Waterboarding torture or not?

[Bluesgtr44]

I've been really confused over this one. It seems there are those liberals who are wanting to start prosecutions over the alledged torture of terrorists......yet, they can't even seem to get a clear indication as to whether these things are really....torture. So, to try and "nail these Bushies", they would first have to make the case that these methods were clearly.....torture. I mean, either these methods are clearly covered in the "rules" or they aren't! If not, then this is just a bunch of idiots wanting their way.....fine, make the ruling....but does it have to come with this "revenge" mentality?

Nowhere in this article or any others that I have read regarding this issue, is there any absolute definition regarding these methods specifically as "torture". Now, there are those who claim that this is a "no brainer". I beg to differ....there are plenty of folks who simply find this assertion ridiculous and more a political ploy than an honest rendering of "torture" and this...to them, is a "no brainer". Why? Because this is where we are as a country....absolutely so divided, that this is even considered more important than trying to involve debate on the many other issues facing us. I find this to be nothing but a bunch of liberal fodder to besmirch conservatives and try and draw away from the REAL issues.

So, define torture FIRST....and then hold those who break it responsible. Don't just come up with half-ass political conclusions and start trying to destroy reputations based on "the cause, man". This old 60's crap has to stop!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6fafa259c1ca968935765999bb267a5 7.f11&show_article=1&catnum=3

[Gopher P]

waterboarding is torture IMO but there is nothing wrong with that, especially if it will make our country safer (it WILL) and make other countries respect us (they will fear us).

[Talk2Bill]

I say no. it doesn't hurt, it is not harmful... so what is so bad about it?

and i have read people argue that even the time tested police interview methods are also torture. that any form of discomfort (physical or psychological), extended periods of 'interrogation', any threats (like using the possibility of the death penalty or prison or retribution from others *such as gang members or accomplices* or even lying to them is torture.

there is something about some people that leads them to believe that criminal/terror suspects should be allowed to simply not be held accountable.

[Talk2Bill]

waterboarding is torture IMO but there is nothing wrong with that, especially if it will make our country safer (it WILL) and make other countries respect us (they will fear us).

can you define torture? at least what you think it is. I think that is the missing part of MOST arguments on waterbording.

to me torture is: use of pain or physical harm.

if there is no pain or harm then it is not torture. being uncomfortable is not the same thing as pain or harm.

i guess maybe some boards could cause some minor harm. but nothing that a design tweak can not fix. make them out of foam rubber....

hand cuffs cause discomfort and even some pain even injury... are they going to call for them to be banned as well?

[LouC]

Some Liberals will not, again let me say it "will not" rest until they have had their pound of flesh from the Right for the Clinton impeachment or the perceived stolen election of 2000.

They want blood, they want their pound of flesh and then some.

They will risk the country at the sake of having that Republican blood and pound of flesh.

I can not for the life of me understand people who are worried about offending with water boarding those individuals who do not blink at beheading our troops and viciously mutilating their bodies so that the only way to identify them is by DNA.

I would not condone water boarding of a uniformed regular military prisoner we have caught.

Until al-Qaeda or the Taliban put on uniforms of a country and that country becomes a signatory of the Geneva convention and they fight openly then their members that we capture should not exempt from intensive interrogation, in my opinion.

Our media should have made that point, championed that point instead of some trying to destroy us with their anti American agenda.

[Hellsbane]

Waterboarding is not torture.

1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

[LauraKBF]

I've been really confused over this one. It seems there are those liberals who are wanting to start prosecutions over the alledged torture of terrorists......yet, they can't even seem to get a clear indication as to whether these things are really....torture. So, to try and "nail these Bushies", they would first have to make the case that these methods were clearly.....torture. I mean, either these methods are clearly covered in the "rules" or they aren't!They had doctors standing by as they did it, AND it lasted for 40 seconds each time they did it. (They only did it a handful of times if I'm remembering correctly.) If THAT is torture, then I am pro "torture".

If not, then this is just a bunch of idiots wanting their way.....fine, make the ruling....but does it have to come with this "revenge" mentality?Well, if it's coming from liberals, then YES, there does have to be that "revenge" mentality to it. It is what they do. As usual they don't know what the heck they're talking about, or what the REAL issue is, (terrorists wanting to kill us so we're trying to get info which will save American lives, :doh:) but they do their righteous indignation (*vomit*) about how those poor, poor murderous terrorists have water dumped on them for 40 *whole* seconds. Why, it's SO OUTRAGEOUS that the U.S. would do such a twisted thing, that it makes the eyes of the Demon:twisted:Rats bulge out, and makes their mouths foam with anger. :mad:

Demon:twisted:Rats are backwards and absurd in almost ALL their thinking. Most children could figure out that coddling terrorists would only encourage them, and that eventually that would mean more Americans would die. But can Demon:twisted:Rats figure this out???? NO.

And they wonder why so many of us never take them seriously.

[Bluesgtr44]

So far it seems that the consensus is the same....nowhere have any of you seen where waterboarding is in any way described or defined as a diabolical torture method....nor any of the other so called offenses outlined in this article. So, what the hell is this guy trying to do?

"It is one of the deepest disappointments of this administration that it appears unwilling to uphold the law where crimes have been committed by former officials," said the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has championed the legal rights of "war on terror" detainees.

Show me! SHOW ME! Anywhere this is outlined as "the law"! Put it in the paragraph and back it up! They can't, dammit! It would have to be a hearing all in and of itself.....what a crock!

"Whether or not CIA operatives who conducted water boarding are guaranteed immunity, it is the high level officials who conceived, justified and ordered the torture program who bear the most responsibility for breaking domestic and international law, and it is they who must be prosecuted," it said.

Where? WHERE?.....is this cited.....no freaking testament at all! Just a freaking blowhard voicing his.......OPINION as to what HE thinks is torture as stated in these laws. There is NO clear interpretation of this and yet here goes an obviously BIASED idiot just assuming these things for the rest of us. :rolleyes:

[LauraKBF]

I can not for the life of me understand people who are worried about offending with water boarding those individuals who do not blink at beheading our troops and viciously mutilating their bodies so that the only way to identify them is by DNA.You would think it would be sooooooo simple....either we get info from these terrorists or else they will behead and mutilate more Americans. (Or bomb us, or fly planes into buildings incinerating people, etc. etc.) What do the Demon:twisted:Rats focus on??? The varied ways in which terrorists *KILL* Americans? NO. Instead they focus on us dropping a little WATER on the heads of terrorists! :doh:

It is the HEIGHT of stupidity that they even compare the two acts as being equally "evil"! :doh:

[mgifford]

I'd say that "bootcamp" is more torture than any of that crap. Liberals are sick fools! Obama is the sickest!

[mgifford]

some liberals will not, again let me say it "will not" rest until they have had their pound of flesh from the right for the clinton impeachment or the perceived stolen election of 2000.

They want blood, they want their pound of flesh and then some.

They will risk the country at the sake of having that republican blood and pound of flesh.

I can not for the life of me understand people who are worried about offending with water boarding those individuals who do not blink at beheading our troops and viciously mutilating their bodies so that the only way to identify them is by dna.

I would not condone water boarding of a uniformed regular military prisoner we have caught.

Until al-qaeda or the taliban put on uniforms of a country and that country becomes a signatory of the geneva convention and they fight openly then their members that we capture should not exempt from intensive interrogation, in my opinion.

Our media should have made that point, championed that point instead of some trying to destroy us with their anti american agenda.

+1

[BostonPatriot]

I'd say that "bootcamp" is more torture than any of that crap. Liberals are sick fools! Obama is the sickest!

Keep in mind that the loony left thinks that putting panties on the heads of prisoners was torture. (Think Abu Ghraib)

[mgifford]

Keep in mind that the loony left thinks that putting panties on the heads of prisoners was torture. (Think Abu Ghraib)

Yes, I remember their crap from way back. Want to be a good little Liberal? Move all your asses to California and have a ball, or two.

[fava]

Waterboarding can not be considered torture in any definition because it has been outed as a technique that causes no actual harm or body injury.
The disclosure of the procedure makes it public and all our enemies can now defend against it through training.
If it can be defeated by training, it is not torture.
There is no defense against actual torture.

[Backgammon]

After seeing an example of waterboarding on TV, I must say that learning to water ski at 13 was a far greater torture. I believe I read that 50% of the information we received on terrorist came from Waterboarding. Frankly the current administration release of how we torture makes the US look weak.
I thought we were pulling finger nails out the way everyone was bashing Bush. Underwear on their heads, bugs in their room. Sounds rather sissy to me.

[jprin]

I've been really confused over this one. It seems there are those liberals who are wanting to start prosecutions over the alledged torture of terrorists......yet, they can't even seem to get a clear indication as to whether these things are really....torture. So, to try and "nail these Bushies", they would first have to make the case that these methods were clearly.....torture. I mean, either these methods are clearly covered in the "rules" or they aren't! If not, then this is just a bunch of idiots wanting their way.....fine, make the ruling....but does it have to come with this "revenge" mentality?

Defining what is 'torture' should not be a liberal versus conservative view. As far as waterboarding, there are plenty of conservatives and/or Republicans who believe it's torture. Perhaps one of the most visible, heralded bona-fide hero and Republican John McCain, believes waterboarding is in fact torture and loathes those who want to even debate the point for political purposes. The fellow who for years taught US Special Forces waterboarding also is on record stating it IS torture. For all of US history, until recent years, it was considered torture and our enemies were deemed uncivil and unprincipled for using it.

The issue about BA support for such techniques is not revenge. The BA had to front-load the lagalities with their own plants in order to declare them "legal" in order to protect them from breaking the law. A clear misuse of the Justice Deparment, and more importantly, a reversal of the principles that had always presented US policy as high ground, placing us morally above those we deemed immoral. The BA trashed that history, legacy, and advantage.

Why? Because this is where we are as a country....absolutely so divided, that this is even considered more important than trying to involve debate on the many other issues facing us. I find this to be nothing but a bunch of liberal fodder to besmirch conservatives and try and draw away from the REAL issues.

This was something that only became a "debate" when the BA decided to take the moral low ground. This is only "liberal fodder" when you take a political stand that it is acceptable.

