What does the liberals think about enhanced interrogation now?

[JRK]

In 1983 the Sheriff of San Jacinto County Texas, James Parker, was convicted of waterboarding detainees he and his deputies would stop on the road, in efforts to extract "confessions".

Parker was sentenced to ten years in prison for his crimes. His potential pardon was refused by the Governor.
Ironic that the name of that Governor who refused that pardon was... George W. Bush.

And I agree 100% with that conviction
There is a huge difference with the rights we are granted under the laws of this land as a citizen of this country and how we treat a direct link to UBL and those who do nothing but live there lives to kill more Americans
I state again for the record, No 9-11, no water boarding
These people have no problem killing all of us, they have proves that over and over
The presidents #1 job is to protect us from enemies. Trying to compare an event such as the one in Texas to 1000s of people in a net work whose sole purpose iis to kill us

BHO made the choice no prisoners. UBL was un armed
Abu Zubaydah is still alive and praying to Allah daily

Now why is it your upset about the on who lived, who was just as evil and not the one who was in no uncertain terms murdered
The way the seal described the event was his 2 shots center mass to make sure UBL was dead were after his head was blowed off, the movie protrayed the event exactly the same to include UBL's son who got 3 center mass after a head shot put him down
Now you want to talk about laws with me and not mention that? at some point one has to think no matter what BHO does os fine, no matter what GWB did is wrong

No Al Qaeda killing's, terror, war
none of this happens

 

[Pogo]

In 1983 the Sheriff of San Jacinto County Texas, James Parker, was convicted of waterboarding detainees he and his deputies would stop on the road, in efforts to extract "confessions".

Parker was sentenced to ten years in prison for his crimes. His potential pardon was refused by the Governor.
Ironic that the name of that Governor who refused that pardon was... George W. Bush.

And I agree 100% with that conviction
There is a huge difference with the rights we are granted under the laws of this land as a citizen of this country and how we treat a direct link to UBL and those who do nothing but live there lives to kill more Americans
I state again for the record, No 9-11, no water boarding
These people have no problem killing all of us, they have proves that over and over
The presidents #1 job is to protect us from enemies. Trying to compare an event such as the one in Texas to 1000s of people in a net work whose sole purpose iis to kill us

BHO made the choice no prisoners. UBL was un armed
Abu Zubaydah is still alive and praying to Allah daily

Now why is it your upset about the on who lived, who was just as evil and not the one who was in no uncertain terms murdered
The way the seal described the event as well as his 2 shots center mass to make sure UBL was dead after his head was blowed off, the movie protrayed the event exactly the same to include UBL's son who got 3 center mass after a head shot put him down
Now you want to talk about laws with me and not mention that? at some point one has to think no matter what BHO does os fine, no matter what GWB did is wrong

No Al Qaeda killing's, terror, war
none of this happens

Once again dood -- no complete sentences means no points. What the fuck is "Trying to compare an event such as the one in Texas to 1000s of people in a net work whose sole purpose iis to kill us" supposed to mean??

Bottom line: we don't torture. And if we do, then we descend to no better than those you in your comic-book land describe as "animals". We either have laws and codes to live by, or we do not -- even if it did work as interrogation, which as has been known for centuries, it doesn't. In recent cases it's caused the deaths of thousands of American servicemen (see my first link). It's an excellent way to extract (see my second link) "total fucking bullshit".

Now if you want to slog through life saddled with a world view based on what's in the frickin' movies, then you're in for some rude awakenings. Movies are there to make money. And part of the way they do that is drama-- which invariably means "enhanced" drama. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but movies are not journalism. They have no responsibility to facts.

Sometimes, if it's a kids' movie, they'll even use your "enchanted" drama to sell tickets. Like flying cars. But, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news again -- they're not real either.

 

[CMike]

You truely think that any country with a sane leadership is not going to waterboard an arch terrorist if it means stopping a terrorist attacks that could cost the lives of thousands of it's citizens' lives?



