Waterboarding

cjhsa wrote:

I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

So what's your point? Even if one would be willing to go along with your logic that terrorism = torture, what are you trying to tell us?

That if the terrorists should it, it should be okay for US soldiers, too?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

And what is this bullshit about referring to 9/11 is a weakness? Are you f--king crazy? I believe you are.

It's a form of Appealing to Extremes; a logical fallacy and a sign of weakness. You can't make a cogent argument logically, so you appeal to people's emotions instead. Weak.

Torture unfortunately doesn't mean whatever you wish it to; it is a defined word. Attacks upon civilians don't count as torture; unless torturous methods are used.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

So what's your point? Even if one would be willing to go along with your logic that terrorism = torture, what are you trying to tell us?

That if the terrorists should it, it should be okay for US soldiers, too?

If they enemy won't "play" by the rules why should we? Doing nothing endangers civilian lives. Terrorists prefer soft targets to military targets.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

And what is this bullshit about referring to 9/11 is a weakness? Are you f--king crazy? I believe you are.

It's a form of Appealing to Extremes; a logical fallacy and a sign of weakness. You can't make a cogent argument logically, so you appeal to people's emotions instead. Weak.

Torture unfortunately doesn't mean whatever you wish it to; it is a defined word. Attacks upon civilians don't count as torture; unless torturous methods are used.

Cycloptichorn

You buddy are the essence of what is wrong with the left in this country. It stinks really bad - but you cannot smell it because it is you that smells.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

So what's your point? Even if one would be willing to go along with your logic that terrorism = torture, what are you trying to tell us?

"That if the terrorists should it, it should be okay for US soldiers, too?

Well, one could argue that any soldier/army is in fact a "terrorist" or a terror organization. Dropping bombs from the sky into buildings is not so different from flying the plane into a building. Laying land mines over a "killing field" is not so different from a "road side" bomb.

Yet, the "politics" of this Planet changes definitions to justify ones actions.

It really would be better "politically" and in the eyes of the media, if the US soldiers did not take prisioners and just shot every so called terrorist. Then they would not have to "waterboard".

Would you not agree?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

If they enemy won't "play" by the rules why should we?

Sure, you can always opt for state terrorism. Has happened in many countries. Usually, the same line of reasoning that you just presented was used.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
If they enemy won't "play" by the rules why should we?

Sure, you can always opt for state terrorism. Has happened in many countries. Usually, the same line of reasoning that you just presented was used.

So, you just want to give up because you have no effective way to prevent terrorist acts? Or should we just pay them off?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

old europe wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If they enemy won't "play" by the rules why should we?

Sure, you can always opt for state terrorism. Has happened in many countries. Usually, the same line of reasoning that you just presented was used.

So, you just want to give up because you have no effective way to prevent terrorist acts? Or should we just pay them off?

How does anything I said imply "giving up?"

Many countries have been faced with terrorism, even in the very recent past. Terrorism is not new, and it's not a threat unique to the United States.

The important thing is how a government chooses to deal with the threat of terrorism. There are the examples of, say, Peru or El Salvador, where those responsible decided to go along with the reasoning you just presented and allowed their death squads to wipe out entire villages - men, women, children.

There are other examples (Britain and the IRA, or Germany and the RAF, or Spain and ETA, or Japan and the Red Brigades) where the governments didn't opt for state terrorism when faced with the same threat.

The "rules" are not there to protect the terrorists. Terrorists can easily be dealt with within a system that prohibits torture. The rules and laws are in place to protect the people.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

And what is this bullshit about referring to 9/11 is a weakness? Are you f--king crazy? I believe you are.

It's a form of Appealing to Extremes; a logical fallacy and a sign of weakness. You can't make a cogent argument logically, so you appeal to people's emotions instead. Weak.

Torture unfortunately doesn't mean whatever you wish it to; it is a defined word. Attacks upon civilians don't count as torture; unless torturous methods are used.

Cycloptichorn

You buddy are the essence of what is wrong with the left in this country. It stinks really bad - but you cannot smell it because it is you that smells.

Nothing new, you resorting to character assassination when your logical argumentation is limp.

It's phucking pathetic, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If you designate moslems as terriosts you advocate killing every man, woman and child in the middle east. How can you be sure who is a muslim and who is not. Or does it make any difference to you.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

The "rules" are not there to protect the terrorists. Terrorists can easily be dealt with within a system that prohibits torture. The rules and laws are in place to protect the people.

