Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[Sinatra]

Evidence suggests "enhanced interrogation techniques" successfully countered the Second Wave attack on Los Angeles.

One has to wonder - at least those concerned with preserving American lives, of the overwhelming outrage that would have followed if those techniques had not been utilized, and thousands of lives had been lost to that attempted attack, particularly if it was discovered there was opportunity to obtain the information to save those lives was not taken.

There would be seething outrage by the American public. Those whose job it is to secure our safety would be held accountable. Just as some are now attempting to hold them accountable now for shameless political posturing.

Is torture wrong? Yes - but you must take it in context of the situation. There is no simple right and wrong in this ongoing war.

As much as you may find it personally detestable, certain interrogation methods will at times, save lives - perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more.

 

[del]

Personally I would rather be waterboarded than have my head cut off with a dull knife like Daniel Pearl did. But you libs think that you can make nice with these sadistic terrorists, you can't, they are obsessed with killing anyone they consider an infidel. There are no exceptions for LIBERALS.

oh, snap! i've been outed as a liberal.
whatever will i do?

Move to Massachusetts

anything but that!

 

[catzmeow]

do i have to buy a prius?

Actually, real liberals BIKE to work. And only wear organically grown cotton and birkenstocks.

 

[catzmeow]

As much as you may find it personally detestable, certain interrogation methods will at times, save lives - perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more.

And, allowing our government to torture people with impunity endangers 300 million.

Next argument?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Personally I would rather be waterboarded than have my head cut off with a dull knife like Daniel Pearl did. But you libs think that you can make nice with these sadistic terrorists, you can't, they are obsessed with killing anyone they consider an infidel. There are no exceptions for LIBERALS.

I would rather be waterboarded than beheaded as well. What the fuck is your point?

P.S. About making nice with terrorists, how you ever met one? I have.

 

[MaggieMae]

I appreciate the insult, but forgive me if I don't believe you.

Then you don't know me. Simple as that.

Some principles do transcend personal obligations.

And, your reasoning is illogical.

Where do you stop, X? Do you deny dangerous gang members a trial by jury or right to counsel because they pose a threat to the community? Do you put people in jail without right to bond because you don't like their views?

Do you tell military service personnel that they don't really need to leave home and family because wars will fight themselves?

You so fear becoming a victim that you don't realize that you have embraced tyranny. You would create a world in which your children would not WANT to live.

: TELL me not, sweet, I am unkind
: That from nunnery
: Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind,
: To war and arms I fly.

: True, a mew mistress now I chase,
: The first foe in the field;
: And with a stronger faith embrace
: A sword, a horse, a shield.

: Yet this inconstancy is such
: As you too shall adore;
: I could not love thee, dear, so much,
: Loved I not honor more.: Richard Lovelace

I love my children enough to fight to ensure that this country is handed down to them, with all our rights and freedoms intact.

And, your idea that I don't understand the concept of losing a child or dealing with death is simply laughable. YOu don't know me.

I doubt you'd have the stones to do my job for a day.

I risked dying for many years, and depriving my children of a mother, for other people's kids. So that MY KIDS could live in a world where kids don't shoot each other in the streets.

My principles aren't just cozy words.

I understand your principles, but you're painting this issue with too big of a brush. I am talking about people picked up on the battlefield that appear to be fighting for the enemy. You're extending this to every possible case. That's not what I'm talking about.

Let's say a suspected gang member is picked up and the cops think he has valuable information. Should he be tortured? Of course not. Now let's look at members of al-qaida - a known terrorist organization - who have been picked up on the battlefield who might have valuable information. Should they be tortured? It depends on how you define torture. Certainly, cutting off their finger is torture. Waterboarding is in the gray area. Again, if it's personal, most would not hesitate to give the order.

BTW, what is this job of yours that 'I wouldn't have the stones to do'?

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded over 200 times, it can only mean that he knew how the game was played after, say, the fourth or fifth time. Christopher Hitchens, who has strong opinions pro and con on many issues, right and left, offered himself up to be waterboarded. This is both funny and enlightening.

Believe Me, It's Torture | vanityfair.com

Excerpt:
"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered."

 

[del]

do i have to buy a prius?

Actually, real liberals BIKE to work. And only wear organically grown cotton and birkenstocks.

you had me up to the birkenstocks.

yuck

 

[catzmeow]

In answer to Yurt's rep question, I don't HAVE to be a bitch, I just enjoy it. And when you are a stupid fucktard, I enjoy it MORE.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree with her. Does that me a liar too? How a liberal? Maybe a communist?

