Hitchens gets waterboarded

[Groundhog]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200808

I'm sure there are a number of folks that woulda liked him to have had his experience lengthened.

Very interesting read. I had no real idea exactly what waterboarding was other than that it involved some kind of drowning, but after reading that... Wow. Nasty.

[JPhillips]

I'll make this a sort of all purpose torture thread by mentioning how absolutely outraged I am that we used techniques copied from the Chinese in the Korean War to interrogate terrorist suspects. Thank God my father didn't live to see the same techniques used on fellow Korean War vets used by our government.

[Schmidty]

What a pussy.

I saw a demonstration from this other reporter, and he lasted like 4 times until he quit. Like 15 minutes. This guy is just old and fat.

Still, this is definitely torture.

[CamEdwards]

My neighbor, a Marine, has been waterboarded. I'll have to ask him how long he lasted. He certainly doesn't think it's torture though.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My neighbor, a Marine, has been waterboarded. I'll have to ask him how long he lasted. He certainly doesn't think it's torture though.

Inflicting physical distress on another human, regardless of "safety", is torture. It's a pure lie, or pure ignorance to think otherwise.

Now deciding if torture is necessary to protect a country's well-being, sis another thing....

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll make this a sort of all purpose torture thread by mentioning how absolutely outraged I am that we used techniques copied from the Chinese in the Korean War to interrogate terrorist suspects. Thank God my father didn't live to see the same techniques used on fellow Korean War vets used by our government.

This isn't very multicultural of you. After all, don't other cultures have valuable lessons to teach us, including what might be an effective interrogation technique of terrorist suspects? Or are we only supposed to learn the happy fluffy bunny stuff?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Inflicting physical distress on another human, regardless of "safety", is torture. It's a pure lie, or pure ignorance to think otherwise.

Now deciding if torture is necessary to protect a country's well-being, sis another thing....

Dola: So circumcision is torture? Ear piercing your infant is torture? Spanking a child is torture?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola: So circumcision is torture? Ear piercing your infant is torture? Spanking a child is torture?

Come the fuck on.

You're not cutting off the fucking foreskin to get the damned kid to tell where he hid goshdamn cookies. That was silly man.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll make this a sort of all purpose torture thread by mentioning how absolutely outraged I am that we used techniques copied from the Chinese in the Korean War to interrogate terrorist suspects. Thank God my father didn't live to see the same techniques used on fellow Korean War vets used by our government.

And of course we protested to the hills about the Chinese using these techniques on our soldiers. Funny that now we're doing it, it isn't so bad, eh?

[Schmidty]

Anyway, I don't want to get into yet another argument that can't be won, so adios. Waterboarding might possibly be useful in certain (as in we're certain and caught the terrorist red-handed), but in other cases, I'm not sure.

Anyway, that's all I have to say.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Come the fuck on.

You're not cutting off the fucking foreskin to get the damned kid to tell where he hid goshdamn cookies. That was silly man.

I didn't pick the definition, Schmidty. You did. You can use as many profanities as you want, but that doesn't do anything to make your orginal statement any more intelligent, and neither does getting angry at me.

If you'd like to amend your statement to read that "Inflicting physical distress on another human, regardless of "safety", in order to gain information, is torture. It's a pure lie, or pure ignorance to think otherwise", that's fine by me. Of course it means that when I was 12, my brother gave me a Texas Titty Twister so I'd tell him where I'd hid his copy of Penthouse... I was tortured.

[Groundhog]

I don't think I'd last a second longer than Hitchens. If you think this isn't torture, well, you've just gone and redefined the word torture to mean something a little more convenient to you.

[Groundhog]

tor·ture Audio Help/ˈtɔrtʃər/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciationnoun, 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.).

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I didn't pick the definition, Schmidty. You did. You can use as many profanities as you want, but that doesn't do anything to make your orginal statement any more intelligent, and neither does getting angry at me.