And by leaving those decisions stand from the BA, we are effectively saying that whatever leader is in office at the time has unfettered freedom to determine what's LEGAL without question and without retribution. This was a BAD decision. Obama is wrong. And by accepting it, you then must accept the Obama Administration declaring legal that which used to be illegal - without question or retribution. That is dangerous and reduces us to the level of those we claim to be enemies of Democracy.

[Bluesgtr44]

I am trying to find this so called law.....can anyone else help? I want to see what that ******* is referring to that is so obvious. I cannot find a damn thing that is concise on this being "torture" and I don't think it exists....it is purely an opinion from this extremely radical leftist group and they just think they are right. NO! You are not right....you're biased, there's a difference!

[LauraKBF]

After seeing an example of waterboarding on TV, I must say that learning to water ski at 13 was a far greater torture. I believe I read that 50% of the information we received on terrorist came from Waterboarding. Frankly the current administration release of how we torture makes the US look weak.
I thought we were pulling finger nails out the way everyone was bashing Bush. Underwear on their heads, bugs in their room. Sounds rather sissy to me.I agree. And I heard it was one caterpillar put in a room with ONE particular terrorist who was afraid of bugs.

The nutjobs in the major media tried to make it sound like we were actually inflicting pain and torturing their terrorist buddies. We were doing nothing of the sort.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

no its not torture.

and I suggest that anyone who says it is and has never been waterboarded, they dont know what the **** they are talking about and they should go request to be professionally waterboarded so they can make an informed decision.

[HeadOnStraight]

waterboarding is torture IMO but there is nothing wrong with that, especially if it will make our country safer (it WILL) and make other countries respect us (they will fear us).
40 seconds of a false fear of drowning, or a soldering iron in my eyeball, breaking my fingers, excruciating pain, electrocution.... hmmm.... I'll take waterboarding. This so far off from torture that it does not deserve the caterwauling it has been receiving. And we only used it three times.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

we should put those terrorist ****ers in the lean and rest....forever.....begin.....then they would know what torture is........

I would rather lie comfortably on my back taking slow breaths.......like when im asleep.....then have to do pushups without counting......thats real torture....

[mgifford]

I agree. And I heard it was one caterpillar put in a room with ONE particular terrorist who was afraid of bugs.

The nutjobs in the major media tried to make it sound like we were actually inflicting pain and torturing their terrorist buddies. We were doing nothing of the sort.

They wound up not using the caterpillar, it was in the reports.

[jprin]

no its not torture.

and I suggest that anyone who says it is and has never been waterboarded, they dont know what the **** they are talking about and they should go request to be professionally waterboarded so they can make an informed decision.

There are those who did who disagree with your opinion:

Hitchins


Believe Me, It's Torture

What more can be added to the debate over U.S. interrogation methods, and whether waterboarding is torture? Try firsthand experience. The author undergoes the controversial drowning technique, at the hands of men who once trained American soldiers to resist—not inflict—it.


http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?currentPage=1


Former Seal
http://alexpickett.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/urbex_waterboarded.pdf


Malcolm Nance

In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/waterboarding-is-torture--i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor-398490.html


A lengthy discussion with history
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16012903

[Bluesgtr44]

Defining what is 'torture' should not be a liberal versus conservative view. As far as waterboarding, there are plenty of conservatives and/or Republicans who believe it's torture. Perhaps one of the most visible, heralded bona-fide hero and Republican John McCain, believes waterboarding is in fact torture and loathes those who want to even debate the point for political purposes. The fellow who for years taught US Special Forces waterboarding also is on record stating it IS torture. For all of US history, until recent years, it was considered torture and our enemies were deemed uncivil and unprincipled for using it.

The issue about BA support for such techniques is not revenge. The BA had to front-load the lagalities with their own plants in order to declare them "legal" in order to protect them from breaking the law. A clear misuse of the Justice Deparment, and more importantly, a reversal of the principles that had always presented US policy as high ground, placing us morally above those we deemed immoral. The BA trashed that history, legacy, and advantage.



This was something that only became a "debate" when the BA decided to take the moral low ground. This is only "liberal fodder" when you take a political stand that it is acceptable.

And by leaving those decisions stand from the BA, we are effectively saying that whatever leader is in office at the time has unfettered freedom to determine what's LEGAL without question and without retribution. This was a BAD decision. Obama is wrong. And by accepting it, you then must accept the Obama Administration declaring legal that which used to be illegal - without question or retribution. That is dangerous and reduces us to the level of those we claim to be enemies of Democracy.

Nice post, but still lacking the evidence. I respect J. McCain and his view of this along with others. I have yet to see any citing of a "no brainer" definition on this, not one! You say it's "clear", show me where!?! I can't find anything that makes this "clear" and I believe that is why the administration is handling this in the way it is. There would have to be a lot of money spent on just trying to "make the case" and the "Center for Constitutional Rights" knows this and they are chomping at the bit to get in on some of this action.

And yes, "Where you sit, is where you stand". I understand this very well.....see, one idealistic "fodder" is anothers idealistic "reality".

How can it be a bad decision if there was no clear violation except by "interpretational" distortion? There is nothing stopping the advancement of a clear and concise understanding of what is or isn't torture for the future is there? I fail to see where trying to "nail" someone here is anything but a political witch hunt instead of just simply saying "we need to fix this understanding". What's dangerous is the obvious vociferous actions of a partisan group that wants to make this about "them" instead of about "us". Words mean things and I want to know just what those words are that define this as to "nailing" someone.

[Darkwind]

I say no. it doesn't hurt, it is not harmful... so what is so bad about it?

and i have read people argue that even the time tested police interview methods are also torture. that any form of discomfort (physical or psychological), extended periods of 'interrogation', any threats (like using the possibility of the death penalty or prison or retribution from others *such as gang members or accomplices* or even lying to them is torture.

there is something about some people that leads them to believe that criminal/terror suspects should be allowed to simply not be held accountable.

Yep. There are those who would believe that life is all love and buttercups and they simply do not think that we should be indifferent to the discomfort of those who commit crimes.

Waterboarding IS NOT torture by any definition of the word. It amounts to the left wanting to justify prosecuting a alleged right wing President.

[BillyM 2007]

Why does this even get debated? Of course it isn't. Self-loathing, anti-American liberals have dumbed down the language to suit their radical agenda.

Like "global warming", this is just one more way for those loons to grab power.

And this sort of nonsense is really getting old... as well as dangerous.

[Bluesgtr44]

In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".

Anyone can do this....he's just one guy, and they cite "embarrassment". How absolutely ridiculous! All the other side has to do is present another guy of the same caliber, and have him denounce this and it would be an "embarrassment" to liberals. The sides are drawn and you can bet the "embarrassment" is going to be right along those lines......"Where you sit, is where you stand".

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

There are those who did who disagree with your opinion:

Hitchins



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?currentPage=1


Former Seal
http://alexpickett.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/urbex_waterboarded.pdf


Malcolm Nance


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/waterboarding-is-torture--i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor-398490.html


A lengthy discussion with history
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16012903



Its not only my opinion....its the position of this Administration...and thats all I care about.


As long as Obama doesnt bow to the people who say loud barking dogs, baby butterflies on your arm, sleep deprivation, and other temporary pain administration or psycological stress is not torture....then thats a good move.

We dont owe it to anyone to explain what we do or are doing unless we screw up and accidentally kill some poor terrorist.......which is why the administration of pain or psycological stresses on a terrorist should only be performed by one person......in a place where no one else can see or hear.....and the torturer.....errrrr.......interrogation specialist cannot have a camera.....and there should be a pile of dirt close to the evolution.





and the vanity fair piece was retarded.....the guy who waas boarded said they used a 'dangerous ammount of water'.....you arent supposed to use a dangerous ammount.....they the guys didnt apply it correctly, and he is wearing the wrong head restraint.....the subjects eyes need to be able to see.....when the next 'non dangerous ammount' of water is going to be administered......


People dont die nor do they suffer any permanent physical psycological effects from a water boarding session....and it does not hurt.



and as far as the seal goes.....i dont know one seal who mistakes San Dog for Coronado.....not one.....but hey....maybe he didnt like being waterboarded, so he doesnt like it.....I dont know of any SEAL.....hell I never even heard of a SEAL that is afraid of water.....it just doesnt make sense.......



and Nance is just ignorant....he saiys that you force pints of water into the subject nose and mouth.....anyone knows....that if a pint of water got into your lungs....you would drown.....this is simulating not being able to breathe.....the use of water is simply psycological to make you think you are going to drown.....very little water actually gets into the lungs.....its your own spit that you aspirate from not keeping calm and breathing slowly...the panic.....thats what the administrator strives for.....not pouring pints of water into his lungs.....what fun would that be if your subject drown? They dont scream and cry when they are dead.....there isnt any fun in it.

[jprin]

Nice post, but still lacking the evidence. I respect J. McCain and his view of this along with others. I have yet to see any citing of a "no brainer" definition on this, not one! You say it's "clear", show me where!?! I can't find anything that makes this "clear" and I believe that is why the administration is handling this in the way it is. There would have to be a lot of money spent on just trying to "make the case" and the "Center for Constitutional Rights" knows this and they are chomping at the bit to get in on some of this action.

I see your point. There is no real answer because in the end it is determined by personal opinion followed by legal determination. How do you decide exactly WHAT constitues torture? Waterboarding simulate drowning - that's the point. Sleep depravation will cause death. Drinking too much water will cause death. Would those be considered torture?

To some, simulated drowning is not torture. To others, it is clearly torture. The proof you seek really boils down to a personal assessment whether 'boarding crosses that line, and the line is different for different folks.

I'm willing to listen to McCain and to experts, like Nance, who is probably more informed and experienced and knowledgeable on the subject than anyone else. And I'm willing to look back on over 200 years of our history.


How can it be a bad decision if there was no clear violation except by "interpretational" distortion?


Because we should not allow the leaders in authority at the time to interpret what is legal in order to fulfil their agendas. That decision by the BA took away US moral superiority - not only damaging our ability to protect our interests around the world, but damaging our own principles which is much worse.

Obama's free pass effectively says leaders can arbitrarily declare what is legal and those carrying out actions can claim they "...were just following orders...." THAT is why it was a mistake.

