# Torture - That's Not Us



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I keep hearing some politicians and talking heads making a statement something like that - Torture, that's not us. But isn't the truth closer to torture - that is us?

From the Revolutionary War through the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, and Afghanistan, torture has been used by the US. It seems to me the "torture" that took place after 911 was the most limited and controlled use of torture ever practiced by the US during a war period.

Instead of hanging our heads in shame, maybe we should be proud of how limited "torture" was. And that after 911 we made many mistakes and when those mistakes and missteps were recognized, they were stopped. It seems to me the US performed quite admirably.

Note: Some consider enhanced interrogation methods to be torture and others do not. I am using the term torture as a synonym for enhanced interrogation methods and leaving it to the reader to decide for themselves if they are torture or not


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

When an enemy attacks you things can get ugly, there is no such thing as a nice war. It's a pity that we (humans) never learn, so much suffering.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

k9 said:


> When an enemy attacks you things can get ugly, there is no such thing as a nice war. It's a pity that we (humans) never learn, so much suffering.


That's true. 

We tried to fight nice wars after WW2 and all we get is more wars.

In war, we must fight to win!!


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I still think it's pretty hypocritical to do the things you accuse others of.. 

We walk around this earth like we are the holier than thou nation, yet we do all the exact things we accuse others of... 

Either we need to keep our mouths shut, and do what we're gonna do, or we follow what we preach... 

No wonder the rest of the world doesn't think so highly of America any more..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> I still think it's pretty hypocritical to do the things you accuse others of..
> 
> We walk around this earth like we are the holier than thou nation, yet we do all the exact things we accuse others of...
> 
> ...


So what did we do that we accuse others of doing?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Torture, holding others with no due process, lack of representation.... A long list concerning "combatants" Of course our government has NEVER had the wrong person... 

I don't think we need to talk about using drones to spread fear in the civilian population of other countries... We've killed more civilians than the terrorists killed civilians on 9/11... Seems we're just as much a terrorist to other civilian populations than the terrorists are to us... 

Get away from war, and look at our prisons... Many aren't much better than prisons we complain about in other countries. We also incarcerate more people than communist countries.. and you can't tell me we don't have political prisoners, and debtor prisoners.. 

Guess we don't need to talk about civil forfeitures where the government takes from the poor with no conviction of a crime.. We don't need to discuss the whole IRS ordeal... Plus over taxing the poor, and giving the rich a pretty free ride... 

If you can't see how hypocritical our government is, then you're snoozing pretty hard..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> Torture, holding others with no due process, lack of representation.... A long list concerning "combatants" Of course our government has NEVER had the wrong person...
> 
> I don't think we need to talk about using drones to spread fear in the civilian population of other countries... We've killed more civilians than the terrorists killed civilians on 9/11... Seems we're just as much a terrorist to other civilian populations than the terrorists are to us...
> 
> ...


What does any of that have to do with torture?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

We accuse other countries of torturing their prisoners, yet we do the same in Gitmo... Then in our regular prisons, we use long periods of isolation.. also a form of torture.. we accuse others of no due process... It's a long list.. We have a very hypocritical government.. .


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> We accuse other countries of torturing their prisoners, yet we do the same in Gitmo... Then in our regular prisons, we use long periods of isolation.. also a form of torture.. we accuse others of no due process... It's a long list.. We have a very hypocritical government.. .


What methods of torture are going on at Gitmo?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> What methods of torture are going on at Gitmo?


Ya really, and they have the BEST medical care anywhere on earth. Many wish they could be treated like that.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I keep hearing some politicians and talking heads making a statement something like that - Torture, that's not us. But isn't the truth closer to torture - that is us?
> 
> From the Revolutionary War through the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, and Afghanistan, torture has been used by the US. It seems to me the "torture" that took place after 911 was the most limited and controlled use of torture ever practiced by the US during a war period.
> 
> ...


While incidents of torture have happened throughout our history the difference is it was never official government policy. 

The first official stance on prison treatment by our military came from General Washington after the battle of Trenton.

"_Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,â he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.â

_ This has remained our official _policy until 2002 With the issuance of what has been commonly referred to as the torture memos.

As far as the debate as to whether enhanced interrogation is torture the laws are clear. much of what we did was torture under many jurisdictions including the Geneva conventions, the __ Uniform Code of Military Justice, and U S federal law.

