Torture, or whatever you want to call it, "justified" by majority

[Kosh]

"They burnt a teacher in front of the students in a classroom," the unnamed military source told the US TV network.

"They literally set the teacher on fire with gasoline and made the kids watch."

At least six militants entered the Pakistani school wearing security uniforms, before massacring an estimated 132 people and injuring another 122."
Peshawar school attack Taliban burn teacher alive in front of pupils and behead children


What kind of fool would draw any lines that would prevent stopping this?????

Raise your paw.

While I pretty much have accepted that the U.S. tortures, I would like to hear from you how torture could have helped save any of those lives in Pakistan.

Who's talking about torture???

Gee. Nobody. No conversation about torture here whatsoever.

Not from I.

So you've not talked about torture at all.........

Says the far left drone that can only cite far left propaganda.

But then again what do you expect from the crowd that was for "Due Process" before they against it starting in 2009.

Killing without "Due Process", my what a conundrum for the far left drones..

 

[Cross]

I was tortured and gassed in Advanced Infantry Training....Wahhhh...lol

 

[Coyote]

I'm still awaiting an answer from you. Do you have the guts? Or are you going to keep on ducking and dodging?

...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Look....we both know that you're the one who won't answer the question.

You remain, not a coyote...but a weasel.

Another chance?

Sure: you've hit the wall, as the CIA interrogator did.....would you use the enhanced methods to save those folks?

If you're simply going to equivocate....just change your name to weasel.

I answered the question quite clearly with "No" - back when you first asked it.

You have now dreamed up another question.

You have refused to answer my question in return resorting to semantical games and deflection. What are you afraid of?


...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

"I answered the question quite clearly with "No"

I believe you inserted some nonsense implying that there were other ways of gaining said information to save the individuals.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

Adding a continual barrage of new conditions to your initial question does not mean I'm required to answer the new questions over and over.

Either answer or admit you are incapable of answering a simple question honestly.

So you insist on being a weasel....a simple yes or no to my post would do the trick.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

The only weasel is YOU.

The question you asked was: ...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, would you have acquiesced to the enhanced interrogations?

I answered it and then you had to add conditions. You refuse to answer my question.

Keep on dodging weasel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look....we both know that you're the one who won't answer the question.

You remain, not a coyote...but a weasel.

Another chance?

Sure: you've hit the wall, as the CIA interrogator did.....would you use the enhanced methods to save those folks?

If you're simply going to equivocate....just change your name to weasel.

I answered the question quite clearly with "No" - back when you first asked it.

You have now dreamed up another question.

You have refused to answer my question in return resorting to semantical games and deflection. What are you afraid of?


...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

"I answered the question quite clearly with "No"

I believe you inserted some nonsense implying that there were other ways of gaining said information to save the individuals.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

Adding a continual barrage of new conditions to your initial question does not mean I'm required to answer the new questions over and over.

Either answer or admit you are incapable of answering a simple question honestly.

So you insist on being a weasel....a simple yes or no to my post would do the trick.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

The only weasel is YOU.

The question you asked was: ...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, would you have acquiesced to the enhanced interrogations?

I answered it and then you had to add conditions. You refuse to answer my question.

Keep on dodging weasel.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?


BTW....the death toll in Pakistan is up to 140.
You aren't going to say you wouldn't have used every method at your disposal to save them......
....are you?


BTW.....you needn't worry about your reputation falling in my estimation.....

....it couldn't fall any lower.

 

[Coyote]

I'm still awaiting an answer from you. Do you have the guts? Or are you going to keep on ducking and dodging?

...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Since "information could be gained either with or without torture" means that both would work, I can't imagine why you would pose a question.

I mean clearly torture would be a last resort, right?

In real life - that is the real choice. Information can be gained by other means and we can not be sure which method will bring about accurate inforamtion. So why is torture is chosen instead? Especially torture applied so broadly as the CIA did - not, as they claimed, to just 3 of the most evil masterminds. That was a blatent lie and that is also the seductive path of torture.

The only time I can see a real-life reason for using torture is immediate on-the-battlefield situations where critical information (such as the location of a mine) is needed immediately. That is not the case here.

 

[Coyote]

I answered the question quite clearly with "No" - back when you first asked it.

You have now dreamed up another question.