[dad49er]

I've been really confused over this one. It seems there are those liberals who are wanting to start prosecutions over the alledged torture of terrorists......yet, they can't even seem to get a clear indication as to whether these things are really....torture. So, to try and "nail these Bushies", they would first have to make the case that these methods were clearly.....torture. I mean, either these methods are clearly covered in the "rules" or they aren't! If not, then this is just a bunch of idiots wanting their way.....fine, make the ruling....but does it have to come with this "revenge" mentality?

Nowhere in this article or any others that I have read regarding this issue, is there any absolute definition regarding these methods specifically as "torture". Now, there are those who claim that this is a "no brainer". I beg to differ....there are plenty of folks who simply find this assertion ridiculous and more a political ploy than an honest rendering of "torture" and this...to them, is a "no brainer". Why? Because this is where we are as a country....absolutely so divided, that this is even considered more important than trying to involve debate on the many other issues facing us. I find this to be nothing but a bunch of liberal fodder to besmirch conservatives and try and draw away from the REAL issues.

So, define torture FIRST....and then hold those who break it responsible. Don't just come up with half-ass political conclusions and start trying to destroy reputations based on "the cause, man". This old 60's crap has to stop!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6fafa259c1ca968935765999bb267a5 7.f11&show_article=1&catnum=3

Waterboarding has been ruled torture, so I leave it at that.
The Obama administration has said that if those conducting torture were doing so, under the assumption they were acting within the rules they will not be prosecuted.
However if they were knowingly acting outside the rules they could be prosecuted.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

Waterboarding has been ruled torture, so I leave it at that.
The Obama administration has said that if those conducting torture were doing so, under the assumption they were acting within the rules they will not be prosecuted.
However if they were knowingly acting outside the rules they could be prosecuted.


It has not been ruled torture, because there are some agencys who still employ the tactic.

This is why Obama, nor the Director of Spooks will use that language....because it is still employed.

[Bluesgtr44]

Originally Posted by dad49er
Waterboarding has been ruled torture, so I leave it at that.
The Obama administration has said that if those conducting torture were doing so, under the assumption they were acting within the rules they will not be prosecuted.
However if they were knowingly acting outside the rules they could be prosecuted.

Where! Where! Show me this in writing! Show me where this is duly noted and not just an interpretational opinion! Because that's all I see in this and it's not being honest. This is nothing more than political posturing by a bunch of extreme liberals who simply want to "get even"! So, I've looked and looked and asked and asked and nowhere, NOWHERE is there a clear and concise definition of this....nowhere that I can find. SHOW ME!

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

i think he is confusing the administrations term of 'dispicable practice' to mean torture......Obama was smart to do that.....liberals are duped very easily....especially becuase Obama released the capitallar torture memo....casue they will say BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSHHHHHHHHH


and Obama is laughing saying," you cant go to jail for a 'dispicable practice'.....man my American puppets are so stupid! Hell, they really believed Gibbs when he told them I didnt Bow to the Saudi Prince....stupid folks"

[jprin]

We dont owe it to anyone to explain what we do or are doing ........

Couldn't disagree more. We owe it to ourselves. There are folks who think the ends justify the means, but that is not what most Americans believe. It's not how our nation got started and it's not what makes us great. What makes us great (in part) is not reducing ourselves to the tactics and bahaviors we're supposed to oppose.


and the vanity fair piece was retarded.....the guy who waas boarded said they used a 'dangerous ammount of water'.....you arent supposed to use a dangerous ammount.....they the guys didnt apply it correctly, and he is wearing the wrong head restraint.....the subjects eyes need to be able to see.....when the next 'non dangerous ammount' of water is going to be administered......

You wrote that you don't think it's torture and challenged folks who actually endured it. Because you don't like the result, you declare the piece "retarded."

People dont die nor do they suffer any permanent physical psycological effects from a water boarding session....and it does not hurt.

Then McCain, Hitchens, Nance.....are all wrong? Even though they actually took up the challenge? None of them even debated whether it was torture - all were quite firm.

and as far as the seal goes.....i dont know one seal who mistakes San Dog for Coronado.....not one.....but hey....maybe he didnt like being waterboarded, so he doesnt like it.....I dont know of any SEAL.....hell I never even heard of a SEAL that is afraid of water.....it just doesnt make sense.......

Again, you posed a challenge and he very effectively and authoritatively does not agree with you. Odd how you apparently want to diminish his experience and his record. He did it and it was published. You, an anonymous poster, are reduced to questioning a former seal who endured the procedure which was documented and published.


and Nance is just ignorant....he saiys that you force pints of water into the subject nose and mouth.....anyone knows....that if a pint of water got into your lungs....you would drown.....this is simulating not being able to breathe.....the use of water is simply psycological to make you think you are going to drown.....very little water actually gets into the lungs.....its your own spit that you aspirate from not keeping calm and breathing slowly...the panic.....thats what the administrator strives for.....not pouring pints of water into his lungs.....what fun would that be if your subject drown? They dont scream and cry when they are dead.....there isnt any fun in it.

Nance was the instructor for the SEAL program, conducting hundreds of procedures. He's experienced it himself. The guy had a direct effect on the capabilities of our Special Forces. Who is more believable: you, an anonymous poster, or Nance?

You got three examples responding to your challenge. You don't like THEIR rebuttals. That means nothing is going to change your opinion.

[jprin]

It's easy to find articles that claim waterboarding is not torture. The problem is that all of them are written/said by folks who have never experienced it. Conversely, virtually everyone who has experienced it firmly state it IS torture. I imagine there is someone somewhere who had done it and doesn't think it's torture, but haven't been able to find a story. In my search, here are three more believers:



As someone who has experienced waterboarding, albeit in a controlled setting, I know that the act is indeed torture. I was waterboarded during my training to become a Navy flight crew member. As has been noted in The Post and other media outlets, waterboarding is "real drowning that simulates death." It's an experience our country should not subject people to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803156.html

Richard Armitage

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYxklfgnDDiunGGlQOMO43SgP-IQD97J7F5G0

As far as any lasting damage from 'boarding, the VA (during the last adminstration) granted disability to someone who had experienced it.

MOBILE, Ala. — The Department of Veterans Affairs has reversed its earlier rulings and granted a rare disability claim by an Alabama veteran who said he suffered long-term emotional problems after being waterboarded at a Navy survival training school in 1975.

http://www.navycompass.com/content/view/704/224/

But hell, who cares? It just can't be torture, so therefore it isn't.:rolleyes:

[Talk2Bill]

if you think it is torture then please give us your definition of torture. and then show how it fits in your definition.

if you can't give a reasonable definition then you really have nothing to stand on.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

Couldn't disagree more. We owe it to ourselves. There are folks who think the ends justify the means, but that is not what most Americans believe. It's not how our nation got started and it's not what makes us great. What makes us great (in part) is not reducing ourselves to the tactics and bahaviors we're supposed to oppose.




You wrote that you don't think it's torture and challenged folks who actually endured it. Because you don't like the result, you declare the piece "retarded."



Then McCain, Hitchens, Nance.....are all wrong? Even though they actually took up the challenge? None of them even debated whether it was torture - all were quite firm.



Again, you posed a challenge and he very effectively and authoritatively does not agree with you. Odd how you apparently want to diminish his experience and his record. He did it and it was published. You, an anonymous poster, are reduced to questioning a former seal who endured the procedure which was documented and published.



Nance was the instructor for the SEAL program, conducting hundreds of procedures. He's experienced it himself. The guy had a direct effect on the capabilities of our Special Forces. Who is more believable: you, an anonymous poster, or Nance?

You got three examples responding to your challenge. You don't like THEIR rebuttals. That means nothing is going to change your opinion.



Uhhhh i did endure it...it was part of my training and it was administered by someone who was trained to do it...you have never met an interrogator let alone talked to one on a personal level and you have never even been waterboarded, so for you to take these peoples word for it.....claiming thery pourd litres of water into his lungs....was a ****ing liar....becase he would have drown...


So....you can base your uninformed opinion on what you read from vanity fair about claims of people who were waterboarded with litres of water in their lungs....and Ill speak from experience and I will tell you that waterboarding is not torture....i felt no pain, i do not have nightmares about the experience, yes it was unpleasant, yes i do know how do deal with being waterboarded by being calm, yes i felt distress, yes, i inhaled some water...and if i had any information to give i probably would have if i didnt understand that its just a psycological evolution.....

Its not torture.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

It's easy to find articles that claim waterboarding is not torture. The problem is that all of them are written/said by folks who have never experienced it. Conversely, virtually everyone who has experienced it firmly state it IS torture. I imagine there is someone somewhere who had done it and doesn't think it's torture, but haven't been able to find a story. In my search, here are three more believers:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803156.html

Richard Armitage


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYxklfgnDDiunGGlQOMO43SgP-IQD97J7F5G0

As far as any lasting damage from 'boarding, the VA (during the last adminstration) granted disability to someone who had experienced it.



http://www.navycompass.com/content/view/704/224/

But hell, who cares? It just can't be torture, so therefore it isn't.:rolleyes:



When did you post anything other than opinions...most are as or more uninformed as your own.

The President has not outlawed the practice, nor is there a standing order from the President that all agencies will no longer use the practice, his Director of CIA also refuses to call it torture.....and this is why.....all that **** you were fed by the media about GITMO and torture....was all a bunch of terrorist propaganda to make you think Americans are torturing innocent civillians for fun.....what is torturing me.....is that some of you are so weak minded that it is working.


Obama toured GITMO, he said that the techniquies used to qustion detainees, and the way they are being treated was GC compliant....not that i care because they are illegal dcombatants and should be shot....but even your Libtard President (who also refused them access to US Courts) went there in your stead and found out....then he told you.....but you still think we are the bad guys,



yeah, and nance is such a ****ing smart guy he didnt remember that BUDS training is in Coronado, not San Diego.....and SEALs passout and drown in the real ocean, they have to be resuscitated in swimming pools because they are put through exedrcizes NOT TO FEAR WATER......then you want to say some guy witnessed SEALs being waterboarded with cups of water?

