NationStates Jolt Archive

She brought herself up and said she wanted to throw things at me. I responded. If you notice, I mention something she said, that she was angry, and the rest is about her arguments.

You don't know what personal means, do you? How many times in the quoted part did I mention her arguments? It's not personal. I don't dislike her. I disliked her arguments and that she was getting angry.



Yes, totally personal.


You are under the impression that talking down to people and insulting their intellegence and abilities, as long as you dont flame them, isnt being 'personal' arent you?

You are under the impression that talking down to people and insulting their intellegence and abilities, as long as you dont flame them, isnt being 'personal' arent you?

It's just a style. It's not personal. It has nothing to do with her and everything to do with my style. I'm sorry you don't like it. (Not really.)

What's amusing is your not talking about my arguments anymore. You're not talking about whether or not I'm right or made a point. You're just talking about me. What's the matter? Did I spark some knight complex? I assure you that CTOAN and Mur can defend themselves adequately.

It's just a style. It's not personal. It has nothing to do with her and everything to do with my style. I'm sorry you don't like it. (Not really.)

I dont care about your 'style'. Just dont whine about people 'taking things personally' when your 'style' makes it very personal.

If you dont care, fine. But stop pretending like its so shocking that everyone takes your comments 'personally'.

I dont care about your 'style'. Just dont whine about people 'taking things personally' when your 'style' makes it very personal.

If you dont care, fine. But stop pretending like its so shocking that everyone takes your comments 'personally'.

No, it doesn't. Grow a thicker skin. I think some arguments are stupid. I sound like I think they're stupid. That's not personal and it's not a reason to get pissed. Newsflash, some people aren't going to think you're making a good argument, sometimes.

No, it doesn't. Grow a thicker skin.

Right, there is nothing wrong with you. There is something wrong with everyone else.


This isnt personal, but get the fuck over yourself.

Right, there is nothing wrong with you. There is something wrong with everyone else.


This isnt personal, but get the fuck over yourself.

Um, you replied to me. To talk about me. Only about me. Not about my arguments. About me. And then you tell me to get over myself. The irony.

"Jocabia, get over yourself, while I talk about you, at the exclusion of focusing on the topic or saying anything remotely relevant."

I'm glad I'm so important to you. It entertains me.

I AM condescending. That's a fact. It's not an accident. If I think an argument is stupid or poorly made I treat it as such. As does Mur, as does CTOAN. I'm not bullying some poor damsels you need to rescue. I assure you they're quite capable of defending their arguments from my condescending replies as they want.

Condescension isn't personal. It's just a style. You don't like it. Again, I don't care. And people CAN get personal, if they like, but it's not debate. They get personal and lose their focus, then that's a mistake on their part. I'm quick to point out mistakes. You don't like that either. Fortunately, the universe doesn't revolve around what you don't like. But, hey, if you'd like to discuss me further, it's one of my favorite topics of conversation. What else would you like to tell me about me?

Um, you replied to me. To talk about me. Only about me. Not about my arguments. About me. And then you tell me to get over myself. The irony.

"Jocabia, get over yourself, while I talk about you, at the exclusion of focusing on the topic or saying anything remotely relevant."

I'm glad I'm so important to you. It entertains me.

I AM condescending. That's a fact. It's not an accident. If I think an argument is stupid or poorly made I treat it as such. As does Mur, as does CTOAN. I'm not bullying some poor damsels you need to rescue. I assure you're they're quite capable of defending their arguments from my condescending replies as they want.

Condescension isn't personal. It's just a style. You don't like it. Again, I don't care. And people CAN get personal, if they like, but it's not debate. They get personal and lose their focus, then that's a mistake on their part. I'm quick to point out mistakes. You don't like that either. Fortunately, the universe doesn't revolve around what you don't like. But, hey, if you'd like to discuss me further, it's one of my favorite topics of conversation. What else would you like to tell me about me?

You have been called out several times for making it personal and then whining about it not being personal. By several posters. And not just in this thread.

But you know what? Im going to be the bigger man and drop it. Im done with this. Im not going to respond to things anymore regarding this topic. I tried to point it out to you so maybe youd stop, but hey, whatever.

Welcome to my ignore list. Youre long overdue.

Edit:
Condescension isn't personal.

The fuck its not.

Yay, more posts about me!

You have been called out several times for making it personal and then whining about it not being personal. By several posters. And not just in this thread.

But you know what? Im going to be the bigger man and drop it. Im done with this. Im not going to respond to anymore more in this topic. I tried to point it out to you so maybe youd stop, but hey, whatever. I know you will respond to this no matter what, because youre someone who needs the last word. So go ahead and take it.

Welcome to my ignore list. Youre long overdue.

You're going to be the bigger man and drop it after you brought it up. Wow. Mighty big of you. Are you going to take money out of my pocket and then be big enough to let me have it back next?

I'm long overdue for your ignore list? Hmmm... but I don't even know who you are.

See, treating an argument like it sucks is not personal. Treating an argument like it's stupid is not personal. In fact, it has nothing to do with the poster. In the same thread, I've argued against CTOAN and defended him. Not personal. In the same thread, I've argued against Mur and defended her. Not personal. As I pointed out about both posters, they've been known to make arguments I really like and think are strong and those I think are weak. I judge arguments by the argument and not who made them. That's the opposite of personal.

For the record, I know almost nothing about Mur and I very much like CTOAN from what I know of him. THAT however is not relevant to the thread, the topic of conversation or to whether or not I agree with their arguments.


The fuck its not.

Oh, my. How can I not laugh? You're all up in arms because I was condescending to Mur and CTOAN. Of the three of us, I don't think there's a clear way to say who's capable of being more condescending. I think you'd be hard pressed to get Mur or CTOAN to say they aren't condescending with some regularity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103742.html?hpid=topnews

Looks like Europe might go after em if Obama doesnt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103742.html?hpid=topnews

Looks like Europe might go after em if Obama doesnt.

Actually, as has been pointed out, Obama can't. It would be the DoJ. We've spent so long under a regime that didn't seperate those powers appropriately that I think we all kind of forgot that it doesn't work that way.

That said, though, I'd say that's good news. People should be held accountable for their crimes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103742.html?hpid=topnews

Looks like Europe might go after em if Obama doesnt.

Well, yeah, but the best we can get out of that is that they can't travel abroad anymore. Essentially puts them under house arrest. I mean, I could be wrong but isn't Kissinger under the same kind of thing?

Well, yeah, but the best we can get out of that is that they can't travel abroad anymore. Essentially puts them under house arrest. I mean, I could be wrong but isn't Kissinger under the same kind of thing?

Is Kissinger?

And, well, we could turn them over, but that's about as likely as me winning Mr. Universe.


Heeerrrre he comes, misssster Univers.

Is Kissinger?

And, well, we could turn them over, but that's about as likely as me winning Mr. Universe.


Heeerrrre he comes, misssster Univers.

Fucking make me look shit up...well you get Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Accusations_of_war_crimes_and_legal_difficulties) because I didn't know the details, so there...
On May 31, 2001, French judge Roger Le Loire requested a summons served on Kissinger while he was staying at the Ritz Hotel in Paris.[34] Loire wanted to question Kissinger for alleged U.S. involvement in Operation Condor—a mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay—as well as the death of five French nationals under the Chilean junta.[34] Kissinger fled Paris that evening, and Loire's inquiries were directed to the U.S. State Department.

In August 2001, Argentine Judge Rodolfo Canicoba sent a letter rogatory to the U.S. State Department, in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), requesting a deposition by Kissinger to aid the judge's investigation of Operation Condor.[35]

On September 10, 2001, a civil suit was filed in a Washington, DC, federal court by the family of Gen. René Schneider, former Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, asserting that Kissinger gave the order for the elimination of Schneider because he had refused to endorse plans for a military coup.[34][36][37] Schneider was killed by coup-plotters loyal to General Roberto Viaux in a botched kidnapping attempt,[37] As a part of the suit, Schneider’s two sons are attempting to sue Kissinger and then-CIA director Richard Helms for US$3 million.[37]

On September 11, 2001, the 28th commemorations of the Pinochet coup, Chilean human rights lawyers filed a criminal case against Kissinger along with Augusto Pinochet, former Bolivian general and president Hugo Banzer, former Argentine general and dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, and former Paraguayan president Alfredo Stroessner for alleged involvement in Operation Condor.[38] The case was brought on behalf of some fifteen victims of Operation Condor, ten of whom were Chilean.

In late 2001, the Brazilian government cancelled an invitation for Kissinger to speak in São Paulo because it could no longer guarantee his immunity from judicial action.[34][36]

Kenneth Maxwell's review, in Foreign Affairs November/December 2003, of Peter Kornbluh's book The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, discussed Kissinger's relationship with Augusto Pinochet's regime, in particular concerning operation Condor and Orlando Letelier's assassination, in Washington, DC, in 1976.

A 1978 cable released in 2000 shows that the South American intelligence chiefs involved in Condor "[kept] in touch with one another through a U.S. communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone which [covered] all of Latin America". Robert E. White, the U.S. ambassador to Paraguay, was concerned that the U.S. connection to Condor might be revealed during the then ongoing investigation into the 1976 assassination of Letelier.[39] Kornbluh and Maxwell both draw the conclusion, from this and other materials, that the U.S. State Department, on Kissinger's watch, had foreknowledge of the assassination.[citation needed]
So not entirely the same thing but close.

Fucking make me look shit up...well you get Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Accusations_of_war_crimes_and_legal_difficulties) because I didn't know the details, so there...

So not entirely the same thing but close.

The main problem with a foreign country trying them is evidence gathering.
Too much might be classified and unavailable to a foreign government to present an effective case. Though if some of those released from Gitmo could be found to testify....

No one has been punished for Rwanda, nor will they ever be. That country has decided not to go that route.


You see, statements like this annoy me. A quick google would find that you're completely wrong. Unless I'm "misreading" again.

http://69.94.11.53/default.htm Then go to: "Status of detainees".

Edit: Or if you're trying to say "No one in the Rwandan system has tried to punish others" - you'd still be wrong http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/07/19/rwanda.genocide.reut/

Well, a quick scan of the news shows the GOP waving its hands in the air and declaring that Obama's DNI claimed that the memos show that torture got results.