Jim 


_


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Humans will be humans, and no one is above their humanness.
I am a fool to think that one human somehow escaped the curse of sin.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Go ask the tortured 3,000+ on 911 if keeping someone awake is torture,
Also ask those that were tortured on that day if running a little water on a persons head if it is torture
Those that were Tortured and KILLED on that terrible day if running around in a diaper is torture.
Go ask those 3,000+ plus if what happened in 2002 getting some valuable information made up for those that were tortured on 911 and see if they will agree that a few ENEMY COMBATANTS even comes close to what they SUFFERED? 
War is heck, War is Ugly, War will never be that neat little game of hide and seek one played as a child.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Come on MoodRiver.. what, are you some former guard there and trying to stick up for your fellow workers?

If you believe nothing has happened there, then I'm off loading.. er um... sadly selling some really prime waterfront property in Florida.. Great for starting a family farm on...


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Go ask the tortured 3,000+ on 911 if keeping someone awake is torture,
> Also ask those that were tortured on that day if running a little water on a persons head if it is torture
> Those that were Tortured and KILLED on that terrible day if running around in a diaper is torture.
> Go ask those 3,000+ plus if what happened in 2002 getting some valuable information made up for those that were tortured on 911 and see if they will agree that a few ENEMY COMBATANTS even comes close to what they SUFFERED?
> War is heck, War is Ugly, War will never be that neat little game of hide and seek one played as a child.


I will not argue any of this.. BUT, like I said, either we need to keep our motes shut, and do what we are going to do, OR ELSE, if we preach to the world those things are not acceptable, then we need to live by what we preach.

Screaming to other countries about the atrocities they carry out on others, then doing the same, does not buy us any respect in the world...

We can't play both sides of the coin, and expect the world to stop poking fingers in our eye, as we're poking into theirs.. 

We may have lost 3000 innocent, but how many innocent have we killed in the name of "war on terrorism?"

How many children cower under their beds looking up at the sky wondering when the next drone will kill them.. 

OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Jim Bunton said:


> While incidents of torture have happened throughout our history the difference is it was never official government policy. _
> 
> Jim
> _


Just came across this article which I believe effectively refutes your points._"The implication of the statements by Obama, King, and Yarmuth is that there is an essential, virtuous America whose purity the CIA defiled. But thatâs silly. Aliens did not invade the United States on 9/11. In times of fear, war, and stress, Americans have always done things like this. In the 19th century, American slavery relied on torture. At the turn of the 20th, when America began assembling its empire overseas, the U.S. army waterboarded Filipinos during the Spanish-American War. As part of the Phoenix Program, an effort to gain intelligence during the Vietnam War, CIA-trained interrogators delivered electric shocks to the genitals of some Vietnamese communists, and raped, starved, and beat others. _

_America has tortured throughout its history. And every time it has, some Americans have justified the brutality as necessary to protect the country from a savage enemy. Others have called it counterproductive and immoral. At different moments, the balance of power between these two groups shifts. But neither side in these debates speaks for the âreal America.â The real America includes them both. Morally, we contain multitudes."_


_http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/torture-is-who-we-are-cia-report/383670/
_​


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

Can anyone tell me how does the suffering in waterboarding compare to a very long and painful childbirth and delivery some women [or young girls] have to endure, experience?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> Come on MoodRiver.. what, are you some former guard there and trying to stick up for your fellow workers?


All you have posted are generalities. I'm just asking that you be specific. How do I know if I agree or disagree with your comments when you speak in generalities?


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> I still think it's pretty hypocritical to do the things you accuse others of..
> 
> We walk around this earth like we are the holier than thou nation, yet we do all the exact things we accuse others of...
> 
> ...


 
Who is the "we"? Some battle weary soilder that was drafted and has to fight for his life to stay alive, or some social worker safe in their home being protected by those that go in harms way?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Soldiers are the one's doing the dirty work of the government. A soldier Drafted? You show me one drafted soldier since 1973... If they have to draft a soldier, and since they were forcing soldiers to stay past the time they want to leave the military, then people are saying WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR... Vietnam.... In WWII, the government was even able to get picky, and were turning people away... People believed in that war.

If anyone believes our government doesn't have motives other than fighting terrorism, then you've got your head in the sand.. 

Has anyone here read the report? I have.. .

Asking about how bad can waterboarding be... Have you read the report about it? They switched to saline solution because the stomach of the victims were so distended from all the water ingested the government feared death from hyponatremia along with being hypotonic. Both can easily kill... 


How would you like the government to take you off because they THINK you MAY know something, and do all these things to you and end up killing you? It is VERY possible it can happen, because of the way they have written the laws... 

If a government is fearing they are about to kill someone from the torture, then I'd say i's pretty bad.. 

Matter of fact, they did kill one person.. . They left him sitting on concrete with no pants. He died of hypothermia.. Did this person ever have a trial to PROVE they were a terrorist? Did this person have due process of the law? 

