PDA

View Full Version : VP admits knowledge of Waterboarding



cotts135
12-17-2008, 07:44 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney16-2008dec16,0,5456856.story

This is not surprising at all but I think it explains Attorney General Michael Mukasey reluctance to admit Waterboarding is illegal during his confirmation hearings.

Buster Brown
12-17-2008, 09:45 AM
..and why should it be. These are terrorists. They have no affilaition with any soveriegn nation. They are disposable and should be. Waterboard them, glean what information you can, then dispose of them.

I know this will bring a lot of fury from any liberasl that read this but these folks are animlas with no remorse and only a seething hatred for Americans and would gladly do it again and again and if they die they think they get to go to Allah and a bunch of virgins.

Dunk and dispose!:snipersmile:

Bob Gutermuth
12-17-2008, 10:10 AM
Sometimes, like in the case of extreme hazard to the nation and or its military extreme means of interrogation are needed. Would anyone have raised a fit if we had been able to waterboard a member of the Imperial Japanese Navy and gotten advance warning on Pearl Harbor that would have some or all of the 2500 US lives that were lost that day?

Patrick Johndrow
12-17-2008, 10:29 AM
I think water boarding and other forms of torture should be legal give the right circumstances. In cases were American life’s are at risk the authorization I think the President should sign a torture warrant. Publically most military brass will tell you that torture never works but privately they will tell you it is a very practical tool. The question each one of us has to ask ourselves is “what would I be willing to do to save a life or protect a nation” had decision but then again we are dealing with some pretty hard people.

Hoosier
12-17-2008, 11:46 AM
Why are we even calling water boarding extreme. I don't see anything extreme about it. Hell I probably got spankings as a kid worse then that. Just something else for the touchy feely crowd to bitch about.

Bruce MacPherson
12-17-2008, 11:51 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney16-2008dec16,0,5456856.story

This is not surprising at all but I think it explains Attorney General Michael Mukasey reluctance to admit Waterboarding is illegal during his confirmation hearings.

Did he ever deny it?
I think the question is and was is it torture. I personally think some of the opinions expressed by those on the left are a much more torturous than waterboarding.

cotts135
12-17-2008, 12:24 PM
Did he ever deny it?
I think the question is and was is it torture. I personally think some of the opinions expressed by those on the left are a much more torturous than waterboarding.

It is most certainly torture by any standard you apply. Except of course to the right wing extremists who would have you believe that there is a Waterboard Lite and that somehow that is not torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#International_law

John Kelder
12-17-2008, 01:52 PM
If you let me do the interrogation my way , they would beg for waterboarding .
May the lives saved our those who oppose this so-called torture , because you are the ones who need the most protection .

badbullgator
12-17-2008, 02:02 PM
If you let me do the interrogation my way , they would beg for waterboarding .
May the lives saved our those who oppose this so-called torture , because you are the ones who need the most protection .


Right on! Screw em.

You can't handle the truth

Steve Amrein
12-17-2008, 02:47 PM
I am thinking that if info was needed from someone to protect the security of our country or the return of a loved one. I think my preference would be for Dirty Harry over June Cleaver.

cotts135
12-17-2008, 03:01 PM
...
Waterboard them, glean what information you can, then dispose of them.

I know this will bring a lot of fury from any liberasl that read this but these folks are animlas with no remorse and only a seething hatred for Americans and would gladly do it again and again and if they die they think they get to go to Allah and a bunch of virgins.

Dunk and dispose!:snipersmile:

Read what you wrote. You have become what you hate.

YardleyLabs
12-17-2008, 03:12 PM
For those of you who approve such tactics, I can only assume you are also OK with similar interrogation of our own forces. Presumably representatives of our government who have called those who did similar things to our troops monsters who should be tried and convicted of war crimes are nothing but liberal whiners.

In my mind, you treat all people as you would want to be treated under similar circumstances. That doesn't mean that they would return the favor. However, our morality is measured first by our standards, not the lowest common denominator from among our enemies. I have never seen a convincing argument that torture is an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence.

badbullgator
12-17-2008, 03:56 PM
It is not up to me to be OK with that happening to our guys. Only a fool would think that it does not happen and much worse to our guys. They don't have a bunch of crying libs in most parts of the world to care what they do to our troops

Buster Brown
12-17-2008, 04:55 PM
...

Read what you wrote. You have become what you hate.

How so Cotts? What makes you think you know what I hate or what I know.

Oh I see because I support ridding our country of an enemy who has no other thoughts than to rip out your heart and show it to you while you die and to continue doing that until they die. have you forgot 9/11. They are terrorist's!!! Cowards!!! Enemies of the state!!!

Should we give them a group hug and say we are sorry instead. Liberals disgust me. They need to go and live outside in the real world. get up and see whats outside and don't live your life through the TV or the media.

They are the enemy and make no mistake they will do what ever it is to make you suffer a hideous death and if that means dieing to do that then so be it. Heck they are leaving a sand soaked filth and flea infested life in some middle east Sh*%$t hole and would be welcomed by a group of virgins upon arriving on the other side. I say send them there. I say let me send them there. Let me throw the switch. They are like a mad dog that needs to be put down.

But then that's not nice is it.

Who cares!!!!:snipersmile:

cotts135
12-17-2008, 05:25 PM
How so Cotts? What makes you think you know what I hate or what I know.

Wow you just make it so easy.

.
I say send them there. I say let me send them there. Let me throw the switch. They are like a mad dog that needs to be put down.

I can see it now an Al Qaeda member under some tent in that flea infested desert you talked about screaming to his fellow members "They are like a mad dog that needs to be put down.>

Steve Amrein
12-17-2008, 06:04 PM
This is how I imagine how those that dont approve of water boarding might sound like. During a arrest or battlefield capture.