If you'd like to amend your statement to read that "Inflicting physical distress on another human, regardless of "safety", in order to gain information, is torture. It's a pure lie, or pure ignorance to think otherwise", that's fine by me. Of course it means that when I was 12, my brother gave me a Texas Titty Twister so I'd tell him where I'd hid his copy of Penthouse... I was tortured.

Come on man. I respect you, but I just don't see your argument at ALL.

Anyway, I didn't direct any of the expletives at you, I just use them in general, as most people know.

[PilotMan]

No comment on waterboarding, but this is what I think of when I think of torture. For the record, my dad was a POW.

from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=25312


In a steady voice, Swindle described his torturers applying tourniquets to his arms with parachute cord. "They took the cord and cinched it so tightly above my elbows that it literally caused my hands to contract because of the pressure on the ligaments," he said.
And that was only the beginning. Next they tied his arms behind his back with three men applying pressure on each side. "(They) pulled against each other until my arms, they folded them up my back and my hands went back to my neck," he said.
Next the torturers wrapped cord around his body so it looked like he had no arms. They tied parachute cord around his thumbs, which were at the back of his head, and hoisted his body off the ground by throwing the cord over the rafters. Swindle said the technique pulled his shoulders out of socket. "And it's about that point where you think you're insane, 'cause this is hurting quite badly, and there's not a soul in the world that can help me," he said.

[Tekneek]

Cam, next time a US soldier is tortured, I don't want to read or hear you bitch about it one tiny bit. When you say it is ok for the US to torture anybody, you've lost any moral position you may have had on the issue.

[ageofquarrel]

friend of mine did this to some girl in his apartment she only lasted 8 seconds

[JPhillips]

Nice try Cam, but the ChiCom's techniques were designed to elicit confessions, true or false. Not only are these techniques morally repugnant, they also don't work. It's disappointing that you're shilling for Communist torture techniques.

What the hell has happened to conservatism?

[Fidatelo]

I don't see how that isn't torture. Just put the sleeve of a sweater over your mouth/nose and try to breathe, it's not easy. Combine that with water and a bag over your head, and that would be scary as shit. I don't honestly know how a person would get enough oxygen to not pass out at some point, and in the time between it starting and passing out the experience would be brutal. Is it only torture if it leaves marks?

[KWhit]

Interesting article. I wish he would have gone into more detail about what specifically was happening to his body and how it felt.

I've never understood exactly what the technique is and still don't really from that article.

So the wet towel goes over your face and you breathe the water in through your nose. What physically happens to your body as the water enters your lungs? When it's over, do you cough out the water (I'd assume you have to). What are the long term effects?

I wish he would have answered those questions in his article so people can truly understand and make a better judgement over whether they think it should be considered torture or not, instead of just taking his words for it: "Trust me. it's torture."

But I'm off to read more about it now.

[Anthony]

i think some people are under the impression that if you put a suspect or terrorist in a chair and simply ask him questions, he would cheerfully comply and offer the info requested.

when this becomes possible, then torture should not be allowed in the US. until then, simulating drowning or inducing the drowning reflex is keeping us safe. even if the info is false, it gives us balls in the eyes of our enemies, instead of empowering them to thumb their nose at us because we don't have what it takes to extract integral info. if you put the thought into people's heads that "man, if i get caught by those american's this waterboarding doesn't sound like fun, and waterboarding is only what the public is aware of, only Allah knows what else they do behind closed doors. maybe i should just tend to my sheep instead of becoming a jihadist".

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nice try Cam, but the ChiCom's techniques were designed to elicit confessions, true or false. Not only are these techniques morally repugnant, they also don't work. It's disappointing that you're shilling for Communist torture techniques.

What the hell has happened to conservatism?

Nods sadly.

[KWhit]

These people will blow themselves up for their cause. Do you really think they'll consider stopping because if caught they might be waterboarded?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Interesting article. I wish he would have gone into more detail about what specifically was happening to his body and how it felt.