This is actually a half truth. In typical Republican fashion, they stopped reading after they read the first paragraph and found what they wanted.
Secret Justice Department memos released last week, revealing the CIA's harshest interrogation methods, do little to resolve the question. The memos credit waterboarding, face slapping, sleep deprivation and other techniques for producing the country's best intelligence following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They also note that nonviolent tactics more often were successful than violence.
In 2006, a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers set out to settle the matter. They sought to find the most effective interrogation tactics and advise the U.S. government on their use. Their conclusions, laid out in a 372-page report for the director of national intelligence, argued against harsh interrogation.

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col. Steven M. Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. "In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that 'compliance' carries the same connotation as 'meaningful cooperation.'"

In a statement issued Tuesday night, Blair backed away from what appeared to be an endorsement of the techniques' effectiveness.

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

Elsewhere in the Justice Department documents, there are suggestions that the toughest tactics weren't always the most successful. Of the 94 terrorist suspects in the CIA program, only 28 were subjected to "enhanced" methods, the documents said. That means two out of three detainees gave up valuable intelligence in simple interviews.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnfAvCwlj47h69HUZLqX5kxLMkGgD97NC4380

Once again, the evidence doesnt say what the GOP thinks it says.

You see, statements like this annoy me. A quick google would find that you're completely wrong. Unless I'm "misreading" again.

http://69.94.11.53/default.htm Then go to: "Status of detainees".

Edit: Or if you're trying to say "No one in the Rwandan system has tried to punish others" - you'd still be wrong http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/07/19/rwanda.genocide.reut/

No. I just made a mistake. I was thinking of somewhere else, that I can't remember correctly right now.

See? When I make a mistake and it is pointed out to me, I am capable of acknowledging it. When I make a mistake.

Now is there more you would like to say about me so I can ignore you too, or would you like to refer to the topic, which has moved on in light of new events?

Well, a quick scan of the news shows the GOP waving its hands in the air and declaring that Obama's DNI claimed that the memos show that torture got results.

This is actually a half truth. In typical Republican fashion, they stopped reading after they read the first paragraph and found what they wanted.





http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnfAvCwlj47h69HUZLqX5kxLMkGgD97NC4380

Once again, the evidence doesnt say what the GOP thinks it says.

Yep, all established facts, none of it new, and none of it surprising, including the GOP's antics about it.

I wonder if this is the secret/suppressed information Cheney wants revealed to prove how good for America it is to torture people and why we will suffer horrible disaster if we stop.

I wonder if this is the secret/suppressed information Cheney wants revealed to prove how good for America it is to torture people and why we will suffer horrible disaster if we stop.

Speaking of Cheney:

Cheney is full of crap

That just has to stand alone there for a second...

Taken it in? Good. Let's continue...

US counterterrorism officials are reacting angrily to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that waterboarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times was a "success" that produced actionable intelligence.

"Cheney is full of crap," one intelligence source with decades of experience said Tuesday.

Another retired counterterrorism official who read reports when they arrived in Washington detailing the confessions of Mohammed, known as "KSM," said most of the information he coughed up during the waterboarding sessions involved things he thought his CIA-contract interrogators already knew, or were just his ideas for mayhem.

"Most of the (cables) were reports of actions that KSM was only remotely thinking of undertaking - they didn't even reach the planning stage," the retired counterterrorism official said. "So it's a bit of a stretch for Bush administration officials to say these were attacks they had disrupted."
Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/22/2009-04-22_dick_cheney_full_of_crap_official.html)

So two former CT officials dispute Cheney's assertions. No surprise, the professionals have been saying that for quite some time.

But I'd like to see more memos. If Cheney has been involved and claims that torture is effective, I'd like to see him say the same in a court of law being prosecuted for ordering torture... So let him talk. It might be a bigger mistake than what Obama has done in this case.

Speaking of Cheney:



That just has to stand alone there for a second...

Taken it in? Good. Let's continue...


Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/22/2009-04-22_dick_cheney_full_of_crap_official.html)

So two former CT officials dispute Cheney's assertions. No surprise, the professionals have been saying that for quite some time.

But I'd like to see more memos. If Cheney has been involved and claims that torture is effective, I'd like to see him say the same in a court of law being prosecuted for ordering torture... So let him talk. It might be a bigger mistake than what Obama has done in this case.
Oh frabjous day! Callou! Callay!, he chortled in his joy.

That is the kind of stuff that puts a smile on my face. :D Thanks.

Cheney is full of crap

Thats awesome. Like Holy Fuck, that is the greatest thing anyone in the government, past or presemt, has ever said.

Dunk 'em again!
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/dunk-em-again.html
Look, we hanged Saddam Hussein and sent the 101st Airborne to kill Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay. What is "waterboarding" compared to violent death?

Who could possibly give a crap about the "rights" of terrorist scumbags like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Their "rights" would not have been infringed if they had gotten a 9mm slug through their skulls the day they were captured. Excuse me for not being surprised that, having mercifully allowed Abu and Khalid to continue breathing, the CIA doesn't treat these vermin like guests for Sunday dinner.

If I were president -- and remember, this is merely a hypothetical -- the CIA would have taken Abu and Khalid to the Texas State Fair, where they would have been strapped tightly to a telephone poll. Tickets would be sold at $20 each for one whack at 'em with an aluminum baseball bat.

Everybody would get their turn, one whack at a time, until there was nothing left of Abu and Khalid except a bloody stain. The $20 per ticket is a nominal fee. The real money would be in the pay-per-view royalties. But remember: This is merely a hypothetical.

Robert Stacy McCain (born 1959) is a American conservative writer. McCain is a former assistant national editor for The Washington Times and co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of DONKEY CONS: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party.

Dunk 'em again!
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/dunk-em-again.html

Some conservative idiot is masterbating to warcrime fantasies and totally divourced from reality.


Color me suprised.

Dunk 'em again!
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/dunk-em-again.html
who is this guy that i should give a damn about his ill formed opinion?

who is this guy that i should give a damn about his ill formed opinion?

Apperantly some GOP lap dog who labors under the delusion that the Democratic party is corrupt while the Republican party is a beacon of morality.

who is this guy that i should give a damn about his ill formed opinion?

He won an award for "awesomeness in blogging" don't ya know.

*nods*

I, for one, am highly disappointed that Bush is not being tried for war crimes.

because persecution makes you feel better about your tiny insignificant self? :p

because persecution makes you feel better about your tiny insignificant self? :p

Nah, see, we have this thing called the law. And when you break it, we have this thing called punishment. And when its done how it should be done, its this thing we call 'justice'.

Nah, see, we have this thing called the law. And when you break it, we have this thing called punishment. And when its done how it should be done, its this thing we call 'justice'.

Really? and to quote an earlier thread, can you say Ex Post Facto? certainly our new administration is all about rigorously comlying with law... especially tax law and personal finance regulation, and restrictions on lobbyists and...

so, how is that whole hope and change thing working out for you. We elected and suit full of empty rhetoric:eek:

Really? and to quote an earlier thread, can you say Ex Post Facto? certainly our new administration is all about rigorously comlying with law... especially tax law and personal finance regulation, and restrictions on lobbyists and...

so, how is that whole hope and change thing working out for you. We elected and suit full of empty rhetoric:eek:
And to refer to that earlier comment, can you say debunked? As in the laughably false claims that this would be ex post facto prosecution were already completely debunked.

It was already illegal to torture prisoners under US law when they chose to do it. Therefore there is nothing "post" about punishing them for it.

And to refer to that earlier comment, can you say debunked? As in the laughably false claims that this would be ex post facto prosecution were already completely debunked.

It was already illegal to torture prisoners under US law when they chose to do it. Therefore there is nothing "post" about punishing them for it.

Like most of your ilk, I suspect you think torture also equates to no skim milk for your latte.

Like most of your ilk, I suspect you think torture also equates to no skim milk for your latte.

Aww, look at the cute little troll. Can I keep it?

Like most of your ilk, I suspect you think torture also equates to no skim milk for your latte.

Aww, look at the cute little troll. Can I keep it?

No. They just piss all over the carpets.

Like most of your ilk, I suspect you think torture also equates to no skim milk for your latte.

Possibly. It's an interesting argument.

Of course, we're not talking about skim milk,. we're talking about waterboarding - so it's not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of an 'extreme interrogation' technique that we know is torture.

So - petty little snips aside - did you have anything worthwhile?

I appreciate that you'd shot your real load - the ex post facto thing being the best argument there is, but, unfortunately, being already shown to fail.

Was there anything else? Or can we expect more tirades about no sugar in your oatmeal, or the wrong kinds of chocolate chips in your cookies?

Here's something interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090422/ts_nm/us_security_usa_1

"...Barack Obama will regret this as one of the worst moments of his presidency, because it will set off a multi-year, extraordinarily divisive, all-consuming Washington scandal/controversy and everyone will end up looking bad."

I found that amusing.

Investigating torture would be the worst thing you could do, because it's divisive, and a scandal.

What about torture, then? Not as bad as investigation? Silly Ari.

Possibly. It's an interesting argument.

Of course, we're not talking about skim milk,. we're talking about waterboarding - so it's not a matter of eprsonal preference, it's a matter of an 'extreme interrogation' technique that we know is torture.

So - petty little snips aside - did you have anything worthwhile?

I appreciate that you'd shot your real load - the ex post facto thing being the best argument there is, but, unfortunately, being already shown to fail.

Was there anything else? Or can we expect more tirades about no sugar in your oatmeal, or the wrong kinds of chocolate chips in your cookies?

No true scotsman would obliterate a troll like this...

No true scotsman would obliterate a troll like this...

I admit it. I am no true scotsman

...

:D

Here's something interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090422/ts_nm/us_security_usa_1



I found that amusing.

Investigating torture would be the worst thing you could do, because it's divisive, and a scandal.

What about torture, then? Not as bad as investigation? Silly Ari.

I think some folks, and I shall not point fingers, are still in the mindset that it's unpatriotic to question anything that happened in the government during the Bush administration.

I think some folks, and I shall not point fingers, are still in the mindset that it's unpatriotic to question anything that happened in the government during the Bush administration.

You say "I shall not point fingers", but I saw you desperately gesturing towards Ari Fleischer while you were saying it. :)

You say "I shall not point fingers", but I saw you desperately gesturing towards Ari Fleischer while you were saying it. :)

Amongst others.

