A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[Wicked Jester]

No. But waterboarding is torture.

No, it's not!

Get a fucking clue.

In your world, you applaud Amerika as a torturing nation. You probably would like to watch.

We don't torture.......So, nice try!

 

[Antiderivative]

America is a torturing nation. We also imprison people without trying them. That is reality and reality is incongruent with American principles. However, that doesn't stop rw cheerleaders from cheering on blatantly un-American principles.

 

[slukasiewski]

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

No. But waterboarding is torture.

And dragging a serviceman through the streets and beheading him is not?

You're more "stupider" than originally thought.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Deflection to Obama started there.

What's the matter Bodey, you don't l;ike the fact that it's been fully proven on this thread that liberals are only calling it torure, because it was a Bush policy, and that your beloved loony liberal heros like Barry Sotero were proven wrong on its effectiveness?

Oh...we aren't calling it torture now? (Hint: Bush is no longer president)

Yeah, that's what I thought.

That's some funny stuff right there!

Now, get your lying ass back over to that other thread and explain yourself.

Good lords, are you STILL crying? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Or our current Speaker of the House?

Why are you so unwilling to get back to that thread and explain yourself?.....You've made that same claim many times, but don't seem to be able to explain.

 

[Antiderivative]

Why are you so unwilling to get back to that thread and explain yourself?.....You've made that same claim many times, but don't seem to be able to explain.

It's called being a troll and bodecea excels at it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was quoting John McCain.

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

 

[bodecea]

What's the matter Bodey, you don't l;ike the fact that it's been fully proven on this thread that liberals are only calling it torure, because it was a Bush policy, and that your beloved loony liberal heros like Barry Sotero were proven wrong on its effectiveness?

Oh...we aren't calling it torture now? (Hint: Bush is no longer president)



That's some funny stuff right there!

Now, get your lying ass back over to that other thread and explain yourself.

Good lords, are you STILL crying? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Or our current Speaker of the House?

Why are you so unwilling to get back to that thread and explain yourself?.....You've made that same claim many times, but don't seem to be able to explain.

You are SOOOO invested in that, aren't you? That's the really funny part.

 

[bodecea]

Why are you so unwilling to get back to that thread and explain yourself?.....You've made that same claim many times, but don't seem to be able to explain.

It's called being a troll and bodecea excels at it.

And you are who again?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Oh...we aren't calling it torture now? (Hint: Bush is no longer president)



That's some funny stuff right there!




Good lords, are you STILL crying? Are you sure you aren't Glenn Beck? Or our current Speaker of the House?

Why are you so unwilling to get back to that thread and explain yourself?.....You've made that same claim many times, but don't seem to be able to explain.

You are SOOOO invested in that, aren't you? That's the really funny part.

Nooooooooo, i'm just amused at the obvious.

 

[Wicked Jester]

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

It's a non-torturous tool that should always be in the box for use on those who would undoubtedly know the info we seek........The upper leadership, planners, and financiers.

There is no sense in using it on standard lower echelon EC's......They are not going to have the meat and potatos of a plan.......Any more than an E-1 would.

 

[bodecea]

Why are you so unwilling to get back to that thread and explain yourself?.....You've made that same claim many times, but don't seem to be able to explain.

You are SOOOO invested in that, aren't you? That's the really funny part.

Nooooooooo, i'm just amused at the obvious.

Of course. Run with that....in all the threads you keep bringing it up in.

 

[Valerie]

There's really not much difference between a Democrat and John McCain.

I wonder though. Would you folks consider depriving prisoners of television, radio, reading material, and/or any form of recreation to be torture?

Would putting somebody in the 'hole' in the dark for a day or more than a day be torture?

As a discplinary measure, is putting a prisoner on nothing but bread and water and vitamin supplements for a period of time torture?

Is depriving a prisoner of a soft bed or putting him in a tent or requiring him to wear pink underwear and clothing torture?

Is requiring prisoners to do manual labor torture?

Is keeping a prisoner isolated and unable to communicate with other prisoners torture?