I DO NOT have to do more than generalize to describe how corrupt our government is. If you want details, YOU go out and read and educate yourself. I do not rely on you all to educate me... If you say something and I want more info, I go out and research it and build my own knowledge.... 

I get so tired of watching the blind praise and make excuses for the government... the very government that is working to keep us, and the rest of the world as oppressed as possible... The government that was formed to keep just these things from happening.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

If you want those in the military to protect us, we need to do everything possible to protect them. Some parts of war and fighting terrorists are not pretty, if you don't want the consequences, don't start a war. Don't fly planes into buildings to kill people. 

It is pretty sad to see the judgement of people on those protecting the right of our citizens to say what they want to, live how they want to, vote for those they approve of. 

The question, it seems to me, is how many buildings full of people have been hit by planes since 9 11 ? Maybe it's time to stand up, instead of apologizing.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

If I am ever faced with interrogating a prisoner who holds information that can be used to save American lives I will get the information if I have to blow off one prisoner's finger at a time.

When we face an enemy who is stateless, who cuts off the heads of his own prisoners, who kills women, children, non-combatants, innocents without distinction, to be squeamish about non-lethal interrogation is foolish beyond belief. 

To fight an enemy who is relying upon anonymity and concealment among the civilian population we must identify them, or we must wipe out the entire population. Take your choice, Simi. 

I know that there are Muslims who are willing to co-exist peacefully with Christian nations. We are at war with those who are not. How do you tell them apart? 

This is nothing new. When the Islamic nations were at the peak of their power they invaded Europe and almost conquered the continent. Do we want that fight all over again? 

Ataturk dragged Turkey into the modern world. Do you see it slipping back into the old Ottoman way? Realism, the fact that the Western nations could easily conquer Turkey is all that is keeping Turkey moderate today. Islamic fanatics are on the rise; stop them now or fight bigger wars tomorrow---or surrender.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

One mans torture is another mans turn on. Who knows those sickos think is "torture".
When they behave like the sickest vile humans one can think of,we have to deal with them on their level.People do this kind of thinking for a Living, it's called Profiling . This "torture" had to be done to Save Lives.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

What are you going to do about it simi- we are the government.... and if it's went badly you are part of the problem.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> Has anyone here read the report? I have.. .
> .


No, You Have NOT.
You read the 500 pages that was PRE Selected by the D's to make it sound BAD for the R's and sound bad for "Its Bush's Fault".
You have Not Read the* 6,000 Pages that were NOT released * These 500 pages were a Slanted view as too what took place with NO Input from the R's at ALL~!


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2014)

I would suggest that anyone that hates this country that bad should find a better one to live in .


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I read what was released.. Whether it's the full report, of picked and parted pieces... It still is not pretty, and shows just how hypocritical our government is. Has anyone else even tried to get through the first two pages??

I'm done with this thread.. You all can keep on going about making excuses for a very hypocritical and corrupt government, and keep on believing you're a part of the solution...

BTW, my father served 30 years in the service.. We had a talk recently about all of this.. He's pretty sad about feeling how lied to he was for all those years he believed his employer could do no wrong... 

Funny too when you see many many other soldiers and lifers coming back saying the same things... Many of those have joined The Oath Keepers... They finally woke up..


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Costa Rica I believe doesn't have a military, might be a place for some folks to consider moving to.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

k9 said:


> Costa Rica I believe doesn't have a military, might be a place for some folks to consider moving to.


 I was talking to a man at the flea market Sunday who's retiring there. He said you could only bring 1 gun so thats out for me.....


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Just came across this article which I believe effectively refutes your points._"The implication of the statements by Obama, King, and Yarmuth is that there is an essential, virtuous America whose purity the CIA defiled. But thatâs silly. Aliens did not invade the United States on 9/11. In times of fear, war, and stress, Americans have always done things like this. In the 19th century, American slavery relied on torture. At the turn of the 20th, when America began assembling its empire overseas, the U.S. army waterboarded Filipinos during the Spanish-American War. As part of the Phoenix Program, an effort to gain intelligence during the Vietnam War, CIA-trained interrogators delivered electric shocks to the genitals of some Vietnamese communists, and raped, starved, and beat others. _
> 
> _America has tortured throughout its history. And every time it has, some Americans have justified the brutality as necessary to protect the country from a savage enemy. Others have called it counterproductive and immoral. At different moments, the balance of power between these two groups shifts. But neither side in these debates speaks for the âreal America.â The real America includes them both. Morally, we contain multitudes."_
> 
> ...


