A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[The Rabbi]

You do this a lot, learn your vs you're before you call others ignorant.

And don't answer this until a pro-waterboarder answers if they think it's ok to illicit information from americans suspected of crimes in the same way.

The word is "elicit", Einstein.

Americans in a civil society have rights that preclude using techniques like waterboarding.
Prisoners, especially those not subject to the Geneva Convention, do not have such rights.
False premise to your argument.

I'm not comparing the situations, I'm asking if you'd like the limitations removed so that we could waterboard american crime suspects.

Ignore he prisoner thing, if you would like for that to be possible here would you, why or why not?

It would depend.

 

[del]

If you can jump for joy and boast about killing Gaddafi's Son & Grandchildren or blowing an unarmed man's face off,you have no right to whine about dunking some brutal Terrorist's head in some water. The War Mongering Left sounds more dishonest and nonsensical by the day. Their phony outrage over Water-Boarding was all about getting the power back. Nothing more,nothing less. And that's the fact Jack.

a few points:

a) i'm neither a warmongerer nor a *leftist*.

b) if you think jeff jacoby is a *leftist*, you're more than a taco short of a combo platter.

c) i didn't jump for joy over OBL's death etc.

 

[del]

Oh sure, then all we get to see are your little tantrums and thinking you've "won" because of it. You DO know, you can actually "see" the comments and keep him on ignore, I hope, if del's comments are copied into someone else's. My guess is you're doing that anyway; that is if you really have him on ignore at all.

I'm almost 115 percent sure that moderators can't be put on ignore.

Poor Rabbi. A little man trapped in his little mind in his little word with his little lies.

Moderators can be put on ignore.
del is a female. Or pretends to be anyway.

Oh. And you suck.

no they can't.

no i'm not.

no i don't.

no he doesn't.

looks like you hit this one out of the park

 

[Dr.Drock]

The word is "elicit", Einstein.

Americans in a civil society have rights that preclude using techniques like waterboarding.
Prisoners, especially those not subject to the Geneva Convention, do not have such rights.
False premise to your argument.

I'm not comparing the situations, I'm asking if you'd like the limitations removed so that we could waterboard american crime suspects.

Ignore he prisoner thing, if you would like for that to be possible here would you, why or why not?

It would depend.

Then why don't you push for it to be used in those situations rather than solely in the situations involving terrorism?

I've never heard one person pushing for it to be done to american suspects.

 

[Valerie]

If you can jump for joy and boast about killing Gaddafi's Son & Grandchildren or blowing an unarmed man's face off,you have no right to whine about dunking some brutal Terrorist's head in some water. The War Mongering Left sounds more dishonest and nonsensical by the day. Their phony outrage over Water-Boarding was all about getting the power back. Nothing more,nothing less. And that's the fact Jack.

a few points:

a) i'm neither a warmongerer nor a *leftist*.

b) if you think jeff jacoby is a *leftist*, you're more than a taco short of a combo platter.

c) i didn't jump for joy over OBL's death etc.

Yep, Jacoby is definitely not a liberal. Good thread del, thanks for posting it...

Jeff Jacoby's column has been published on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe since 1994, when he was hired as a counterweight to the paper's liberal columnists.

Torture is unreliable, since people will often say anything — invent desperate fictions or diversions — to stop the pain or fear. That doesn’t mean waterboarding will never yield valuable information. Feeding a detainee into an industrial shredder, as Saddam Hussein’s torturers sometimes did, might yield valuable information too. But some techniques are forbidden not because they never work, not because they aren’t deserved, but because our very right to call ourselves decent human beings depends in part on our not doing them.

Like chemical and biological warfare, torture is something we refuse to engage in, despite its potential effectiveness, on the grounds that it is fundamentally immoral and uncivilized. Our repudiation of torture is absolute — the international Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, allows for “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever.’’ That unconditional repudiation is one of the lines that separates us from the barbaric jihadists with whom we are at war.

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values.

Ends don?t justify the means - Page 2 - Boston.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'd call you a pussy, but it would be wrong. Pussy rules the world. You? well, oh well.

None of this changes the fact that you have yet to support your position with anything other than "read the Bible".

Sweetness, I gave you authoritative links spanning the spectrum of what was available at the time and now.

So you say. Show this to be the case.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

*goes out of way to show that he is smart/others are stupid.

Show us your not ignorant.

Is waterboarding used to illicit information? If so, then why are those subjected to it asked questions that we already know the answer to?