I've never understood exactly what the technique is and still don't really from that article.

So the wet towel goes over your face and you breathe the water in through your nose. What physically happens to your body as the water enters your lungs? When it's over, do you cough out the water (I'd assume you have to). What are the long term effects?

I wish he would have answered those questions in his article so people can truly understand and make a better judgement over whether they think it should be considered torture or not, instead of just taking his words for it: "Trust me. it's torture."

But I'm off to read more about it now.

The video that accompanied the article did a much better job of clarifying what happens than the words he wrote.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i think some people are under the impression that if you put a suspect or terrorist in a chair and simply ask him questions, he would cheerfully comply and offer the info requested.

when this becomes possible, then torture should not be allowed in the US. until then, simulating drowning or inducing the drowning reflex is keeping us safe. even if the info is false, it gives us balls in the eyes of our enemies, instead of empowering them to thumb their nose at us because we don't have what it takes to extract integral info. if you put the thought into people's heads that "man, if i get caught by those american's this waterboarding doesn't sound like fun, and waterboarding is only what the public is aware of, only Allah knows what else they do behind closed doors. maybe i should just tend to my sheep instead of becoming a jihadist".

This is perhaps the most naive thing that has ever been said in the history of FOFC, and that includes every post made by jbmagic and that one guy who didn't understand he was posting a link to his own desktop.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

The video that accompanied the article did a much better job of clarifying what happens than the words he wrote.

Oh, missed that. I'll have to check it out.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by KWhit

These people will blow themselves up for their cause. Do you really think they'll consider stopping because if caught they might be waterboarded?

Waterboarding isn't meant as a deterrent, it is meant as an information gathering tool. Nobody expects the fear of waterboarding to keep anyone from doing anything.

Having said that, I'd love to see statistics on the validity of information obtained from this technique. I'm sure studies have been done, but I'm curious just how little useful information comes from it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by KWhit

These people will blow themselves up for their cause. Do you really think they'll consider stopping because if caught they might be waterboarded?

blowing oneself up is painless if done right. waterboarding is painful.

[flere-imsaho]

Torture doesn't work. It just makes those wanting vengeance feel better.

General David H. Petraeus:

Originally Posted by General Petraeus

The top U.S. commander in Iraq admonished his troops regarding the results of an Army survey that found that many U.S military personnel there are willing to tolerate some torture of suspects and unwilling to report abuse by comrades.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.

Lieutenant General John Kimmons (Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 2006):

Originally Posted by Lt. General Kimmons

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under -- through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.

Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized, humane interrogation practices, in clever ways that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. So we don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.

Robert Baer, former CIA Case Officer:

But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.

When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.

The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.

Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.

Vincent Cannistraro, 27 veteran with the CIA, including leading clandestine units:

Detainees will say virtually anything to end their torment

Merle Pribbenow (CIA):

A similar stance was articulated last year by Merle L. Pribbenow, a 27-year veteran of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations. Writing in Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's in-house journal, Pribbenow recalled that an old college friend had recently expressed his belief that "the terrorist threat to America was so grave that any methods, including torture, should be used to obtain the information we need." The friend was vexed that Pribbenow's former colleagues "had not been able to 'crack' these prisoners."

Pribbenow sought an answer by revisiting the arcane case of Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Vietcong prisoner captured and interrogated by both South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam War. Re-examining in detail the techniques used by the South Vietnamese (protracted torture that included electric shocks; beatings; various forms of water torture; stress positions; food, water, and sleep deprivation) and by the Americans (rapport-building and no violence), Pribbenow reached a stark conclusion: "While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's admission of his true identity, it did not provide any other usable information," he wrote. In the end, he said, "it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided."

