13
   

Bush-era interrogation may have worked, Obama official says

 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:07 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

just because it worked doesn't make it right




The reports that torture "worked" might be just as credible as the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:14 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
We already know that waterboarding The "Sheik" made him give up the information that stopped an attack in Calif.


No. We don't know that at all. We are not privy to all the facts and circumstances about this particular "torture is good" talking point. We have no means to measure the truth of your assertion. However, we KNOW that the Bush Administration fabricated intelligence reports in order to justify a war with Iraq. That has been proven.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:16 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Woiyo9 wrote:

We already know that waterboarding The "Sheik" made him give up the information that stopped an attack in Calif.

How do we know this? Feel free to share your sources.


Exactly!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:22 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion. . . .


This is your proof? Does the government still stand by its assertion that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction? Bush had a grand time laughing and joking about starting a war based on fabricated intelligence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjXPOxnu2N8
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:31 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
I do not believe waterboarding is torture.


Would you believe it is torture if it was being done to our soldiers?
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:39 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

Quote:
I do not believe waterboarding is torture.


Would you believe it is torture if it was being done to our soldiers?


No.

0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 11:40 am
@boomerang,
Yes
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:27 pm
@Debra Law,
The CIA is as credible as any other governmental agency or representative.

I would argue your bias against Bush overshadows your ability to objectively debate the issue.

As a result, anything you suggest will be discounted and ignored.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:29 pm
@FreeDuck,
Feel free to take as many grains of salt your feel necessary to support your bias.

Being objective, I assert that the CIA using these aggressive torture tactics, was able to gain information that help save American lives.

Obama will refuse to use these aggressive techniques and the result of his decision may cost American lives.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:32 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

just because it worked doesn't make it right



SELF DEFENSE IS MORALLY RIGHT
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:34 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Feel free to take as many grains of salt your feel necessary to support your bias.

Being objective, I assert that the CIA using these aggressive torture tactics, was able to gain information that help save American lives.

Obama will refuse to use these aggressive techniques and the result of his decision may cost American lives.

So you advocate using torture based on the assumption that it is effective. You seem to have no reservations about its morality or legality. Given that, I ask again, why do we not use it in law enforcement?
FreeDuck
 
  4  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

SELF DEFENSE IS MORALLY RIGHT

Torture is never done in self defense. It is the very antithesis of self defense.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:48 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

SELF DEFENSE IS MORALLY RIGHT

Quote:
Torture is never done in self defense. It is the very antithesis of self defense.

Those statements are false.
We must defend ourselves from a war thrust upon us by the Moslems.





David
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:56 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

So you advocate using torture based on the assumption that it is effective. You seem to have no reservations about its morality or legality. Given that, I ask again, why do we not use it in law enforcement?


I think the general answer is that law enforcement is generally looking for confessions, that is, to solve crimes. Intelligence agencies are generally looking for information to prevent future events.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:58 pm
@FreeDuck,
I never nor will I ever consider waterboarding to be torture. Nor is slapping or sleep deprivation torture in my opinion. Nor do I think waterboarding should be used in every circumstance. It is an aggressive form of interrogation and should be use only in extreme circumstances.

Since these prisoners are not American citizens, they are not entitled to any rights granted under the US Constitution.

Therefore, to argue that waterboarding be used in law enforcement is a false argument.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 01:07 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

I never nor will I ever consider waterboarding to be torture. Nor is slapping or sleep deprivation torture in my opinion. Nor do I think waterboarding should be used in every circumstance. It is an aggressive form of interrogation and should be use only in extreme circumstances.

Since these prisoners are not American citizens, they are not entitled to any rights granted under the US Constitution.

Therefore, to argue that waterboarding be used in law enforcement is a false argument.


[quote="Woiyo9"]
Feel free to take as many grains of salt your feel necessary to support your bias.

Being objective, I assert that the CIA using these aggressive torture tactics, was able to gain information that help save American lives.

Obama will refuse to use these aggressive techniques and the result of his decision may cost American lives.
[/quote]


At one point, you're calling waterboarding "aggressive torture tactics", and next thing you know, you're saying you will never consider it to be torture. So, which is it?
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 01:12 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Feel free to take as many grains of salt your feel necessary to support your bias.

Being objective, I assert that the CIA using these aggressive torture tactics, was able to gain information that help save American lives.

Obama will refuse to use these aggressive techniques and the result of his decision may cost American lives.


And since you're so objective, you should also agree that they could have got the same information without using torture. But as we all know, you don't, because you are NOT objective, and in fact, are just another asshole with an opinion.

Objectively speaking, of course.

0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 01:12 pm
@roger,
by the time he's done explaining it, he's gonna have to hand in his bill oreilly no spin fanclub pin
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 01:24 pm
@Woiyo9,
Since i have no concern who likes us that is a non issue. I am concerned that the country I live in and call my own proudly does not do torture in my name, no matter what.

If waterboarding was not torture why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers after WWII?
Quote:

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.





source

0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 01:36 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

I never nor will I ever consider waterboarding to be torture.


... but you do believe that we've tortured people.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Being objective, I assert that the CIA using these aggressive torture tactics, was able to gain information that help save American lives.


Quote:
Since these prisoners are not American citizens, they are not entitled to any rights granted under the US Constitution.

That wasn't the argument. You said the Constitution didn't prohibit torture. I said it does. International law applies to these prisoners, and it does not allow torture.

Quote:
Therefore, to argue that waterboarding be used in law enforcement is a false argument.

It was a question, not an argument, based on your assertion that torture was effective and that its effectiveness justifies its use.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/30/2022 at 03:50:29