Please.....you have no appreciation for what the CIA, CTA or the Military does, their professionalism or the pride they take in their training and their trades......you just think we are all right wing terrorist racist, civillian killing villiage air raiding, terrorizing children and women in the dead of night, not properly trained, not properly equipped, dont have the right armor, too stupid to get out of Iraq, POL Pot, communist Gulag Operating Nazis.....because you cant thing for yourselves....and you lap up anything negative (which by the way....all those things were said by libtards) your leaders have to say about the very people who are fighting and dying in your stead.

How about you give the professional interrogator a little slack eh? He doesnt want to kill his subject. And they dont do it to everyone....ok?

They have a good reason to do what they do, and its effective...and no one dies from it

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

It's easy to find articles that claim waterboarding is not torture. The problem is that all of them are written/said by folks who have never experienced it. Conversely, virtually everyone who has experienced it firmly state it IS torture. I imagine there is someone somewhere who had done it and doesn't think it's torture, but haven't been able to find a story. In my search, here are three more believers:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803156.html

Richard Armitage


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYxklfgnDDiunGGlQOMO43SgP-IQD97J7F5G0

As far as any lasting damage from 'boarding, the VA (during the last adminstration) granted disability to someone who had experienced it.



http://www.navycompass.com/content/view/704/224/

But hell, who cares? It just can't be torture, so therefore it isn't.:rolleyes:


The Squid was facing foreclosure on his house....he deserved the money just for being a veteran, in my opinio, but he claims to be happy and feels good?

*** are you talkiing about?


did you read your own article?I’m happy. ... I feel a whole lot better,”

[TheUglyAmerican]

When did you post anything other than opinions...most are as or more uninformed as your own.

The President has not outlawed the practice, nor is there a standing order from the President that all agencies will no longer use the practice, his Director of CIA also refuses to call it torture.....and this is why.....all that **** you were fed by the media about GITMO and torture....was all a bunch of terrorist propaganda to make you think Americans are torturing innocent civillians for fun.....what is torturing me.....is that some of you are so weak minded that it is working.


Obama toured GITMO, he said that the techniquies used to qustion detainees, and the way they are being treated was GC compliant....not that i care because they are illegal dcombatants and should be shot....but even your Libtard President (who also refused them access to US Courts) went there in your stead and found out....then he told you.....but you still think we are the bad guys,



yeah, and nance is such a ****ing smart guy he didnt remember that BUDS training is in Coronado, not San Diego.....and SEALs passout and drown in the real ocean, they have to be resuscitated in swimming pools because they are put through exedrcizes NOT TO FEAR WATER......then you want to say some guy witnessed SEALs being waterboarded with cups of water?

Please.....you have no appreciation for what the CIA, CTA or the Military does, their professionalism or the pride they take in their training and their trades......you just think we are all right wing terrorist racist, civillian killing villiage air raiding, terrorizing children and women in the dead of night, not properly trained, not properly equipped, dont have the right armor, too stupid to get out of Iraq, POL Pot, communist Gulag Operating Nazis.....because you cant thing for yourselves....and you lap up anything negative (which by the way....all those things were said by libtards) your leaders have to say about the very people who are fighting and dying in your stead.

How about you give the professional interrogator a little slack eh? He doesnt want to kill his subject. And they dont do it to everyone....ok?

They have a good reason to do what they do, and its effective...and no one dies from it
Nice rant. So your measure of whether something is torture or not is whether someone dies from it?? That is a lot of room for all kinds of things to be done to a human being. Have you been waterboarded? Maybe those who have are in a better position to say whether or not it is torture?

[jprin]

When did you post anything other than opinions...most are as or more uninformed as your own.

That's what this forum is for: opinion.


.....but you still think we are the bad guys,

Odd. In this thread, I've stated that torture was not and should not be US policy. I also wrote that we lose moral superiority when we engage in torture. If you interpet that to mean I think we're "the bad guys," that's fine with me.

From your other post:

So....you can base your uninformed opinion on what you read from vanity fair about claims of people who were waterboarded with litres of water in their lungs....and Ill speak from experience and I will tell you that waterboarding is not torture....i felt no pain, i do not have nightmares about the experience, yes it was unpleasant, yes i do know how do deal with being waterboarded by being calm, yes i felt distress, yes, i inhaled some water...and if i had any information to give i probably would have if i didnt understand that its just a psycological evolution.....

You're still anonymous. As I already wrote, we're supposed to believe an anonymous poster on a political forum over a handful of folks, many of them career professionals, from public record who disagree with YOU?

yeah, and nance is such a ****ing smart guy he didnt remember that BUDS training is in Coronado, not San Diego.....and SEALs passout and drown in the real ocean, they have to be resuscitated in swimming pools because they are put through exedrcizes NOT TO FEAR WATER......then you want to say some guy witnessed SEALs being waterboarded with cups of water?

I've cited many examples to document what many informed people think about 'boarding. Nance laid his reputation on the line publicly, and you decide he is to be trashed.....for WHAT? Because he feels waterboarding is torture and YOU don't? YOU don't because of YOUR (alleged) experience? Your experience trumps his? And while you wish to dismiss what I've written because you deem me "uninformed," there is NOTHING you've written to prove you're any more informed. Nance has. Difference of opinion does not mean "uninformed," it just means a difference of opinion. You haven't provided any citations, any proof at all to support what you're writing except it's your opinion.

Please.....you have no appreciation for what the CIA, CTA or the Military does, their professionalism or the pride they take in their training and their trades......you just think we are all right wing terrorist racist, civillian killing villiage air raiding, terrorizing children and women in the dead of night, not properly trained, not properly equipped, dont have the right armor, too stupid to get out of Iraq, POL Pot, communist Gulag Operating Nazis.....because you cant thing for yourselves....and you lap up anything negative (which by the way....all those things were said by libtards) your leaders have to say about the very people who are fighting and dying in your stead.

Well.......that's a heckuva an analysis based on what I wrote. In truth, I don't think anything of the sort. You've created a cartoon of what you think libs represent and what they believe. It's fiction.


How about you give the professional interrogator a little slack eh? He doesnt want to kill his subject. And they dont do it to everyone....ok?

They have a good reason to do what they do, and its effective...and no one dies from it

Why do you feel compelled to defend interrogators? They aren't being attacked in this thread and certainly not by me. We're talking about US policy here.

[shaveking]

Here's a vid of Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

[jprin]

The Squid was facing foreclosure on his house....he deserved the money just for being a veteran, in my opinio, but he claims to be happy and feels good?

*** are you talkiing about?

did you read your own article?

I read the article, but unlike you, I understood it.

[asda1]

If waterboarding is torture, so is incarceration.

In terms of causing mental anguish and distress, incarceration certainly trumps waterboarding.

Until people claiming waterboarding begin claiming that incarceration is torture as well and push to release all who are imprisoned, they are hypocrites.

[TheUglyAmerican]

That's what this forum is for: opinion.




Odd. In this thread, I've stated that torture was not and should not be US policy. I also wrote that we lose moral superiority when we engage in torture. If you interpet that to mean I think we're "the bad guys," that's fine with me.

From your other post:



You're still anonymous. As I already wrote, we're supposed to believe an anonymous poster on a political forum over a handful of folks, many of them career professionals, from public record who disagree with YOU?



I've cited many examples to document what many informed people think about 'boarding. Nance laid his reputation on the line publicly, and you decide he is to be trashed.....for WHAT? Because he feels waterboarding is torture and YOU don't? YOU don't because of YOUR (alleged) experience? Your experience trumps his? And while you wish to dismiss what I've written because you deem me "uninformed," there is NOTHING you've written to prove you're any more informed. Nance has. Difference of opinion does not mean "uninformed," it just means a difference of opinion. You haven't provided any citations, any proof at all to support what you're writing except it's your opinion.



Well.......that's a heckuva an analysis based on what I wrote. In truth, I don't think anything of the sort. You've created a cartoon of what you think libs represent and what they believe. It's fiction.



Why do you feel compelled to defend interrogators? They aren't being attacked in this thread and certainly not by me. We're talking about US policy here.
Excellent response without resorting to foaming at the mouth rantings.

[TheUglyAmerican]

If waterboarding is torture, so is incarceration.

In terms of causing mental anguish and distress, incarceration certainly trumps waterboarding.

Until people claiming waterboarding begin claiming that incarceration is torture as well and push to release all who are imprisoned, they are hypocrites.
I don't think any reasonable person would see a similarity between incarceration and an act designed to repeatedly suffocate and drown an individual. In fact, your comparison and conclusion causes me mental anguish. Stop torturing me!!!

[LouC]

Here's a vid of Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Sure let us use "Water Boarding is Torture" as the standard set by a fat old man who probably gets winded flagging down a taxi because he has been smoking cigarettes for decades, who has acid reflux problems when he uses less than two pillows when lying down, and already has a water / drowning phobia from an incident as a child.

Boo Hoo...

Let him undergo terrorist treatment of prisoners so we can have a legitimate comparison.

Oh wait... :think:

[PSBandit]

Waterboarding.... no.

Torture = Listening to Hillary Clinton cackle.

[Talk2Bill]

Sure let us use "Water Boarding is Torture" as the standard set by a fat old man who probably gets winded flagging down a taxi because he has been smoking cigarettes for decades, who has acid reflux problems when he uses less than two pillows when lying down, and already has a water / drowning phobia from an incident as a child.

Boo Hoo...

Let him undergo terrorist treatment of prisoners so we can have a legitimate comparison.

Oh wait... :think:

am i wrong when i assume this guy assumed it was Torture to begin with?

[LouC]

Waterboarding.... no.

Torture = Listening to Hillary Clinton cackle.

Loop her ten best and play that to prisoners for a few hours and heck they will water-board themselves... :))

[Mobulis]

Waterboarding is not torture.

1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

If water boarding is not torture then why did we prosecute Japanese solders for torture and war crimes because they did it to pow's

[LouC]

am i wrong when i assume this guy assumed it was Torture to begin with?

No he didn't feel it was "real" torture before hand or so he says.

But he has been all over the map politically so we have to understand that.

He was far left before he supposedly went hard right.

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

It is so lovely seeing conservatives support the actions of the Khmer Rouge.

It is even more heart warming to know that the US prosecuted Yukio Asano for waterboarding US troops.

I absolutely love the hypocrisy and will support it. Nothing advances my leftist agenda faster than the honest actions of Conservatives.