Is making any kind of threat that generates fear torture?

Is putting a prisoner in with the general population where he will be subject to sexual assault, beatings, or other mistreatment torture?

Is any form of discomfort or unpleasantry forced on a prisoner torture?

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

Again, some Secret Service agent in some movie you saw shot off a toe and got the info he needed to save the day.......I'm sure it was very compelling and dramatic and all, yet my opinion of the OP still does not budge. Honest.

You keep saying you don't support it in the least while proceeding to rationalize it in the next breath, so whatever the difference is, only your own intellectual honesty can know for sure...




For the record, my friend, I was rolling my eyes at your list of "unpleasantries"

Effectiveness of torture

In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter—productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to 'Longshank.' The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king who caused her to be tried; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example,

1) Four days after the war started and two days after he was captured, an American lieutenant was heard broadcasting over Radio Seoul on behalf of his North Korean 'liberators.' He was followed by others making similar statements and even confessions of using germ warfare weapons. It wasn't long before a journalist explained what was happening to them: 'Americans are being brainwashed in Korea.' Although these men were not 'tortured'——as defined at the time by the U.S. Army: 'the application of pain so extreme that it causes a man to faint or lose control of his will'——they were coerced and abused into saying what the Koreans/Chinese wanted them to say.

2) During the Vietnam War, Americans were, in the most profound sense of the word, tortured into making confessions of using bacteriological weapons against the North Vietnamese and other acts considered to be criminal by the world community: statements the Americans knew were false.

3) According to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, duress, coercion, and violence (threatened or performed) have led innocent Americans to confess to crimes they did not perpetrate. The Project reports that '33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations involve false confessions or admissions.'

4) On 27 May 2004, The New York Times reported that on 30 August 2003, LTC Alvin B. West, an artillery battalion commander, detained an Iraqi police officer named Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi for interrogation because West believed the officer knew about a 'plot to ambush him and his men.' West 'made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force . . . [even though he previously] had never conducted or witnessed an interrogation.' The Interrogation of Hamoodi, that included hitting him and threatening his life, failed to produce the desired answers. West then fired his pistol next to his head. Hamoodi gave West the names of several men who were purportedly involved in an effort to kill him. One man was picked up and shortly thereafter released; none of the named men were determined to be involved in the so—called plot. Later, 'Mr. Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain.'

5) According to a 12 June 2004 Navy Times story, two Marines, during 'motion hearings' held on 28 & 29 June 2004, faced charges in connection with the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52—year—old Baath party member who was being held in a makeshift detention center outside Nasiriya. Allegedly, Hatab had been struck and kicked on 4 June 2003 and the following day was lethargic and had defecated on himself. On 6 June, he was found dead.

As these examples show, the use of torture and/or abusive techniques frequently fails to elicit the desired response, at times produces a false response, and can result in the death of a potential source of information: A dead source is no source of information!

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

 

[Foxfyre]

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

Again, some Secret Service agent in some movie you saw shot off a toe and got the info he needed to save the day.......I'm sure it was very compelling and dramatic and all, yet my opinion of the OP still does not budge. Honest.

You keep saying you don't support it in the least while proceeding to rationalize it in the next breath, so whatever the difference is, only your own intellectual honesty can know for sure...




For the record, my friend, I was rolling my eyes at your list of "unpleasantries"

Effectiveness of torture

In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter—productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to 'Longshank.' The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king who caused her to be tried; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example,

1) Four days after the war started and two days after he was captured, an American lieutenant was heard broadcasting over Radio Seoul on behalf of his North Korean 'liberators.' He was followed by others making similar statements and even confessions of using germ warfare weapons. It wasn't long before a journalist explained what was happening to them: 'Americans are being brainwashed in Korea.' Although these men were not 'tortured'——as defined at the time by the U.S. Army: 'the application of pain so extreme that it causes a man to faint or lose control of his will'——they were coerced and abused into saying what the Koreans/Chinese wanted them to say.

