As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.
IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.
And what would shoting an unarmed man be?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.
IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.
As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.
IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.
And that's just another prime example as to how abjectly stupid you are.As of yet, no one that has committed torture is willing to admit it or own up it. Instead they hide or deflect and say it wasn't torture.
IMO, they are not much better than terrorists.
"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldnt 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 wasnt 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont justify the means - The Boston Globe
Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]()
"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldnt 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 wasnt 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont justify the means - The Boston Globe
Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]()
One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, FUCK OFF you pompous ass....
Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....
"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldnt 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 wasnt 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont justify the means - The Boston Globe
Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]()
One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, FUCK OFF you pompous ass....
Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....
thanks for sharing.
I think that those who DO the waterboarding, who DO the questioning after waterboarding....should have the experience for themselves first....no holds barred.....useful data collecting and all.....mind you.
Moral of the story - waterboarding, which leaves no permenant damage, is wrong. Putting a bullet in an someone's head is A-OK.
Liberal logic at its best folks.
So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.
I hope they are water boarding all of Osama's widows as we speak, if for no other reason than to get the taste of camel ass out of their mouths.
lead paint chips aren't snack food
The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.Moral of the story - waterboarding, which leaves no permenant damage, is wrong. Putting a bullet in an someone's head is A-OK.
Liberal logic at its best folks.
So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.
Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.
The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.
Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.
Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.
I am saying, Valerie, that if hundreds or thousands of innocent lives are at stake and time is of the essence, I don't think we can be too picky about what they do to a terrorist to get the information necessary to stop those deaths from happening.
I think intellectual honesty requires that we at least look at that.
It's all well and good to say that honorable people stand on principle and that Christians would not violate their principles no matter what. But what about a principle of savings hundreds or thousands of innocent lives and doing whatever is necessary to do that?
It's sort of the principle involved in dropping the Atomic bomb. Is it justifiable to kill tens of thousands to save millions? That was the choice our leaders were up against at that time.
Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.
It is the situation that probably resulted in the directive to the Navy Seals to shoot on sight. Unlike the Nazi leaders in Germany, we were dealing with a person who was plotting and who was capable of causing thousands of more deaths to innocents in the USA and elsewhere. Was it necessary to shoot him? I don't know. I can't celebrate that, but I also can't find it in my heart to feel real bad about the fact they did.
Intellectual honesty requires that all this be included in the debate.
America is still in a situation where we are being threatened with a potential crisis situation where hundreds or thousands of innocent lives could be lost...
The author of the article is not a "lefty", del is not a "lefty", the US Military JAGS, Colin Powell, not "lefties"... This is not a matter of left/right politics, but a matter of long standing American principles, that is the entire point of the OP, so I'm not sure why you imagine lefties should come in here and speculate about hypotheticals which would justify torture...???
I wasn't referring to the article in the OP, however, when I made my observation. And yes, it was an ad hominem observation, but it is an honest observation just the same.
The degree of 'terribleness' of any controversial activity is too often determined by which political party, religion, group, person etc. does it.
It was based on long experience with a pronounced double standard too often applied based on ideology or political party or sociopolitical leanings.
Old Rocks negs me because he says I am advocating torture which I have not done at any time in any fashion.
I have been clear that that our national policy is and should be that cruel and inhumane treatment is neither condoned nor utliized.
I have been clear that I will condemn any enhanced interrogation used to find out whether or if somebody knows something useful. And I certainly will strongly consign to hell those who would do that for their amusement.
Nor have I bashed the left or liberals in this discussion but rather only observed the usual M.O. (actually from both sides) that an action is usually condoned or condemned according to who does it. At least that was my intent.
And I have observed that almost nobody is willing to even consider whether that secret agent was justified in shooting off that toe,
or whether one would of necessity look the other way should enhanced interrogation be utilized in a matter in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were in imminent danger.
For me, intellectual honesty includes what may be necessary as well as what must be policy.
Are you saying torture may sometimes be necessary or not???
>>>
I'm saying that the leftwing will NOT even look at, much less discuss, what they would do in a crisis situation in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were at stake. The conservatives have at least acknowledged they would not apply the standard policy at such times. I used an illustration from a scene in "Guarding Tess" and said it would be ignored. It was.
And I think I know how it works well enough to believe that had the Annointed One been the one to use waterboarding to get useful information on the whereabout of bin Laden instead of that happening during the Bush Administraation, we probably would not have enough discussion about it to fill twenty seven pages of a thread now.
The current administration did act on intelligence that was obtained by President Bush.
In my my book, some things go way beyond politics... I think it's sad some people have such little faith in the intentions of their fellow Americans...
fox said:And I have observed that almost nobody is willing to even consider whether that secret agent was justified in shooting off that toe,
or whether one would of necessity look the other way should enhanced interrogation be utilized in a matter in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were in imminent danger.
fox said:Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.![]()
The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.So, we should be a "cruel and unusual punishment" country now as well as a death sentence country.
Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.
Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.
The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.Yes, a "cruel and unusual punishment" for cruel and unusal terrorists.
Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.
Yes, I agree with this.
If water boarding (water torture) was determined to be torture by the USA previously, WHY OH WHY would it not be considered torture now?
Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.
"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture." History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding - ABC News
I just do not see what makes it ok now if it was not ok with the USA before?
"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldnt 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 wasnt 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont justify the means - The Boston Globe
Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]()
One of my family members is in danger of being killed by one of these deranged Islamic cowards and your questioning the morals of a faked drowning? I'll let God be my judge on this, as for you, FUCK OFF you pompous ass....
Screw water boarding, you want to talk about REAL torture, start pulling some finger nails, there are some truly painful treatments that could be performed, until then leave it alone....
I think that those who DO the waterboarding, who DO the questioning after waterboarding....should have the experience for themselves first....no holds barred.....useful data collecting and all.....mind you.
They DO...
It's part of training...