'it's absolutely torture'

DogOnPorch · May 30, 2009

Anyone with a thinking brain could see that and knew that already.
" not sure why you had to take a page out of DoP's immature style of responses."

Because they are bi-polar thinkers. They think that there is a clear and simple division between things, and everything falls into those categories. Their logic is simple- "if your against Israel, you must support the muslim extremists" This is a Bushism, in other words abject stupidity.

That and a little goading just to bug you- hence the need for "high fives".

You know me about as well as I know you...not very. Like any internet relationship, we don't have the benefit of face to face contact over a beer to judge the person as per: Real Life.

Like anything, torture is subjective, not objective. If you caught me pulling the wings off of flies, you might rightly assume I'm a sadist. But if you caught me torturing a fellow who had kidnapped my kid, you might have a different opinion of me and torture at the same time.

It's like saying: "I'd NEVER kill someone." Really? What if that person had your wife at gunpoint?

"Oh...that's different..."

Is it? Or....it IS! Your choice.

Oleg Bach · May 30, 2009

You know me about as well as I know you...not very. Like any internet relationship, we don't have the benefit of face to face contact over a beer to judge the person as per: Real Life.
Like anything, torture is subjective, not objective. If you caught me pulling the wings off of flies, you might rightly assume I'm a sadist. But if you caught me torturing a fellow who had kidnapped my kid, you might have a different opinion of me and torture at the same time.

It's like saying: "I'd NEVER kill someone." Really? What if that person had your wife at gunpoint?

"Oh...that's different..."

Is it? Or....it IS! Your choice.

Internet relationship? When modernist in real life use the term "relationship" - you know you don't have one - one thing about electronic communication - it may lack demension - but it does offer an outlet for brutal cold and savage honesty with out repercussions ---I find myself being overly brutal and inhumane on this damned machine - It's a bit like pressing the button to release the gas or launch a drone on some unsuspecting Taliban - it's ice cold...so lets warm it up --- I love you DOP -----kisses....okay?

DogOnPorch · May 30, 2009

Internet relationship? When modernist in real life use the term "relationship" - you know you don't have one - one thing about electronic communication - it may lack demension - but it does offer an outlet for brutal cold and savage honesty with out repercussions ---I find myself being overly brutal and inhumane on this damned machine - It's a bit like pressing the button to release the gas or launch a drone on some unsuspecting Taliban - it's ice cold...so lets warm it up --- I love you DOP -----kisses....okay?

re·la·tion·ship (r-lshn-shp)
n.

1. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.
2. Connection by blood or marriage; kinship.
3. A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other: has a close relationship with his siblings.
4. A romantic or sexual involvement.

I'm talking definition #1...you're talking #4. It's called the English language.

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2009

Maybe your not a bi-polar thinker, maybe you're just trying to get under someones skin. If thats the case my advice is stop licking ass.

No point in getting "cozy" with a worm... it will roll over you just the same as it does anyone else, if and when need be

KrustyKidd · May 30, 2009

Only an imbecile would call that "volunteering'. End of story.

Not quite the end as they certainly had a rational choice rather than a 'lose/lose jump off the cliff or get a bullet to the head' decision (or, a burn to death or jump off the WTC one). It was to accept traditional means and cooperate or, undergo enhanced interrogation. Just as the subject of the OP made a conscious decision volunteered, they also chose to undergo the enhanced interrogation.

CANADIEN · May 30, 2009

Not quite the end as they certainly had a rational choice rather than a 'lose/lose jump off the cliff or get a bullet to the head' decision (or, a burn to death or jump off the WTC one). It was to accept traditional means and cooperate or, undergo enhanced interrogation. Just as the subject of the OP made a conscious decision volunteered, they also chose to undergo the enhanced interrogation.

Yep. they were no doubt shown a video, and medical information, etc., etc., given two hours to think about it, consult a lawyer, signed a release form stating they were volunteering. :lol: :lol:

Here's how it happens. The guy is dragged into a room, tied up, told "Talk", refuses, has a cloth or a bag placed over his mouth and nose, and water is poured. They volunteer all right.