Let's say the US didn't waterboard the three arch terrorists and they succeeded in their terrorist attacks.

How many of American's would have suffered an agonizing death because of a dirty (radioactive) bomb going off in Washington DC?

If another 911 attack occurred in LA how many American's would have been tortured by fire and dying a horrible death?

Yet, you seem to think it's okay for the terrorists to be able to taunt interrogators, and for them to not be put in unpleasant situations to make them talk.

The moral high ground has been surrendered by the Obama and his minions who put arch terrorists before American civilian lives.




You think Al Qaida gives a shit about the court of public opinion

Also by definition torture is inflicting severe pain.

Waterbarding simulates drowning. It's very scary but it doesn't inflict pain.

In fact, CIA operatives are waterboarded in their own training.

If there is a planned terrorist attack that is going to take out American civilians the moral highground is making terrorists talk and stopping the attack.

You have just endorsed the torture of American citizens

1) By definition torture is inflicting severe pain. Waterboarding doesn't do that. It simulates drowning and scares them.

2) If an American citizen is planning a terrorist attack that will kill American civilians, I would hope that the authorities would do what is necessary to get the information from him to stop the attack.

 

[CMike]

Ex-CIA chief defends waterboarding of al Qaeda leader - CBS News

April 26, 2012 6:31 PM PrintText
Ex-CIA chief defends waterboarding of al Qaeda leader


Jose Rodriguez has no regrets about using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" - methods that some consider torture -- on al Qaeda detainees questioned after 9/11 and denies charges they didn't work. The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service talks to Lesley Stahl about those methods, including waterboarding, for the first time and defends their use - even comparing them to the current policy of killing al Qaeda leaders with drone strikes. The Rodriguez interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, April 29 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Rodriguez says everything his interrogators did to top-level terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah was legal and effective. "We made some al Qaeda terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days," he tells Stahl. "I am very secure in what we did and am very confident that what we did saved American lives," says Rodriguez, who has written a book on the subject called "Hard Measures."

Lesley Stahl discusses her "60 Minutes" report

Pressed by Stahl about charges that Zubaydah, who was waterboarded and sleep deprived, gave false information that wasted U.S. resources, Rodriguez replies, "Bull****!, He gave us a roadmap that allowed us to capture a bunch of al Qaeda senior leaders," says the ex-spy.

Rodriguez says the interrogation program, which also included stress positions, nudity and "insult slaps," was "about instilling a sense of hopelessness...despair...so that he [the detainee] would conclude on his own that he was better off cooperating with us." He says that even Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whom he termed "the toughest detainee we had," eventually gave up information.



KSM, as the mastermind of 9/11 was known, would not cooperate at first. "He eventually told us, 'I will talk once I get to New York and I get my lawyer,'" Rodriguez recalls. But KSM was subjected to the enhanced techniques, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation, and Rodriguez believes, "it was the cumulative effect of waterboarding and sleep deprivation and everything else that was done that eventually got to him."


Rodriguez maintains he got information from the interrogations of KSM and others that enabled the CIA to disrupt at least 10 large-scale terrorist plots.




Rodriguez regrets the cancellation of his enhanced interrogation program by the current administration, accusing the White House of tying America's hands in the war on terror. "We don't capture anyone anymore Lesley...the default option of this administration has been to kill all prisoners. Take no prisoners," he tells Stahl. "The drones. How could it be more ethical to kill people rather than capture them?"

 

[CMike]

In 1983 the Sheriff of San Jacinto County Texas, James Parker, was convicted of waterboarding detainees he and his deputies would stop on the road, in efforts to extract "confessions".

Parker was sentenced to ten years in prison for his crimes. His potential pardon was refused by the Governor.
Ironic that the name of that Governor who refused that pardon was... George W. Bush.

So? What does this have to do with the case of the three arch terrorists and stopping major terrorist attacks?