I think that exactly that let a lot of second/third generation terrorists in named countries go bananas: the were defeated by the leagal systems of a state under the rule of law = exactly by that what they tried to take ad absurdum.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

old europe wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I think that any terrorist act directed at civilians is an act of torture. Clearly the terrorists want to torture both their victims and their families. How you cannot understand that is beyond comprehension.

So what's your point? Even if one would be willing to go along with your logic that terrorism = torture, what are you trying to tell us?

That if the terrorists should it, it should be okay for US soldiers, too?

If they enemy won't "play" by the rules why should we? Doing nothing endangers civilian lives. Terrorists prefer soft targets to military targets.

Just to be clear, you support the use of torture against people the US government suspects of being enemies of the US?

0 Replies

Here is an interesting article, showing where waterboarding worked.
Now, the left can say that it is tortute, and maybe it is, but you cannot deny that in this instance, it worked.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA

Quote:

U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. KSM stayed mum for months, often answering questions with Koranic chants. Interrogators eventually waterboarded him ?- for just 90 seconds.

KSM "didn't resist," one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of The New Yorker. "He sang right away. He cracked real quick." Another CIA official told ABC News: "KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again."

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Here is an interesting article, showing where waterboarding worked.
Now, the left can say that it is tortute, and maybe it is, but you cannot deny that in this instance, it worked.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA

Quote:
U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. KSM stayed mum for months, often answering questions with Koranic chants. Interrogators eventually waterboarded him ?- for just 90 seconds.

KSM "didn't resist," one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of The New Yorker. "He sang right away. He cracked real quick." Another CIA official told ABC News: "KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again."

Where did you locate this, MM, in "The Stupidest Criminals in the World" file? Why not wrap your conviction in pretty paper and ribbons and send it to the prosecutor.

Rocket scientists, these guys aren't.

0 Replies

I can only suspect that those folks who think torture is a useful art are those who have never had severe trauma inflicted upon them. I do understand the need to set things straight, and can also understand the base need for revenge.......However, unless we want to abandon our nations's former banner of decency and fair-play we need to resist the urge to exact an eye for an eye and re-claim our place as a honorable nation. We have been the refuge for many a tortured soul and made room and opportunity for those in need. I would be deeply saddened to see my country reduced to the status of Iraq or Afganistan or many third world countries. We can do better and we do have professionals who know how to extract information....and often it is simply offering a cigarette to a captive you need for certain information.

John Wayne is a Silver Screen hero, most interrogators don't need his kind of star power.

0 Replies

ACLU 'shocked' US defying UN torture committee's recommendationsNick Juliano
Published: Wednesday November 7, 2007

A civil liberties and human rights group says the US has failed to correct policies that violate international conventions on torture and cruel treatment, and it accuses the US of continuing to violate international treaties.

"With the debate over waterboarding front and center, it is shocking to see the U.S. government continue to defend its shameful record of sanctioning secret and indefinite detention and its lack of accountability for torture and abuse," said Jamil Dakwar, Advocacy Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "The torture committee attempted to give the U.S. government a chance to correct its wrongs, but unfortunately the Bush administration responded with nothing more than empty gestures and hollow words."

Responding to concerns from the United Nations' Committee Against Torture, the US government questioned the authority of the UN's Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its applicability against US forces operating during wartime.

The US resists attempts to document all of the prisoners in its custody, and flat-out refuses to shut down the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or grant habeas corpus rights to its detainees. The government's defense insisted detainees get access to a "judicial process," which reviews whether a detainee was properly classified as an enemy combatant but does not have to level specific charges to justify the detention.

The UN demanded an end to interrogation techniques including "sexual humiliation, 'waterboarding,' 'short shackling' and using dogs to induce fear." The US repeatedly insists that "torture" is a violation of US law, but it does not renounce the listed techniques. News reports have indicated that US interrogators have engaged in those practices.

A copy of the 13-page document can be downloaded here.

"The U.S. government's report demonstrates that its progress is woefully inadequate," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National Prison Project. "Nowhere did the government report any significant improvements in preventing the abusive conditions of confinement in this country, the problem of sexual assault in our prisons, or the use of restraint devices that have endangered many detainees and prisoners held domestically."