Keep it up! Do let me know if I can help you in any way.

[FREE DON]

Easy answer to waterboarding just kill them end of problem they want us dead so like wise to them! vet nam

[CAPTBEACH]

I have been "waterboarded" I lasted all of 45 seconds...I watched as my fellow troops lasted no more than a few seconds longer than I. The longest in my unit lasted about a 1:05...it was all voluntary.

I would have sold my mothers soul to the Devil to get it over and done with...

Was it torture? Absolutely not...does it work? Absolutely...

Should it still be in use? If it saves a life...just one life...Absolutely...

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

Easy answer to waterboarding just kill them end of problem they want us dead so like wise to them! vet nam

I think we should sell them into slavery. But that's just me.

[Talk2Bill]

It is so lovely seeing conservatives support the actions of the Khmer Rouge.

It is even more heart warming to know that the US prosecuted Yukio Asano for waterboarding US troops.

I absolutely love the hypocrisy and will support it. Nothing advances my leftist agenda faster than the honest actions of Conservatives.

Keep it up! Do let me know if I can help you in any way.

i like the left's hypocrisy when the at first demanded that terror suspects be given Geneva rights...but now cry when they are held in accordance with Geneva.

and as far as its use against troops, that is different, if you do not see that then i am sorry. but it is still not torture.

and i am pretty sure there are many true torture victims that would have prayed to be waterboarded as opposed to any number of things that they endured.

but i will ask you to define torture. (well other than having to see your avatar :)) )

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

I have been "waterboarded" I lasted all of 45 seconds...I watched as my fellow troops lasted no more than a few seconds longer than I. The longest in my unit lasted about a 1:05...it was all voluntary.

I would have sold my mothers soul to the Devil to get it over and done with...

Was it torture? Absolutely not...does it work? Absolutely...

Should it still be in use? If it saves a life...just one life...Absolutely...

How exactly is that not torture?

[Talk2Bill]

How exactly is that not torture?

total lack of pain or suffering? zero harm?


what is torture? please give me your definition.

[DaveKlassix]

No. Breaking someone's bones, depriving them of food and water and lashing/stoning someone is torture.

Oh, and maybe putting a harmless insect in the same room as a suspect is too.

[FREE DON]

Hoobeedoo Bejesus if it were you parents who were going to be killed you would be the first to say get information any way you can.These people don't care one dam about life and as long as you are on their side it will keep going on !

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

i like the left's hypocrisy when the at first demanded that terror suspects be given Geneva rights...but now cry when they are held in accordance with Geneva.

and as far as its use against troops, that is different, if you do not see that then i am sorry. but it is still not torture.

and i am pretty sure there are many true torture victims that would have prayed to be waterboarded as opposed to any number of things that they endured.

but i will ask you to define torture. (well other than having to see your avatar :)) )

Oh, I want you to keep it up. No argument from me.

Good job!

[Talk2Bill]

Oh, I want you to keep it up. No argument from me.

Good job!

the question is simple: define torture.

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

total lack of pain or suffering? zero harm?


what is torture? please give me your definition.

Just what I read in the dictionary. Languages are funny like that, you need to rely on a common set of definitions in order to communicate properly.

tor⋅ture   [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

[Talk2Bill]

but it doesn't: cause excruciating pain or extreme anguish of body or mind; agony, severe pain or anguish

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

but it doesn't: cause excruciating pain or extreme anguish of body or mind; agony, severe pain or anguish

I thought fear of death would qualify as such.

I suppose rape could be green lighted then as long as it didn't include any of the above.

[LouC]

Interesting?

Driving a Humvee down an Afghanistan trail in known enemy country has got to be fear of death inducing to our Soldiers.

The commanders that order them to do that at the risk of death for desertion if they don't are doubly torturing them and should really be prosecuted.

[Talk2Bill]

I thought fear of death would qualify as such.

sometimes people die. and FYI source that anyone waterborded by the US died?

rest of the poor attempt to make a point deleted for being distasteful.

[Talk2Bill]

not to mention your definition said nothing about death.

[jelake]

total lack of pain or suffering? zero harm?


what is torture? please give me your definition.

Well if waterboarding produces no pain or suffering, why don't people just endure it indefinitely? Say you have a death wish or would die before giving anything up. What is the end result? Asphyxiation? Brain Damage? Death? What if they give false information just to stop it? Torture does not work plain and simple. I defy anyone to provide proof it does.

[F_Rat-46]

Dems were briefed on waterboarding in 2002. Some even asked the briefer if these methods were "harsh" enough.

Story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

[Talk2Bill]

not to mention the question is not: "do we think the US should waterboard terror suspects or not?"

should we? i am not sure. it certainly prevented planed attacks. or at least lead to discovering a plan to attack. so it has value. but i am not sure i would order it or not.

[JQR]

Waterboarding is most certainly torture. And it has been used as a method of torture since the middle ages, probably even longer.

The grand inquisitors also believed they were using "enhanced interrogation techniques" as well. What's a little pain when compared to eternal damnation?

New Englanders used "simulated drowning" in witch trials to elicit confessions of witchcraft.

It is also illegal in the Geneva Conventions and it is illegal to subject soldiers to the technique.

And I think it is a "no brainer" that many of the techniques used by the Bush Administration was torture. I can't see how one could argue that beating prisoners and slamming them into a wall isn't torture.

How about electrical shock, is that no longer considered torture now because it doesn't cause permanent damage?

And I do think these techniques have hurt the U.S. in our wars.

Back in Gulf War I, Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves, they literally sought out our soldiers not to fight but to surrender.
They surrendered because they knew they would be treated well by their captors. How about now?
Who would be willing to surrender now that they believe we are going to torture them?

I've never been to Iraq, but this time around I don't remember Iraqi soldiers surrendering in droves like in GW1.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Yep, it is.

[LAKES455]

Yes, and we need to do more of it.

[CIGuy2001]

IMO, it is not.

Ever been stuck under water for whatever reason (some fatass on a plastic float was above you) and you couldn't get above water for air? Did you fear death? Did you feel tortured after you got above water? Hmmm?

Unfortunately, our government prosecuted Japanese soldiers for torture and some of the techniques they used included waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

This provides fodder for people that believe it is torture and puts those that don't believe it is and those in our government who sanctioned it between a rock and a hard place.

One thing, though, that is overlooked is that the prosecutions of the Japanese soldiers never singled out any one act as a method of torture, everything was lumped together, which makes it murky. However, I would caution against the use of waterboarding, simply because of the appearance that we will use techinques on others, but prosecute those that use those same techniques on us.

[JQR]

Dems were briefed on waterboarding in 2002. Some even asked the briefer if these methods were "harsh" enough.

Story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

So we are supposed to be taking cues in ethics from congressional democrats?
"Since congressional democrats thought it was OK, then it must be." LOL.

[JQR]

IMO, it is not.

Ever been stuck under water for whatever reason (some fatass on a plastic float was above you) and you couldn't get above water for air? Did you fear death? Did you feel tortured after you got above water? Hmmm?
There is a big difference in that and waterboarding. A more appropriate analogy would be if the local bully grabbed a hold of you and dunked you repeatedly in the pool, threatening to drown you if you didn't give him your lunch money. Like water boarding that would be torture.

Unfortunately, our government prosecuted Japanese soldiers for torture and some of the techniques they used included waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

This provides fodder for people that believe it is torture and puts those that don't believe it is and those in our government who sanctioned it between a rock and a hard place.

One thing, though, that is overlooked is that the prosecutions of the Japanese soldiers never singled out any one act as a method of torture, everything was lumped together, which makes it murky. However, I would caution against the use of waterboarding, simply because of the appearance that we will use techinques on others, but prosecute those that use those same techniques on us.

Back in the aftermath of World War II, our military leaders never imagined that our country would stoop to using such techniques.

[CIGuy2001]

There is a big difference in that and waterboarding. A more appropriate analogy would be if the local bully grabbed a hold of you and dunked you repeatedly in the pool, threatening to drown you if you didn't give him your lunch money. Like water boarding that would be torture.

I've used that analogy before, but have come up against obstacles. For one, people don't tend to fear for their life when getting a swirly. But, if you think that analogy fits, do you think highschoolers should be prosecuted for torture, then?

Back in the aftermath of World War II, our military leaders never imagined that our country would stoop to using such techniques.

This is a misnomer. We seem to think that we've never used techniques like this in the past. Maybe it is the fact that we like to romanticize the past, but we've done far, far worse things then waterboarding in our more recent history. Some of them quite necessary at the time.

[CIGuy2001]

So we are supposed to be taking cues in ethics from congressional democrats?
"Since congressional democrats thought it was OK, then it must be." LOL.

I would not only say no, but hell no. But, what this does point out is how people on the left in power use these issues to drive wedges and how many of their constituents just eat it up.

[ChaosControl]

Yes.

[JQR]

I've used that analogy before, but have come up against obstacles. For one, people don't tend to fear for their life when getting a swirly. But, if you think that analogy fits, do you think highschoolers should be prosecuted for torture, then?
Yes, at least assault anyway, depending on how severe it was. And there are times when people are in fear of their life when getting "the swirly." And the Bush administration stated that although the prisoners were in fear of their life, it still didn't constitute torture.



This is a misnomer. We seem to think that we've never used techniques like this in the past. Maybe it is the fact that we like to romanticize the past, but we've done far, far worse things then waterboarding in our more recent history. Some of them quite necessary at the time.

I don't doubt that it has been used in the past. However, I can't think of another instance where such techniques were specifically spelled out by the president. Maybe Nixon did, I don't know, but he isn't a good role model either.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't know of another time where the president of the United States made these techniques the standard operating procedure for high value prisoners and specifically spelled out which techniques to use. And put it in writing no less.

Personally I find this astounding that the Bush administration did this.
Again I think it is probably unprecedented because Bush administration officials never pointed to similar decisions by earlier presidents.
Yes, some government officials may have used these techniques before W., but as the official policy of the United States government?
I don't think history will look kindly on the Bush administration's decision to do this.

Perhaps you can inform me of another president who went as far as the Bush administration in this area.

[CIGuy2001]

Yes, at least assault anyway, depending on how severe it was. And there are times when people are in fear of their life when getting "the swirly." And the Bush administration stated that although the prisoners were in fear of their life, it still didn't constitute torture.