I think some folks, and I shall not point fingers, are still in the mindset that it's unpatriotic to question anything that happened in the government during the Bush administration.

Oh, goodie, will they keep that mindset regarding Obama, then, or shall I repay them their 8 years worth of favors?

Oh frabjous day! Callou! Callay!, he chortled in his joy.

That is the kind of stuff that puts a smile on my face. :D Thanks.
I live to amuse ;)

Thats awesome. Like Holy Fuck, that is the greatest thing anyone in the government, past or presemt, has ever said.
Well you're easy to please. The ancient Romans demanded something with a little more finesse.

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. :p

Dunk 'em again!
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/dunk-em-again.html
I suspect that McCain fellow to be a terrorist. You see how over-enthusiastic he is? Surely he's trying to hide something. Hence, by his own logic, he should have no rights and should be executed in the street.

Farewell, ye blogger ye. Good riddance.

Here's something interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090422/ts_nm/us_security_usa_1


I found that amusing.

Investigating torture would be the worst thing you could do, because it's divisive, and a scandal.

What about torture, then? Not as bad as investigation? Silly Ari.

Should someone let him in on the secret that the President can't hinder criminal investigations if they're started? I'm sure the former president has been filling Ari's head with tall tales in this regard, but whatever he's been saying surely isn't how it works. Not anymore at least.

Possibly. It's an interesting argument.

Of course, we're not talking about skim milk,. we're talking about waterboarding - so it's not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of an 'extreme interrogation' technique that we know is torture.

So - petty little snips aside - did you have anything worthwhile?

I appreciate that you'd shot your real load - the ex post facto thing being the best argument there is, but, unfortunately, being already shown to fail.

Was there anything else? Or can we expect more tirades about no sugar in your oatmeal, or the wrong kinds of chocolate chips in your cookies?

many many more tirades :) pull up your big girl pants and deal with it.

Oh, goodie, will they keep that mindset regarding Obama, then, or shall I repay them their 8 years worth of favors?

Oh heavens no, you must question everything a Liberal does. They're evil you see. Conservatives are the bastions of morality and proper behavior, and thusly ought never be questioned. Why only a terrorist, or worse liberal, would question a Republican's behavior.

many many more tirades :) pull up your big girl pants and deal with it.

Awesome, and thank you.

Since you have admitted that you intend to troll, taking your next set of vacuous comments to moderation will be so much easier.


You should probably see that as some kind of heads-up that you might want to actually get with the debate, or opt-out.

im not in favor of a policy that excuses torture at any level. it needs to be prosecuted even if in the end it is decided that they were "only following orders"

I don't think it is fair to condem someone who did not know they were breaking the law if their only information was that what they were doing was ok. However we should try these people to see how much they knew about their orders and whether or not they realized if they were doing wrong.

And obviously we should try the people who made the decision knowing it was legal.

Oh heavens no, you must question everything a Liberal does. They're evil you see. Conservatives are the bastions of morality and proper behavior, and thusly ought never be questioned. Why only a terrorist, or worse liberal, would question a Republican's behavior.

Repaying it is.

this torture thing is making me sicker by the day.

this blogger used the 9/11 report (the 9/11 commission had access to the results of interrogation of prisoners) to correlate the waterboarding of abu zubaydah and what was learned from him. she came up with 10 items that were learned from him (not all definitively linked to waterboarding) and NONE OF THEM were important enough to justify torture.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/abu-zubaydah-waterboarded-83-times-for-10-pieces-of-intelligence/

here is the huffington post's summary for those who cant be bothered to read that much: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/marcy-wheeler-83-waterboa_n_190253.html

plus the suggestion is all over MSNBC that the real reason for torturing and the real pressure to get the intel immediately had not so much to do with "what if he knows when the next hit is coming?" and lots to do with "he can provide us with a confession to the link between iraq and alqaeda so we can use that for justification of war"

plus the suggestion is all over MSNBC that the real reason for torturing and the real pressure to get the intel immediately had not so much to do with "what if he knows when the next hit is coming?" and lots to do with "he can provide us with a confession to the link between iraq and alqaeda so we can use that for justification of war"

Would explain why they felt the need to waterboard Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times over a period of... one month...

Like most of your ilk, I suspect you think torture also equates to no skim milk for your latte.

many many more tirades :) pull up your big girl pants and deal with it.

Trolls: they belong under a bridge, not in NSG. And here, enjoy these yellow cards; those are my last ones for today.

I don't think it is fair to condem someone who did not know they were breaking the law if their only information was that what they were doing was ok. However we should try these people to see how much they knew about their orders and whether or not they realized if they were doing wrong.

And obviously we should try the people who made the decision knowing it was legal.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Especially when everyone knows the law so it is impossible to be ignorant of it. I'm sorry, but how can anyone construe that "interrogation" techniques taken from the army's training manual for withstanding torture and multiplied 100x are not torture and then argue "we didn't know it was torture or that it was illegal. Nuremberg established that being a moron following orders doesn't excuse you from being tried for breaking the law.

So, I was reading through the first of the memos, and one of the "interrogation techniques" authorized is, quite literally, Room 101.

Trolls: they belong under a bridge, not in NSG. And here, enjoy these yellow cards; those are my last ones for today.

Exclusionist! No, seriously I am a bit surprised how long it took people to catch on to me. However, I am done futzing around and it is straight talk time:

The torture memo release strikes me as possibly partisan poltical maneuvering for the purpose of either pandering to the far left base or perhaps a well intentioned but short sighted quick fix. Having spent over twenty years as a professional soldier, half of it in the spec ops arena, I don't believe US military professionals should ever resort to torture - nor in my sphere of experience did we.

You know what else offends my sense of Duty, Honor, Country? The use of mercenaries by the U.S. Government to fight our wars.

There is no other name for the employees of Blackwater, et al.

Did we learn nothing from History? Perhaps all of our leadership should be required to study Rome, the British Empire and oher failed Empire states. One of the common symptoms of deterioration is the growing dependence on mercs.

Exclusionist! No, seriously I am a bit surprised how long it took people to catch on to me. However, I am done futzing around and it is straight talk time:

The torture memo release strikes me as possibly partisan poltical maneuvering for the purpose of either pandering to the far left base or perhaps a well intentioned but short sighted quick fix. Having spent over twenty years as a professional soldier, half of it in the spec ops arena, I don't believe US military professionals should ever resort to torture - nor in my sphere of experience did we.

You know what else offends my sense of Duty, Honor, Country? The use of mercenaries by the U.S. Government to fight our wars.

There is no other name for the employees of Blackwater, et al.

Did we learn nothing from History? Perhaps all of our leadership should be required to study Rome, the British Empire and oher failed Empire states. One of the common symptoms of deterioration is the growing dependence on mercs.
Okay, since you feel like being serious now, I invite you to answer Ashmoria's point, above:

If the techniques were drawn from military training manuals for how to resist torture and were used in that training as examples of torture, how do you justify saying that we did not torture?

Is it your contention that none of this ever happened? That nobody was ever waterboarded?

If so, can we conclude then that you are calling Dick Cheney a liar?

Having spent over twenty years as a professional soldier, half of it in the spec ops arena

Calling it!

Okay, since you feel like being serious now, I invite you to answer Ashmoria's point, above:

If the techniques were drawn from military training manuals for how to resist torture and were used in that training as examples of torture, how do you justify saying that we did not torture?

Is it your contention that none of this ever happened? That nobody was ever waterboarded?

If so, can we conclude then that you are calling Dick Cheney a liar?

Don't forget the most important detail - our soldiers were being trained to resist this specific type of torture - because it was extraordinarily reliable at generating false confessions. (Which were apparently very useful for anti-US propaganda).

So - we took these extremely-reliable-false-confession-making techniques, and decided to use them to gain intelligence.

Eh... it looks like there might be some kind of inconsistency there, if I could just put my finger on it.

Calling it!

Seriously, it's just a matter of time before there's an argument going over whether it's DK.

Seriously, it's just a matter of time before there's an argument going over whether it's DK.

Oh oh! I can join in this time!

Oh oh! I can join in this time!

Whatever, DK.

Whatever, DK.

*facepalm*

lol

Oh oh! I can join in this time!

No true scotsman woul*gets shot*

Exclusionist! No, seriously I am a bit surprised how long it took people to catch on to me. However, I am done futzing around and it is straight talk time:

The torture memo release strikes me as possibly partisan poltical maneuvering for the purpose of either pandering to the far left base or perhaps a well intentioned but short sighted quick fix. Having spent over twenty years as a professional soldier, half of it in the spec ops arena, I don't believe US military professionals should ever resort to torture - nor in my sphere of experience did we.

You know what else offends my sense of Duty, Honor, Country? The use of mercenaries by the U.S. Government to fight our wars.

There is no other name for the employees of Blackwater, et al.

Did we learn nothing from History? Perhaps all of our leadership should be required to study Rome, the British Empire and oher failed Empire states. One of the common symptoms of deterioration is the growing dependence on mercs.
what do you think should be done about the torture that was done under the bush administration?

what do you think should be done about the torture that was done under the bush administration?

Dubya, Albo, Cheney, and Rummy should be waterboarded until they admit that it's torture.

Then they should all be locked in a cell until they can resolve the paradox that their confession is invalid because it was extracted by torture, but if their confession is invalidated then there is no established basis for detaining them for torture because it has not been established that waterboarding is torture. But then their confessions have not been extracted by torture and are therefore valid and waterboarding is torture and was the means by which their confessions were extracted... and so on.

Dubya, Albo, Cheney, and Rummy should be waterboarded until they admit that it's torture.

Then they should all be locked in a cell until they can resolve the paradox that their confession is invalid because it was extracted by torture, but if their confession is invalidated then there is no established basis for detaining them for torture because it has not been established that waterboarding is torture. But then their confessions have not been extracted by torture and are therefore valid and waterboarding is torture and was the means by which their confessions were extracted... and so on.
diabolically genius!

too bad that it has been long established that waterboarding (and other things that they did) is torture and that there is enough evidence of it that we dont need their confession to get a conviction.

So - we took these extremely-reliable-false-confession-making techniques, and decided to use them to gain intelligence.

Eh... it looks like there might be some kind of inconsistency there, if I could just put my finger on it.

Holy shit.

There isn't.