2) During the Vietnam War, Americans were, in the most profound sense of the word, tortured into making confessions of using bacteriological weapons against the North Vietnamese and other acts considered to be criminal by the world community: statements the Americans knew were false.

3) According to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, duress, coercion, and violence (threatened or performed) have led innocent Americans to confess to crimes they did not perpetrate. The Project reports that '33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations involve false confessions or admissions.'

4) On 27 May 2004, The New York Times reported that on 30 August 2003, LTC Alvin B. West, an artillery battalion commander, detained an Iraqi police officer named Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi for interrogation because West believed the officer knew about a 'plot to ambush him and his men.' West 'made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force . . . [even though he previously] had never conducted or witnessed an interrogation.' The Interrogation of Hamoodi, that included hitting him and threatening his life, failed to produce the desired answers. West then fired his pistol next to his head. Hamoodi gave West the names of several men who were purportedly involved in an effort to kill him. One man was picked up and shortly thereafter released; none of the named men were determined to be involved in the so—called plot. Later, 'Mr. Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain.'

5) According to a 12 June 2004 Navy Times story, two Marines, during 'motion hearings' held on 28 & 29 June 2004, faced charges in connection with the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52—year—old Baath party member who was being held in a makeshift detention center outside Nasiriya. Allegedly, Hatab had been struck and kicked on 4 June 2003 and the following day was lethargic and had defecated on himself. On 6 June, he was found dead.

As these examples show, the use of torture and/or abusive techniques frequently fails to elicit the desired response, at times produces a false response, and can result in the death of a potential source of information: A dead source is no source of information!

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

Yes it was a scene in a movie, but it illustrates the point I am making. The intellectually honest will see that. The ideologically blind cannot see it. And I do believe that is the truth.

You follow my post with a list of incidents far different than waterboarding as it has been used by Americans and probably don't see how much of a non sequitur that is.

Or is your intent to make the reader believe that the non lethal, non injurious, non painful act of waterboarding a person for 10 to 15 seconds is the same thing as the incidents you just posted? You honestly see no difference?

And what is it in the water that liberals drink that makes them unable to focus on the point being made? That standard policy, procedure, mandates, rules that are rigidly enforced under normal circumstances may not apply in a crisis situation in which innocent lives are at stake and time is of the essence.

And the Secret Service Agent and that toe are a perfect illustration of that. And one that so far no leftist on this thread has even been willing to acknowledge, much less think about with any intellectual honesty.

 

[Antiderivative]

American Thinker is not a valid site to support arguments.

 

[Liability]

American Thinker is not a valid site to support arguments.

Silly assertion.

It is no less valid and no more valid than any other site to support any argument.

As a rule, citation to "sites" never support an assertion. They only provide the basis for a claim. Some are factual in nature; some are merely opinions.

Around here, people actually cite to The Huffnpuff site, for Jiminy's sake.

 

[Valerie]

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

Again, some Secret Service agent in some movie you saw shot off a toe and got the info he needed to save the day.......I'm sure it was very compelling and dramatic and all, yet my opinion of the OP still does not budge. Honest.

You keep saying you don't support it in the least while proceeding to rationalize it in the next breath, so whatever the difference is, only your own intellectual honesty can know for sure...




For the record, my friend, I was rolling my eyes at your list of "unpleasantries"

Effectiveness of torture

In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter—productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to 'Longshank.' The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king who caused her to be tried; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example,

1) Four days after the war started and two days after he was captured, an American lieutenant was heard broadcasting over Radio Seoul on behalf of his North Korean 'liberators.' He was followed by others making similar statements and even confessions of using germ warfare weapons. It wasn't long before a journalist explained what was happening to them: 'Americans are being brainwashed in Korea.' Although these men were not 'tortured'——as defined at the time by the U.S. Army: 'the application of pain so extreme that it causes a man to faint or lose control of his will'——they were coerced and abused into saying what the Koreans/Chinese wanted them to say.