Topaz · May 30, 2009

The sole issue is that it was the policy of the US at that time and was endorsed by Congress and the Senate in that certain types of prisoners were subject to enhanced interrogation if they were found to be uncooperative using traditional means. The prisoners (three of them) were afforded opportunity to avoid this action and decided not to take advantage of this and, were subsequently waterboarded.
Kalid Sheikh Mohammed could have avoided being waterboarded if he simply came out and said he knew of the plot to take out the Brooklyn Bridge from the start and, followed it up with admission and details of bombing the Library Tower in LA. Instead, he decided, not the CIA but he decided, that he did not wish to cooperate. Hence, he volunteered to ensure he became a candidate for a legal process.

Now, what is very silly is how you equate this legal proceedure administered by a government and controlled by SOPs and overseen by doctors and trained administrators with the subject being able to, at a moments notice, to have it cease by becoming cooperative, to a woman being raped.

I think you should listen to the following what Keith found out on "Countdown" about the 3 that were supposely waterboarded, they weren't. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30990951

jbg · May 30, 2009

" not sure why you had to take a page out of DoP's immature style of responses."

No. Pragmatic and logical.

jbg · May 30, 2009

Only an imbecile would call that "volunteering'. End of story.

Classification for IQ levels (link): 70-80, Borderline deficiency. 50-69, Moron. 20-49, Imbecile. below 20, Idiot. My IQ is only a notch higher than imbecile levels, at "moron" levels, as defined by Francoise Ducros, one of Chretien's aids(link).

Don't insult imbeciles!!! We are an identifiable group that has a right not to be subject to hatred and ridicule.

Edited May 30, 2009 by jbg

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

who said i haven't before? i even re-confirmed how i feel about pearl's killing in that post.

Please point out your threads protesting torture by other actors on the world stage, with equal emotional vigor. I'm sure have done so for many years....right?

just because a person criticizes israel, it doesn't mean that they condone acts like pearl's killing. not sure why you had to take a page out of DoP's immature style of responses.

Because that's how this game is played. It's not immature at all, and involves the exploitation of a weak flank and rear. Your offense (and defense) are one dimensional and vulnerable to attack in the broader context.

So I did.....your move.

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

...That and a little goading just to bug you- hence the need for "high fives".

Looks like we got a twofer on this deal. Now that's a good day! :lol:

...it's....like...torture!

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2009

Looks like we got a twofer on this deal. Now that's a good day!
...it's....like...torture!

Yeah you keep on showin your little happy faces, with every post. In lieu of any useful, meaningful content. Boring

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

Yeah you keep on showin your little happy faces, with every post. In lieu of any useful, meaningful content. Boring

It seems to irritate you....so it shall continue.

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2009

It seems to irritate you....so it shall continue.

Oh no, I'm far to easy going for that!

With you, one always knows what to expect!

At best you are only mildly amusing. After I've had a beer or three

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

Oh no, I'm far to easy going for that!
With you, one always knows what to expect!

At best you are only mildly amusing. After I've had a beer or three

Some day you will be rewarded for sure, but until then, let the games continue.

One doesn't care what to expect from you.

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2009

Some day you will be rewarded for sure, but until then, let the games continue.
One doesn't care what to expect from you.

The fact that you don't care, means nothing to me either.

So we have something in common

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

The fact that you don't care, means nothing to me either.
So we have something in common

Right...so why dost thou protest so?

We're not exactly striving for Pulitzer or Nobel prizes here.

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2009

Right...so why dost thou protest so?
We're not exactly striving for Pulitzer or Nobel prizes here.

Its a fair point... but then there's be nothing to say if we didn't have some kind of argument.

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

Its a fair point... but then there's be nothing to say if we didn't have some kind of argument.

Agreed...that would be very boring. I often prefer the contrarion position just for the sake of argument....it's easy to be against torture and drowning puppies....but much more interesting to develop and defend the practice.