I agree with the BA on that. It doesn't constitute torture. You seem to be trying to distance yourself from your own opinion, though. Why shouldn't highschoolers be charged with torture, if you believe that waterboarding and swirlies are, essentially, the same?


I don't doubt that it has been used in the past. However, I can't think of another instance where such techniques were specifically spelled out by the president. Maybe Nixon did, I don't know, but he isn't a good role model either.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't know of another time where the president of the United States made these techniques the standard operating procedure for high value prisoners and specifically spelled out which techniques to use. And put it in writing no less.

Personally I find this astounding that the Bush administration did this.
Again I think it is probably unprecedented because Bush administration officials never pointed to similar decisions by earlier presidents.
Yes, some government officials may have used these techniques before W., but as the official policy of the United States government?
I don't think history will look kindly on the Bush administration's decision to do this.

Perhaps you can inform me of another president who went as far as the Bush administration in this area.


Many believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were instances of torture. So, that would be one.

[redfish64]

Waterboarding torture or not?
Its kind of like boogy boarding for terrorist!

[JQR]

I agree with the BA on that. It doesn't constitute torture. You seem to be trying to distance yourself from your own opinion, though. Why shouldn't highschoolers be charged with torture, if you believe that waterboarding and swirlies are, essentially, the same?
Generally we don't see charges of "torture" in the legal system. One could torture someone in the U.S. but instead be charged with Ag assault, murder etc.

And there are degrees of severity in "swirlies" Lets say a 18-year old high school kid with a reputation for assault and inflicting serious harm on others grabs a 12-year old and violently dunks him underwater repeatedly while threatening to kill him. And this 12-year old, with good reason believes him, I would certainly say this is a crime and he should be charged.
Now if it is a couple of friends in a pool dunking each other, that's different.

However, the Bush administration's memos specifically state that the waterboarding technique they are using puts the fear of death in the recipient so it is more like my analogy of the 18-year old and the 12-year old.

And again, I ask you to give me an example of another president that made these techniques the standard operating procedure of the government.

Many believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were instances of torture. So, that would be one.

I disagree, many of the civilians who died from the atomic bombs died horrible deaths, even a torturous deaths, but it isn't torture.

FDR or Truman didn't tell the military "go make a weapon that doesn't kill the enemy immediately, that's too nice, go make a weapon that kills its victims slowly so they suffer as much as possible. We want them withering in pain before they die. That will teach them who's boss."

Torture depends on what the intent of the torturer is and the reaction of the one being tortured.

[LAKES455]

I hear ya Red, and who cares right?

[Canadian Jane]

I guess I see it this way:

If you're using waterboarding on some kid who shoplifted an air freshener from Home Depot - I wouldn't support it.


If you're using it to extract information from a terrorist to avoid an attack - and save an innocent life, or 10 innocent lives, or 1,000 innocent lives, or 2,976 innocent lives ..... then I'm ok with it.

I can live with waterboarding one scumbag terrorist (with no permanent injury resulting) better than I can live with another 9/11 (with nothing ever being the same again).

[Cav Scout]

If waterboarding is torture, so is tickling your kids.

[CIGuy2001]

Generally we don't see charges of "torture" in the legal system. One could torture someone in the U.S. but instead be charged with Ag assault, murder etc.

And there are degrees of severity in "swirlies" Lets say a 18-year old high school kid with a reputation for assault and inflicting serious harm on others grabs a 12-year old and violently dunks him underwater repeatedly while threatening to kill him. And this 12-year old, with good reason believes him, I would certainly say this is a crime and he should be charged.
Now if it is a couple of friends in a pool dunking each other, that's different.

Again, it was your analogy. For some reason, you just don't want to see it through. And, there have been many people prosecuted and convicted for torture in our legal system. I remember one specifically where this guy was convicted of ten counts of torture which carried a 75-year prison sentence where he was. 750 years in prison...ouch.

Here was one just recently...

Alexander, 16, of 4115 Peggy in Spaulding Township received a sentence Thursday of 26 to 75 years behind bars for three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and single counts of first-degree home invasion, torture, resisting and obstructing a police officer and possessing marijuana.

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2009/03/saginaw_county_judge_gives_tee.html


However, the Bush administration's memos specifically state that the waterboarding technique they are using puts the fear of death in the recipient so it is more like my analogy of the 18-year old and the 12-year old.

And again, I ask you to give me an example of another president that made these techniques the standard operating procedure of the government.



I disagree, many of the civilians who died from the atomic bombs died horrible deaths, even a torturous deaths, but it isn't torture.

FDR or Truman didn't tell the military "go make a weapon that doesn't kill the enemy immediately, that's too nice, go make a weapon that kills its victims slowly so they suffer as much as possible. We want them withering in pain before they die. That will teach them whose boss."

Torture depends on what the intent of the torturer is and the reaction of the one being tortured.

First, torture does not depend on the intent or the reaction. Second, all I said was that some people believe the dropping of the Atom bomb was torture, not that it was. You thinking it isn't is just your opinion. You just happen to be taking a different opinion with regards to the Atom bomb than you are with waterboarding. And, the people that believe that dropping the Atom bomb was torture are generally not referring to those killed, but those left alive in the aftermath.

By the way, I'm sure FDR didn't think dropping the bomb was torture just like President Bush doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Yours, mine, and theirs are simply opinions. But there goes the intent part you were talking about.

[LAKES455]

I have one question I would like to see answered here and then Im out.
If any practice that made you safer was performed at order of your government and you were safer because of it, why would any of you care what it was or what it was called?

[CIGuy2001]

I have one question I would like to see answered here and then Im out.
If any practice that made you safer was performed at order of your government and you were safer because of it, why would any of you care what it was or what it was called?

One, if we're going to prosecute people for doing said thing to us, we shouldn't do it. Two, I'm not so inclined to just write a blank check to our government. Maybe that's just me.

[JQR]

Again, it was your analogy. For some reason, you just don't want to see it through. And, there have been many people prosecuted and convicted for torture in our legal system. I remember one specifically where this guy was convicted of ten counts of torture which carried a 75-year prison sentence where he was. 750 years in prison...ouch.

Here was one just recently...



http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2009/03/saginaw_county_judge_gives_tee.html

Perhaps I should have been more specific, here in Pennsylvania, I don't see the charge of torture too often. Now if someone committed torture in the commission of a crime, it would carry a more severe sentence, but they are usually charged with assault, murder etc.
But this not central to this argument.




First, torture does not depend on the intent or the reaction. Second, all I said was that some people believe the dropping of the Atom bomb was torture, not that it was. You thinking it isn't is just your opinion. You just happen to be taking a different opinion with regards to the Atom bomb than you are with waterboarding. And, the people that believe that dropping the Atom bomb was torture are generally not referring to those killed, but those left alive in the aftermath.
It most certainly does depend on intent, just like murder or many other crimes, one must have the intent to murder to be convicted of 1st degree of murder.

By the way, I'm sure FDR didn't think dropping the bomb was torture just like President Bush doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Yours, mine, and theirs are simply opinions. But there goes the intent part you were talking about.
I don't believe in the moral relativism of torture. I think the Bush administration took the position that the ends justify the means.
And I do believe that the policy hurt us in the war on terror. Torture steels the resolve of our enemies and gives them reason to fight on. It allowed their leaders to demonize us and rally more to their cause.
It may have accomplished some short term goals but in the long run it hurt us.
And I think the experience in Gulf War 1 and Gulf war II illustrates this fact very well.
It is obvious that Iraqi soldiers in GW I believed they would be treated well and were eager to surrender.
Not so much in GW2.

[LAKES455]

Ok, got my answer. Thanks.
I am just different, thats all.
I would support mass destruction to an entire country before I would see a single hair harmed on the head of the worst american.
See ya'll keep up the discussion. :)

[Cav Scout]

Ok, got my answer. Thanks.
I am just different, thats all.
I would support mass destruction to an entire country before I would see a single hair harmed on the head of the worst american.
See ya'll keep up the discussion. :)

And that is real deal right there.

[DaveKlassix]

If waterboarding is "torture" then shouldn't what happened to John McCain as POW in the Vietnam war be considered "attempted murder"?

[JQR]

Ok, got my answer. Thanks.
I am just different, thats all.
I would support mass destruction to an entire country before I would see a single hair harmed on the head of the worst american.
See ya'll keep up the discussion. :)

Now that is the most illogical statement I have seen in a while. What you are saying is that to keep a single hair harmed on the head of the worst American, which includes rapists, murders, child molesters, etc. you would see the destruction of an entire nation! Wow!
Now that is patriotism run amok.
Sometimes I think people speak before thinking.

[Cav Scout]

Now that is the most illogical statement I have seen in a while. What you are saying is that to keep a single hair harmed on the head of the worst American, which includes rapists, murders, child molesters, etc. you would see the destruction of an entire nation! Wow!
Now that is patriotism run amok.
Sometimes I think people speak before thinking.


He is 100% correct. They may be scum, but they are OUR scum.

It is not run amok. It is the way it should be.

[JQR]

He is 100% correct. They may be scum, but they are OUR scum.

It is not run amok. It is the way it should be.

That is insanity, so I guess we should go out invade all the countries that have imprisoned American citizens for crimes committed overseas because no foreigner is allowed to harm an American.
And while we are at it we should tear up all or extradition treaties because no American can be harmed by a foreigner, no matter what they did.

[CIGuy2001]

Perhaps I should have been more specific, here in Pennsylvania, I don't see the charge of torture too often. Now if someone committed torture in the commission of a crime, it would carry a more severe sentence, but they are usually charged with assault, murder etc.
But this not central to this argument.

I disagree. I still can't figure out why you would analogize waterboarding with swirlies, but think one is torture and the other isn't. What's the difference in your view?

It most certainly does depend on intent, just like murder or many other crimes, one must have the intent to murder to be convicted of 1st degree of murder.

No it doesn't. Even with murder. Intent just changes the "level" of murder. But, it still is murder. For instance, let's say a person held another captive and removed their fingers and toes for fun. Their intent isn't to torture, they just think it's fun. Is that not torture?