Interrogator We found you with a computer that has plans to attack the US

Its not mine

Interrogator Your phone has numbers of know terrorist

No it doesn't

Interrogator Your car has bomb making materials in the trunk

Its a science project

Interrogator You just finished flight school.

Its a hobby

Interrogator You have detailed plans of the twin towers

I was planning a vacation

Interrogator Were you planning anything

No

Interrogator OK I am going to get tough with you. Are you really planning anything.

No

Interrogator I am only going to ask you one more time

OK

Interrogator ARE YOU PLANNING ANYTHING ?

No

Interrogator Alrighty then you are free to go would you like a referral to the ACLU or maybe a nice warm muffin. Sorry for the inconvenience.

subroc
12-17-2008, 06:59 PM
...I have never seen a convincing argument that torture is an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence.

I have never seen a convincing argument that an uncomfortable shower (waterboarding) is torture.

cotts135
12-17-2008, 07:37 PM
I have never seen a convincing argument that an uncomfortable shower (waterboarding) is torture.
Here is something for you to read:http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?currentPage=1

Here is another account of an uncomfortable shower.http://waterboarding.org/firsthand

subroc
12-17-2008, 07:55 PM
And your point?

I never said it was comfortable. It is a serious method of breaking ones spirit to allow the extraction of information. It appears to do just that.

Just because those that are subject to it don't like it and can't withstand more than a few minutes of the procedure, doesn't mean it is torture.

YardleyLabs
12-17-2008, 08:31 PM
From Wikepedia:
Waterboarding is a form of torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-EbanVanityFairWB1-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-1) Through forced suffocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffocation) and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning) and is made to believe that death is imminent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-WhiteWAPostWB_110807-2) In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_reflex).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-ABCNewsWB_110807-3) Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, dry drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_drowning), damage to the lungs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungs), brain damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_damage) caused by oxygen deprivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_deprivation), physical injuries (including broken bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture)) due to struggling against restraints, psychological injury, and, ultimately, death, which may be caused by one of the many possible conditions -- not only drowning -- that are triggered by this behavior.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_open_letter_WB-4) The physical effects of waterboarding can come on even months after the event, and the psychological effects on the victims can last for years.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NY-5)
Waterboarding was used for interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation) at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition) to obtain information,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NYTimesWB_110707-6) coerce confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_confession), punish, and intimidate. It is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_open_letter_WB-4)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-JuristPittWB_100807-7) politicians, war veterans,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-DN.21_WB_110507-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NW_WB_110507-9) intelligence officials,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-10) military judges,[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-CaL_WB_110507-11) and human rights organizations.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_WB_110507-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-AI_WB_102607-13)
"

So what we have is a form of "strong encouragement" developed during the Spanish Inquisition and extended by Japanese interrogators in WWII (people we charged with war crimes) and Chinese interrogators during the Korean War (where we called it brain washing). It can cause permanent physical damage, including brain damage, and even death.

I guess torture only exists when it's being done by someone else to us. I'll believe it's not torture when Cheney himself is subjected to it a public video and the procedure is done with all the embellishments performed on any of our prisoners. If it's good enough for him, I would agree that it's good enough for them.

We are what we do, not what we believe, not what we promise, and not what we dream. If we allow ourselves to become our enemies, we deserve their fate.

subroc
12-17-2008, 08:54 PM
I have already read enough about waterboarding including the Wikepedia page to make my own determination.

In the Wikepedia post it has a list of individuals and groups that call it torture.

Well, I'll start my own list. It is considered a coersed interigation method and not considered torture by citizens and Vice Presidents alike.

That is how much stock I give a Wikepedia page.

K.Bullock
12-17-2008, 09:15 PM
Wow you just make it so easy.

.

I can see it now an Al Qaeda member under some tent in that flea infested desert you talked about screaming to his fellow members "They are like a mad dog that needs to be put down.>

So without water boarding they will stop hating us? Killing us is worship for them. We are the enemies of Islam because Islam in it's reformed (Wahhabism) has declared that we are it's enemies ...and that is it, not because an Ayatollah or any dictator or any nation, the Religion has declared war on us according to the fundamentalists that believe in the Wahhabi movement within Islam that the terrorists subscribe to.. . It has nothing to do with some sycophantic fantasy that if we are just nice, they will like us and go away.

The worldview is very similar to the early American belief in manifest destiny, to see the nation stretch from ocean to ocean was pre-ordained in their mind and any and all tactics to help that come about were justified by that ideal.

Wahhabism is similar in that it is to inherit the world. That is why they are at war with us. Because we stand in their way. I don't see that as a bad thing at all. They have been at war with us since our nations inception. We have yet to recognize it though I think.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm

Jay Hinton
12-17-2008, 09:44 PM
From Wikepedia:
Waterboarding is a form of torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-EbanVanityFairWB1-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-1) Through forced suffocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffocation) and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning) and is made to believe that death is imminent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-WhiteWAPostWB_110807-2) In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_reflex).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-ABCNewsWB_110807-3) Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, dry drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_drowning), damage to the lungs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungs), brain damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_damage) caused by oxygen deprivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_deprivation), physical injuries (including broken bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture)) due to struggling against restraints, psychological injury, and, ultimately, death, which may be caused by one of the many possible conditions -- not only drowning -- that are triggered by this behavior.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_open_letter_WB-4) The physical effects of waterboarding can come on even months after the event, and the psychological effects on the victims can last for years.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NY-5)
Waterboarding was used for interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation) at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition) to obtain information,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NYTimesWB_110707-6) coerce confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_confession), punish, and intimidate. It is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_open_letter_WB-4)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-JuristPittWB_100807-7) politicians, war veterans,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-DN.21_WB_110507-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NW_WB_110507-9) intelligence officials,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-10) military judges,[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-CaL_WB_110507-11) and human rights organizations.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_WB_110507-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-AI_WB_102607-13)
"

So what we have is a form of "strong encouragement" developed during the Spanish Inquisition and extended by Japanese interrogators in WWII (people we charged with war crimes) and Chinese interrogators during the Korean War (where we called it brain washing). It can cause permanent physical damage, including brain damage, and even death.