You do this a lot, learn your vs you're before you call others ignorant.

And don't answer this until a pro-waterboarder answers if they think it's ok to illicit information from americans suspected of crimes in the same way.

Oh brother, Eistein wasn't very good at writing the english language either. So i'm in good company.

Fact is dumbass waterboarding is not used to illicit information it's used to gain compliance. There are other methods employed to bring a criminal suspect into compliance without the need for waterboarding.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Show us your not ignorant.

Is waterboarding used to illicit information? If so, then why are those subjected to it asked questions that we already know the answer to?

You do this a lot, learn your vs you're before you call others ignorant.

And don't answer this until a pro-waterboarder answers if they think it's ok to illicit information from americans suspected of crimes in the same way.

The word is "elicit", Einstein.

Americans in a civil society have rights that preclude using techniques like waterboarding.
Prisoners, especially those not subject to the Geneva Convention, do not have such rights.
False premise to your argument.

You're right!

Damn, elicit it is. I used illicit, still a word just not the correct one.

Shit happens when you get in a hurry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not comparing the situations, I'm asking if you'd like the limitations removed so that we could waterboard american crime suspects.

Ignore he prisoner thing, if you would like for that to be possible here would you, why or why not?

It would depend.

Then why don't you push for it to be used in those situations rather than solely in the situations involving terrorism?

I've never heard one person pushing for it to be done to american suspects.

OK, I'll start. Does that make you feel better? Want a cookie?

Was there a point to that line of questioning?

 

[The Rabbi]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

There's a downside to everything.

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

And there's an upside too.

 

[Valerie]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

That can not be proven and there is actually evidence to the contrary despite a few public opinions expressed since we got OBL...

Are you able to grasp the concept of the end not justifying the means...?

 

[bodecea]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

I can understand YOU not wanting any part of this American victory.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look People if you think you got Bin Laden be happy about it. It was reported Bin Laden died in December 2001 by Al Qedea. Why is that Bush lied from 2003 until 2008 but now he's not lying? What makes you so sure that Bin Laden was still alive after December 2001? Bush needed a reason to go to war and Bin Laden was the reason. Yet the reason we went after Bin Laden wasn't 9/11 in the first place. Now without Bin Laden there would not be any need to go into Iraq. If Bin Laden was a lie then Iraq was a lie, the whole damn war was a lie. But yet now it's not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

I can understand YOU not wanting any part of this American victory.

Yet you reject the means it took to get him? So I ask what victory?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

That can not be proven and there is actually evidence to the contrary despite a few public opinions expressed since we got OBL...

Are you able to grasp the concept of the end not justifying the means...?

I have posted that link at least 2 dozen times where the CIA chief said some of the information was given because of waterboarding.

 

[bodecea]

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

I can understand YOU not wanting any part of this American victory.

Yet you reject the means it took to get him?

I would never reject the SEALS.

So I ask what victory?

I understand from your posts since the announcement that you do not see the taking out of OBL as a victory. I get that totally.

 

[Cal]

WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committees is insisting that enhanced interrogation techniques were not a factor in the discovery of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and he rejected any form of torture.

[...]

McCain addressed his opposition to torture and said it did not play a role in the search for bin Laden in a Washington Post op-ed published on Wednesday:

I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

McCain was a prisoner of war for five and a half years in North Vietnam. He said the U.S. should not compromise its deepest values by using torture tactics.

John McCain: Torture Did Not Lead To Osama Bin Laden (VIDEO)

 

[bodecea]

Without waterboarding this thread would not have exisited

Without waterboarding you would never had gotten your Bin Laden.

That can not be proven and there is actually evidence to the contrary despite a few public opinions expressed since we got OBL...

Are you able to grasp the concept of the end not justifying the means...?

I have posted that link at least 2 dozen times where the CIA chief said some of the information was given because of waterboarding.

And others have posted contrary info. We do not know for sure...and will probably never know for sure. But what the heck....let's sell our souls anyways.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can understand YOU not wanting any part of this American victory.

Yet you reject the means it took to get him?

I would never reject the SEALS.

So I ask what victory?

I understand from your posts since the announcement that you do not see the taking out of OBL as a victory. I get that totally.

I would never reject the SEALS.

Name rank a serial number of the person who was there?

I understand from your posts since the announcement that you do not see the taking out of OBL as a victory. I get that totally

Really? You must have missed a few because you should by now know that Bin Laden wan't wanted for the 9/11 attacks by the FBI.