The ACLU pointed out several deficiencies in the Bush administration's response to the UN:

#
According to the ACLU, today's response from the U.S. reveals that it has failed to respond to the torture committee's directives from last year, including:

Ensuring that no one is detained in any secret detention facility;

Prohibiting the transfer or the rendition of persons to countries where they could be at risk of being tortured and providing detailed records on all diplomatic guarantees assuring that a person will not be tortured if expelled, returned, transferred or extradited since 9/11;

Closing the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, and either permitting access by the detainees to a fair judicial process or releasing them as soon as possible while ensuring that they are not returned to any state where they could face a real risk of being tortured;

Ending gender-based humiliation and the mistreatment of women detainees, including the federal Bureau of Prisons' policy of shackling of women during childbirth in certain circumstances;

Promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigating all allegations of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by law enforcement personnel and bringing perpetrators to justice;

Addressing sentences of life imprisonment for children, which could constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

Ensuring that reports of brutality and ill-treatment of members of vulnerable groups by law enforcement personnel?-including those related to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?-are independently, promptly and thoroughly investigated and that perpetrators are prosecuted and appropriately punished.
link

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Here is an interesting article, showing where waterboarding worked.
Now, the left can say that it is tortute, and maybe it is, but you cannot deny that in this instance, it worked.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA

Quote:
U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. KSM stayed mum for months, often answering questions with Koranic chants. Interrogators eventually waterboarded him ?- for just 90 seconds.

KSM "didn't resist," one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of The New Yorker. "He sang right away. He cracked real quick." Another CIA official told ABC News: "KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again."

First, this NRO piece does not "show waterboarding has worked". It merely repeats anonymous claims that it has. Your writer is happy to take this on faith, as are you apparently, even while he hedges his claims as to whether any waterboarding has gone on at all...

Quote:

Waterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al-Qaeda leaders reportedly have been waterboarded, most notably Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

NRO is a prime neoconservative mouthpiece. What do you expect will be the line they will forward?

But here's the compelling sentence from your NRO writer...

Quote:

Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.

Really. And why? Clearly (even if he provides nothing but third/fourth party hearsay) because it 'works'. If it 'works', it not just ok, but cause for national pride.

What else might 'work'? Well, obviously, all forms of torture including cutting the tongue out of the fellow's daughter while he is held down to watch. Ripping out fingernails or even the whole finger. That would work.

Bursting with pride, are you, mm?

0 Replies

Neoliberal a--hole.

Back at ya.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Here is an interesting article, showing where waterboarding worked.
Now, the left can say that it is tortute, and maybe it is, but you cannot deny that in this instance, it worked.
...

So let's say waterboarding (or torture in general) works sometimes. I don't agree that torture yields reliable results, but just for the sake of argument let's say it sometimes does. Who gets tortured and who decides that? Should we torture drug dealers to find out who their suppliers are? Muslim activists or fund-raisers who support Middle Eastern charities that we suspect are working with terrorist organizations?

Maybe we should all state our positions on torture in general and waterboarding in particular very clearly since there seems to be some hemming and hawing on these posts. My position is:

Quote:

Torture including waterboarding is unacceptable as a way of questioning under all circumstances. Interrogation procedures as detailed in the Army Field manual as of 9/10/2001 are the limit of what is acceptable.

0 Replies

Pentagon blocks testimony of former Marine prosecutor by Jason Rhyne
Published: Thursday November 8, 2007

A former Marine Corps prosecutor was set to testify before Congress on Thursday that harsh interrogation techniques had tainted his case against an alleged Al Quaeda terrorist -- until a last minute email from the Pentagon told him not to.

Lt. Col. Stuart Crouch, a former lawyer with the Marines now working as a military judge, was prepared to tell a House Judiciary subcommittee that he had refused to prosecute suspected terrorist Mohamedou Slahi after discovering that severe methods had been used to extract incriminating statements from the Guantanamo Bay detainee. Crouch considers the methods used by interrogators to be torture, according to the Wall Street Journal who first reported the story.

Crouch told the Journal that he had previously told superiors about the scheduled appearance and received no objection. But on Wednesday he received an email informing him that the Pentagon's general counsel had determined that "as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow."

House Judicary Chair John Conyers told the paper that he was "outraged that the Defense Department is refusing to allow Lt. Col. Couch to testify before this committee, in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the government, concerning what he saw and heard relating to interrogation practices at Guantanamo." The committee is considering subpoenaing Couch's testimony if the Pentagon doesn't reverse course.

"Mr. Slahi, who is alleged to have helped recruit several of the Sept. 11 hijackers, is one of two high-value Guantanamo prisoners who were authorized to undergo 'special' interrogation methods," the Journal continues. "In addition to allegedly suffering physical beatings and death threats, Mr. Slahi was led to believe that the U.S. had taken his mother hostage and might ship her to Guantanamo Bay, where she would be the sole female amid hundreds of male prisoners."

Developing...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know