We have prosecuted war criminals in the past for using these same methods. What does that say about us?

If you agree with her sentiment... yes, you too are lying.

If a bit of "torture" on an individual who was helping plan to kill your family could alter that outcome, you would be all for it.

And if someone had the power to obtain that information, and did not out of some obscure sense of being "better than that" you would be screaming against the injustice of the lost lives of your family.

Yes - you are lying because it is morally convenient to do so. That convenience was paid for in blood.

Feel free to enjoy it - but you sure as hell are not going to fool anyone by it.

Yes, you are lying.

Therefore you would support the police torturing Americans accused of crimes if it might prevent a death.

If you say otherwise you are lying.

the difference here, since you haven't figured it out, is that our laws protect our citizens. And not people from a foreign nation trying to kill Americans.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Evidence suggests "enhanced interrogation techniques" successfully countered the Second Wave attack on Los Angeles.

One has to wonder - at least those concerned with preserving American lives, of the overwhelming outrage that would have followed if those techniques had not been utilized, and thousands of lives had been lost to that attempted attack, particularly if it was discovered there was opportunity to obtain the information to save those lives was not taken.

There would be seething outrage by the American public. Those whose job it is to secure our safety would be held accountable. Just as some are now attempting to hold them accountable now for shameless political posturing.

Is torture wrong? Yes - but you must take it in context of the situation. There is no simple right and wrong in this ongoing war.

As much as you may find it personally detestable, certain interrogation methods will at times, save lives - perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more.

You are right. There is the possibilty of toruture saving lives. But at what cost?

 

[catzmeow]

You had me up to the birkenstocks.

yuck

Part of the liberal uniform. Conform, sheep.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

If you agree with her sentiment... yes, you too are lying.

If a bit of "torture" on an individual who was helping plan to kill your family could alter that outcome, you would be all for it.

And if someone had the power to obtain that information, and did not out of some obscure sense of being "better than that" you would be screaming against the injustice of the lost lives of your family.

Yes - you are lying because it is morally convenient to do so. That convenience was paid for in blood.

Feel free to enjoy it - but you sure as hell are not going to fool anyone by it.

Yes, you are lying.

Therefore you would support the police torturing Americans accused of crimes if it might prevent a death.

If you say otherwise you are lying.

the difference here, since you haven't figured it out, is that our laws protect our citizens. And not people from a foreign nation trying to kill Americans.

You are right, but what about that pesky Geneva Convention.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Evidence suggests "enhanced interrogation techniques" successfully countered the Second Wave attack on Los Angeles.

One has to wonder - at least those concerned with preserving American lives, of the overwhelming outrage that would have followed if those techniques had not been utilized, and thousands of lives had been lost to that attempted attack, particularly if it was discovered there was opportunity to obtain the information to save those lives was not taken.

There would be seething outrage by the American public. Those whose job it is to secure our safety would be held accountable. Just as some are now attempting to hold them accountable now for shameless political posturing.

Is torture wrong? Yes - but you must take it in context of the situation. There is no simple right and wrong in this ongoing war.

As much as you may find it personally detestable, certain interrogation methods will at times, save lives - perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more.

You are right. There is the possibilty of toruture saving lives. But at what cost?

yeah what was the cost? Not one of the terrorists died or was physically harmed in any way.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let me just ask you this catz.. if we don't fight, if we aren't meaner than they are,, and they win,, what then? you think you've done the world a favor with your sacrifical children?

If we become what they are, out of fear, how have we won?

Water boarding is 'becoming what they are'? I don't think so. To sacrifice lives to keep your moral superiority in tact seems like an extremely high cost. Especially when what we're talking about here is causing discomfort and not killing or maiming or permanenetly harming anyone.

How is it that the left's morals are always to be followed and legislated, but when the right talks about morals, then we're 'pushing our views' on everyone else? You'd advocate for the right for a woman to chose to kill her child, but your morals are well in tact when it comes to the treatment of terrorists when it might mean the lives of innocent people. Why is that?

Your use of the 'moral superiority' reasoning behind your attack of waterboarding is nothing more than partisanship. If Obama's administration used the same tactics, you'd be in here defending it to the death.