The torture was meant to give false intelligence. Its point was to give false intelligence. IT EXISTED to give false intelligence.

The intelligence they wanted to go to war with Iraq. Cheney isn't sadistic for wanting torture, he wanted it so they had an excuse.

The torture's entire purpose was to give the false intelligence they needed.

Holy shit.

There isn't.

The torture was meant to give false intelligence. Its point was to give false intelligence. IT EXISTED to give false intelligence.

The intelligence they wanted to go to war with Iraq. Cheney isn't sadistic for wanting torture, he wanted it so they had an excuse.

The torture's entire purpose was to give the false intelligence they needed.
that is what is making me sick to my stomach today.

Dubya, Albo, Cheney, and Rummy should be waterboarded until they admit that it's torture.

You might want to add Condoleezza Rice to that list, as it appears that she gave the CIA the thumbs up to waterboard Abu Zubaydah in 2002 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_interrogation_memos_senate;_ylt=A0wNdPub1u9JQJoA04is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1NHY1NWkyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDk wNDIzL3VzX2ludGVycm9nYXRpb25fbWVtb3Nfc2VuYXRlBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNyaWNlZGV saXZlcmU-)

You might want to add Condoleezza Rice to that list, as it appears that she gave the CIA the thumbs up to waterboard Abu Zubaydah in 2002 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_interrogation_memos_senate;_ylt=A0wNdPub1u9JQJoA04is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1NHY1NWkyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDk wNDIzL3VzX2ludGVycm9nYXRpb25fbWVtb3Nfc2VuYXRlBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNyaWNlZGV saXZlcmU-)
did you see her lawyer on msnbc telling about how when he saw the torture memos he recognized them for the crap that they were so he issued his own memo saying so...the administration supposedly worked hard to destroy every copy of that memo.

that is what is making me sick to my stomach today.

Nobody should do that and live...

Nobody should do that and live...
if its true, they really really need to go to prison for a very long time.

the president, the vice president and whoever else participated for that reason.

not that everyone else should get off, everyone involved needs to face their day in court.

if its true, they really really need to go to prison for a very long time.

the president, the vice president and whoever else participated for that reason.

not that everyone else should get off, everyone involved needs to face their day in court.

They tortured people... to get a casus belli...

I can't believe I'm contemporary with such evil...

They tortured people... to get a casus belli...

I can't believe I'm contemporary with such evil...
and they did it on MY behalf.

i hate them so much.

and they did it on MY behalf.

i hate them so much.

No, they didn't. They did it on their behalf, and theirs alone. As for hate... Hate doesn't begin to describe what I feel for them right now.

I hated them before. Now, I, a linguist, am short of words to describe what I feel for them. In my language or in yours, or in any I know.

This is a president that whined about giving up golf, something he didn't even do, when he realized American soldiers were killed in the war he tortured people to get false information, slandered opponents and mistreated just about whoever they needed to start. He gave up golf. Or claimed to. After torturing false information out of someone TO GET a war that HE KNEW would kill people by the thousands.

Something REALLY BAD has to happen to him.

As an aside, if anyone is interested, you can read the actual memos on the ACLU's website.

and they did it on MY behalf.

i hate them so much.
Same here, but:

No, they didn't. They did it on their behalf, and theirs alone.
This ^^ is the truth.

I have never hated anyone as much as I hate those evil bastards. Every hour reveals more of their crimes. It's like something out of a novel, not like real people. A long time ago, I heard some random person -- some minor celebrity no one ever heard of -- said in an interview when the subject of current events came up that these people who were running things were more like characters from Swift than someone made by their mothers. It's true -- how can such people be raised by parents during a human life? Serial killers make more sense than these people do. It's like they were invented to embody some allegory or cautionary tale.

Oh, and this business of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al, using torture to create false confessions in order to gin up excuses for starting the war only raises a question in my mind that makes me even less willing to give the grunts a pass:

Why didn't they just lie?

I mean, they had these prisoners in isolation, cut off from the world. They never trotted Khalid in front of cameras to give a prepared propaganda speech. Why did they need to "break" him at all? Why not just make up some shit, release it to the media and claim it was a confession from a prisoner? Or if they were the grunts, just make up some shit and pass it up the chain of command, rather than really do these things that everyone knew was wrong and illegal.

The fact that they really physically did this -- please, just put them away. Just lock them up and let me never see or hear from them again. Just rid us of them, somebody, please.

what do you think should be done about the torture that was done under the bush administration?

If it is proven by weight of evidence, each individual in a position of authority in the chain of command, from the field unit to the top, should be held accountable in a court of law.

Here is the problem with that solution, as I see it. In our current partisan and politically charged anger dominated culture, where will we find a judging authority who will not be viewed as prejudiced one way or the other? No one trusts anyone. With good reason, I might add.:(

One more sort of related thought. I have read several threads making veiled references to Nuremburg and Nazis.

From the very first day of military training about the Uniform Code of Military Justice the rawest recruit is taught that you are never required to obey a clearly unlawful order - and you may not be prosecuted for refusing to obey such an unlawful order. And - here is a coincidence - several decades ago when I was one of those raw recruits, the specific example of an unlawful order used was to participate in the torture of a prisoner.

did you see her lawyer on msnbc telling about how when he saw the torture memos he recognized them for the crap that they were so he issued his own memo saying so...the administration supposedly worked hard to destroy every copy of that memo.

I did not get a chance to see the interview, although I have read about it. I am actually not surprised the Bush Administration went to such lengths to suppress the memo. I am very curious whether they suppressed the memo to minimize dissent (like in the run-up to the Iraq War), whether it was to provide legal cover for the policy-makers and interrogators, or both.

Okay, something just occurred to me.

I usually pay no credence to so-called 9-11 conspiracy theories, but these people tortured someone for a casus belli they knew would be fake.

What if Bush DID let or make 9/11 happen on purpose?

What if Bush DID let or make 9/11 happen on purpose?

He didn't. End of story.

What if Bush DID let or make 9/11 happen on purpose?
Bush waterboarded the WTC till it collapsed.

He didn't. End of story.

You do realize we're talking about someone who tortured people for a casus belli here, right? I'd have put that past him BEFORE yesterday.

You do realize we're talking about someone who tortured people for a casus belli here, right? I'd have put that past him BEFORE yesterday.
I can happily see someone like Bush, who seemingly views the world in black and white, authorising the torture of an individual he viewed as an evil opponent of his faith and way of life.

But authorising the killing of several thousand fellow Americans, fellow Christians? Hard to swallow.

Also, if you want to continue down this avenue, I'd suggest you start a new thread, lest this one be dominated by outraged Americans or conspiracy-believers.

I can happily see someone like Bush, who seemingly views the world in black and white, authorising the torture of an individual he viewed as an evil opponent of his faith and way of life.

But authorising the killing of several thousand fellow Americans, fellow Christians? Hard to swallow.

Also, if you want to continue down this avenue, I'd suggest you start a new thread, lest this one be dominated by outraged Americans or conspiracy-believers.

Eh. I was just floating a hypothesis, I'm too tired to start anything this big right now. Translated about 2.5 times my usual amount yesterday, I'm feeling like a guy who just fought two strong opponents in one day.

If it is proven by weight of evidence, each individual in a position of authority in the chain of command, from the field unit to the top, should be held accountable in a court of law.

Here is the problem with that solution, as I see it. In our current partisan and politically charged anger dominated culture, where will we find a judging authority who will not be viewed as prejudiced one way or the other? No one trusts anyone. With good reason, I might add.:(

One more sort of related thought. I have read several threads making veiled references to Nuremburg and Nazis.

From the very first day of military training about the Uniform Code of Military Justice the rawest recruit is taught that you are never required to obey a clearly unlawful order - and you may not be prosecuted for refusing to obey such an unlawful order. And - here is a coincidence - several decades ago when I was one of those raw recruits, the specific example of an unlawful order used was to participate in the torture of a prisoner.


does it surprise you to know that i agree with you?

it absolutely needs to be an independent investigation done by someone with impeccable credentials for impartiality. i even agree with whoever it is that is saying that we need to wait a while before people like dick cheney smarten up and stop blabbing what they know.


if the legal process were already begun it would have the air of partisan payback and all of the distressing info that is coming out now wouldnt be being released.

the difference between us seems to be that i think it can be done and you doubt it.

if i were on a jury i think that i could be persuaded that an interrogator could be convinced that the justice department had drawn a fine line between what is torture and what isnt.

does it surprise you to know that i agree with you?

it absolutely needs to be an independent investigation done by someone with impeccable credentials for impartiality. i even agree with whoever it is that is saying that we need to wait a while before people like dick cheney smarten up and stop blabbing what they know.


if the legal process were already begun it would have the air of partisan payback and all of the distressing info that is coming out now wouldnt be being released.

the difference between us seems to be that i think it can be done and you doubt it.

if i were on a jury i think that i could be persuaded that an interrogator could be convinced that the justice department had drawn a fine line between what is torture and what isnt.


Actually I have been really reading your posts and it doesn't surprise me at all. When I am able to overcome my instinctive predisposition to be a smart ass, I try to read and think critically.

While I doubt the possibility, I do not rule it out. I am cogitating on who, or even what body could reasonably be expected to provide a fair, discerning and honest investigation. I am saddened to say that I know of no established insititution within our US system that I would entrust with this.

Even if you could draft/elect a small, competent and rigorously impartial team (no more than 3 people) to lead the ivestigation,how do you control for the ingrained prejudices and ideology of their field investigators?

...of course, here is a thought - why not limit the actual hands on investigative function to that small team and no others. The only support they could have might be limited to typing and administrative help.

...there could be no release of information - at all - to any media/public/government entity until the investigation is completed and delivered into the hands of the body charged with evaluating it and determining what if any charges shall be brought.

sorry, I got off onto a small fantasy here...

Monty Python quote of the day: "see the repression inherent in the system..."

Actually I have been really reading your posts and it doesn't surprise me at all. When I am able to overcome my instinctive predisposition to be a smart ass, I try to read and think critically.

While I doubt the possibility, I do not rule it out. I am cogitating on who, or even what body could reasonably be expected to provide a fair, discerning and honest investigation. I am saddened to say that I know of no established insititution within our US system that I would entrust with this.