You have refused to answer my question in return resorting to semantical games and deflection. What are you afraid of?


...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

"I answered the question quite clearly with "No"

I believe you inserted some nonsense implying that there were other ways of gaining said information to save the individuals.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

Adding a continual barrage of new conditions to your initial question does not mean I'm required to answer the new questions over and over.

Either answer or admit you are incapable of answering a simple question honestly.

So you insist on being a weasel....a simple yes or no to my post would do the trick.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

The only weasel is YOU.

The question you asked was: ...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, would you have acquiesced to the enhanced interrogations?

I answered it and then you had to add conditions. You refuse to answer my question.

Keep on dodging weasel.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?


BTW....the death toll in Pakistan is up to 140.
You aren't going to say you wouldn't have used every method at your disposal to save them......
....are you?


BTW.....you needn't worry about your reputation falling in my estimation.....

....it couldn't fall any lower.

Answer my question and then I'll answer ANOTHER one of your questions.

I could care less about your estimation of me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It takes a "real man" to lie about George Washington and shit all over the sacrifices of true patriots who gave their all to protect and preserve our ideals and principles - just because he's too scared to do anything other than try to protect his own shit-stained ass.

Problem with the above rant. NoFightInDog wants US to not only protect our own asses, but his too while NoFightInDog sleeps warm and cozy in its bed.

Oh, and protect the Dog while handcuffed.

Done my time - your welcome you chickenshit pussy

Now clean out your diaper while REAL MEN protect your shit-stained ass without trading off America.

Then make up some other shit about people you don't know in order to try to make your coward ass feel better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I answered the question quite clearly with "No"

I believe you inserted some nonsense implying that there were other ways of gaining said information to save the individuals.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

Adding a continual barrage of new conditions to your initial question does not mean I'm required to answer the new questions over and over.

Either answer or admit you are incapable of answering a simple question honestly.

So you insist on being a weasel....a simple yes or no to my post would do the trick.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?

The only weasel is YOU.

The question you asked was: ...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, would you have acquiesced to the enhanced interrogations?

I answered it and then you had to add conditions. You refuse to answer my question.

Keep on dodging weasel.

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?


BTW....the death toll in Pakistan is up to 140.
You aren't going to say you wouldn't have used every method at your disposal to save them......
....are you?


BTW.....you needn't worry about your reputation falling in my estimation.....

....it couldn't fall any lower.

Answer my question and then I'll answer ANOTHER one of your questions.

I could care less about your estimation of me.

It's the only question I asked, weasel....

Am I correct in understanding that you are now saying that under no circumstances would you use enhanced techniques?

...even if same would be the only path to success?


I believe your would say 'under no circumstances would I use said techniques to save those innocents.....'

...but you are afraid of what a low-life you'd reveal yourself to be.

No prob.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm still awaiting an answer from you. Do you have the guts? Or are you going to keep on ducking and dodging?

...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Since "information could be gained either with or without torture" means that both would work, I can't imagine why you would pose a question.

I mean clearly torture would be a last resort, right?

In real life - that is the real choice. Information can be gained by other means and we can not be sure which method will bring about accurate inforamtion. So why is torture is chosen instead? Especially torture applied so broadly as the CIA did - not, as they claimed, to just 3 of the most evil masterminds. That was a blatent lie and that is also the seductive path of torture.

The only time I can see a real-life reason for using torture is immediate on-the-battlefield situations where critical information (such as the location of a mine) is needed immediately. That is not the case here.

"In real life - that is the real choice. Information can be gained by other means..."

A lie.

 

[Meathead]

I'm still awaiting an answer from you. Do you have the guts? Or are you going to keep on ducking and dodging?

...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Since "information could be gained either with or without torture" means that both would work, I can't imagine why you would pose a question.

I mean clearly torture would be a last resort, right?

In real life - that is the real choice. Information can be gained by other means and we can not be sure which method will bring about accurate inforamtion. So why is torture is chosen instead? Especially torture applied so broadly as the CIA did - not, as they claimed, to just 3 of the most evil masterminds. That was a blatent lie and that is also the seductive path of torture.

The only time I can see a real-life reason for using torture is immediate on-the-battlefield situations where critical information (such as the location of a mine) is needed immediately. That is not the case here.

Your premise was not appropriate for the question. Torture would not be used if not needed, obviously.