I guess torture only exists when it's being done by someone else to us. I'll believe it's not torture when Cheney himself is subjected to it a public video and the procedure is done with all the embellishments performed on any of our prisoners. If it's good enough for him, I would agree that it's good enough for them.

We are what we do, not what we believe, not what we promise, and not what we dream. If we allow ourselves to become our enemies, we deserve their fate.

There is an easy way to avoid it. Don't be a terrorist.

Bruce MacPherson
12-18-2008, 12:02 AM
For those of you who approve such tactics, I can only assume you are also OK with similar interrogation of our own forces. Presumably representatives of our government who have called those who did similar things to our troops monsters who should be tried and convicted of war crimes are nothing but liberal whiners.

In my mind, you treat all people as you would want to be treated under similar circumstances. That doesn't mean that they would return the favor. However, our morality is measured first by our standards, not the lowest common denominator from among our enemies. I have never seen a convincing argument that torture is an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence.

Theory is one thing practical application another. If you ever had your life on the line in a combat situatuion I would be the best friend you could have because I'm not going to spend any time worrying about the ethical or moral implications of whatever it is I have to do to save your sorry backside. I do have some practical experience here so maybe my world view is slightly different than yours.

Hew
12-18-2008, 07:37 AM
Read what you wrote. You have become what you hate.
Oh yes. Exactly. He supports waterboarding, so that means he beheads those who don't agree with his religion, sends his children to blow themselves up killing other children and he murders little girls for going to school. That's the same kind of sophistry that PETA uses when they say, "a rat is a pig is a chimp is a boy."

Sherman burned his way across the south. That makes us a nation of arsonists?

We firebombed civilians in Dresden....I guess we became genocidal Nazis?

We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki...that made us imperial murderers just like Japan?

Thank goodness that throughout our history this country has been led by serious men willing to make difficult decisions in order to protect our union as necessary. Lincoln, FDR and Truman would laugh in your face at the notion that waterboarding three POS terrorists makes us just like them.

Hew
12-18-2008, 07:44 AM
For those of you who approve such tactics, I can only assume you are also OK with similar interrogation of our own forces.
Tens of thousands of US military personnel have been waterboarded. They call it "training." You call it "torture." I gather that means that we can scratch Parris Island from your list of acceptable substitutes to Guantanamo?

K G
12-18-2008, 09:00 AM
For those of you who approve such tactics, I can only assume you are also OK with similar interrogation of our own forces. Presumably representatives of our government who have called those who did similar things to our troops monsters who should be tried and convicted of war crimes are nothing but liberal whiners.

In my mind, you treat all people as you would want to be treated under similar circumstances. That doesn't mean that they would return the favor. However, our morality is measured first by our standards, not the lowest common denominator from among our enemies. I have never seen a convincing argument that torture is an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence.

Jeff, help me understand how "our standards" matter one whit to our enemies? Seriously...no sarcasm intended. Do you think al Qaeda measures how they treat hostages by "our standards?"

As for "convincing arguements," why is it that ANY of us, liberal or conservative, should have any knowledge of how these issues are handled? Have we forgotten the old adage "Loose lips sink ships?" The world is now connected by the tap of a keyboard and satellite communication...why do we feel the need to play our cards to the world, especially to those who LIVE to DIE while killing us all? :o

Morality in war...what an oxymoron...:rolleyes:...if we measured our morality by our enemy's lowest common denominator, we'd tie the Gitmo detainees to the bumpers of some Humvees and drag them through Times Square. We show the measure of our morality every day by not conducting scorched earth warfare. Perhaps if we had, OBL's ashes would be a distant memory, 90% of ALL our troops would be home, we wouldn't be spending $10B/mo. to build THEIR economy, and rebuilding our own economy would go a WHOLE lot smoother. Heck....it might never have gotten as bad as it has.....

Think fewer bankruptcies regards, ;-)

kg

Hew
12-18-2008, 09:03 AM
Morality in war...what an oxymoron...:rolleyes:...if we measured our morality by our enemy's lowest common denominator, we'd tie the Gitmo detainees to the bumpers of some Humvees and drag them through Times Square. We show the measure of our morality every day by not conducting scorched earth warfare. Perhaps if we had, OBL's ashes would be a distant memory, 90% of ALL our troops would be home, we wouldn't be spending $10B/mo. to build THEIR economy, and rebuilding our own economy would go a WHOLE lot smoother. Heck....it might never have gotten as bad as it has.....
Ka-Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

badbullgator
12-18-2008, 09:13 AM
Good post Keith.
I would hope nobody here is foolish enough to think that water boarding is the worst thing that either side does to gain intelligence information.
What I find curious is that in the day of modern media coverage on the battlefields, a lot of people seem to think that they have the right to know everything that the military does to protect our country. I was not around during WWII, but somehow I don’t think there was much uproar over how Nazi’s or Japanese combatants were treated or interrogated. I wonder if these same folks that feel they need to be the watchdogs for the enemy also should be privy to secret planning, I mean if you have the right to know how non-citizen enemy combatants are treated you certainly would want to see any advanced plans for secret military actions before hand so you could approve…right?
My nephew is an interrogator, first for the army and now for a “private” company located in northern Virginia. He says in all the interrogations he has done, and it has been more than a few, he has yet to interrogate anyone who was not involved in something detrimental to our side. I might also mention that he was shot once during these procedures and has had several of his guys shot or killed, so the folks they are dealing with are not exactly our buddies.

cotts135
12-18-2008, 09:15 AM
Oh yes. Exactly. He supports waterboarding, so that means he beheads those who don't agree with his religion, sends his children to blow themselves up killing other children and he murders little girls for going to school. That's the same kind of sophistry that PETA uses when they say, "a rat is a pig is a chimp is a boy." .


