CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attac

[sealybobo]

Well then here you go, a source that refutes the Murdoch news outlet claim that "The Memos prove we didn't torture":

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail — like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.’s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

...

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.’s methods and the Justice Department’s long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U., were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.

...

The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?hp

The memos sure "prove" that there was no torture as the Murdoch Street Journal asserts.

The fact that we prosecuted Japanese for torture for doing the same damn thing must just be a "historical anamoly" in thier eyes.

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

He'll reply, "oh you don't think it is being done", but he won't answer whether or not he approves of this being done to them.

And he won't admit that us doing this increases the likelyhood that it will happen to our soldiers when they are caught.

And no, most US soldiers captured are probably not tortured, because the country who captured them don't want us paying them back with bombs.

Was Jill Carroll tortured? Jill Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think she was.

 

[Iriemon]

No, unlike you, i would try to find a source that refuted your claim.

you see, it's easy to avoid a discussion when you say "your source sucks"

What's that the "I know you are but what am I" school of debate?

Well then here you go, a source that refutes the Murdoch news outlet claim that "The Memos prove we didn't torture":

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail — like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.’s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

...

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.’s methods and the Justice Department’s long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U., were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.

...

The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?hp

The memos sure "prove" that there was no torture as the Murdoch Street Journal asserts.

The fact that we prosecuted Japanese for torture for doing the same damn thing must just be a "historical anamoly" in thier eyes.

another source that refute your NYT claims (courtesy of Politicalchic....thank youPC)

washingtonpost.com

The Bush administration justice department that was doing everything it could to sanction torture we fucking prosecuted Japanese for war crimes for doing concluded that torturing was beneficial.

Well, hell, what more proof do you need?

 

[sealybobo]

says the fucking asshole that thinks that just because there is a new owner at a paper that EVERYTHING wasn changed in how they do their business

you are a fucking moron

Do you think he would ever report on something that was unfavorable to Republicans or Corporations?

Want to show me one fucking example?

Do you even read the paper?

And if Fox News is any indication, you're a fucking moron.

i've seen them report on things bad for repiublicans
you are a fucking idiot

Yea, minor things that don't mean a rats ass in the grand scheme of things. Watch MSNBC and see the difference. Truth vs. spin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thousands? You have a link proving that?

And it's not a lame argument. We live in a world where that scenario is more than plausible. you have forgotten 3000 dead on 9/11?

If we had actionable intelligence procured via waterboarding and managed to stop those planes from being hijacked, you would still be whining?

Do I need to prove we have thousands in prison or do I need to prove we tortured over 1000.

Thousands of Iraqis held by U.S. to go free
No charges expected against many detainees picked up in raids

Thousands of Iraqis held by U.S. to go free - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

Claims of torture
Abdullah is suing two private U.S. security contractor firms that he said tortured him for a month while being detained at Abu Ghraib in 2003. A U.S. military spokesman confirmed Abdullah's detention at Bucca but did not provide details about his time at Abu Ghraib.

International law allows the capture and detention of people who are considered an "imperative" national security threat during times of war or conflict. However, human-rights groups like Amnesty International have argued that the United States violated detainees' legal rights by holding them without charge after Iraq was declared a sovereign nation in June 2004.

That argument largely became moot with the Jan. 1 agreement. The U.S. currently is referring up to 1,500 detainees cases to Iraqis each month for review.

you said "thousands were tortured" not thousands were held in prisons. Or is mere incarceration now considered torture?

Torture? You want torture?

"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”
See men shredded, then say you don't back war -Times Online

 

[jillian]

And people wonder why this country is going to hell???? You got liberals out there wanting to fight other Americans more than terrorists....

Actually, if the country was going to hell...it isn't any longer.... despite the best efforts of loonies like you to drag it into the gutter so we're no better than the people we rail against.

btw,.... thanks for yet another misleading, garbage thread... the ONLY outlet saying that an attack was stopped BECAUSE of waterboarding are the wingnuts at CNS. In fact, as of this morning, the truth was, supposedly Dick Cheney was squealing like a pig begging for them to declassify some more memos to show that some good came out of waterboarding.