Even if you could draft/elect a small, competent and rigorously impartial team (no more than 3 people) to lead the ivestigation,how do you control for the ingrained prejudices and ideology of their field investigators?

...of course, here is a thought - why not limit the actual hands on investigative function to that small team and no others. The only support they could have might be limited to typing and administrative help.

...there could be no release of information - at all - to any media/public/government entity until the investigation is completed and delivered into the hands of the body charged with evaluating it and determining what if any charges shall be brought.

sorry, I got off onto a small fantasy here...

Monty Python quote of the day: "see the repression inherent in the system..."
do you doubt, for example, that the investigation into the outing of valerie plame was unbiased?

it didnt end the way i would have wanted but i felt that mr fitzgerald did a good job with the information he could obtain.

do you doubt, for example, that the investigation into the outing of valerie plame was unbiased?

it didnt end the way i would have wanted but i felt that mr fitzgerald did a good job with the information he could obtain.

I seriously doubt that it was unbiased. On the otherhand, I also know - and I use that word intentionally - that the entire situation was not as it was represented to the public. Ms Plame was not the covert operative she was represented to be. Irrespective of that, I believe that this was nothing more than petty payback, executed in a cowardly and craven manner. :wink:

oops, I hasten to add, that was not intended as an idictment of Mr F. I think he did the best he could.

I seriously doubt that it was unbiased. On the otherhand, I also know - and I use that word intentionally - that the entire situation was not as it was represented to the public. Ms Plame was not the covert operative she was represented to be. Irrespective of that, I believe that this was nothing more than petty payback, executed in a cowardly and craven manner. :wink:
you doubt that mr fitzgerald ran an unbiased investigation?

you doubt that mr fitzgerald ran an unbiased investigation?

I can only reiterate that I thing he did the best he could. Was it unbiased? Nope.:wink:

I can only reiterate that I thing he did the best he could. Was it unbiased? Nope.:wink:
You have yet to describe this bias, show the evidence of it, and explain how it affected the investigation.

Also, are you going to answer the question I asked you?

I can only reiterate that I thing he did the best he could. Was it unbiased? Nope.:wink:
i didnt follow it closely but it seemed as free of bias on his part as humanly possible.

I saw it last night on fox, and I just saw it mentioned on MSNBC - Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, and he'd undergo it to prove his point.

When do we expect the retraction?

Or - is he really that dumb?

I saw it last night on fox, and I just saw it mentioned on MSNBC - Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, and he'd undergo it to prove his point.

When do we expect the retraction?

Or - is he really that dumb?
i am SO excited by the prospect that hannity will be waterboarded.

keith olbermann said tonight that he will pony up $1000 for ever second hannity lasts. id be willing to pledge $10/second myself.

i think he'll weasel out of it (admitting that he couldnt face the pressure applied by charles grodin) but DAMN i hope he doesnt.

I saw it last night on fox, and I just saw it mentioned on MSNBC - Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, and he'd undergo it to prove his point.

When do we expect the retraction?

Or - is he really that dumb?

Please, PLEASE, GODS, I BEG YOU, I BEG YOU, PLEASE, LET HIM DO IT!

Americans! I don't care if I get modded for "ordering" people, but if he does it, you ARE YouTubing it AND linking it to me, and I won't take no for an answer! :p

GODS, I wanna watch! PLEASE, GODS, MAY HE UNDERGO THIS "NO-TORTURE" TO SEE IF IT IS OR NOT! I BEG AND DEMAND! I, at the same time, beg and demand!

HANNITY! FOR EACH LIE YOU PARROTED, FOR EACH INANITY YOU UTTERED, FOR EACH CRIME YOU SUPPORTED, FOR EACH LIBERAL YOU CALLED ANTI-AMERICAN AND FOR ME!

SUFFER!

I was surprised that every interrogator worked in tandem with a psychologist.

What an odd team!

I guess the upside is that psychological methods don't leave a mark?

I saw it last night on fox, and I just saw it mentioned on MSNBC - Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, and he'd undergo it to prove his point.

When do we expect the retraction?

Or - is he really that dumb?

There is a significant difference when you know what is happening and you know how long they can do something to you.

To when your blind folded thrown on a table and suddenly feel water on your face and in your lungs, not knowing whats going on or when it will stop.

Hannity might go through with the water boarding, but it wont prove a point other then he is into S&M.

i am SO excited by the prospect that hannity will be waterboarded.

keith olbermann said tonight that he will pony up $1000 for ever second hannity lasts. id be willing to pledge $10/second myself.

i think he'll weasel out of it (admitting that he couldnt face the pressure applied by charles grodin) but DAMN i hope he doesnt.

But Hannity is going to come up from it afterwards and say "See it's not all that bad".

He'd be a fucking liar, but that's what he'd say.

I saw it last night on fox, and I just saw it mentioned on MSNBC - Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, and he'd undergo it to prove his point.

When do we expect the retraction?

Or - is he really that dumb?

No, he's a hack, but I support waterboarding Hannity for 12 minutes at a time.


Also, I am still curious how one can take techniques from the army's training for resisting torture, multiply their intensity 100x and then say you arn't using torture.

There is a significant difference when you know what is happening and you know how long they can do something to you.

To when your blind folded thrown on a table and suddenly feel water on your face and in your lungs, not knowing whats going on or when it will stop.

Hannity might go through with the water boarding, but it wont prove a point other then he is into S&M.

Then Hannity will use all the support for waterboarding him as evidence of 'liberals' being hypocrites then instead of getting waterboarded he will yell and scream for an hour about liberals, as usual.

I saw it last night on fox, and I just saw it mentioned on MSNBC - Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, and he'd undergo it to prove his point.

He's not the fist right-winger to do it, although it backfired rather badly for Christopher Hitchens who went from "It's not torture" to "If this isn't torture, then there is no such thing as torture".

Video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58) Personal account describing being waterboarded. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808)

But Hannity is going to come up from it afterwards and say "See it's not all that bad".

He'd be a fucking liar, but that's what he'd say.
i dont think its possible.

waterboarding isnt simulated drowning, its drowning that simulates death (got that off rachel maddow)

knowing that its coming doesnt make dying any easier.

i dont think its possible.

waterboarding isnt simulated drowning, its drowning that simulates death (got that off rachel maddow)

knowing that its coming doesnt make dying any easier.
We had some water boarding, as well as dunking, slapping, hitting, freezing, confinement, and punching during my SERE training. None was pleasant, but none was unbearable. The difference was that we were pretty sure that no one would waste the $1,000,000 plus investment that the Navy/USMC had in our flight training by actually killing us.

When you're in enemy hands, all bets are off.

i dont think its possible.

waterboarding isnt simulated drowning, its drowning that simulates death (got that off rachel maddow)

knowing that its coming doesnt make dying any easier.

normally your just gasping for air from what i've seen.

We had some water boarding, as well as dunking, slapping, hitting, freezing, confinement, and punching during my SERE training. None was pleasant, but none was unbearable. The difference was that we were pretty sure that no one would waste the $1,000,000 plus investment that the Navy/USMC had in our flight training by actually killing us.

When you're in enemy hands, all bets are off.

Not to mention none of you had it done 200 times.

Not to mention none of you had it done 200 times.

That can easily be fixed. Are you volunteering ?

We had some water boarding, as well as dunking, slapping, hitting, freezing, confinement, and punching during my SERE training. None was pleasant, but none was unbearable. The difference was that we were pretty sure that no one would waste the $1,000,000 plus investment that the Navy/USMC had in our flight training by actually killing us.

When you're in enemy hands, all bets are off.

Wait, you're actually agreeing with us that waterboarding is torture?

Wait, you're actually agreeing with us that waterboarding is torture?

I dont think he said it either way.

Wait, you're actually agreeing with us that waterboarding is torture?

Well, it's done specifically during certain training (like SERE as Myrm said), to train personnel to be more resistant to torture methods that were inflicted on U.S. forces in Korea. I think it's been around that long.

normally your just gasping for air from what i've seen.

From what you've seen. Not from what you've felt. So in fact you have no idea what you're talking about, compared to those have experienced it. Gotcha. I knew that, I just wanted to make sure again.

From what you've seen. Not from what you've felt. So in fact you have no idea what you're talking about, compared to those have experienced it. Gotcha. I knew that, I just wanted to make sure again.

Did i claim to be water boarded. I think that was Mr SERE guy?
Mostly the after affects are something along the lines of cough gasp vomit cough gasp. Rather then being able to get up and say "see it was not torture"

normally your just gasping for air from what i've seen.
so are you "just gasping for air" when you are pulled out of the water in an actual drowning.

so are you "just gasping for air" when you are pulled out of the water in an actual drowning.

i was meaning in being unable to talk. it gets a little nastier.

i was meaning in being unable to talk. it gets a little nastier.
im thinking that you probably phrased your post #605 poorly for reading rather than hearing. it is dependent on intonation...

anway.

i loved this speech by lawrence odonnel on countdown last night. the clip begins with keith olbermann making his offer of $1k/second but at about 2:15 mr odonnell rips into hannity and the cheneys. its priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__8O7IDgcIc

Did i claim to be water boarded. I think that was Mr SERE guy?
Mostly the after affects are something along the lines of cough gasp vomit cough gasp. Rather then being able to get up and say "see it was not torture"

Oh, I see. Misread you. Sorry.

Wait, you're actually agreeing with us that waterboarding is torture?
No. But, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you either.

How's that for wishy-washy?

No. But, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you either.

How's that for wishy-washy?

You know what that is?

That's flip-flo*gets shot*

im thinking that you probably phrased your post #605 poorly for reading rather than hearing. it is dependent on intonation...

anway.

i loved this speech by lawrence odonnel on countdown last night. the clip begins with keith olbermann making his offer of $1k/second but at about 2:15 mr odonnell rips into hannity and the cheneys. its priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__8O7IDgcIc

Wait a minute 1k a second ?

I will be water boarded for that... I just sent him an Email requesting it.

You know what that is?

That's flip-flo*gets water boarded*

Fixed

Oh, I see. Misread you. Sorry.

don't worry I will be back to arguing the other way when I get bored.

Fixed

Al Qaeda is in cahoots with Iraq! And with Iran! I created the magic bullet! I stole the fire from the gods! I am the Alpha and the Omeg*Gets shot*

Al Qaeda is in cahoots with Iraq! And with Iran! I created the magic bullet! I stole the fire from the gods! I am the Alpha and the Omeg*Gets shot*

You see yet another terrorist confessed. And he produced life saving intelligence.

