What is the "appropriate manner"

[deltex1]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

 

[g5000]

What is the appropriate manner to elicit a confession from a suspected murderer?

Waterboarding, of course!

 

[TruthSeeker56]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

Offer the terrorist operative a position in the Obama administration?

 

[g5000]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

They are criminals. Are you ignorant of the methods used to get information from criminals?

The FBI is quite proficient at eliciting intelligence from terrorists and were doing just that until the psychos from the CIA took over and decided tortu-, er, "enhanced interrogations" were the ONLY way to get information. My feeling is that someone wanted a little carthasis to get over 9/11 and felt punching a few bad guys around was just the thing.

And now we aren't putting them on trial. Is this a coincidence, or is the government afraid all that torture will come to light in a trial, and much of the evidence against the criminals would be fruit of the poison tree?

 

[George Costanza]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

Same as for anyone suspected of crime - following a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, questioning done in a reasonable and humane manner.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Get mounted dog fashion by Lindy Whatshername

 

[Ava]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

If all else, fails, waterboard `em.

 

[Erand7899]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

They are criminals. Are you ignorant of the methods used to get information from criminals?

The FBI is quite proficient at eliciting intelligence from terrorists and were doing just that until the psychos from the CIA took over and decided tortu-, er, "enhanced interrogations" were the ONLY way to get information. My feeling is that someone wanted a little carthasis to get over 9/11 and felt punching a few bad guys around was just the thing.

And now we aren't putting them on trial. Is this a coincidence, or is the government afraid all that torture will come to light in a trial, and much of the evidence against the criminals would be fruit of the poison tree?

The problem is that this administration cannot make up its mind whether we are at war with international terrorists, or they are just criminals. They use a war to justify their drone attacks on terrorist leaders, but then when they capture one, they want to process them through our criminal justice system. A system not designed to try them properly.

If we are at war, war criminals should be tried by military tribunals, and if they committed capital crimes, they should be executed. If not, they should be held in suitable detention until the war is over.

BTW, when you get up on your high horse about water boarding being torture, consider the fact that innocent people are being killed and maimed in the drone attacks. A twelve year old girl, living next door to a drone attack, might consider that her legs being blown off constitutes torture to her. To this administration, she is just collateral damage

 

[deltex1]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

They are criminals. Are you ignorant of the methods used to get information from criminals?

The FBI is quite proficient at eliciting intelligence from terrorists and were doing just that until the psychos from the CIA took over and decided tortu-, er, "enhanced interrogations" were the ONLY way to get information. My feeling is that someone wanted a little carthasis to get over 9/11 and felt punching a few bad guys around was just the thing.

And now we aren't putting them on trial. Is this a coincidence, or is the government afraid all that torture will come to light in a trial, and much of the evidence against the criminals would be fruit of the poison tree?

You presume you have the time for ordinary methods...what if you don't?? Let your son die?

 

[whitehall]

It's a damn shame that radical democrats were willing to throw the Military Psy-Ops handbook in the garbage in exchange for a political issue during a republican administration. Does anybody think that the Bush administration invented "waterboarding"? It was in the books during democrat administrations but nobody on the left worried about it until a republican was in office and then the traitors put the United States on trial before the entire world to make political points. It's a disgrace.

 

[OriginalShroom]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

They are criminals. Are you ignorant of the methods used to get information from criminals?

The FBI is quite proficient at eliciting intelligence from terrorists and were doing just that until the psychos from the CIA took over and decided tortu-, er, "enhanced interrogations" were the ONLY way to get information. My feeling is that someone wanted a little carthasis to get over 9/11 and felt punching a few bad guys around was just the thing.

And now we aren't putting them on trial. Is this a coincidence, or is the government afraid all that torture will come to light in a trial, and much of the evidence against the criminals would be fruit of the poison tree?

Did you fail to learn the fact that only three people were waterboarded, for no more 1 1/2 minutes at a time?

You can have you own opinion, but you cn't make up your own facts.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

Any means necessary up to and including torturing him to death.

 

[syrenn]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

rip their fingernails off and apply salt?

 

[syrenn]

put them in the same room with liesmatters and rdean?

 

[tjvh]

Obama's America doesn't waterboard suspected terrorists since he took office, he simply smart bombs them, and their children into oblivion with Drone strikes. It's the humane thing to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"to elicit vital intelligence" from a known terrorist operative?

Same as for anyone suspected of crime - following a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, questioning done in a reasonable and humane manner.

I have to disagree, if the subject is a known terrorists they should be able to question him even if he asserts the claim to a lawyer under the public safety exception to Miranda. I do, however, oppose torture.