This is what he said."I say let me send them there. Let me throw the switch. They are like a mad dog that needs to be put down. "

I never said I didn't agree that these people are evil and have a deep seated hate for Americans and what we stand for. We need to protect ourselves and if that means killing these guys on the battlefield that is fine. Where we disagree is what we should do to them once their in our custody. I could be wrong but it seems that Buster would just rather torture them for any intelligience they may have and then line them up against some wall and shoot them. This is similiar to what they would do to us.

I would like to believe that it is our laws and morality that separates us from them.


"Tens of thousands of US military personnel have been waterboarded."

Really????????????????????????????????? Sounds like a gross exaggeration to me.

The US considered Waterboarding torture up until just recently when they then found it convenient to redefine what it meant. Just because some Justice Department lawyers said it was legal doesn't mean that it is so.

K G
12-18-2008, 09:42 AM
I could be wrong but it seems that Buster would just rather torture them for any intelligience they may have and then line them up against some wall and shoot them. This is similar to what they would do to us.

Yeah, it's similar....if you call removing one testicle at a time similar...if you call cutting off a woman's breast similar...if you call peeling the skin off of arms in strips similar...if you call cutting off fingers one joint at time similar....I'll stop there in deference to anyone's delicate sensitivities. Merely shooting them would be a wanted relief rather than what they subject their captives to.


I would like to believe that it is our laws and morality that separates us from them.

I'd like to believe in equal pay for equal work too but that's not likely to get me anywhere now is it.............:cool:

We even use clean water when waterboarding. Look at it as good for their gums and teeth; maybe then you can get around its formal intent....;-)

kg

Hoosier
12-18-2008, 10:11 AM
If it were up to me I wouldn't do any water boarding. I would just line em up shoot the first one, ask the second what I wanted to know.If he didn't answer shoot him and move on to the next. And so on and so on and so on. The only reason you wouldn't is for religious reasons.Thou shall not kill. But we've already separated church and state so why not? I don't consider them human. I don't see any difference in killing all of them and putting a roach bomb in an infested house.

Shane Olean
12-18-2008, 11:05 AM
For those of you who approve such tactics, I can only assume you are also OK with similar interrogation of our own forces. Presumably representatives of our government who have called those who did similar things to our troops monsters who should be tried and convicted of war crimes are nothing but liberal whiners.

In my mind, you treat all people as you would want to be treated under similar circumstances. That doesn't mean that they would return the favor. However, our morality is measured first by our standards, not the lowest common denominator from among our enemies. I have never seen a convincing argument that torture is an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence.

Most SF operators have experienced boarding so as to understand the feeling when put into the position by an unfriendly.

I'll admit it's a little more than an 'uncomfortable shower' but having gone through it I'd prefer that over a beheading published on Al Jazeera for my bretheren to see.

Hew
12-18-2008, 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hew http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=373420#post373420)
"Tens of thousands of US military personnel have been waterboarded."

Really????????????????????????????????? Sounds like a gross exaggeration to me.

You are aware that the United States waterboards its own personnel during SERES training for pilots and special forces guys, right? "Tens of thousands" was taken from an article on waterboarding written by a Navy pilot. He extrapolated the number of men in SERES classes by the decades waterboarding has been done in training and came up with a guesstimate of 40,000. You've got google. You've got a calculator. Do your own math if you don't like his answer.

While you're doing the math, keep in mind the number three (3). Because THREE is the total number of high-ranking, murdering terrorists who have been waterboarded. Oh, the horror. I feel like Joseph Mengele now. :rolleyes:

But anyway, thanks for the revelation that Cheney knew about the waterboarding. When are you going to break the news here that Lindbergh's plane has reached Paris? ;-) You know who else also knew? Key members of the Democratic congressional delegation...including Nancy Pelosi.

Joe S.
12-18-2008, 12:27 PM
I have never seen a convincing argument that an uncomfortable shower (waterboarding) is torture.

Interesting.

Would any one on this board or reading this post that has directly experienced waterboarding in either a training or real-world environment please step forward and detail the facts and specifics of your experience.

Regards,

Joe S.

K G
12-18-2008, 12:52 PM
Interesting.

Would any one on this board or reading this post that has directly experienced waterboarding in either a training or real-world environment please step forward and detail the facts and specifics of your experience.

Regards,

Joe S.

While we're on the subject Joe, let's see if we can get any testimony on this topic:


I have never seen a convincing argument that torture is an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence.

Newton's Law regards,

kg

YardleyLabs
12-18-2008, 01:48 PM
There is a report titled "Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art
Foundations for the Future" prepared by the National Defense Intelligence College under the auspices of the Defense Department in December 2006. This report sought to evaluate alternative approaches for interrogation. A copy may be found at http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf. It notes that most professionals believe that "harsh" interrogation is not a reliable method for gathering intelligence because of the difficulty of assessing the accuracy of information in a context where the subject will say anything to halt the pain. The same study also notes that there is very little scientific evidence of any kind concerning the efficacy of torture -- either showing it works or proving it doesn't.