You know what that is?

That's flip-flo*gets shot*
Out of the list of things that was published in the memos, water boarding is the only one I have doubts about. It's extremely uncomfortable -- I gagged more than a couple times -- but the interrogator has the situation under control all the time. So it's unlikely accidents will happen to the subject.

You see yet another terrorist confessed. And he produced life saving intelligence.

Question, though, how many thousand dollars did I get? I mean, how many seconds did I last?

Out of the list of things that was published in the memos, water boarding is the only one I have doubts about. It's extremely uncomfortable -- I gagged more than a couple times -- but the interrogator has the situation under control all the time. So it's unlikely accidents will happen to the subject.

1- I read the bolded as "I giggled" the first time. o_o

2- Mind you that the enemy doesn't know that. And it's not about the accident, it's about the infliction of suffering on a subject to produce unreliable information.

Out of the list of things that was published in the memos, water boarding is the only one I have doubts about. It's extremely uncomfortable -- I gagged more than a couple times -- but the interrogator has the situation under control all the time. So it's unlikely accidents will happen to the subject.

I suspect you didn't actually read the memoes. Further, I suspect you're either claiming to have undergone something you never actually experienced, or (if genuine) what YOU udnerwent was not waterboarding, but some gentler version (which would kind of be entirely contrary to the point of the training).

I base this on the fact that 'I gagged more than a couple of times' is clearly not the result of properly applied waterboarding, as defined in the memoes, or as described in SERE material.

1- I read the bolded as "I giggled" the first time. o_o

2- Mind you that the enemy doesn't know that. And it's not about the accident, it's about the infliction of suffering on a subject to produce unreliable information.
But, every time a guard comes to get you from your cell, he could be taking you to be shot. That's the thing about being a captive -- you never know what's going to happen, ever.

I agree that the theory is a captive will say anything to avoid torture. After the first tooth was pulled, I'm sure I'd say anything to make sure there wasn't a second one pulled. This is where I'm still on the fence about water boarding as torture -- it took many (200?) times to get a subject to give up information that did turn out to be useful. That almost sounds like we bored him to the point of talking.

But, every time a guard comes to get you from your cell, he could be taking you to be shot. That's the thing about being a captive -- you never know what's going to happen, ever.

I agree that the theory is a captive will say anything to avoid torture. After the first tooth was pulled, I'm sure I'd say anything to make sure there wasn't a second one pulled. This is where I'm still on the fence about water boarding as torture -- it took many (200?) times to get a subject to give up information that did turn out to be useful. That almost sounds like we bored him to the point of talking.

And that's under certain very loose definitions of "useful". But the fact remains that there ARE, yes, faster, better, more reliable and SURELY more ethical ways to get information.

I suspect you didn't actually read the memoes. Further, I suspect you're either claiming to have undergone something you never actually experienced, or (if genuine) what YOU udnerwent was not waterboarding, but some gentler version (which would kind of be entirely contrary to the point of the training).

I base this on the fact that 'I gagged more than a couple of times' is clearly not the result of properly applied waterboarding, as defined in the memoes, or as described in SERE material.

No true scotsman would raise this point.

Counterpoint, Myrmi?

I suspect you didn't actually read the memoes. Further, I suspect you're either claiming to have undergone something you never actually experienced, or (if genuine) what YOU udnerwent was not waterboarding, but some gentler version (which would kind of be entirely contrary to the point of the training).

I base this on the fact that 'I gagged more than a couple of times' is clearly not the result of properly applied waterboarding, as defined in the memoes, or as described in SERE material.
I'm talking about something that happened nearly 30 years ago. Very likely it was different. What I do remember was that I couldn't breath full breaths and when I did, water started flowing down my throat. When it got to the back of my throat, I started choking and coughing.

If that's not good enough, sorry.

Something else has occurred to me:

If you read the memoes, the CIA guidelines state that a person will not be waterboarded more than twice in a single 24 hour period, and not more than five days from a consecutive thirty.

So - waterboarding Zubaydah 83 times during August, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times during March - both are in breach of their OWN guidelines (regardless of whether or not they are excusable under cover of the legal opinion memoes).

So - I've changed my opinion. Every agent should be considered equally complicit. There is no 'just following orders' excuse when you don't even follow the orders.

That almost sounds like we bored him to the point of talking.
Or, rather than talking to avoid one session of excruciating torture (then unsanctioned), they're talking to avoid another month of unpleasant torture (then sanctioned).

Death from a thousand cuts, and all that.

But, every time a guard comes to get you from your cell, he could be taking you to be shot. That's the thing about being a captive -- you never know what's going to happen, ever.

I agree that the theory is a captive will say anything to avoid torture. After the first tooth was pulled, I'm sure I'd say anything to make sure there wasn't a second one pulled. This is where I'm still on the fence about water boarding as torture -- it took many (200?) times to get a subject to give up information that did turn out to be useful. That almost sounds like we bored him to the point of talking.

183 times on KSM. And recently released timelines suggest that KSM didn't yeild anything useful, after all - since the evidence that keeps being CLAIMED as having been derived from waterboarding, was already acted on BEFORE the waterboarding took place. It's a kind of revisionist insanity.

I'm talking about something that happened nearly 30 years ago. Very likely it was different. What I do remember was that I couldn't breath full breaths and when I did, water started flowing down my throat. When it got to the back of my throat, I started choking and coughing.

If that's not good enough, sorry.

...'good enough' is irrelevent, and it's a kind of passive-aggressive riposte. You pretend to apologise, but you word it in such a way that it's a denial coupled with a complete lack of actual apology.

Unless you were experiencing suffocation, you were not being waterboarded. That's the whole point - to mimic the effect of drowning without ever actually letting water into the lungs (in theory, of course... in reality, water is very likely to enter the lungs in varying quantities).

If you did it as SERE training, you probably experienced it for 40 seconds or less. You probably experienced it one, or maybe twice. The CIA allowed it for up to 2 hours, up to twice a day. (Which guidelines they also, clearly, broke).

Wait a minute 1k a second ?

I will be water boarded for that... I just sent him an Email requesting it.
better get a gig on foxnews first. he wont pay up for just anyone to get tortured.

Something else has occurred to me:

If you read the memoes, the CIA guidelines state that a person will not be waterboarded more than twice in a single 24 hour period, and not more than five days from a consecutive thirty.

So - waterboarding Zubaydah 83 times during August, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times during March - both are in breach of their OWN guidelines (regardless of whether or not they are excusable under cover of the legal opinion memoes).

So - I've changed my opinion. Every agent should be considered equally complicit. There is no 'just following orders' excuse when you don't even follow the orders.
oooo good catch. i cant bring myself to read the memos all the way through.

oooo good catch. i cant bring myself to read the memos all the way through.

I read them, because I hate everything they stand for. Yes, it was sickening, but there has never been a situation where it was truer, that I needed to 'know my enemy'.

I read them, because I hate everything they stand for. Yes, it was sickening, but there has never been a situation where it was truer, that I needed to 'know my enemy'.
did you read the report of the international red cross?

i read some of it. its horrifying.

did you read the report of the international red cross?

i read some of it. its horrifying.

Not yet, but I shall. I have that to look forward to this weekend. :(

better get a gig on foxnews first. he wont pay up for just anyone to get tortured.

I told him i was a right winged blogger scheduled to co host with O'reily next season.

I told him i was a right winged blogger scheduled to co host with O'reily next season.
good luck!

keith doesnt seem to be a genius. it might work!

good luck!

keith doesnt seem to be a genius. it might work!

Kiss my student loans good BYE!!!

Kiss my student loans good BYE!!!

That assumes you can withstand more than 5 seconds.

good luck!

keith doesnt seem to be a genius. it might work!

I don't know... he's probably smart enough to work out that O'Reilly isn't likely to be cohosting with some apparent unknown... especially some apparent unknown who can't seem to even spell his name.

I don't know... he's probably smart enough to work out that O'Reilly isn't likely to be cohosting with some apparent unknown... especially some apparent unknown who can't seem to even spell his name.
shhhhhh

dont crush G&D's dream of someday being able to pay off his student loans.

shhhhhh

dont crush G&D's dream of someday being able to pay off his student loans.

Back to the dream of being a drifter and avoiding them for the rest of my life.

Back to the dream of being a drifter and avoiding them for the rest of my life.

You'd probably be better served writing TO O'Reilly, and offering your services as a shill.

You'd probably be better served writing TO O'Reilly, and offering your services as a shill.

Pretending to have sold my soul and actually selling my soul are two different things.

Pretending to have sold my soul and actually selling my soul are two different things.

Well, if you were going to let MSNBC sponsor you to be waterboarded, wouldn't it be much the same to arrange some kind of deal with Fox?

The only difference would be in the aftermath, when you had to sit there, crying, in your own feces, when you'd have to pretend it hadn't been torture.

just more evidence on the flawed and immoral administration of Bush.:mad:

It is clearly time to leave this thread. You people-- Ash..., Murv..., Heik... must be the most mean spirited diletantes on the net. Until you have walked the dark streets, borne arms in defense of something greater than yourself, or actually risked more than a paper cut, your opinions are empty of value. bye

It is clearly time to leave this thread. You people-- Ash..., Murv..., Heik... must be the most mean spirited diletantes on the net. Until you have walked the dark streets, borne arms in defense of something greater than yourself, or actually risked more than a paper cut, your opinions are empty of value. bye

So - admitted trolling, 'arguments' that were quickly rebuffed... and then insults... and then fleeing. You're my hero.

It is clearly time to leave this thread. You people-- Ash..., Murv..., Heik... must be the most mean spirited diletantes on the net. Until you have walked the dark streets, borne arms in defense of something greater than yourself, or actually risked more than a paper cut, your opinions are empty of value. bye

Shut up and quit pretending you did. Everyone's a soldier on the Internet, especially the troll that spouts bullshit in defense of an administration that tortured people. Yours is the empty discourse. Empty of content, empty of logic, of reason and of value.

In short: Shut up. But if you wanna leave, be my guest.

So - admitted trolling, 'arguments' that were quickly rebuffed... and then insults... and then fleeing. You're my hero.