If it isn't garbage... and given that you posted it, we know it is... where aer the prosecutions? the charges? oh right... the evidence would have been obtained ILLEGALLY and excluded from any court proceeding.

Good job, Sherlock.

What we DO know, is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was waterboarded 183 times... that would be six times a day for 31 days.

yep.. that's what we want the U.S. to be known for...yeppers.

Now...if it were up to you, how are we any better than the bad guys again?

 

[sealybobo]

Like I said earlier, if radical left lugnuts and ACLU-types achieve high legal restrictions on interrogation, places like Guantanamo will be empty. But we will still obtain the information we need. It is all theatre.

Yes, and we'll get our standing back with the rest of the world.

You guys act like you prefer the reputation Bush gave our country. Is that it? You want the rest of the world to think we are crazy so they don't fuck with us?

Yes, we will torture someone if we truly believe they have some valuable information.

But we won't torture thousands and hold them indefinately.

This is America, in case you forgot. You can make fun of ACLU types, but god bless them. They keep us safe from tyrants like you.

As wrong as the far left is, so is the far right. And you guys are far right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well then here you go, a source that refutes the Murdoch news outlet claim that "The Memos prove we didn't torture":

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail — like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.’s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

...

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.’s methods and the Justice Department’s long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U., were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.

...

The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?hp

The memos sure "prove" that there was no torture as the Murdoch Street Journal asserts.

The fact that we prosecuted Japanese for torture for doing the same damn thing must just be a "historical anamoly" in thier eyes.

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Are you actually propounding the premise that our enemies look to our methods to see how to act????

 

[Iriemon]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

You know what, under that circumstance where I was reasonably sure it would save other lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered yours, I have a few simple questions also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoote under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't reasonably sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

 

[sealybobo]

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Are you actually propounding the premise that our enemies look to our methods to see how to act????

So lets do away with Democracy because it really isn't as safe as having a dictator!!!

Trust me, he isn't giving up any states secrets.

 

[Iriemon]

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Are you actually propounding the premise that our enemies look to our methods to see how to act????

Not really, though I think it does matter. If the US tortures, it doesn't really give us a great standing to complain when others do it, does it? If we capture someone for torturing a US soldier or agent or citizen, are we going to prosecute them for doing the same things we say are OK to do? Were we wrong to prosecute Japanese as war criminals for doing something we say is OK?

But more fundamentally, should we set our moral standards and conduct based upon what some terrorists have done? How does that make us any better than them?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are you naive enough to believe that if we play nice with the fucking terrorists that they won't torture and kill Americans guilty of nothing but being Americans?

Why don't you ask Dan Perl

Go here to watch if you have the stomach for it.

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

These are the fucking savages our troops are dealing with. You tell me how much respect and consideration they deserve.

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'. It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

 

[Iriemon]

Are you naive enough to believe that if we play nice with the fucking terrorists that they won't torture and kill Americans guilty of nothing but being Americans?

Why don't you ask Dan Perl

Go here to watch if you have the stomach for it.

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

These are the fucking savages our troops are dealing with. You tell me how much respect and consideration they deserve.

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'.

I don't know one person on the left who basis their position on that. But do you think that if we say we're going to torture that's going to help US soldiers or agents or citizens who are captured?

It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

I agree that there are some evil people who oppose us. So you point is we should be evil people too?

Personally I'd rather think my side is noble righteous as opposed to maybe just a little less evil than them.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Daniel Pearl would have taken this over being beheaded.

 

[Iriemon]

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Daniel Pearl would have taken this over being beheaded.

Interesting speculation.

But you dodged my question.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are you naive enough to believe that if we play nice with the fucking terrorists that they won't torture and kill Americans guilty of nothing but being Americans?

Why don't you ask Dan Perl

Go here to watch if you have the stomach for it.

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

These are the fucking savages our troops are dealing with. You tell me how much respect and consideration they deserve.