Note that the problem is not with getting people to confess; that is easy. They will confess to anything. Maybe this is what has historically made torture popular with members of the inquisition and with some police interrogators. When all you care about is getting a confession, and "truth" is a lower priority, torture works just fine.

Hoosier
12-18-2008, 02:35 PM
There is a report titled "Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art
Foundations for the Future" prepared by the National Defense Intelligence College under the auspices of the Defense Department in December 2006. This report sought to evaluate alternative approaches for interrogation. A copy may be found at http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf. It notes that most professionals believe that "harsh" interrogation is not a reliable method for gathering intelligence because of the difficulty of assessing the accuracy of information in a context where the subject will say anything to halt the pain. The same study also notes that there is very little scientific evidence of any kind concerning the efficacy of torture -- either showing it works or proving it doesn't.

Note that the problem is not with getting people to confess; that is easy. They will confess to anything. Maybe this is what has historically made torture popular with members of the inquisition and with some police interrogators. When all you care about is getting a confession, and "truth" is a lower priority, torture works just fine.


So your saying they'll talk:)

cotts135
12-18-2008, 03:14 PM
But anyway, thanks for the revelation that Cheney knew about the waterboarding.
Well it was not only that he knew about it he approved of it and coordinated it's implementation. Watching his interviews he is convinced he is right and would do it again.He is in the opinion of some in legal jeopardy because of this.


;-)
[SIZE=2 You know who else also knew? Key members of the Democratic congressional delegation...including Nancy Pelosi.

Let's not leave it at just Pelosi we can add Jane Harmon John Rockefeller,and Harry Reid along with some other Democrats. If you think that I am going to give these guys a pass because they are Democrats your wrong. They are to blame as much as anyone . This is why you won't see a real investigation into any torture techniques used by the CIA.


I checked up on that number you gave me about how many people have been waterboarded. Well it is possible that your right. MY bad

backpasture
12-18-2008, 05:06 PM
It's not surprising that the usual suspects have voiced their enthusiastic support for torture.

The rest of us can take comfort in the fact that the recently released McCain Levin report is a scathing indictment of the policy of torture that came straight from the White House.

The money quote, from John McCain, which is contained in the summary:
"The Committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735

This report (a truly bi-partisan effort) is laying the groundwork for bringing the perpetrators to justice. (And, by 'perpetrators' we are talking about the people who set these policies in motion, not the flunkies like Lyndiee England who carried out these policies and subsequently took the fall for it).

Who is this 'John McCain' anyway? Must be a librul!

backpasture
12-18-2008, 05:17 PM
[SIZE=2]You are aware that the United States waterboards its own personnel during SERES training for pilots and special forces guys, right?



And you're aware the SERES training was intended for preparing our troops for what might happen to them if they fell into enemy hands, and those enemies refused to follow the Geneva Convention? It's very clear that the methods outlined in SERES are considered to be violations of the Convention.

You're also aware that being waterboarded by your own team in a controlled environment is a wee bit different from being waterboarded by the enemy, right?

Hoosier
12-18-2008, 05:27 PM
It's water not acid. You realize their not actually drowning them right.

Hew
12-18-2008, 06:36 PM
This report (a truly bi-partisan effort) is laying the groundwork for bringing the perpetrators to justice. (And, by 'perpetrators' we are talking about the people who set these policies in motion, not the flunkies like Lyndiee England who carried out these policies and subsequently took the fall for it).

That presents a sticky wicket for the four Congressional Democrats who knew about everything that was going on and didn't say one word in protest. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that you're not onboard with bringing "perpetrators" like Pelosi, Jane Harmon, Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham to justice are you? That's odd that Levin/McCain don't mention their colleagues' aquiescence in all of this in their little book report. :rolleyes:

If you really think that any of the "perpetrators" in the Bush Admin (and Congress) will be "brought to justice" then you've been wrapped around the moveon.org hooka a little too long and its time to step outside for some fresh air. The Soviet-style political cleansing that you people are all giddy about; the pursuit of a past administration by attempting to criminalize their policies after-the-fact, isn't going to play so well with Obama's message of Hope and Change or with the American people.


You're also aware that being waterboarded by your own team in a controlled environment is a wee bit different from being waterboarded by the enemy, right?
Let's hear all about your firsthand account of when you were waterboarded during your SERE training and how it didn't bother you a bit because you knew you were in a controlled environment. It would be interesting to read your personal perspective because your experience is 180 degrees different than every other first-person account I've heard/read in the past.

Patrick Johndrow
12-18-2008, 07:53 PM
And you're aware the SERES training was intended for preparing our troops for what might happen to them if they fell into enemy hands, and those enemies refused to follow the Geneva Convention? It's very clear that the methods outlined in SERES are considered to be violations of the Convention.

And do you really think these muslim extremist thugs follow the Geneva Convention? Last time I heard they chopped heads off and videoed the event and sent the tapes to Ajazeere.
I think there should have been more battlefield trials for these goofballs and we wouldn’t be debating the issue.

subroc
12-18-2008, 09:37 PM
Interesting.

Would any one on this board or reading this post that has directly experienced waterboarding in either a training or real-world environment please step forward and detail the facts and specifics of your experience.

Regards,

Joe S.

So lets see, when it is over, a guy coughs a few times, spits out some water, we give him a towel and a comb and he gives us the information we want. Then we feed him whatever he wants to eat and he can even continue to hate us.

Sounds like a pretty good deal for him.