No true scotsman would point out he also fled after I failed to point that out myself.

No true scotsman would point out he also fled after I failed to point that out myself.

I'm a little disappointed I didn't get a mention, to be honest. I'm just bitter.

It is clearly time to leave this thread. You people-- Ash..., Murv..., Heik... must be the most mean spirited diletantes on the net. Until you have walked the dark streets, borne arms in defense of something greater than yourself, or actually risked more than a paper cut, your opinions are empty of value. bye
wow, if we are the most mean spirited where have you been posting in the past? the disney forum?

Well, if you were going to let MSNBC sponsor you to be waterboarded, wouldn't it be much the same to arrange some kind of deal with Fox?

The only difference would be in the aftermath, when you had to sit there, crying, in your own feces, when you'd have to pretend it hadn't been torture.

Well I never said I would secretly strive to get paid by both.
As for Feces I would prevent that by switching to an IV diet for a few days prior so my digestive system was clean.

Well I never said I would secretly strive to get paid by both.
As for Feces I would prevent that by switching to an IV diet for a few days prior so my digestive system was clean.

I'm a little concerned you're thinking this through so thoroughly... :D

wow, if we are the most mean spirited where have you been posting in the past? the disney forum?

The Disney forums are brutal, man. All I said was that Disney movies were primarily studies of broken families, and they chased me out of town. I cried for a week.

I'm a little concerned you're thinking this through so thoroughly... :D

Money is involved of course I am.

The Disney forums are brutal, man. All I said was that Disney movies were primarily studies of broken families, and they chased me out of town. I cried for a week.
lol

and you didnt even get to the part where walt was a racist (and an anti-semite?)

The Disney forums are brutal, man. All I said was that Disney movies were primarily studies of broken families, and they chased me out of town. I cried for a week.

Let's see...

Snow White
Cinderella
Anastasia

Mmm, I can see your case...

But Hannity is going to come up from it afterwards and say "See it's not all that bad".

He'd be a fucking liar, but that's what he'd say.

And the reply should be, "See, it doesn't work. We tortured you to get you to give just one piece of information. You knew you could get us to stop by simply admitting you were wrong and you didn't break. All you had to do was admit something that would have no consequences for you. Just admit you were wrong. And nothing.

Now imagine if you were trained and ready to give up your life for you cause."

He loses either way.

UPDATE:

Earlier in this thread, I presented the argument from the 'torture memoes', that justified waterboarding as 'not torture' because - while it DOES cause harm and DOES have the risk of harm, AND the threat of harm - what (it was being argued) it lacked - was evidence that it caused longterm psychological distress.

It made this claim by referring to SERE protocols.


I now refer to the International Red Cross Report:

"On this occassion my head was in a more backward, downwards position and the water was poured on for a longer time. I struggled without success to breathe. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress."

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

Recurrent side-effect in stressful situations - I'm saying that's pretty definitive of longterm psychological distress.

The 'but, is it torture?' argument can now be put to bed.

wow, if we are the most mean spirited where have you been posting in the past? the disney forum?
I am offended -- really, personally wounded -- by him calling me mean spirited. I believe I am generally known as one of the most caring, nurturing, tolerant and supportive posters on this forum.

>.>
<.<

What?

I am offended -- really, personally wounded -- by him calling me mean spirited. I believe I am generally known as one of the most caring, nurturing, tolerant and supportive posters on this forum.

>.>
<.<

What?

Well, I HAVE on occasion compared you to Retsu Unohana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retsu_Unohana#4th_Division)...

Well, I HAVE on occasion compared you to Retsu Unohana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retsu_Unohana#4th_Division)...
I think you're crediting me with too much -- unless, of course, you mean you've compared me unfavorably to her. ;)

I think you're crediting me with too much.

That has more to do with the "by comparison" thing. Consider who I compared myself to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayuri_Kurotsuchi#Mayuri_Kurotsuchi) from that show...

These terrorists should not be tortured. They need to be exorcised!

These terrorists should not be tortured. They need to be exorcised!

We need a young priest and an old priest... And a lawyer to remove the restraining order...

I am offended -- really, personally wounded -- by him calling me mean spirited. I believe I am generally known as one of the most caring, nurturing, tolerant and supportive posters on this forum.

>.>
<.<

What?
hey far be it from ME to contradict you.



i dont dare to!

Michael Scheuer's defense of torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403459.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) leads me to understand why Osama Bin Laden eluded capture from 1996 to 1999...

Michael Scheuer's defense of torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403459.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) leads me to understand why Osama Bin Laden eluded capture from 1996 to 1999...
what a disturbing essay.

you are either willing to do whatever it takes to get information--normal interrogation be damned just go right to torture--or you are a rosy eyed fool who doesnt believe that there are dangerous people in the world.

he doesnt seem to have a good grasp of what has happened and who the new president is.

Michael Scheuer's defense of torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403459.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) leads me to understand why Osama Bin Laden eluded capture from 1996 to 1999...
I think it's pretty clear that all the arguments in defense of torture are and have been either idiocies or lies. Actually, they're usually both, though the editorial you linked is mostly just stupid. This is because there is no real defense of torture. The only people who try to mount one are either idiots who don't understand simple reality or liars who have a personal agenda to push.

The one thing in the linked article I found so ironic that I almost choked on my coffee was when Scheuer scolds Obama for eliminating torture because of "his personal ideology." What the hell does that shithead think the people who supported torture in spite of everything, including its ineffectiveness, were doing? Hell, what does he think HE is doing in that editorial? Being a "realist"? It's starting to make me sick how many people who claim to be realists clearly have not a fucking clue what reality is. Reality = The vast majority of experienced intelligence officers and interrogators state categorically that torture does not yield useable information. The torturer's response = But what if <insert episodic television plot device>? That ain't realistic, kiddies.

I am so tired of this. The more I hear and read of this shit, the more I feel like I'm trapped in a room with crazy people. This is crazy talk.

I think it's pretty clear that all the arguments in defense of torture are and have been either idiocies or lies. Actually, they're usually both, though the editorial you linked is mostly just stupid. This is because there is no real defense of torture. The only people who try to mount one are either idiots who don't understand simple reality or liars who have a personal agenda to push.

The one thing in the linked article I found so ironic that I almost choked on my coffee was when Scheuer scolds Obama for eliminating torture because of "his personal ideology." What the hell does that shithead think the people who supported torture in spite of everything, including its ineffectiveness, were doing? Hell, what does he think HE is doing in that editorial? Being a "realist"? It's starting to make me sick how many people who claim to be realists clearly have not a fucking clue what reality is. Reality = The vast majority of experienced intelligence officers and interrogators state categorically that torture does not yield useable information. The torturer's response = But what if <insert episodic television plot device>? That ain't realistic, kiddies.

I am so tired of this. The more I hear and read of this shit, the more I feel like I'm trapped in a room with crazy people. This is crazy talk.

Take solace, Mur: If he really believes the crap he spews, that means he's suffering in fear and can do nothing about it.

And for my own article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/149009

Take solace, Mur: If he really believes the crap he spews, that means he's suffering in fear and can do nothing about it.

And for my own article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/149009
Neocons = crazy people talking crazy talk.

It was bad enough watching these rightwingers do their best to turn life into a Dicken's novel. Now they're making Alice in Wonderland real!

Neocons = crazy people talking crazy talk.

It was bad enough watching these rightwingers do their best to turn life into a Dicken's novel. Now they're making Alice in Wonderland real!

On a side note, it seems Ann Coulter's mother recently died. :D

And the reason for that smiley is this: She used her own mother's death in an editorial to make a zing at Janet Napolitano. So, really, if she cares this little, I'm putting the "fun" in funeral.

Take solace, Mur: If he really believes the crap he spews, that means he's suffering in fear and can do nothing about it.

And for my own article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/149009
i think that article must be correct. why else would the guys at the top ignore the advice of those who DO interrogation? because they spent too much time watching tv strawmen being made to talk in under a day.

On a side note, it seems Ann Coulter's mother recently died. :D

And the reason for that smiley is this: She used her own mother's death in an editorial to make a zing at Janet Napolitano. So, really, if she cares this little, I'm putting the "fun" in funeral.
the right is sooooo eager to claim that that report is talking about THEM.

as if there arent rightwing nutcases in the US who are quite dangerous. but NOOOO they are talking about ann coulter and sean hannity. not the crazy people stockpiliing arms and ammo for the coming civil war (that they may decide to start--like tim mcveigh *spits* thought he was starting a civil war when he bombed the OKC federal building.)

the right is sooooo eager to claim that that report is talking about THEM.

as if there arent rightwing nutcases in the US who are quite dangerous. but NOOOO they are talking about ann coulter and sean hannity. not the crazy people stockpiliing arms and ammo for the coming civil war (that they may decide to start--like tim mcveigh *spits* thought he was starting a civil war when he bombed the OKC federal building.)

http://www.lunareclipse.net/images/shoes.gif

the right is sooooo eager to claim that that report is talking about THEM.

as if there arent rightwing nutcases in the US who are quite dangerous. but NOOOO they are talking about ann coulter and sean hannity. not the crazy people stockpiliing arms and ammo for the coming civil war (that they may decide to start--like tim mcveigh *spits* thought he was starting a civil war when he bombed the OKC federal building.)
Well, I think we've all known for a long time just how crazy Ann Coulter is, but yes, it's just pathetic and sickening the way these people carry on. I've often said that paranoia is a disease of the ego because of the way paranoids assume that absolutely everything is about them. I think it's the same with these rightwingers. The way they've been behaving since their party lost the election, it really all boils down to nothing more but "WHAT ABOUT ME!!!??? PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! DO WHAT I SAY!!! OR YOU'LL ALL DIE!!!!" It's ridiculous.

Back when Reagan won the presidency, I opposed him on just about everything, and when my side lost, I figured "Fuck, now I'm in for a few years of hard times and no fun for me." But all I did was hunker down and brace myself to get through until the next time I could vote on who would be president. I didn't take it so personally, as if some big meanie had taken away my favorite toy.

The guys in SERE who do that stuff to our specops... say its torture.

