original post was considerably nastier than even that, and probably more graphic. I decided against hitting "submit reply", though.
Can't say as i could blame you in that regard. *nods*

The worst part is that waterboarding sounds so... fun. It sounds like a summer pastime you do at the beach.

"C'mon, Timmy! Grab your towel! We're going waterboarding!" :eek:

"C'mon, Timmy! Grab your towel! We're going waterboarding!" :eek:

"Whee! We're going to have so much-*glurble*

Oh for f***s sake people this is ridiculous.
I was reading about this debate in new scientist a couple weeks ago.
There has NEVER been any scientific study of how effective these tortue techniques are, until very recently, however clearly the experience of the Armed Forces seems to suggest it does not yield results.
However recently they HAVE been looking into it and there is NO evidence that this torture gets better results than methods which are LEGAL. In fact it usually gets worse results.

They also did an extensive scientific survey which very conclusively showed that these 'soft' torture techniques were as psychologically damaging as techniques such as nail and teeth pulling, beating, etc.

In other words- as has been said many times on this thread- IT DOESN'T WORK, AND IT IS TORTURE.

Furthermore, the people detained by the CIA are not proven criminals- they are being detained illegally as well, and if people are detained illegally and then illegally tortured to confess..... hey, that sounds brill, doesn't it? Justice...

And YES Terrorists have the same rights as you do, you morons. Freedom of speech? What America is meant to stand for? Equal chance for all? Because once you start saying 'they're Terrorists therefore they don't have the same rights we do.... they don't have the right to not be tortued, the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech'.... then you've got a country that's no longer worth fighting for. Because, all of a sudden, what is it that you're protecting? None of the values you thought you were fighting for.....

If you still want to argue then I'll find the reference for the article and you can read that before you reply.

I hope the historians hang him for this.

I hope the historians hang him for this.
I'd rather not let history be the judge off on some far horizon. Decisions need to be made sooner than that ... Dec. 30 2006 being perhaps an example.

did you hear the bushwackoe's little excuse speach for doing so?

makes me wonder if he's even capable of saying anything that isn't a complete bald faced lie.

(historically 20 times more lives have been LOST as a resault of "special interigation tecniques", i.e. torture. then have been saved by the notoriously inaccurate and unreliable "intelligence" gained by doing so. rather thoroughly well documented.)

=^^=
.../\...

"Torture generates extremely bad intelligence data" and is "enormously counterproductive", according to bioethicist Steven Miles at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US. He gives the example that some of the information linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda, which later proved wrong, came from a man named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi during CIA interrogations in Egypt that involved torture.

Journal reference: Archives of General Psychiatry (vol 64, p 277)

The worst part is that waterboarding sounds so... fun. It sounds like a summer pastime you do at the beach.

"C'mon, Timmy! Grab your towel! We're going waterboarding!" :eek:

Ah the Beach Boy's classic album "Waterboardin' USA"

"I wish they all could be Al-Qaeda girls..."

The part I find strange is that Pelosi knew about this for a while, and essentially did nothing. It isn't doing me any good to vote Democrat anymore than voting Republican.

It seems that both of them have a message to operatives - don't get caught, or we'll have to disavow all knowledge of your actions, and act like we're shocked, shocked, to find that torture is going on here...


"Mr. Cheney, Ms. Pelosi... your information...."