I don't believe in the moral relativism of torture. I think the Bush administration took the position that the ends justify the means.
And I do believe that the policy hurt us in the war on terror. Torture steels the resolve of our enemies and gives them reason to fight on. It allowed their leaders to demonize us and rally more to their cause.
It may have accomplished some short term goals but in the long run it hurt us.
And I think the experience in Gulf War 1 and Gulf war II illustrates this fact very well.
It is obvious that Iraqi soldiers in GW I believed they would be treated well and were eager to surrender.
Not so much in GW2.

According to the BA, they don't believe that waterboarding is torture. According to their legal teams, their advisors, people in the JD, etc., they don't believe waterboarding is torture and approved what they could up to the limit of the law.

As for "steeling the resolve" of terrorists. The truth is that most of that is propaganda. Those prone to commit acts of terrorism don't need much of a reason. If it wasn't the supposed torture committed by the U.S., it would be something else. The surrendering of the Iraqi Army happened in both wars. But, in the first Gulf War, the surrendering of the Iraqi Army didn't start happening until we had simply crushed them in a matter of days. A point of reference for you would be the "highway of death". Look it up.

[LAKES455]

You know you can thank those crazy, uncareing, and ablolute men every night you can sleep peacefully for making the decisions you don't have to make.

George Bush may have been swindled into the first bailout due to his being an idiot when it came to ecconomics, but the one thing he did was keep us all safe. I will be proud to call him neighbor again, just wont hire hime to run my budget. LOL

[LAKES455]

Well I am talking about the Terrorists any and all, and yes I would rather see americans in our jails where the punishment more fits the crime, even though to light on crimminals

[Cav Scout]

That is insanity, so I guess we should go out invade all the countries that have imprisoned American citizens for crimes committed overseas because no foreigner is allowed to harm an American.
And while we are at it we should tear up all or extradition treaties because no American can be harmed by a foreigner, no matter what they did.


Ok, see now you get to quit being stupid as well, if a moron commits a crime in a foriegn land, then well they screwed up. His point and mine is if you harm an American in an act of violence against our Nation then you and yours should be made exticnt. That is how it should be. Oh and yes if you are an idiot, then you should pay the price for it. Or do you think its cool that we have leaders from time to time that allow Americans to be killed with no real threat of retaliation? Hmm?

[ramblin_on]

can you define torture? at least what you think it is. I think that is the missing part of MOST arguments on waterbording.

to me torture is: use of pain or physical harm.

if there is no pain or harm then it is not torture. being uncomfortable is not the same thing as pain or harm.

i guess maybe some boards could cause some minor harm. but nothing that a design tweak can not fix. make them out of foam rubber....

hand cuffs cause discomfort and even some pain even injury... are they going to call for them to be banned as well?


Define it? well, Webster's probably does a better job of that than I can but I read an autobiography of what an American pilot that was captured by the North Vietnamese (and for the life of me I can't remember what his name was) went through as a POW and it included stuff like roping his wrists together behind his back, forcing his elbows together and roping them until they were touching behind his back, then using these ropes to lift him off the ground until his shoulders dislocated, and beating him with iron bars until he passed out from the pain. They would then throw cold water on him until he came too and start all over again. I was waterboarded as a training aid once and while it was a little uncomfortable I don't think it holds a candle to real torture. I'm sure the liberals would call shouting at a prisoner torture if some conservative said it was a good interrogation tactic though if they thought it would advance their agenda of destroying America.

[Canadian Jane]

Ok, see now you get to quit being stupid as well, if a moron commits a crime in a foriegn land, then well they screwed up. His point and mine is if you harm an American in an act of violence against our Nation then you and yours should be made exticnt. That is how it should be. Oh and yes if you are an idiot, then you should pay the price for it. Or do you think its cool that we have leaders from time to time that allow Americans to be killed with no real threat of retaliation? Hmm?


However, by using your logic - if an American commits a crime in a foreign land - then America should be made extinct. (Edit to add: by the country who the American victimized).

Is that really how it should be? Because there's a lot of idiots in America - do you really want to pay the price for any of them?

I agree with a lot of things you post, but the world isn't as black and white as you make it out to be Cav.

[JQR]

I disagree. I still can't figure out why you would analogize waterboarding with swirlies, but think one is torture and the other isn't. What's the difference in your view?



No it doesn't. Even with murder. Intent just changes the "level" of murder. But, it still is murder. For instance, let's say a person held another captive and removed their fingers and toes for fun. Their intent isn't to torture, they just think it's fun. Is that not torture?




According to the BA, they don't believe that waterboarding is torture. According to their legal teams, their advisors, people in the JD, etc., they don't believe waterboarding is torture and approved what they could up to the limit of the law.

As for "steeling the resolve" of terrorists. The truth is that most of that is propaganda. Those prone to commit acts of terrorism don't need much of a reason. If it wasn't the supposed torture committed by the U.S., it would be something else. The surrendering of the Iraqi Army happened in both wars. But, in the first Gulf War, the surrendering of the Iraqi Army didn't start happening until we had simply crushed them in a matter of days. A point of reference for you would be the "highway of death". Look it up.

I think if it was done to them, they would believe it was torture. Again, I can't see how one can argue that beating people isn't torture.
And it most certainly does steel the resolve of your enemy, if you believed you were going to be tortured, you wouldn't go out of your way to surrender.
It is quite apparent, Iraqi soldiers held the U.S. military in high regard and believed they would be treated humanely in GW 1 or they wouldn't have gleefully surrendered like they did.

In GW1 just like in GW2, we had an intensive bombing campaign and as soon as our ground troops invaded, Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves, many of them happily waiving their flags of surrender.

However, this didn't happen in GW2, they instead fled to the cities and either blended in with the population or fought on as insurgents.
Now in GW1, Saddam told his troops they would be tortured if they surrendered. But obviously they didn't believe him.
In GW2, it was already widely known that we were torturing prisoners.

And it wasn't just the worst terrorists that were treated this way. Some were innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or were the victim of mistaken identity. And what do you think they are going to tell the people back home what happened to them after they were released.
There is a big difference in having some crazy dictator saying we torture, its another when a friend or neighbor says it happened to them personally.

Again, what the Bush administration did was unprecedented, and I don't think history will look kindly on its decision.

[BillyM 2007]

I have been "waterboarded" I lasted all of 45 seconds...I watched as my fellow troops lasted no more than a few seconds longer than I. The longest in my unit lasted about a 1:05...it was all voluntary.

I would have sold my mothers soul to the Devil to get it over and done with...

Was it torture? Absolutely not...does it work? Absolutely...

Should it still be in use? If it saves a life...just one life...Absolutely...
I water boarded myself. I use to be a competitive swimmer and lifeguard. On a few occasions I managed to suck in a small amount of water (especially with the backstroke). The body reaction was unexpected, swift, autonomic… and quite terrifying as there is an immediate inability to breathe and sense of drowning... and this is even potentially dangerous in uncontrolled circumstances (dry drowning).

But properly applied and administered, I know it would still be frightening... but not life-threatening.

The fact that we have sunk to the point where liberals even have us debating something as ludicrous as this as a serious issue shows just how far we have fallen from common sense.

I am personally sick and tired of the games these morons play with our language.

[JQR]

Define it? well, Webster's probably does a bettr job of that than I can but I read an autobiography of what an American pilot that was captured by the North Vietnamese (and for the life of me I can't remember what his name was) went through as a POW and it included stuff like roping his wrists together behind his back, forcing his elbows together and roping them until they were touching behind his back, then using these ropes to lift him off the ground until his shoulders dislocated, and beating him with iron bars until he passed out from the pain. They would then throw cold water on him until he came too and start all over again. I was waterboarded as a training aid once and while it was a little uncomfortable I don't think it holds a candle to real torture. I'm sure the liberals would call shouting at a prisoner torture if some conservative said it was a good interrogation tactic though if they thought it would advance their agenda of destroying America.

No one is arguing that what happened to Sen. McCain wasn't torture.
And there is a big difference between what happened to you and what we did to those "high value targets."
You knew you wouldn't be killed or even harmed.
This wasn't the case with those detainees.
In fact, it was the stated purpose of water boarding in the memos. They wanted them to believe they would be killed.
And how about beating, did they beat you, slam you against the wall, keep you awake for a week, lock you in a box for hours, etc. as a part of your training?

[Cav Scout]

However, by using your logic - if an American commits a crime in a foreign land - then America should be made extinct. (Edit to add: by the country who the American victimized).

Is that really how it should be? Because there's a lot of idiots in America - do you really want to pay the price for any of them?

I agree with a lot of things you post, but the world isn't as black and white as you make it out to be Cav.

I am inteligent enough to understand the difference between a crime and an act of war. Killing 230 Marines is an act of war that went unanswered. The first World trade center bombing went unanswered. Etc. It may not be black and white, but it is not a palet of rainbow either. We just recently started issuing object lessons for idiots, now if we can simply manage to keep it up, this will eb. However if we pull our horns in now, it will continue.

Some things actually are black and white.

[JQR]

Ok, see now you get to quit being stupid as well, if a moron commits a crime in a foriegn land, then well they screwed up. His point and mine is if you harm an American in an act of violence against our Nation then you and yours should be made exticnt. That is how it should be. Oh and yes if you are an idiot, then you should pay the price for it. Or do you think its cool that we have leaders from time to time that allow Americans to be killed with no real threat of retaliation? Hmm?

Oh like Reagan.
And that isn't what the post said, but I disagree with your argument as well. Lets say a Canadian comes over and punches an American and messes up his hair even, and runs back across the border and up to the Northwest territories where he can't be found. Are we now supposed to destroy all of Canada, to get at this one person because you never know, he could come back and punch another American maybe even kill one.

There is something called proportionality.
One has to have a very good reason for destroying an entire country.

You and the other guy are giving crazy talk chest thumping crazy talk, not rooted in reality.

[Canadian Jane]

I am inteligent enough to understand the difference between a crime and an act of war. Killing 230 Marines is an act of war that went unanswered. The first World trade center bombing went unanswered. Etc. It may not be black and white, but it is not a palet of rainbow either. We just recently started issuing object lessons for idiots, now if we can simply manage to keep it up, this will eb. However if we pull our horns in now, it will continue.

Some things actually are black and white.