It seems the new defense against their own incompetence that the Republicans are mounting is blaming the Democrats for not doing anything against torture, after they had majority in Congress in 2007.

what a disturbing essay.

you are either willing to do whatever it takes to get information--normal interrogation be damned just go right to torture--or you are a rosy eyed fool who doesnt believe that there are dangerous people in the world.

he doesnt seem to have a good grasp of what has happened and who the new president is.
That's what disturbs me greatly. This guy were in charge of the Bin Laden unit, so you'd think he'd know a thing or two about the guy. You'd think he'd see Bin Laden as a real person, and not as a James Bond type supervillain.

But no.

In his hypothetical scenario, Bin Laden would smile, grin, and voluntarily inform his captors that he knew when and where nuclear bombs would be detonated - but nothing else. And then he goes on to assume that this person, knowing that the clock is ticking, would quickly give up the correct information if he were to be tortured.

That is a fantasy world, and as many have said before me, it's a fantasy world that belongs in "24" and have no foundation in reality. And beyond that, due to the cell-like structure of Al Quaeda, is it really plausible that he would actually know those details?

But disregarding his complete detachment from reality and his fear mongering by (yet again) presenting a highly unlikely "ticking nuke" scenario - he actually calls Obama's pledge to follow international law and domestic US law for "a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance". Breaking the law is in his eyes necessary to defend the US, and he chalks up the resistance to do so to "Obama's personal morality". Abandoning torture is "to please his party's left wing and the European pacifists it so admires. Both are incorrigibly anti-American, oppose the use of force in America's defense and -- like Obama -- naively believe that the West's Islamist foes can be sweet-talked into a future alive with the sound of kumbaya."

The guy just keep pissing me off. And this is supposedly one of the best and the brightest who were tasked with defending the US from attacks. He might be bright, but in this piece he's completely off the rocker.

But then again, what could one expect from one who have argued in favour of completely disregarding civilian lives in the hunt for terrorists.

I think it's pretty clear that all the arguments in defense of torture are and have been either idiocies or lies. Actually, they're usually both, though the editorial you linked is mostly just stupid. This is because there is no real defense of torture. The only people who try to mount one are either idiots who don't understand simple reality or liars who have a personal agenda to push.

The one thing in the linked article I found so ironic that I almost choked on my coffee was when Scheuer scolds Obama for eliminating torture because of "his personal ideology." What the hell does that shithead think the people who supported torture in spite of everything, including its ineffectiveness, were doing? Hell, what does he think HE is doing in that editorial? Being a "realist"? It's starting to make me sick how many people who claim to be realists clearly have not a fucking clue what reality is. Reality = The vast majority of experienced intelligence officers and interrogators state categorically that torture does not yield useable information. The torturer's response = But what if <insert episodic television plot device>? That ain't realistic, kiddies.

I am so tired of this. The more I hear and read of this shit, the more I feel like I'm trapped in a room with crazy people. This is crazy talk.

I agree with this sad assessment :(

That's what disturbs me greatly. This guy were in charge of the Bin Laden unit, so you'd think he'd know a thing or two about the guy. You'd think he'd see Bin Laden as a real person, and not as a James Bond type supervillain.

Then screw him.

I don't know or care what happened to him between that time and now; he's clearly unfit for the job now, whether due to brain tumor or due to selling out. His word is worth jack shit.

That's what disturbs me greatly. This guy were in charge of the Bin Laden unit, so you'd think he'd know a thing or two about the guy. You'd think he'd see Bin Laden as a real person, and not as a James Bond type supervillain.

But no.

In his hypothetical scenario, Bin Laden would smile, grin, and voluntarily inform his captors that he knew when and where nuclear bombs would be detonated - but nothing else. And then he goes on to assume that this person, knowing that the clock is ticking, would quickly give up the correct information if he were to be tortured.

That is a fantasy world, and as many have said before me, it's a fantasy world that belongs in "24" and have no foundation in reality. And beyond that, due to the cell-like structure of Al Quaeda, is it really plausible that he would actually know those details?

But disregarding his complete detachment from reality and his fear mongering by (yet again) presenting a highly unlikely "ticking nuke" scenario - he actually calls Obama's pledge to follow international law and domestic US law for "a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance". Breaking the law is in his eyes necessary to defend the US, and he chalks up the resistance to do so to "Obama's personal morality". Abandoning torture is "to please his party's left wing and the European pacifists it so admires. Both are incorrigibly anti-American, oppose the use of force in America's defense and -- like Obama -- naively believe that the West's Islamist foes can be sweet-talked into a future alive with the sound of kumbaya."

The guy just keep pissing me off. And this is supposedly one of the best and the brightest who were tasked with defending the US from attacks. He might be bright, but in this piece he's completely off the rocker.

But then again, what could one expect from one who have argued in favour of completely disregarding civilian lives in the hunt for terrorists.



I agree with this sad assessment :(
i was watching rachel maddow (i think) the other day (may have been keith olbermann, they have similar guests) and the ex cia guy she had on said that interrogation isnt part of intelligence. its not what the CIA does. its what law enforcement does.

so to have the CIA interrogating prisoners is wrong. it should have been someone like the FBI who have amazing professional interrogators (who dont need torture to get at the truth)

i was watching rachel maddow (i think) the other day (may have been keith olbermann, they have similar guests) and the ex cia guy she had on said that interrogation isnt part of intelligence. its not what the CIA does. its what law enforcement does.

so to have the CIA interrogating prisoners is wrong. it should have been someone like the FBI who have amazing professional interrogators (who dont need torture to get at the truth)

The problem is, it isn't about getting the truth.

It's about neocons getting off. It's about getting a faux-casus belli. It's about, above all, that nice feeling you get when you have POWER OVER ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

Truth, security, those are all non-concerns.

i was watching rachel maddow (i think) the other day (may have been keith olbermann, they have similar guests) and the ex cia guy she had on said that interrogation isnt part of intelligence. its not what the CIA does. its what law enforcement does.

so to have the CIA interrogating prisoners is wrong. it should have been someone like the FBI who have amazing professional interrogators (who dont need torture to get at the truth)
And remember that the FBI pulled its people out of GITMO and instructed their agents to have nothing to do with what the CIA wanted after their interrogators were told to sod off when they objected to the proposed torture of Khalid Sheik Mohamed. As I recall, the FBI issued public complaints about it at the time, which were quickly shouted down and yanked from the media. This has been raised again since the release of the memos.

The problem is, it isn't about getting the truth.

It's about neocons getting off. It's about getting a faux-casus belli. It's about, above all, that nice feeling you get when you have POWER OVER ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

Truth, security, those are all non-concerns.
And I agree with this sad assessment, too.

And remember that the FBI pulled its people out of GITMO and instructed their agents to have nothing to do with what the CIA wanted after their interrogators were told to sod off when they objected to the proposed torture of Khalid Sheik Mohamed. As I recall, the FBI issued public complaints about it at the time, which were quickly shouted down and yanked from the media. This has been raised again since the release of the memos.


And I agree with this sad assessment, too.
im sure it was spun as inter-department rivalry at the time (and probably now in conservative circles) but DAMN who knows more about interrogation than the fbi?

im sure it was spun as inter-department rivalry at the time (and probably now in conservative circles) but DAMN who knows more about interrogation than the fbi?
It was thus spun, and who knows more about interrogation than the FBI? Few people. Certainly not the dipshits in the Bush admin, considering the fuck-all they got with their little fetish parties.

And remember that the FBI pulled its people out of GITMO and instructed their agents to have nothing to do with what the CIA wanted after their interrogators were told to sod off when they objected to the proposed torture of Khalid Sheik Mohamed. As I recall, the FBI issued public complaints about it at the time, which were quickly shouted down and yanked from the media. This has been raised again since the release of the memos.

The FBI complained as far back as in 2002 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-20-fbi_N.htm), and they weren't the only ones to have some objections.

This blog (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/138067/fbi_weren%27t_the_only_ones_objecting_to_torture_..._so_did_the_army,_marines_&_air_force/) links to the report (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Documents.SASC.061708.pdf), but the PDF isn't searchable so pardon me for quoting the blog for convenience:
As Digby notes, there were already serious objections to the use of torture in 2002 -- the FBI chief Muller had already refused to let his agents participate in the CIA's "coercive interrogations" in June of 2002 (per Marcy's timeline, the Bybee memo didn't make them legal until August 1).

But it's not like the FBI was the only one who had a problem. On October 1, Major General Michael Dunlavey sent a memo to General James Hill, Commander of US Southern Command, requesting the authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" like those use in SERE training. The memo reached Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited views of the military services. Here's what came back in November 2002 (PDF (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Documents.SASC.061708.pdf)):

Air Force: "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.

Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Steven Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred. On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation with the famous comment "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

One of the conclusions of the Senate Armed Services Committee report is that Myers screwed up:

Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigative Task Force.

They also conclude that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Objections to torture aren't the exclusive terrain, as Bill Kristol likes to pretend, of "President Obama" and his "leftist lawyers" looking back on a "bright, sunny safe day in April" with "preening self-righteousness" and forgetting how "dark and painful" that chapter in our history was.

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

Snip.

Let's repeat it, shall we?

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

Again:

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

Uno más!

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

Now, torture apologists, will you SHUT THE FUCK UP???!!!

i was watching rachel maddow (i think) the other day (may have been keith olbermann, they have similar guests) and the ex cia guy she had on said that interrogation isnt part of intelligence. its not what the CIA does. its what law enforcement does.

so to have the CIA interrogating prisoners is wrong. it should have been someone like the FBI who have amazing professional interrogators (who dont need torture to get at the truth)

Right. The FBI should have been interrogating, but they refused to do what was wanted.

Right. The FBI should have been interrogating, but they refused to do what was wanted.
yeah the bastards wanted to continue with the fairly successful techniques that had been used until then.

yeah the bastards wanted to continue with the fairly successful techniques that had been used until then.

"The object of power is power. The object of torture is torture."

The FBI complained as far back as in 2002 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-20-fbi_N.htm), and they weren't the only ones to have some objections.

This blog (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/138067/fbi_weren%27t_the_only_ones_objecting_to_torture_..._so_did_the_army,_marines_&_air_force/) links to the report (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Documents.SASC.061708.pdf), but the PDF isn't searchable so pardon me for quoting the blog for convenience:
Thank you for finding that. I will be very happy to be able to throw that pdf at any torture apologist from now on. They are sick, twisted fucks, and everything they have ever said about their actions and their intentions has been a lie.