Joe, I really don't care what example you get someone to dig up. If they aren't having a bolt cutter taken to their hands or being forced to eat glass or having a leg broken with a 3 pounder or something similar, I could never describe it as torture. Is it comfortable? Well no. Coerced interrogation isn’t meant to be comfortable. It is a method of extracting information from someone that doesn't want to give it up. If you believe that any coercion falls into the realm of torture then you have a view of what torture is that differs appreciably from mine.

K.Bullock
12-18-2008, 10:04 PM
It's not surprising that the usual suspects have voiced their enthusiastic support for torture.

The rest of us can take comfort in the fact that the recently released McCain Levin report is a scathing indictment of the policy of torture that came straight from the White House.

The money quote, from John McCain, which is contained in the summary:
"The Committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735

This report (a truly bi-partisan effort) is laying the groundwork for bringing the perpetrators to justice. (And, by 'perpetrators' we are talking about the people who set these policies in motion, not the flunkies like Lyndiee England who carried out these policies and subsequently took the fall for it).

Who is this 'John McCain' anyway? Must be a librul!

The Geneva convention seems to make a strong case for terrorist not being able to be classified as "Prisoners of War" and subject to it's protections. I guess maybe the people who keep screaming about the U.S. violating the Geneva convention are also hoping no one ever reads it.




Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Hoosier
12-18-2008, 10:29 PM
Well I guess that settles it.

cotts135
12-19-2008, 06:41 AM
The Geneva convention seems to make a strong case for terrorist not being able to be classified as "Prisoners of War" and subject to it's protections. I guess maybe the people who keep screaming about the U.S. violating the Geneva convention are also hoping no one ever reads it.

In the decision the detainess were not granted POW status however the court said that they were entitled to the Third Geneva convention protections along with Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva convention which deals with humane treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

The Bush administration has reluctantly agreed to apply the Conventions to the detainees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html

Shane Olean
12-19-2008, 08:08 AM
Arguing on the internet is like taking first in the special olympics - even though you win you're still a retard....


Waterboarding's effects can be a little more than spit out the water and you're done - with ingestion to the lungs and the actual 'start' of drowning it gets real painful and the side effects can last several weeks - but I saw no one suffer lifelong injuries.

All of this GC talk is out the window for the other side - putting POW's on TV is illegal - beheading them is illegal - they don't give 2 $h!t$ about the GC - only the US and those under the blue hats attempt to abide by it so don't start on the *legality*. No portion of the GC is more important than another - break one break them all.

Boardings effectiveness is called into question because (as stated) - many will confess to anything so accuracy is questioned.

As for 'real life' experience - several operators on this board would volunteer for a show and tell mission for non believers

K.Bullock
12-19-2008, 10:13 AM
In the decision the detainess were not granted POW status however the court said that they were entitled to the Third Geneva convention protections along with Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva convention which deals with humane treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

The Bush administration has reluctantly agreed to apply the Conventions to the detainees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html
Could they be tried under the Geneva convention? No, they have agreed to abide by it in spite of the detainee's not being qualified for POW status.

There is no illegal activity to try them for as has been suggested. How can someone be in legal jeopardy for something that is not illegal, you may think it should be, that doesn't change anything though.
Morally and practically, Jeff provided some food for thought.

I saw the bill accusing the Bush administration of war crimes. It was purely political and was dropped almost as soon as it was written, It was out there long enough for the media to get a whiff of it and spread it all over the tabloid news outlets like cnn, msnbc and the like.




Democrats were more direct and critical. "I find it hard to fathom that this administration is so incompetent that it needs kangaroo-court procedures to convince a tribunal of United States military officers that the 'worst of the worst' imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should be held accountable" for crimes, said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the committee's ranking Democrat. "We need to know why we're being asked to deviate from rules for courts-martial." Leahy described Bush's record on detainees as "five years, no trials, no convictions."


No surprises here, It wouldn't be the first time politicians tried to tank a war for political ambition.

If you really want to provide aid and comfort to someone may I suggest this site. http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/AmericaSupportsYou/index.aspx

There not as cool and don't provide as much controversy, but at least they have earned honor and respect.

cotts135
12-19-2008, 10:47 AM
Could they be tried under the Geneva convention? No, they have agreed to abide by it in spite of the detainee's not being qualified for POW status.

There is no illegal activity to try them for as has been suggested. How can someone be in legal jeopardy for something that is not illegal, you may think it should be, that doesn't change anything though.

Disagree with you here. The Supreme Court has given the detainees protection under Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. I don't think it matters what status they are or what you call them, It appears that the decision is clear in that anyone under our custody should be treated humanely.
No matter what anyone says about waterboarding it is considered torture. People have been prosecuted for doing it and just because some Justice deptartment lawyers said it wasn't doesn't mean it isn't.

With this in mind and the recently disclosures by VP Cheney that he was aware of the waterboarding and coordinated it's use, I do think he is in some legal hot water. Will it happen? Probably not. Should it happen? I think it should.

Hoosier
12-19-2008, 12:05 PM
I think the liberals have made it clear that anything we do to actually try to win this Global War on Terrorism is off limits. We are fighting a war against animals who would like nothing more then to detonate a nuclear device in a major US city. They are actively trying to obtain WMD's to use against your family and mine. They have people in place within our borders and the funds to acquire the weapons. There are most likely people in possession of these weapons that are willing to sell them to terrorist. With all that stacked against us you are worried that some of these people are not getting all the rights you think they have coming to them. And seem to want to give them the same rights a citizen of the US has. You would like to tie the hands of anyone who has a job that involves the security of our country. No racial profiling even though in nearly every instance perpetrators of terrorist attacks fit an absolute profile. When we do happen to capture one you want to treat them like they were arrested for outstanding parking tickets not plotting to kill thousands of Americans or our allies. If someone wants to kill my family and is actively pursuing ways to do I don't give a rats ass about him or his rights. They sure as hell don't care about mine. My family and country are to important to me to risk worrying about the comfort of some piece of crap terrorist. I also believe that some on this board would like to see us leave Iraq defeated so their opposition to the war would be justified

cotts135
12-19-2008, 02:32 PM
I think the liberals have made it clear that anything we do to actually try to win this Global War on Terrorism is off limits.