2) During the Vietnam War, Americans were, in the most profound sense of the word, tortured into making confessions of using bacteriological weapons against the North Vietnamese and other acts considered to be criminal by the world community: statements the Americans knew were false.

3) According to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, duress, coercion, and violence (threatened or performed) have led innocent Americans to confess to crimes they did not perpetrate. The Project reports that '33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations involve false confessions or admissions.'

4) On 27 May 2004, The New York Times reported that on 30 August 2003, LTC Alvin B. West, an artillery battalion commander, detained an Iraqi police officer named Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi for interrogation because West believed the officer knew about a 'plot to ambush him and his men.' West 'made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force . . . [even though he previously] had never conducted or witnessed an interrogation.' The Interrogation of Hamoodi, that included hitting him and threatening his life, failed to produce the desired answers. West then fired his pistol next to his head. Hamoodi gave West the names of several men who were purportedly involved in an effort to kill him. One man was picked up and shortly thereafter released; none of the named men were determined to be involved in the so—called plot. Later, 'Mr. Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain.'

5) According to a 12 June 2004 Navy Times story, two Marines, during 'motion hearings' held on 28 & 29 June 2004, faced charges in connection with the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52—year—old Baath party member who was being held in a makeshift detention center outside Nasiriya. Allegedly, Hatab had been struck and kicked on 4 June 2003 and the following day was lethargic and had defecated on himself. On 6 June, he was found dead.

As these examples show, the use of torture and/or abusive techniques frequently fails to elicit the desired response, at times produces a false response, and can result in the death of a potential source of information: A dead source is no source of information!

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

Yes it was a scene in a movie, but it illustrates the point I am making. The intellectually honest will see that. The ideologically blind cannot see it. And I do believe that is the truth.

You follow my post with a list of incidents far different than waterboarding as it has been used by Americans and probably don't see how much of a non sequitur that is.

Or is your intent to make the reader believe that the non lethal, non injurious, non painful act of waterboarding a person for 10 to 15 seconds is the same thing as the incidents you just posted? You honestly see no difference?

And what is it in the water that liberals drink that makes them unable to focus on the point being made? That standard policy, procedure, mandates, rules that are rigidly enforced under normal circumstances may not apply in a crisis situation in which innocent lives are at stake and time is of the essence.

And the Secret Service Agent and that toe are a perfect illustration of that. And one that so far no leftist on this thread has even been willing to acknowledge, much less think about with any intellectual honesty.

So you want to call me dishonest and still call yourself my friend...?

 

[Ravi]

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

Again, some Secret Service agent in some movie you saw shot off a toe and got the info he needed to save the day.......I'm sure it was very compelling and dramatic and all, yet my opinion of the OP still does not budge. Honest.

You keep saying you don't support it in the least while proceeding to rationalize it in the next breath, so whatever the difference is, only your own intellectual honesty can know for sure...




For the record, my friend, I was rolling my eyes at your list of "unpleasantries"

Effectiveness of torture

In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter—productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to 'Longshank.' The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king who caused her to be tried; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example,

1) Four days after the war started and two days after he was captured, an American lieutenant was heard broadcasting over Radio Seoul on behalf of his North Korean 'liberators.' He was followed by others making similar statements and even confessions of using germ warfare weapons. It wasn't long before a journalist explained what was happening to them: 'Americans are being brainwashed in Korea.' Although these men were not 'tortured'——as defined at the time by the U.S. Army: 'the application of pain so extreme that it causes a man to faint or lose control of his will'——they were coerced and abused into saying what the Koreans/Chinese wanted them to say.

2) During the Vietnam War, Americans were, in the most profound sense of the word, tortured into making confessions of using bacteriological weapons against the North Vietnamese and other acts considered to be criminal by the world community: statements the Americans knew were false.

3) According to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, duress, coercion, and violence (threatened or performed) have led innocent Americans to confess to crimes they did not perpetrate. The Project reports that '33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations involve false confessions or admissions.'

