Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Such is the reprehensible right's contempt for the rule of law.
The ends never justify the means.
Most certainly wrong. The question in the cited post was answered and alternatives to physical pain infliction, mostly for the eagerly sadistic joy of doing it (as is clear from some posters), has been discussed in above threads. Read them.Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.So what do you instead?Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.
You didn't answer the question.
Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.So what do you instead?Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.
There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?
Ask the interrogators, who use the legal methods daily....cops or the CIA, or military intel agents....torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....
plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.
I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree
better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...
Care to define "proven techniques?"
No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....
plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.
Ask the interrogators, who use the legal methods daily....cops or the CIA, or military intel agents....torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....
plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.
I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree
better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...
Care to define "proven techniques?"
Do you think they don't know what they are doing and just twiddle their thumbs?
Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.So what do you instead?Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.
What do you do?
So you just think we need to keep techniques quiet?What is that keeps people asking this question over and over; it was answered:
Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.So what do you instead?Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.
What do you do?
There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?
Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.
Ask the interrogators, who use the legal methods daily....cops or the CIA, or military intel agents....torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....
plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.
I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree
better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...
Care to define "proven techniques?"
Do you think they don't know what they are doing and just twiddle their thumbs?
You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?
Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.
However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.
Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group
he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.
Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)
What is it that keeps people asking this question over and over; it was answered:
Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.So what do you instead?Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.
What do you do?
There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?
Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.
What do you think a Jury of ones peers would say?
If you got the information that stopped the killings? None would have the guts to vote guilty to a Hero that saved countless innocent life
If he didn't get the information in time? None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life
win/win
You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?
Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.
However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.
Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group
he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.
Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)
Am I reading this right? The sugar cookie thing was after nearly a year?
OK, then.............
Moving on
You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?
Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.
However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.
Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group
he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.
Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)
Am I reading this right? The sugar cookie thing was after nearly a year?
OK, then.............
Moving on
Guy didn't talk to anyone until after they gave him some sugar cookies. And, like I said, if there is a bomb set to go off in 48 hours, any terrorist would be willing to take some torture for a couple of days. I mean, if they are willing to blow themselves up, why wouldn't they be willing to get slapped around for a couple of days, especially if they knew that holding out would get the desired results.
There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?
Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.
What do you think a Jury of ones peers would say?
If you got the information that stopped the killings? None would have the guts to vote guilty to a Hero that saved countless innocent life
If he didn't get the information in time? None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life
win/win
Exactly. If the justification was there - if it was truly worth it. If it was just a hardened CIA operative who seemed to enjoy his work a little too much, then we throw him jail and make an example of him. Mostly importantly, we don't accept it as SOP.
None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life