I'm not saying pull your horns in - I'm saying don't turn into the same kind of scum you are fighting against.

[Cav Scout]

Oh like Reagan.
And that isn't what the post said, but I disagree with your argument as well. Lets say a Canadian comes over and punches an American and messes up his hair even, and runs back across the border and up to the Northwest territories where he can't be found. Are we now supposed to destroy all of Canada, to get at this one person because you never know, he could come back and punch another American maybe even kill one.

There is something called proportionality.
One has to have a very good reason for destroying an entire country.

You and the other guy are giving crazy talk chest thumping crazy talk, not rooted in reality.

Your proportional response theroy got us 9/11 smart guy.

We are not talking about 'crime' silly, but as usual your lawyer trained mind took over and you everything should be handled at the bench...

Yes I do mean like Reagan. Worst mistake we have ever made and have been paying for it ever since.

But please continue to think I am talking about mugging...

[ramblin_on]

No one is arguing that what happened to Sen. McCain wasn't torture.
And there is a big difference between what happened to you and what we did to those "high value targets."
You knew you wouldn't be killed or even harmed.

Have you been waterboarded? it makes you think you will drown even though you know it is training.

This wasn't the case with those detainees.
In fact, it was the stated purpose of water boarding in the memos. They wanted them to believe they would be killed.

My heart bleeds for these murdering scum that cut the heads off of bound prisoners on video and strap bombs onto retarded children to kill other women and children. It wouldn't bother me a dam bit if they took them up in a helicopter and started throwing them out at 1500 feet or so until one of them started talking if it saved just one American life. I'm sick and tired of hearing dumbass liberals whining about how these low life sons of bitches were treated after seeing what they did to their prisoners. Ain't you ever heard war is hell? Well it is and they started it didn't they? Maybe you limp wristed cowards need to go off somewhere it is safe and let real Americans win the dam war and then you can come back and brag about what you did to make our enemies "feel better".

And how about beating, did they beat you, slam you against the wall, keep you awake for a week, lock you in a box for hours, etc. as a part of your training?


Actually, they did and you want to know a little secret? It made me tougher and when they gave me that black beret and called me a Ranger I was never more proud of anything in my life up to then. What are you proud of Mr Liberal?

[Cav Scout]

I'm not saying pull your horns in - I'm saying don't turn into the same kind of scum you are fighting against.

How many Canadians have been in killed in international acts of terror? Hmm?

I have had a front seat view of the scum thanks and like Vlaad, understand the only thing that they understand.

Have no fear, I am not advocating strapping a bomb vest on a killing civie's at a wedding. I am advocating wiping out the entire culture that breeds that type of thought in the first place.

I know, I am an ass and all that. Cold and bla bla bla.

I also understand.

[ramblin_on]

How many Canadians have been in killed in international acts of terror? Hmm?

I have had a front seat view of the scum thanks and like Vlaad, understand the only thing that they understand.

Have no fear, I am not advocating strapping a bomb vest on a killing civie's at a wedding. I am advocating wiping out the entire culture that breeds that type of thought in the first place.

I know, I am an ass and all that. Cold and bla bla bla.

I also understand.

I dunno about you cav but isn't it the asses that they call for when it comes time to win a war? People say folks like George Patton, US Grant, Bill Halsey and Doug MacArthur were asses too and It wouldn't bother me a dam bit to be lumped in with people like them. They won their wars didn't they?

[Canadian Jane]

How many Canadians have been in killed in international acts of terror? Hmm?

I have had a front seat view of the scum thanks and like Vlaad, understand the only thing that they understand.

Have no fear, I am not advocating strapping a bomb vest on a killing civie's at a wedding. I am advocating wiping out the entire culture that breeds that type of thought in the first place.

I know, I am an ass and all that. Cold and bla bla bla.

I also understand.


Do you remember Air India?

I do. A lot of Canadians died on that plane. No Americans - so I guess you probably can't even remember it.

Canadian soldiers are dying every week in Afghanistan. Canadians died in the twin towers on 9/11.

I cried a lot that day, and so did a lot of Canadians. Not just for Canadians - for EVERYONE who perished.

As for "wiping out the entire culture that breeds that type of thought in the first place" .... that sounds disturbingly like something Ahmadinejad would say.

I support playing hardball with the terrorists. I don't support wiping countries off the face of the earth as a solution to end terrorism.

[conservative008]

I don't consider waterboarding torture. It's not a walk in the park, but neither is terrorism. It's necessary, and it should be an option, IMO..

[CAPTBEACH]

How exactly is that not torture?

It did not leave a mark or scar, it was not painful, it did not involve pain of any sort yet is extremely effective. And no, I don't have bad dreams or wet my bed at night because of it...Lions don't have nightmares...Sheep do...

[tjvh]

Waterboarding is not torture, Obama being President until 2012... Now that IS Torture.

[conservative008]

Waterboarding is not torture, Obama being President until 2012... Now that IS Torture.

:lol: Quoted for truth.

[CIGuy2001]

I think if it was done to them, they would believe it was torture. Again, I can't see how one can argue that beating people isn't torture.

I'm sure you're right, but I think this is the one time we should disregard what the terrorists believe. Going back, you've still not shed light on how you can believe that waterboarding and swirlies are similar, have stated that both are torture, but think that those who've given people swirlies shouldn't be prosecuted for torture. As for beating people, I'm sure you would agree that there are different levels of beating and not all beating is torture.

And it most certainly does steel the resolve of your enemy, if you believed you were going to be tortured, you wouldn't go out of your way to surrender.

I didn't say that it didn't steel they're resolve, I said that it is mostly propaganda that the supposed torture by the U.S. is responsible for that. Again, those proned to commit terrorism need little in the way of reason in order to believe the way they do.

It is quite apparent, Iraqi soldiers held the U.S. military in high regard and believed they would be treated humanely in GW 1 or they wouldn't have gleefully surrendered like they did.

In GW1 just like in GW2, we had an intensive bombing campaign and as soon as our ground troops invaded, Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves, many of them happily waiving their flags of surrender.

However, this didn't happen in GW2, they instead fled to the cities and either blended in with the population or fought on as insurgents.
Now in GW1, Saddam told his troops they would be tortured if they surrendered. But obviously they didn't believe him.
In GW2, it was already widely known that we were torturing prisoners.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about. Since you seem to like to use GW1 and GW2, I'll do that for you. The Iraqi's didn't surrender in GW1 until our ground forces went in and crushed them in a matter of days. In GW2 the Iraqi Army had no chance, they knew they had no chance, and they surrendered immediately. This was part of the reason that there was a disconnect between the frontlines and the rear and how that one female soldier got taken captive. Remember? Is this coming back to you, now? Lastly, how was it widely known that we were "torturing" soldiers in the beginnings of GW2? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

And it wasn't just the worst terrorists that were treated this way. Some were innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or were the victim of mistaken identity. And what do you think they are going to tell the people back home what happened to them after they were released.
There is a big difference in having some crazy dictator saying we torture, its another when a friend or neighbor says it happened to them personally.

Again, what the Bush administration did was unprecedented, and I don't think history will look kindly on its decision.

I think you're confusing Abu Ghraib with waterboarding. You need to get focused back on what we're talking about. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib were morons. And, anyone with any intelligence knows that those in charge did not sanction what happened there. I watched a documentary recently on Abu Ghraib. Nothing that they did there was ever part of any detainee procedures. They were undisciplined dumbasses.

[Its any henna]

I was surprised to read the CIA used waterboarding on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times (link here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/19/obama-punish-bush-officials-responsible-interrogation-tactics/)) because earlier a CIA agent said waterboarding was so effective it broke Mohammed in 35 seconds (link here (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231)). So which is it, 183 times or 35 seconds? And if it was 183, why'd it take so long?

[Stricken]

It is absolutely torture! Not only is it torture, but it is COMPLETELY ineffective at gaining actionable intelligence.

Moreso, it sent agents chasing down false leads because those subjected to it would say anything to make it stop. DUH! You would think this is rocket science or something.


When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066_pf.html


It was a worthless tactic. One that not only had nothing to do with "keeping us safe" as the fear mongers would have you believe, but fueled the resolve and recruitment of our enemies because we were doing it. I for one, can not wait until those that twisted the legality of this issue are punished to the full extent of the law.

Stricken

[CIGuy2001]

It is absolutely torture! Not only is it torture, but it is COMPLETELY ineffective at gaining actionable intelligence.

According to many sources, that is just not true. Actionable intelligence was gained using waterboarding on KSM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?_r=2&pagewanted=4&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[CIGuy2001]

I was surprised to read the CIA used waterboarding on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times (link here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/19/obama-punish-bush-officials-responsible-interrogation-tactics/)) because earlier a CIA agent said waterboarding was so effective it broke Mohammed in 35 seconds (link here (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231)). So which is it, 183 times or 35 seconds? And if it was 183, why'd it take so long?

Good questions.

[JeffR]

Something similar to waterboarding was the 2nd level of torture used during The Inquisition. The 1st level was dosing the person's feet with grease and holding them over a fire.

[Miss America]

No...not torture...

[muhadeeb99]

I would say it as a training tool or exercise to reveal what is in the real world as it pertains to terrorism. Let us not forget, interrogation by terrorists is by far more severe.

[Ric]

It is absolutely torture! Not only is it torture, but it is COMPLETELY ineffective at gaining actionable intelligence.

Torture? The people who jumped out of the towers on 9/11 were tortured. Dunking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into confessing the other plots that WERE STOPPED AS A RESULT and SAVED MORE INNOCENT LIVES FROM MURDER was a GOOD thing!!

But to the mean cowering left, this matters not; they will never care. ”Bush” hatred justifies everything for them, even deciding it is a greater wrong to dunk a murderer and save thousands from death than it is wrong to see innocent Americans burning and jumping to their death in another 9/11.

We are a far weaker nation because of this Bush hatred blindness of right and wrong and refusal to understand justified self-defense. But what can we expect from the utopian left? They pity murderers and those who perpetrated 9/11 more than they are willing to defend us from more attacks. It is a disgrace of reason and morality. We are far less safe because of the left’s twisted and exactly wrong values.

[CIGuy2001]

[snip]

Stricken

I just love these little drive-bys. Can't stick around and debate. Too many things to do and to many things to say.