But perhaps most noteworthy was Pribbenow's conclusion: "This brings me back to my college classmate's question. The answer I gave him -- one in which I firmly believe -- is that we, as Americans, must not let our methods betray our goals," he said. "There is nothing wrong with a little psychological intimidation, verbal threats, bright lights and tight handcuffs, and not giving a prisoner a soft drink and a Big Mac every time he asks for them. There are limits, however, beyond which we cannot and should not go if we are to continue to call ourselves Americans. America is as much an ideal as a place, and physical torture of the kind used by the Vietnamese (North as well as South) has no place in it."

Frank Snepp (CIA):

From 1972 to 1975, Frank Snepp was the CIA's top interrogator in Saigon, where he choreographed elaborate, protracted sessions with Nguyen Van Tai and, at one point, seven other senior Vietcong captives. To the question of whether torture or abusive behavior by interrogators is justified, Snepp's answer is unequivocally no. And the fact that this point isn't understood at the agency today, Snepp says, is a sign of serious problems.

"One of the big lessons for the agency was that the South Vietnamese torturing people got in the way of getting information," he says. "One day, without my knowledge, the South Vietnamese forces beat one of my subjects to a pulp, and when he staggered into the interrogation room, I was furious. And I went to the station chief and he said, 'What do you want me to do about it?' I told him to tell the Vietnamese to lay off, and he said, 'What do you want me to tell them in terms of why?' I said, 'Because it's wrong, it's just wrong.' He laughed and said, 'Look, we've got 180,000 North Vietnamese troops within a half hour of here -- I can't tell them, don't beat the enemy. Give me a pragmatic reason.' I said, 'He can't talk. He's a wreck. I can't interrogate him.' He said, 'That, I can use with them.'

"The important lesson for me was that moral arguments don't work," Snepp says. "But if you have pragmatic reasons, that will work. But the most important thing is that the only time you can be sure that what you're getting from someone is valid is through discourse. In Tai's case, the idea was to develop absolute trust, which you do not do by alienating and humiliating someone. He liked poetry; I brought him books of poetry, and in many sessions we sat and discussed poetry, nothing else. The most extreme thing I did was a disorientation technique, where I would keep jumping from one subject to another so rapidly that he might not remember what he'd told me the day before, or not remember that he had not, in fact, told me what I was saying he'd told me. Little by little, I drew him into revelations. And I was highly commended for this work."

Jack Cloonan, FBI Special Agent (full article in link, description/summary below):

An FBI special agent from 1977 to 2002, Cloonan started working Al Qaeda cases in the mid-1990s. In this interview, he explains why he believes the FBI's method of interrogation is successful. He describes how the FBI cultivated former Al Qaeda operatives Jamal al-Fadl and Ali Mohammed as cooperative sources in the years before 9/11. Cloonan also recounts the FBI's battle with the CIA over custody of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who was one of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives captured in the first months of the war in Afghanistan. Cloonan says al-Libi was revealing information that could have been useful in the prosecutions of Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, before he was transferred to CIA custody, duct-taped, put in the back of a truck, and sent to Egypt for more aggressive interrogation. Cloonan also discusses the FBI's role at Guantanamo and why he believes little good intelligence came out of there. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on July 13, 2005.

Brigadier General David R. Irvine (Retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School):

No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is perhaps the most naive thing that has ever been said in the history of FOFC, and that includes every post made by jbmagic and that one guy who didn't understand he was posting a link to his own desktop.

where are you *least* likely to commit a crime. in the "eye for an eye, hand for a hand" middle east, like in Iran where homosexuals don't exist because if they did exist they would be tortured before being executed. or in america, where if you hurt yourself breaking in to someone's house you have legal grounds to sue the homeowner?

when you can answer that question honestly, then we can talk. until then, many foreigners know america has lost her spine.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Having said that, I'd love to see statistics on the validity of information obtained from this technique. I'm sure studies have been done, but I'm curious just how little useful information comes from it.

I'd also like to know if push came to shove with all these people who are so vehemently against it...if it was proven or could be proven that one shred of information received from this saved one of their loved ones would they still be against it?