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'.

I don't know one person on the left who basis their position on that. But do you think that if we say we're going to torture that's going to help US soldiers or agents or citizens who are captured?

It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

I agree that there are some evil people who oppose us. So you point is we should be evil people too?

Personally I'd rather think my side is noble righteous as opposed to maybe just a little less evil than them.

The point is, terrorists are going to do to our guys whatever the hell they want regardless of what we do to their guys. If water boarding results in intel that stops another 9-11, you'd rather spare the prisoner that and let another 3000 people die?

 

[sealybobo]

Are you naive enough to believe that if we play nice with the fucking terrorists that they won't torture and kill Americans guilty of nothing but being Americans?

Why don't you ask Dan Perl

Go here to watch if you have the stomach for it.

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

These are the fucking savages our troops are dealing with. You tell me how much respect and consideration they deserve.

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'. It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

Why didn't we experiment on Jeffrey Dahmer? We could have got a lot of good medical information from it.

And given the chance, that guy would rape your ass and eat your brain.

So why didn't we put his body to good use?

Can I answer first?

BECAUSE THE FUCKING USA DOESN'T DO THAT KIND OF SHIT!!!!!

At least not that we know about.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Daniel Pearl would have taken this over being beheaded.

Interesting speculation.

But you dodged my question.

I didn't dodge anything. Beheading and torture as PC described vs. water boarding? If they are going to torture our guys, water boarding wins.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are you naive enough to believe that if we play nice with the fucking terrorists that they won't torture and kill Americans guilty of nothing but being Americans?

Why don't you ask Dan Perl

Go here to watch if you have the stomach for it.

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

These are the fucking savages our troops are dealing with. You tell me how much respect and consideration they deserve.

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'. It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

Why didn't we experiment on Jeffrey Dahmer? We could have got a lot of good medical information from it.

And given the chance, that guy would rape your ass and eat your brain.

So why didn't we put his body to good use?

Can I answer first?

BECAUSE THE FUCKING USA DOESN'T DO THAT KIND OF SHIT!!!!!

At least not that we know about.

What the hell are you talking about Jeffery Dahmer for??

Per the bolded, you stated earlier that you would torture but just wouldn't let anyone find out about it.

 

[Iriemon]

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'.

I don't know one person on the left who basis their position on that. But do you think that if we say we're going to torture that's going to help US soldiers or agents or citizens who are captured?

It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

I agree that there are some evil people who oppose us. So you point is we should be evil people too?

Personally I'd rather think my side is noble righteous as opposed to maybe just a little less evil than them.

The point is, terrorists are going to do to our guys whatever the hell they want regardless of what we do to their guys. If water boarding results in intel that stops another 9-11, you'd rather spare the prisoner that and let another 3000 people die?

Under that circumstance where I knew that it would save 3000 lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered your question, I have a few also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoots under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root? Why not?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these are things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

 

[sealybobo]

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'. It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

Why didn't we experiment on Jeffrey Dahmer? We could have got a lot of good medical information from it.

And given the chance, that guy would rape your ass and eat your brain.

So why didn't we put his body to good use?

Can I answer first?

BECAUSE THE FUCKING USA DOESN'T DO THAT KIND OF SHIT!!!!!

At least not that we know about.

What the hell are you talking about Jeffery Dahmer for??

Per the bolded, you stated earlier that you would torture but just wouldn't let anyone find out about it.

I was trying to make a point. Jeffrey Dahmer was a piece of shit. But I wouldn't torture him. That would make me just as bad.

But what if experimenting on him could possibly save lives. Would I do it? As a policy, no I would not. Behind the scenes, I probably would.

But keep in mind, Dahmer would never get out of prison. Many of the people we tortured are free now or will be freed someday.

In that case, YOU DON"T FUCKING TORTURE!!! Because the rest of the world is going to find out, and you are breeding enemies. And that won't make us safer.

And I would experiment on freaks like Jeff Dahmer. But I would never let it get out.