19
   

Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 09:47 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Why is waterboarding considered torture and shooting an unarmed man in the face isn't?


I don't like both, but 'torture' is clearly defined: see e.g. US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340.

Then the USA is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

And only a couple of years ago, 'torture' was again defined (here: by the USA) in the field manuals on intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations)

You can look it up ...
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 09:49 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

So I'm supposed to change my opinion because some idiot named "Mancow" says waterboarding is torture? That's funny.

He's actually been waterboarded, so he is in a much better position to make a statement. Mancow agrees with US armed forces who receive waterboarding and say it's torture.

Quote:

Army Reiterates That Waterboarding Is Torture Since Mukasey Won't
November 13, 2007

On Nov. 9, the Senate voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, despite concerns about his consistent refusal to declare waterboarding torture.

The AP reports today that three days earlier, on Nov. 6, the Army issued a memo to "senior leaders" reiterating that the technique is prohibited by the Army. The memo was to be relayed to soldiers' families and employees in order to "eliminate any confusion that may have arisen as a result of recent public discourse on the subject":

The service issued a "strategic communication hot topic" alert to its senior leaders two days before the Senate confirmed Mukasey, asking them to make sure every soldier, family member and Army civilian employee understands the ban on waterboarding. Mukasey was sworn in Nov. 9.

"The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field," the statement says.


The Army Field Manual specifically prohibits "waterboarding" in intelligence interrogations, along with "mock executions," "using military working dogs," and "inducing hypothermia or heat injury." The CIA reportedly used waterboarding on three different prisoners before 2003. Several former administration officials have attempted to eliminate or condemn the use of waterboarding. Inspector General John Helgerson quit in protest of the administration's torture policies. Former acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was forced out by the Justice Department for his dissent on waterboarding.

Last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) introduced legislation requiring "that interrogations comply with the standards set forth in the Army Field Manual, to all government agencies."

source

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 09:52 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly site by its founder and college professors. Try again.

Entries on wikiedia have annotations and citations. If you don't believe wikipedia, you still have the ability to verify their sources yourself. You don't have to trust wiki if you don't want to, but such a general dismissal is hardly valid.

A
R
T
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 09:52 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
ad hominem---another typical and predictable boobie move---Check. BTW your queen is in danger.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:37 am
@failures art,
It is not accepted as a source by college professors and even the founder. Take it up with them.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:37 am
@raprap,
Pass that joint around.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:44 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

It is not accepted as a source by college professors and even the founder. Take it up with them.

yawn...
You don't seem to understand sourcing, do you Renaldo?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:45 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Pass that joint around.

Are you starting to see reality and need to get away from it again?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:47 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

It is not accepted as a source by college professors and even the founder. Take it up with them.


Are you saying that the sources quoted there, can't be used?

Well, I hope you looked at mine: they are to be found at the original websites ... as well as on wikipedia, britannica and many governmental sites.
All those can't be used, you think?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:48 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

You don't seem to understand sourcing, do you Renaldo?


Oops - missed that.

That's it, I think, too.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
What I said was Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source by the founder of wikipedia and by college professors.

Does everyone on the left here have a comprehension problem?
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:51 am
@parados,
Cut the crap. No one is confused around here except you and your pals. I know what I said and so do you.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 10:56 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Ah hominem compounded boobie--you've lost your queen.

The question remains--did waterboarding lead to the death of Osama? Now consider the waterboarding stopped eight years ago. That waterboarding, at best, provides some pretty sketchy information. So even considering that data, obtained under torture was valid, it was so long out of date it was operationally useless on May 1st.

Now boobie, take another hit off that sheep and bleat off.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 11:03 am
@raprap,
Officials in the Obama administration and the Bush administration have stated that waterboarding led to info that led to the killing of Osama. Take it up with them.

You lose. That makes you a LOSER.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 11:13 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Cut the crap. No one is confused around here except you and your pals. I know what I said and so do you.

You are the one that is confused.
Unsourced information on wiki shouldn't be used. Information that is sourced can be checked. Wiki is a great place to find information. When it uses sourced information that information can be trusted unless you can show the original sources are wrong or misquoted.

By the way, you seem to be able to use just about every logical fallacy there is. While it might be an interesting exercise, it doesn't make for strong arguments. It only points out that you can't make any arguments at all. You can only parrot talking points given to you by your puppet masters.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 11:17 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Officials in the Obama administration and the Bush administration have stated that waterboarding led to info that led to the killing of Osama. Take it up with them.

You lose. That makes you a LOSER.

Right.. If A is a part of B then all of B must be A. Please, a 10 year old can see the fault in that logic. Your ability to think seems to be greatly impaired Renaldo.

If water boarding is an enhanced interrogation technique, it doesn't mean ALL enhance interrogation techniques are water boarding. Now, which officials specifically stated water boarding was the technique used?

We are only left with your inability to make a logical argument Renaldo. Something we started with and I am guessing we will always have with you.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 11:17 am
@parados,
The founder of wikileaks and college professors do not consider Wikipedia a scholarly source. That's the entirety of my point. Your little side murmurs and mumblings may help you feel better, but hardly contribute to the facts.
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 11:17 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html

Quote:
“The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003,” said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. “It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there.”


Rap
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 11:18 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

The founder of wikileaks and college professors do not consider Wikipedia a scholarly source. That's the entirety of my point. Your little side murmurs and mumblings may help you feel better, but hardly contribute to the facts.

yeah.. and?
You don't seem to understand sourcing which is what I said originally.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 12:01 pm
@raprap,
That's spin from the Obama administration and doesn't deny that waterboarding provided information. It's spin.

So Leon Panetta is a liar?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 12:40:34