4) On 27 May 2004, The New York Times reported that on 30 August 2003, LTC Alvin B. West, an artillery battalion commander, detained an Iraqi police officer named Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi for interrogation because West believed the officer knew about a 'plot to ambush him and his men.' West 'made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force . . . [even though he previously] had never conducted or witnessed an interrogation.' The Interrogation of Hamoodi, that included hitting him and threatening his life, failed to produce the desired answers. West then fired his pistol next to his head. Hamoodi gave West the names of several men who were purportedly involved in an effort to kill him. One man was picked up and shortly thereafter released; none of the named men were determined to be involved in the so—called plot. Later, 'Mr. Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain.'

5) According to a 12 June 2004 Navy Times story, two Marines, during 'motion hearings' held on 28 & 29 June 2004, faced charges in connection with the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52—year—old Baath party member who was being held in a makeshift detention center outside Nasiriya. Allegedly, Hatab had been struck and kicked on 4 June 2003 and the following day was lethargic and had defecated on himself. On 6 June, he was found dead.

As these examples show, the use of torture and/or abusive techniques frequently fails to elicit the desired response, at times produces a false response, and can result in the death of a potential source of information: A dead source is no source of information!

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

It is pretty funny watching someone on the right basing their beliefs on a Hollywood movie.

I just saw some pundit make a pretty decent point. If Bush was into torture, why didn't he torture the Iraqis to find out if they had WMD? Answer: because no answer would have satisfied him, he'd believe what he wanted to believe.

 

[elvis]

Roll your eyes all you want my friend--(and Valerie IS a friend though we disagree on some key points of this subject)--but I was trying to make a point here.

The length of time anybody is waterboarded the way we have done waterboarding is about 10 to 15 seconds. And then it's over. That is enough to create extreme terror in the heart of the one waterboarded but causes no pain or injury and is always done under close medical supervision to ensure that if there are any physical/mental consequences, those will be addressed immediately.

Now is this something we should be doing to people as a policy? Of course not. And I have repeatedly said so.

But intellectual honesty requires that we at least realize that waterboarding is NOT the same thing as causing extreme pain, injury, maiming, or slowly and painfully killing somebody that would be MY definition of torture. To equate waterboarding with that is to trivialize torture as much as to equate pushing and shoving as no different than assault and battery that causes injury or death.

It's like saying the parent who gives his/her kid a quick disciplinary swat on the rear is as guilty of child abuse as those who burn their kids with cigarettes or break their bones or threaten to do so.

Several of those items on my list can cause extreme discomfort and unpleasantries for prisoners and some are far more dangerous and hazardous to their health which waterboarding the way we have done it is not. Put a prisoner afraid of insects or rodents or afraid of the dark or claustrophobic into small, dark, confinement for a prolonged period and that is far more physically and psychologically damaging than waterboarding would be.

Waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation should not be standard policy for the USA or any decent country. But let's at least be intellectually honest and keep it in it proper perspective.

And let's understand that if it comes to the welfare or comfort of a prisoner who absolutely has information that would allow us to stop the death and maiming of large numbers of innocent people, a different morality kicks in and a different standard may have to apply.

Should the Secret Agent have shot off that toe? That, in a nutshell, is what the intellectually honest will think about.

Again, some Secret Service agent in some movie you saw shot off a toe and got the info he needed to save the day.......I'm sure it was very compelling and dramatic and all, yet my opinion of the OP still does not budge. Honest.

You keep saying you don't support it in the least while proceeding to rationalize it in the next breath, so whatever the difference is, only your own intellectual honesty can know for sure...




For the record, my friend, I was rolling my eyes at your list of "unpleasantries"

Effectiveness of torture

In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter—productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to 'Longshank.' The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king who caused her to be tried; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example,

1) Four days after the war started and two days after he was captured, an American lieutenant was heard broadcasting over Radio Seoul on behalf of his North Korean 'liberators.' He was followed by others making similar statements and even confessions of using germ warfare weapons. It wasn't long before a journalist explained what was happening to them: 'Americans are being brainwashed in Korea.' Although these men were not 'tortured'——as defined at the time by the U.S. Army: 'the application of pain so extreme that it causes a man to faint or lose control of his will'——they were coerced and abused into saying what the Koreans/Chinese wanted them to say.