This is just a broad generalization. Fact is there are many different ways to win the war on terror.I don't recall anyone complaining out about Tactical missile strikes on Al qaeda or the Carpet bombing of the caves in Afghanistan or the Marines going door to door in Fallujah to rid the area of terrorists


We are fighting a war against animals who would like nothing more then to detonate a nuclear device in a major US city. They are actively trying to obtain WMD's to use against your family and mine. They have people in place within our borders and the funds to acquire the weapons. There are most likely people in possession of these weapons that are willing to sell them to terrorist.

A realistic risk assessment of that would find that the odds of such an occurrence are low. Are risk of Nuclear attack were much higher during the cold war when the Soviets had thousands of nuclear war heads targeted for the US. Saying this in my opinion is a way to justify breaking laws.


With all that stacked against us you are worried that some of these people are not getting all the rights you think they have coming to them. And seem to want to give them the same rights a citizen of the US has. You would like to tie the hands of anyone who has a job that involves the security of our country.

I have never advocated giving them the same rights as a US citizen. That's an exaggeration. I do believe they should get what rights are entitled to them. No more no less.






No racial profiling even though in nearly every instance perpetrators of terrorist attacks fit an absolute profile.

Not sure what your getting at here.



When we do happen to capture one you want to treat them like they were arrested for outstanding parking tickets not plotting to kill thousands of Americans or our allies

Not true see above.


.
If someone wants to kill my family and is actively pursuing ways to do I don't give a rats ass about him or his rights.

Your entitiled to your opionion, I just don't agree.




I also believe that some on this board would like to see us leave Iraq defeated so their opposition to the war would be justified

Doubt that very much.

My point in all of this is that when we have laws we need to follow them. I believe in the rule of law with a passion and feel that it is if not the most important virtue then it is certainly close and this is what separates us from Terrorists. When we cross the line we just get closer to them. I don't want to be anywhere near them so it is important to follow the rules no matter how emotionally unsatisfying it is.

Henry V
12-19-2008, 02:59 PM
The following article is relevant to this discussion:
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812

The statements by CIA officials seem contrary to recent statements by Cheney and others in the Bush administration.

The abu ghraib incident and the acceptance of torture in this "war on terror" are below the historic principles and dignity of this country (ask John McCain). They have surely been great recruiting tools for the various factions against America. In no way does taking this low road make us safer in the long run. It recruits more terrorists, alienates our friends, and puts our soldiers and citizens in foreign nations more at risk. There are alternative methods to get the same information from prisoners without these risks.

Hoosier, nice try to imply that those of us who have a different point of view don't care about our families and country as much as you do.

K.Bullock
12-20-2008, 12:34 AM
This is interesting from today's news.


December 19, 2008 - by Rick Moran



As the sands run out on the Bush administration and the nation looks to the incoming Obama White House with a combination of apprehension for the future and a desire to put the past behind us, there remains some unfinished business that is so fraught with political danger and so heavy with symbolism regarding how we Americans see ourselves that the political elites in Washington are reluctant to address it.

I am talking about the whole matter of detainee abuse and whether those who specifically ordered it and carried it out should be punished.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/torture-a-matter-of-opinion-or-a-question-of-legality/

K G
12-20-2008, 09:58 AM
This is an interesting from today's news.

This is an interesting what from today's news? Credible piece of information? More than we already knew?

The author is the Chicago "editor" of an online "news" site called Pajamas Media who also runs a blog entitled "Right Wing Nut House." Makes more sense now, huh.........

Here's a thought: why don't we just use http://www.dccomics.com/mad/ as our news source. At least then we'll enjoy some serious laughs........:rolleyes:

kg

Hoosier
12-20-2008, 11:08 AM
Even if torture doesn't work (Which I believe it does). If we were only using as retribution, I'm Ok with that.

K.Bullock
12-20-2008, 11:32 AM
This is an interesting what from today's news? Credible piece of information? More than we already knew?

The author is the Chicago "editor" of an online "news" site called Pajamas Media who also runs a blog entitled "Right Wing Nut House." Makes more sense now, huh.........

Here's a thought: why don't we just use http://www.dccomics.com/mad/ as our news source. At least then we'll enjoy some serious laughs........:rolleyes:

kg

Well, you read the header anyway. What part of it you did find was not credible?

cotts135
12-20-2008, 08:49 PM
Even if torture doesn't work (Which I believe it does). If we were only using as retribution, I'm Ok with that.

I am kinda interested how you came to the conclusion that torture works.

Patrick Johndrow
12-20-2008, 09:09 PM
I am kinda interested how you came to the conclusion that torture works.

If it didn't work they wouldn't use it.

Hoosier
12-20-2008, 10:13 PM
I am kinda interested how you came to the conclusion that torture works.

John Mc Cain said they broke him. I would think he would know. It could be you know more though.

YardleyLabs
12-21-2008, 06:49 AM
If it didn't work they wouldn't use it.

When I become dictator, I hope that all my "subjects" share your wisdom.:p


John McCain said they broke him. I would think he would know. It could be you know more though.

McCain's story:

"For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards . . . Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 1/2 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope."
McCain was taken to an interrogation room and ordered to sign a document confessing to war crimes. "I signed it," he recalled. "It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities."
"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."