 

[dblack]

...
2) If an American citizen is planning a terrorist attack that will kill American civilians, I would hope that the authorities would do what is necessary to get the information from him to stop the attack.

And I would hope they retain sound reason and sane moral judgement when they do so. You're making an 'ends justifies the means' argument, backed by vague doomsday scenarios. Sure, if there is a terrorist plot that threatens all life on earth, we pull out all the stops to save the human race. But that doesn't happen in the real world. In the real world, terrorism is a relative threat and doesn't warrant pissing away the foundations of our Constitution.

In the real world, a government that requires a torture regime to stay in power doesn't deserve to survive and will surely fall. They all do.

 

[Billo_Really]

What about what you do to the posters who read your post?

God would not forgive me if I didn't torture my readers in some way.

 

[rightwinger]

You have just endorsed the torture of American citizens

Right winger al Qaeda does not torture
They take a sword and cut off the captured persons head
Film it while there doing it
this would include civilians, or have you forgot?

You libs amaze me with your sense if justice
I mean no dis respect, but think about it

A common response for those who justify torture...

But THEY do it worse

Do we allow AlQaeda to set the bar on our own morality? Is there now an eye for an eye on torture? There was a time when we held up American values as the standard for the world to follow

Now, the rest of the world looks down on us as we abandon basic human rights

 

[nodoginnafight]

Of course torture has made it darn near impossible to put these criminals on trial. It works if you are just going to kill them and let God sort out the details. But what do we do with those who are now in captivity. We can't try them by military tribunal because their actions don't qualify as war crimes (since they are not legally enemy combatants) and we can't try them in U.S. courts because their confessions (most of them anyway) came through torture.

Yes, from time to time torture provided information that was useful - many more times it has produced information that was inaccurate and cost American lives. How many died trying to track down those WMDs?

On balance, it's a bad practice - a unreliable practice - and a decidely unAmerican practice. You don't protect the United States of America by turning it into North Korea - you destroy it.

Far too many people have died to establish and defend those ideals and principles that make the United States a beacon to the world for us to just toss them out the window the first time some criminal gang causes us to soil our panties.

If George Washington could defeat the most powerful military force on the planet at the time with farmers and shopkeepers - without torture, then I think it is a slap in the face to our military to suggest they are helpless against these rag-tag street gangs unless we torture them.

Just MHO.

 

[CMike]

I would much rather that the US capture high level terrorists, interrogate them for information, and get information that can help stop future terrorist attacks thank kill them with drones?

Also how is killing them with drones more moral than waterboading them for information?

 

[CMike]

Right winger al Qaeda does not torture
They take a sword and cut off the captured persons head
Film it while there doing it
this would include civilians, or have you forgot?

You libs amaze me with your sense if justice
I mean no dis respect, but think about it

A common response for those who justify torture...

But THEY do it worse

Do we allow AlQaeda to set the bar on our own morality? Is there now an eye for an eye on torture? There was a time when we held up American values as the standard for the world to follow

Now, the rest of the world looks down on us as we abandon basic human rights

As I have stated torture by definition means inflicting severe pain. There is no pain in waterboarding. It simulates drowning and scares them.

What is immoral is allowing potentially thousands of american civilians to suffer agonozing deaths in order to not get some arch terrorists wet.

I like the CIA strict guideliness for when they used it.

 

[rightwinger]

A common response for those who justify torture...

But THEY do it worse

Do we allow AlQaeda to set the bar on our own morality? Is there now an eye for an eye on torture? There was a time when we held up American values as the standard for the world to follow

Now, the rest of the world looks down on us as we abandon basic human rights

As I have stated torture by definition means inflicting severe pain. There is no pain in waterboarding. It simulates drowning and scares them.

What is immoral is allowing potentially thousands of american civilians to suffer agonozing deaths in order to not get some arch terrorists wet.

I like the CIA strict guideliness for when they used it.