Obama hasn't ruled out the use of rendition, which I am also strongly against. I think you're projecting an opinion trying to blanket it as left vs. right, when many on the right do not favor terrorism. (And many also do favor abortion, by the way.) Not all issues are strictly partisan.

 

[catzmeow]

yeah what was the cost? Not one of the terrorists died or was physically harmed in any way.

So, you are comfortable with allowing a U.S. government entity to hold people without counsel, to incarcerate them in a hidden prison, and torture them for months?

Why not just move to Cuba? The climate is better.

 

[Yurt]

Sure you can, just don't expect to patted on the head for it around here.

Vets are not above reproach, but Sinatra stepped on his dick here when he turned a discusion on torture into a rant about me baing a lying liar and weak because I took a different position. I can handle being called a liar. Doesn't bother me, but I'll be damned if I'll be called weak or chastised about not respecting the debts that have been payed in blood over a position that is not that uncommon among those of us that have served.

so if you captured an enemy and that enemy had knowledge that if you tortured him for it you would save the life of your entire platoon, you would let them die....

is that right?

Your hypothetical is weak. Try again.

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

 

[Sinatra]

Evidence suggests "enhanced interrogation techniques" successfully countered the Second Wave attack on Los Angeles.

One has to wonder - at least those concerned with preserving American lives, of the overwhelming outrage that would have followed if those techniques had not been utilized, and thousands of lives had been lost to that attempted attack, particularly if it was discovered there was opportunity to obtain the information to save those lives was not taken.

There would be seething outrage by the American public. Those whose job it is to secure our safety would be held accountable. Just as some are now attempting to hold them accountable now for shameless political posturing.

Is torture wrong? Yes - but you must take it in context of the situation. There is no simple right and wrong in this ongoing war.

As much as you may find it personally detestable, certain interrogation methods will at times, save lives - perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more.

You are right. There is the possibilty of toruture saving lives. But at what cost?

I agree it is a risk.

Perhaps this is an overly personal issue for me, but I have not come to this conclusion lightly, and feel it necessary that we give our agencies the ability to save American lives - and the facts appear to show that in fact, such ability has saved lives.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Evidence suggests "enhanced interrogation techniques" successfully countered the Second Wave attack on Los Angeles.

One has to wonder - at least those concerned with preserving American lives, of the overwhelming outrage that would have followed if those techniques had not been utilized, and thousands of lives had been lost to that attempted attack, particularly if it was discovered there was opportunity to obtain the information to save those lives was not taken.

There would be seething outrage by the American public. Those whose job it is to secure our safety would be held accountable. Just as some are now attempting to hold them accountable now for shameless political posturing.

Is torture wrong? Yes - but you must take it in context of the situation. There is no simple right and wrong in this ongoing war.

As much as you may find it personally detestable, certain interrogation methods will at times, save lives - perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more.

You are right. There is the possibilty of toruture saving lives. But at what cost?

yeah what was the cost? Not one of the terrorists died or was physically harmed in any way.

You are thinking too small here. I could give a rats ass about the life of an enemy combatant. My problem here is the bigger picture. What does it say about our society if we feel the need to defend it by resorting to types of behavior we fought against in the past?

 

[catzmeow]

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

How about we torture no one, and remain true to our national honor, bill of rights, and the geneva convention?

I value the lives of our service personnel. Thus, I do not want my government to torture enemy combatants, because it makes it more likely that OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL will be tortured if they are captured.

.

 

[Iriemon]

If you agree with her sentiment... yes, you too are lying.

If a bit of "torture" on an individual who was helping plan to kill your family could alter that outcome, you would be all for it.

And if someone had the power to obtain that information, and did not out of some obscure sense of being "better than that" you would be screaming against the injustice of the lost lives of your family.

Yes - you are lying because it is morally convenient to do so. That convenience was paid for in blood.

Feel free to enjoy it - but you sure as hell are not going to fool anyone by it.

Yes, you are lying.

Therefore you would support the police torturing Americans accused of crimes if it might prevent a death.

If you say otherwise you are lying.

the difference here, since you haven't figured it out, is that our laws protect our citizens. And not people from a foreign nation trying to kill Americans.

If you base your moral compass upon legal technicalities that's up to you.

Correct me if I mistate your position, but you generally support torture because it could lead to information. But you generally don't support torture of Americans even though it could lead to information. Aside from laws, why is it OK to torture non-Americans but not Americans? Just because you are an American? That means its OK for other nations to torture Americans who travel there?

And there are laws against torturing people from foreign nations.