Sir Bandelot · May 31, 2009

There's the need to be "interesting", and then there's the need to believe in and defend right from wrong.

One of your leaders has come out and spoken plainly about what he believes.

Petraeus Criticizes Gitmo And Torture

May 29th, 2009- Last week, Gen. David Petraeus told Radio Free Europe that he supports President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and that he opposes the use of so-called “enhance interrogation techniques.”

“I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention,” Petraeus said.

Today in an interview with Fox News, Petraeus reiterated his support for a “responsible closure” of Gitmo but went a bit further, noting that the prison has been harmful to the U.S.

PETRAEUS: Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.

------

Of course with guys like you its always a little hard to tell whats really meant, and whats being said simply as part of ones duty to the current administration. I suppose you'll be changing your tune now, being the spitzbub that you always are?

Edited May 31, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

KrustyKidd · May 31, 2009

Here's how it happens. The guy is dragged into a room, tied up, told "Talk", refuses, has a cloth or a bag placed over his mouth and nose, and water is poured. They volunteer all right.

Now that we agree with each other that the detainees are afforded the opportunity to cooperate prior to undergoing enhanced interrogation, and, by their non cooperation basically volunteer for stronger methods, we can move onto other matters.

tango · May 31, 2009

Agreed....I don't care what they call it...if it's effective...do it.

Apparently it isn't:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Show me one important fact revealed through torture?

Some of the attitudes expressed here remind me of abusive parents:

They don't accomplish their goals either - quite the opposite.

Edited May 31, 2009 by tango

KrustyKidd · May 31, 2009

Apparently it isn't:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Show me one important fact revealed through torture?

Some of the attitudes expressed here remind me of abusive parents:

They don't accomplish their goals either - quite the opposite.

Democrats Supported CIA's 'Enhanced Interrogation' Techniques, Says House GOP Leader

Boehner also said that making the complete report public would show “the bigger picture” of how America was kept safe from terrorist attacks.
The memos that have been released reveal that only three top al Qaeda terror suspects, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), were ever waterboarded. Information obtained from KSM, according to one of the memos, allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned terrorist attack in Los Angeles.

“Clearly, we received an awful lot of information as a result of how we dealt with certain of those detainees,” Boehner said. “It helped keep America safe.

“Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’ Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know,’” the memo added.

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo.

“More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali,” the memo read.

“The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM,” the memo added.

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com on Tuesday that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

tango · May 31, 2009

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

It appears it was used as an immediate intervention, not a last resort.

Pretty unsavoury to break international law, while claiming to be the friggen white knight of Mother Earth. Delusional, in fact.

But ding dong Bush is gone. Now the truth can be told.

US reputation internationally is in the toilet.

It's lost the moral high ground it claimed.

To be seen, I guess, as the processes of justice continue, now in an entirely different context.

Edited May 31, 2009 by tango

bush_cheney2004 · May 31, 2009

There's the need to be "interesting", and then there's the need to believe in and defend right from wrong.

That's just more posturing....circumstances often make right and wrong irrelevant. I'm telling you what many already know.....things that are politically or even legally off-limits can and will be officially invoked when circumstances favor such things. And there will always be command and control failures like Canada's Airborne Regiment in Somalia.

One of your leaders has come out and spoken plainly about what he believes.

A confused tale from only one aspect of the military chain-of-command, not the entire intelligence gathering community. 'Gitmo in and of itself is not torture. I understand that President Obama wants to distance himself from the prior administration's practices, but interrogations and behavioral deprivations will continue....somewhere. I "support" the continuation of whatever methods are effective without limitation or political constraint. "War is hell."

Of course with guys like you its always a little hard to tell whats really meant, and whats being said simply as part of ones duty to the current administration. I suppose you'll be changing your tune now, being the spitzbub that you always are?

I'm not going to change dick....POWs and other detainees in the so called WoT will be interrogated and subjected to "torture", if only because the threshold has now been set so low. My bias is plain as a former member of the US military with the complete expectation of torture by training and practice, regardless of how many bleeding hearts may argue otherwise on internet forums.