2) During the Vietnam War, Americans were, in the most profound sense of the word, tortured into making confessions of using bacteriological weapons against the North Vietnamese and other acts considered to be criminal by the world community: statements the Americans knew were false.

3) According to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, duress, coercion, and violence (threatened or performed) have led innocent Americans to confess to crimes they did not perpetrate. The Project reports that '33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations involve false confessions or admissions.'

4) On 27 May 2004, The New York Times reported that on 30 August 2003, LTC Alvin B. West, an artillery battalion commander, detained an Iraqi police officer named Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi for interrogation because West believed the officer knew about a 'plot to ambush him and his men.' West 'made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force . . . [even though he previously] had never conducted or witnessed an interrogation.' The Interrogation of Hamoodi, that included hitting him and threatening his life, failed to produce the desired answers. West then fired his pistol next to his head. Hamoodi gave West the names of several men who were purportedly involved in an effort to kill him. One man was picked up and shortly thereafter released; none of the named men were determined to be involved in the so—called plot. Later, 'Mr. Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain.'

5) According to a 12 June 2004 Navy Times story, two Marines, during 'motion hearings' held on 28 & 29 June 2004, faced charges in connection with the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52—year—old Baath party member who was being held in a makeshift detention center outside Nasiriya. Allegedly, Hatab had been struck and kicked on 4 June 2003 and the following day was lethargic and had defecated on himself. On 6 June, he was found dead.

As these examples show, the use of torture and/or abusive techniques frequently fails to elicit the desired response, at times produces a false response, and can result in the death of a potential source of information: A dead source is no source of information!

American Thinker: Torture as an interrogation technique

It is pretty funny watching someone on the right basing their beliefs on a Hollywood movie.

I just saw some pundit make a pretty decent point. If Bush was into torture, why didn't he torture the Iraqis to find out if they had WMD? Answer: because no answer would have satisfied him, he'd believe what he wanted to believe.

I think Bush believed in Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle.

 

[Ravi]

Again, some Secret Service agent in some movie you saw shot off a toe and got the info he needed to save the day.......I'm sure it was very compelling and dramatic and all, yet my opinion of the OP still does not budge. Honest.

You keep saying you don't support it in the least while proceeding to rationalize it in the next breath, so whatever the difference is, only your own intellectual honesty can know for sure...




For the record, my friend, I was rolling my eyes at your list of "unpleasantries"

It is pretty funny watching someone on the right basing their beliefs on a Hollywood movie.

I just saw some pundit make a pretty decent point. If Bush was into torture, why didn't he torture the Iraqis to find out if they had WMD? Answer: because no answer would have satisfied him, he'd believe what he wanted to believe.

I think Bush believed in Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle.

Perhaps. It doesn't change my point.

I did once see a movie, I think it was Die Hard 48, where Bruce Willis held hands with terrorists and sang Kumbya and they melted like little children and he was able to stop a plot that would have blown up the state of Florida.

I think we should try this method with anyone with bad intent.

 

[L.K.Eder]

It is pretty funny watching someone on the right basing their beliefs on a Hollywood movie.

I just saw some pundit make a pretty decent point. If Bush was into torture, why didn't he torture the Iraqis to find out if they had WMD? Answer: because no answer would have satisfied him, he'd believe what he wanted to believe.

I think Bush believed in Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle.

Perhaps. It doesn't change my point.

I did once see a movie, I think it was Die Hard 48, where Bruce Willis held hands with terrorists and sang Kumbya and they melted like little children and he was able to stop a plot that would have blown up the state of Florida.

I think we should try this method with anyone with bad intent.

and if that is not working, they can try the goold old bad cop, bad cop routine

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA9ZCWA2iPk"]YouTube - The Other Guys (Bad Cop, Bad Cop)[/ame]