There are many types of torture both physical and psychological. Not all leave scars

Waterboarding is recognized internationally as a form of torture. There was a time when even the US prosecuted waterboarding as torture.

The end does not justify the means

 

[Pogo]

In 1983 the Sheriff of San Jacinto County Texas, James Parker, was convicted of waterboarding detainees he and his deputies would stop on the road, in efforts to extract "confessions".

Parker was sentenced to ten years in prison for his crimes. His potential pardon was refused by the Governor.
Ironic that the name of that Governor who refused that pardon was... George W. Bush.

So? What does this have to do with the case of the three arch terrorists and stopping major terrorist attacks?

It doesn't, directly. There are two separate issues here: one, the morality of using torture, and two, whether it works. This particular case relates to the first. Along with the other cases I cited from Vietnam, Japan and the Phillippines, it demonstrates the shame of our double standard on a practice that we've proscribed and denounced and punished others for (including our own people) in the past. And rightly so.

The Bush twist is a caustic irony, as it magnifies that double standard into a single person.

Hope this helps.

 

[CMike]

1tor·ture
noun \ˈtȯr-chər\

Torture - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Definition of TORTURE


1

a: anguish of body or mind : agony

b: something that causes agony or pain

2

: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure


Torture | Define Torture at Dictionary.com

tor·ture
[tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, tor·tured, tor·tur·ing.

noun
1.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2.
a method of inflicting such pain.

3.
Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4.
extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5.
a cause of severe pain or anguish.

torture - definition of torture by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

tor·ture (tôrchr)
n.
1.
a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
tr.v. tor·tured, tor·tur·ing, tor·tures
1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder why so many people think torturing is OK if it saves people's lives, but gun control isn't OK no matter how many people it saves?

Pretty hypocritical in that you want to cherry pick the parts of the Constitution that actually mean something

 

[rightwinger]

I wonder why so many people think torturing is OK if it saves people's lives, but gun control isn't OK no matter how many people it saves?

Pretty hypocritical in that you want to cherry pick the parts of the Constitution that actually mean something

The Bill of Rights does have something about cruel and unusual punishment

 

[rightwinger]

1tor·ture
noun \ˈtȯr-chər\

Torture - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Definition of TORTURE


1

a: anguish of body or mind : agony

b: something that causes agony or pain

2

: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure


Torture | Define Torture at Dictionary.com

tor·ture
[tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, tor·tured, tor·tur·ing.

noun
1.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2.
a method of inflicting such pain.

3.
Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4.
extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5.
a cause of severe pain or anguish.

torture - definition of torture by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

tor·ture (tôrchr)
n.
1.
a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
tr.v. tor·tured, tor·tur·ing, tor·tures
1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

Torture | Amnesty International USA

The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as "…the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing, intimidating or coercing someone." Torture is always illegal. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Abuse of prisoners doesn’t have to be torture to be illegal. Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (CID) is also illegal under international and U.S. law. CID includes any harsh or neglectful treatment that could damage a detainee’s physical or mental health or any punishment intended to cause physical or mental pain or suffering, or to humiliate or degrade the person being punished.

While it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between torture and CID, there are two key differences. First, torture constitutes a more severe degree of pain or suffering. Second, torture is the result of a deliberate and purposeful act aimed at imposing great suffering, while CID could be the result of accident or neglect

 

[Pogo]

I wonder why so many people think torturing is OK if it saves people's lives, but gun control isn't OK no matter how many people it saves?

 

[CMike]

What amnesty international or what a UN convention says means nothing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder why so many people think torturing is OK if it saves people's lives, but gun control isn't OK no matter how many people it saves?

Pretty hypocritical in that you want to cherry pick the parts of the Constitution that actually mean something

The Bill of Rights does have something about cruel and unusual punishment

Yes it does. But the Timothy McVeigh crowd isn't going to "fight tyranny" on that one - as long as it isn't white anglo saxon protestants getting tortured.