Eventually, McCain also says he provided interrogators military information:


"Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."


The effectiveness of torture is not measured by its ability to educe a confession -- true or not -- from the victim. It's measured by its effectiveness in educing reliable, militarily useful (i.e. actionable) information. It seems to me that McCain's torture, however brutal, failed to meet that test. There is no question that he was shamed by his failure to limit his answers to "name, rank and serial number", but that does not translate to having provided information of real value.

Patrick Johndrow
12-21-2008, 08:26 AM
When I become dictator, I hope that all my "subjects" share your wisdom.:p

Dude…if it didn’t work they (we) wouldn’t continue using it as a method of extracting information…if there was an easier way they (we) would do it. While most of us would find participating or even watching someone being tortured reprehensible I know all of us enjoy our relative safety and diminishing freedoms daily.

YardleyLabs
12-21-2008, 08:42 AM
Dude…if it didn’t work they (we) wouldn’t continue using it as a method of extracting information…if there was an easier way they (we) would do it. While most of us would find participating or even watching someone being tortured reprehensible I know all of us enjoy our relative safety and diminishing freedoms daily.

The link I had provided several posts ago (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) is for an analysis done for the DoD by a number of experts (including practitioners) on harsh interrogation techniques under the auspices of the National Defense Intelligence College. It notes that the general consensus of such experts is that such questioning is not very effective at educing useful information although it is great at educing "confessions". It notes that those who support such questioning tend to explain all failure as the product of poor execution. It also notes the absence of any scientific evidence either demonstrating the effectiveness of such techniques or proving them to be ineffective. On balance it seeme to suggest that the support for harsh interrogation stems more from the desire for something that will work than from any evidence that harsh techniques actually do work -- that is, it is better to do something that doesn't work than to admit that you have no idea how to do something that will.

Patrick Johndrow
12-21-2008, 11:01 AM
The link I had provided several posts ago (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) is for an analysis done for the DoD by a number of experts (including practitioners) on harsh interrogation techniques under the auspices of the National Defense Intelligence College. It notes that the general consensus of such experts is that such questioning is not very effective at educing useful information although it is great at educing "confessions". It notes that those who support such questioning tend to explain all failure as the product of poor execution. It also notes the absence of any scientific evidence either demonstrating the effectiveness of such techniques or proving them to be ineffective. On balance it seeme to suggest that the support for harsh interrogation stems more from the desire for something that will work than from any evidence that harsh techniques actually do work -- that is, it is better to do something that doesn't work than to admit that you have no idea how to do something that will.

Well is it is a published report on the internet it must be true…I must defer to your superior googling skills.

Henry V
12-21-2008, 12:03 PM
Jeff,
Why do you even try anymore? You must know by now that it is not worth the effort of finding a report prepared for the DOD with numerous credible authors by an organization with credible board members. It does not matter. Neither do any other articles that you could find that cite numerous experienced people in the intelligence business or John McCain who consistently say that torture is not worth the costs.
The article I posted earlier includes:
In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts—with Abu Zubaydah’s case one of the most glaring examples.

Those here with the same perspective and reasoning as Cheney are clearly not interested in considering the downside of torture or want to consider alternatives that would be better for the long term. As hoosier clearly stated:
Even if torture doesn't work (Which I believe it does). If we were only using as retribution, I'm Ok with that.

Pete
12-21-2008, 12:19 PM
I don't believe torture works well either. So I believe the best way to approach this situation is to line all of them up. Point a gun at their head and tell them to spill their guts. If they refuse,,,kill them and move on to the next man down the line. If no one at all talks thats OK because they had a choice to trade info for their life.
They made the choice and it was a valient one ,,,but OH well thats war.
I believe some one would talk.
I don't even like to see enemies tortured. However I don't see water boarding as torture or sleep depridation or dripping water on someones for head.

Pete

cotts135
12-22-2008, 06:52 AM
I don't believe torture works well either. So I believe the best way to approach this situation is to line all of them up. Point a gun at their head and tell them to spill their guts. If they refuse,,,kill them and move on to the next man down the line. If no one at all talks thats OK because they had a choice to trade info for their life.
They made the choice and it was a valient one ,,,but OH well thats war.
I believe some one would talk.
I don't even like to see enemies tortured. However I don't see water boarding as torture or sleep depridation or dripping water on someones for head.

Pete
This is a perfect reason why torture doesn't work. Put yourself in that position, what are you going to tell the person with the gun to your head? Are you going to tell them something they don't want to hear? No you are going to say anything they want to hear.

Pete
12-22-2008, 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=374825#post374825)
I don't believe torture works well either. So I believe the best way to approach this situation is to line all of them up. Point a gun at their head and tell them to spill their guts. If they refuse,,,kill them and move on to the next man down the line. If no one at all talks thats OK because they had a choice to trade info for their life.
They made the choice and it was a valient one ,,,but OH well thats war.
I believe some one would talk.
I don't even like to see enemies tortured. However I don't see water boarding as torture or sleep depridation or dripping water on someones for head.

Pete

This is a perfect reason why torture doesn't work. Put yourself in that position, what are you going to tell the person with the gun to your head? Are you going to tell them something they don't want to hear? No you are going to say anything they want to hear

Well if thats the case them kill them all . But I think one could gather all the info and sift through it and get bits and pieces of valuble info.
I for one would not except a prisonor if I had my way about it.
I would let holy terror reign untill all is still ,,,,if you can't do that then you shouldn't go to war in the first place.

I think fighting a war and interviewing every dam person before you shoot them is a waste of money and american lives.
But thats me,,,, I might be an A hole or just to simple minded but you stop the killing when they wave the white flag or they kiss your boots. Until then fire away.
Pete