NObama is amoral so the article is wrong.
NObama is amoral so the article is wrong.
A couple of things, first in answer to Joe S.: No, I have never been waterboarded as you know, and this is pertinent....how? Have the Dear Leader's officials setting the policy on what is and is not acceptable all been waterboarded? No? Have any of them ever served in the military, other than a desk jockey?
Second: I find Jerry D Herring's argument much more eloquent if elucidated less clearly than Cotts'. I don't really care how some egghead in an ivory (or should that be pinko) tower defines torture. I think the men and women on the frontlines making sure we can argue about this stuff on the internet probably have a much better idea of what should and shouldn't be acceptable.
Third, I absolutely agree with the premise of the original article which I posted. And that is that Dear Leader thinks it's nice to be important, but more important to be nice. I just hope nothing really bad happens on his watch....
It's so amusing to see all these lefty puffed chests when it comes to what they consider torture. God help me, but I so hope they will find themselves in a situation that will cause them to realize how idiotic their views are. They are all living like the atheist outside the foxhole.
In the words of Pat Buchannen:
"Certainly, Cheney and Bush, who make no apologies for what they authorized to keep America safe for seven and a half years, should be held to account. But so, too, should Barack Obama, if U.S. citizens die in a terror attack the CIA might have prevented, had its interrogators not been tied to an Army Field Manual written for dealing with soldiers, not al-Qaida killers who favor "soft targets" such as subways, airliners and office buildings."
My only complaint is we all knew what BHO believed and what he would do, just as we know what the towel-heads will do...they keep telling us. My bitch isn't with them...they warned us. My concern is with all you lefties that enabled BHO, and continue to enable the jihadists. Now you will all be held to account for what peril you have placed this Nation in. Quite frankly there are many of us that are fed up with pulling your azzes out of the fire. As Dennis Miller states..."I'm in favor of helping the helpless, but I have no such empathy for the clueless."
1. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, use of insects, etc is NOT defined as torture, here in this document.
2. There are admittedly differing points of view on what constitutes torture, particularly in regards to one's political goals/agendas.
3. Nowhere in this document does it prohibit the use of pain or suffering, whether physical or mental to obtain information.
It does prohibit the use of severe ...
It also does not allow for whether a particular technique may "work" or not. According to this, reasonable forced coercion could be acceptable.
So based on the given information, we are forced to debate/decide what constitutes "severe" pain or suffering. According to the above, the definition of which is allowed to be viewed in context. In essence, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is, to quote a familiar Democrat.
If one accepts that mock executions, hanging by limbs, sexual assault, electrical shocks and beatings are "torture" and thus, "severe", then could not something far less forcible than those techniques be considered less than severe within that context, and therefore reasonable?
About what constitutes "severe" pain and suffering.
If it was "torture" to put an insect in the cell with the detainee who had a unreasonable fear of insects ... what if a detainee is claustrophobic? Is it "torture" to put him in a standard size cell while being detained if it triggers his phobia?
We could get to the point of the ridiculous on what we need to do to be nice enough to these non-uniformed, combatants.
It ain't torture. True torture breaks your body in order to break your mind it results in catastrophic physical damage to the body. Look at McCain he got tortured. I have a few bad dreams but they aren't about waterboarding. Because it isn't torture. only three people were ever waterboarded according to the reports. It seems that it saved some lives. Did I mention I've had it done to me? it isn't torture.
How do you feel about the use of drugs for interrogation?
Sodium Pentathol regards,
[quote=Leddyman;437609]Hey there sir, I have been waterboarded. I was in the 3rd reconnaissance Bn., 3rd Mar Div, USMC, in Okinawa from 85 to 89. I went to sere school in Kalifornia in 87. I've been waterboarded, stood naked in a chin deep hole filled with cold water, sprayed with firehoses to enforce sleep deprivation (72 hours BTW) slapped, starved, cussed, and had psychological interrogation techniques used on me. quote]
Were you a POW? Or was it training? A POW isn't going home. A soldier in training knows he's going home. Were you waterboarded, lets say 80 times in a year? My guess yiou are slanted right wing from the spelling of California.
[qoute=Leddyman;437609]How do you feel about the use of drugs for interrogation?
"it depends" .
What drugs? Me or Her?
here i go agian. "Severe" i want someone to post the definition of "Severe" because when i think severe i think cutting off toes, fingers, poking with a hot poker you just pulled out of a fire something around that nature. so give me your definition of severe torture. and ill give you mine.
Would you consider waterboarding a member of your family several times per day as part of an overall indefinite incarceration to be torture? I would. Or to put it another way, maybe we should simply require that all interrogators undergo the exact same questioning techniques that they apply to others each and every time they choose to use them, for the same amount of time and the same number of repetitions. If it's not torture then they would presumably not mind.
The fact is that the authorized techniques are being used in the the belief that pain, fear, and despair will elicit the desired information. That seems like a good definition of torture. Many justify this behavior as being OK because it is being inflicted on immoral people. That is moral relativism.
The acceptability of the actions we take is defined by our morals, not the morals of those we have incarcerated. We are defined by our actions, not theirs. I choose not to be defined by the techniques authorized in the published memos and am happy that the administration has rejected those techniques as immoral.