So you are telling me (not directly you but everyone) if this form of "tourture" got information out that saved the life of your child, wife, or parents...that you would rather have them die than have this guy go through this?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

even if the info is false, it gives us balls in the eyes of our enemies, instead of empowering them to thumb their nose at us because we don't have what it takes to extract integral info. if you put the thought into people's heads that "man, if i get caught by those american's this waterboarding doesn't sound like fun, and waterboarding is only what the public is aware of, only Allah knows what else they do behind closed doors. maybe i should just tend to my sheep instead of becoming a jihadist".

Actually, Department of Defense officials have testified that it has the opposite effect. The videos and interviews with Muslims that have been tortured by US and affiliated personnel have been very effective as recruitment tools. Also, fear of being tortured has led to enemy combatatants refusing to be captured -- prefering to fight to the death than risk being captured and tortured for information.

These are two of the reasons they have cited for being very supportive of the prohibition on torture included in the Army field manual.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i think some people are under the impression that if you put a suspect or terrorist in a chair and simply ask him questions, he would cheerfully comply and offer the info requested.

I never expected that to be the case, just the same as captured US soldiers don't readily give up information either. You're making the case that it is ok for anyone to torture anybody else that doesn't give up all their knowledge immediately.

[Anthony]

war is not pretty. sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty to show people you mean business.

i'm all for anything that keeps me, and more importantly - my loved ones - safe. i go by many motto's and sayings, and one i'm fond of is "better you, than me". if it's between me and the jihadist and one of us needs to be tortured, i rather the jihadist or terrorist. as long as it doesn't happen to me i have an amazing ability to direct my concern elsewhere. these people know what's in store for them by taking up that lifestyle. don't become a jihadist then. easy.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I'd also like to know if push came to shove with all these people who are so vehemently against it...if it was proven or could be proven that one shred of information received from this saved one of their loved ones would they still be against it?

Yes, because I have principles and I don't cast them aside for personal gain.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by bsak16

So you are telling me (not directly you but everyone) if this form of "tourture" got information out that saved the life of your child, wife, or parents...that you would rather have them die than have this guy go through this?

Of course I wouldn't rather have them die, but that is an emotional response and not something that should dictate American policy, even if your hypothetical could be proven.

I think people have watched way too much 24. Jack Bauer is not walking through that door.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I never expected that to be the case, just the same as captured US soldiers don't readily give up information either. You're making the case that it is ok for anyone to torture anybody else that doesn't give up all their knowledge immediately.

info does need to be given up immediately, if it's to be of any use. i find it funny people like you are an advocate of protecting (hypothetically speaking) the interests of a captured terrorist who had info on 9/11 before it happened. in your world we would have to wait until he was good and ready to clue us in, rather than american interrogators being "proactive" about getting info that could've saved lives.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

info does need to be given up immediately, if it's to be of any use. i find it funny people like you are an advocate of protecting (hypothetically speaking) the interests of a captured terrorist who had info on 9/11 before it happened. in your world we would have to wait until he was good and ready to clue us in, rather than american interrogators being "proactive" about getting info that could've saved lives.

And they are the same people who bitch and complain that the country wasn't prepared for a terrorist attack. What are we suppose to do...go find the terrorist and ask them nicely if they are going to attack us?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm all for anything that keeps me, and more importantly - my loved ones - safe. i go by many motto's and sayings, and one i'm fond of is "better you, than me". if it's between me and the jihadist and one of us needs to be tortured, i rather the jihadist or terrorist. as long as it doesn't happen to me i have an amazing ability to direct my concern elsewhere.

Basically the "it's OK when we do it, it's evil when they do it argument".