While playing Last Christmas by Wham would be enough to break me, it cannot be guaranteed to work on the like of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. So, if you cannot coerce critical information in life and death cases, then I, and most Americans, would sanction whatever means necessary.

That's real life.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Torture WORKS! Fourty seven confessed to being witches at the Salem with trials!

How many witches confessed in the Salem witch trials Answerbag

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the liberal fanatics are still trying to spread the lie that waterboarding and sleep deprivation are "torture".

Torture causes damage (cuts, chopped-off fingers, burns, torn joints etc.)

Waterboarding doesn't.

Nice try.

 

[bodecea]

While I pretty much have accepted that the U.S. tortures, I would like to hear from you how torture could have helped save any of those lives in Pakistan.

Who's talking about torture???

Gee. Nobody. No conversation about torture here whatsoever.

Not from I.

So you've not talked about torture at all.........

Only to correct your misapprehensions.

I certainly hope you've learned from same.

Rather vague reply. What exactly are my "misapprehensions" you are referring to?

 

[bodecea]

Looks like the liberal fanatics are still trying to spread the lie that waterboarding and sleep deprivation are "torture".

Torture causes damage (cuts, chopped-off fingers, burns, torn joints etc.)

Waterboarding doesn't.

Nice try.

Of course they are torture. So what? We torture......get over it.

 

[georgephillip]

Anyone who thinks we don't torture is fooling themselves. We do....let's just admit that we do....and that we will continue to find reasons to justify doing it and move on.

If moving on means the torture we currently inflict outside the borders of the US is visited upon US citizens in this country, will you continue your support?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bodecea - I get it. You accept torture as just a part of the way things are right now.

But many pages ago you were asked, what other American ideals and values are you willing to punt so easily?

I apologize if you answer and I missed it, but could you bring me up to date with your answer?

 

[georgephillip]

Meh. Let's just admit that torture is in our playbook and move on.

"If you thought the Senate’s ‘torture report’ was shocking, imagine the prospect of the Obama administration releasing hundreds, maybe thousands of photographs depicting detainee abuse.

"The Obama administration is withholding hundreds, perhaps even thousands of photographs showing the U.S. government’s brutal treatment of detainees, meaning that revelations about detainee abuse could well continue, possibly compounding the outrage generated by the Senate 'torture report' now in the public eye."
Stay tuned.
The Detainee Abuse Photos Obama Didn t Want You To See - The Daily Beast

"KUBARK Manual: A User's Guide to Torture?
The 1950s appear to have been a time when the CIA put a tremendous amount of energy into perfecting the science of torture. The CIA conducted covert experiments, at times on unsuspecting Americans, using LSD in the search of a 'truth serum' [source: The New York Times].

"It used electrical currents to inflict pain [source: The Boston Globe].

"The agency conducted trials investigating the effects of sensory deprivation [source: The Washington Post].

"The CIA found that the best methods for extracting information from detainees come not through the infliction of physical pain or torture, but through psychological torture."

KUBARK Manual A User s Guide to Torture - HowStuffWorks

 

[Vandalshandle]

Looks like the liberal fanatics are still trying to spread the lie that waterboarding and sleep deprivation are "torture".

Torture causes damage (cuts, chopped-off fingers, burns, torn joints etc.)

Waterboarding doesn't.

Nice try.

Of course they are torture. So what? We torture......get over it.

Well, the argument of the Right goes pretty much like this:

1."The people who revealed to the world that we torture are traitors for giving aid and comfort to the enemy." When that fails, they go to,
2. "Water boarding and the other things we do is not torture." When that fails, they go to,
3. "So what? We torture. don't be such a candy ass. We have to torture to protect out American values." When that fails, they go to,
4. Any red blooded American believes in torture. If you don't, you are a limp wristed Muslim trying to pollute our precious bodily fluids".

I think that we will have to wait for Rush's next show to find out what step 5 is....

 

[whitehall]

The revised definition of "torture" was approved by the democrat majority of the senate committee that had the oversight responsibility for monitoring the conduct of the CIA. Surprise, surprise the democrat majority in the senate committee decided to un-approve the revised definition of "torture" when the chair-person decided to engage in the political version of "scorched earth" regardless of the consequences just before the will of the voters kicked the democrat rascals out of leadership positions.

 

[Coyote]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?