That's actually fine as a practical opinion. It's just not a moral argument.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Yes, because I have principles and I don't cast them aside for personal gain.

i implore you, right now - videotape yourself telling your spouse that you would rather her die than someone who could give info that would keep her alive be tortured.

until then, please do not post in this thread. i beg of you. your honor and word is at stake here. i'm essentially telling you i believe you're full of shit. you videotape yourself so we can see the reaction from your spouse when you tell her the life and wellbeing of someone who would bring her harm is of a higher importance to her. i'm calling you out - you are not a man if you don't do this. either that, or your word in this community is garbage.

i can not stand bullshit. i can not stand for it and won't stand for it. back up your words.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by bsak16

And they are the same people who bitch and complain that the country wasn't prepared for a terrorist attack. What are we suppose to do...go find the terrorist and ask them nicely if they are going to attack us?

The only way to be prepared for a terrorist attack is to torture suspects. Got it.

End the thread now. We have all learned something important.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The only way to be prepared for a terrorist attack is to torture suspects. Got it.

End the thread now. We have all learned something important.

I never said that, but way to be so short sided. When in doubt stomp your feet like a kid and make claims like you did.

There are other ways but again we have people in this country who don't like wiretapping or spying on others because it "invades their civil rights". So I'm sure your next statement will be... "The only way to be prepared for a terrorist attack is to tap people's phones. Got it."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think people have watched way too much 24. Jack Bauer is not walking through that door.

Ironically, if people actually watched 24, they'd note that Jack Bauer often tortures the wrong person, even innocent people, and gets wrong information from this torture. Torture doesn't even work for Jack Bauer. LOL

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i can not stand bullshit. i can not stand for it and won't stand for it. back up your words.

It's as if you didn't even read my post where I quote major figures from the military, CIA and FBI stating that torture doesn't work and shouldn't be used. Talk about bullshit.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i implore you, right now - videotape yourself telling your spouse that you would rather her die than someone who could give info that would keep her alive be tortured.

She already knows, big guy. We talk about our personal ethics all the time. For instance, we are against the death penalty, even if someone in our family was the victim. We have talked about it a lot.

I'm not uploading video of myself to the Internet though, because I don't play that game. I'm surprised you, HA, of all people, would try to tell somebody else that their word is garbage.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i implore you, right now - videotape yourself telling your spouse that you would rather her die than someone who could give info that would keep her alive be tortured.

The problems is,
he will tell me what ever he thinks I want to hear to get me to stop.
It would be worthless in saving my wife.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bsak16

There are other ways but again we have people in this country who don't like wiretapping or spying on others because it "invades their civil rights". So I'm sure your next statement will be... "The only way to be prepared for a terrorist attack is to tap people's phones. Got it."

Well, the Administration's latest plan is, in fact, to give the FBI the power to spy on Americans without any evidence whatsoever of potential wrongdoing.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's as if you didn't even read my post where I quote major figures from the military, CIA and FBI stating that torture doesn't work and shouldn't be used. Talk about bullshit.

Anything that does not fit within his world view is ignored...like the possibility that some people put ethics and morals ahead of whatever works best for them at that particular moment.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I never said that, but way to be so short sided. When in doubt stomp your feet like a kid and make claims like you did.

You never said that? Your post was assuming that if we don't torture, then we have to go and ask them nicely. You didn't allow for other possibilities.

There are other ways but again we have people in this country who don't like wiretapping or spying on others because it "invades their civil rights".

Wow, you're really misrepresenting the whole issue. No one is against wiretapping. They're against warrantless wiretapping.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, the Administration's latest plan is, in fact, to give the FBI the power to spy on Americans without any evidence whatsoever of potential wrongdoing.

Honestly, I am totally fine with that. The government already knows all about me, where I live, what I do, where I go on vacation, and I am totally okay with them knowing it. I don't do anything wrong...besides the occasional speeding.

And I doubt that the FBI doesn't already do it. It is just now Americans are aware of it so the government has to do it's little dance and approve the measure.

[flere-imsaho]

"In fact Jim, Hell Atlantic is exactly this wrong about torture."