This doesn't refute my points, I said "While incidents of torture have happened throughout our history the difference is it was never official government policy. "

Captain/Major Edwin F. Glenn Was court martialed and found guilty for his part in water boarding prisoners. He only received a slap on the wrist, but it maintained the official U S stance against torture and acknowledge that water boarding is torture.

From January 1965 through August 1973, 36 cases involving war crimes allegations against Army personnel were tried by court-martial. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 U.S. soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. All in all, this is a very small number given the size of the force and length of time involved. While critics say the number is small because crimes were not prosecuted, the truth is that American soldiers in Vietnam for the most part behaved well.

We tried and hanged Japanese soldiers after WW II for water boarding 
U. S. POWs at the Tokyo trials. 

Jim


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I still think it's pretty hypocritical to do the things you accuse others of..
> 
> We walk around this earth like we are the holier than thou nation, yet we do all the exact things we accuse others of...
> 
> ...


Do you really think that the controlled waterboarding & diaperwearing are the same as what others do for 'torture'? C'mon, man.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Go ask the tortured 3,000+ on 911 if keeping someone awake is torture,
> Also ask those that were tortured on that day if running a little water on a persons head if it is torture
> Those that were Tortured and KILLED on that terrible day if running around in a diaper is torture.
> Go ask those 3,000+ plus if what happened in 2002 getting some valuable information made up for those that were tortured on 911 and see if they will agree that a few ENEMY COMBATANTS even comes close to what they SUFFERED?
> War is heck, War is Ugly, War will never be that neat little game of hide and seek one played as a child.


Post of the century award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I will not argue any of this.. BUT, like I said, either we need to keep our motes shut, and do what we are going to do, OR ELSE, if we preach to the world those things are not acceptable, then we need to live by what we preach.
> 
> Screaming to other countries about the atrocities they carry out on others, then doing the same, does not buy us any respect in the world...
> 
> ...


There agian, you'll have to show us how we behead care-sorders, rape civilians, behead children & parade their bodies...this is a short list of what others do.
Waterboarding w/docs standing by, loud music, sleep deprivation...using these methods to keep our civilians safe is NOT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES DO!! That is NOT what we preach against!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> No, You Have NOT.
> You read the 500 pages that was PRE Selected by the D's to make it sound BAD for the R's and sound bad for "Its Bush's Fault".
> You have Not Read the* 6,000 Pages that were NOT released * These 500 pages were a Slanted view as too what took place with NO Input from the R's at ALL~!


Post of the week award.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

This thread is a perfect example on what psychologists study on human behavior and the the thought/decision making process.
It's logic vs. emotion.


There are only two reasons TO torture - one logical and the other emotional.
There are only two reasons NOT to torture - one logical and the other emotional.
If the person you're dealing with is basing their decision on emotions, forget trying to change their mind.
If they are using logic, you may stand a chance if they are willing to look at the facts.
You can tell by the posters words immediately which is the case.

I'll discuss the logical reasons first. This part will be overlooked and dismissed by the emotional decision makers and they can skip to the bottom, lol.

LOGICAL REASON TO TORTURE........
In order to gain valuable information to save lives.
A worthy goal, but extremely rare and difficult, due to the necessary parameters.
The person inflicting the torture HAS to know two things first, and sometimes that's impossible to know.
1) Does this prisoner know or any valuable info or at least is it highly probable?
2) Does this prisoner have the ability to resist in spite of the torture?

If you don't have a reasonable answer to both of these, you are wasting your time and have no logical reason to do it.
I could explain in great detail why this is so, but those emotional people will be the only ones to argue, so I'd be wasting my time.

The fact is, since the beginning of time, armies have had a Standard Operating Procedure of "need to know".
This prevents valuable info from being obtained by the other side.
Take the Manhattan Project for example.
IF Japan could have captured a scientist in the New Mexico desert, he could have found out we were making a nuclear bomb to drop on them............but the scientist has no idea when the attack will occur, only soon.
Similarly, IF they could have captured the pilots of the Enola Gay, they might have found out when they were going to attack in August, but the flight crew had no idea that their payload would end the war.
99.99% of the U.S. population would have absolutely no piece of that information, so you could torture them all you want, it would still be useless.

Secondly, our soldiers are trained to resist and provide FALSE information, just like everyone else.
The odds of actually getting what you want, even if you have an enormous amount of background intelligence are very slim.
It's possible but it's a longshot and only if you have good intelligence to start with.


LOGICAL REASON NOT TO TORTURE..........

Same reasoning as above, that the odds of gaining valuable info are too small to be considered as an efficient use of time, with an added risk - raising the likelihood that OUR people will be tortured if captured.
In the case of ISIL, Al-Queda, etc., that seems to be a given anyway, they are barbaric, but the reason still is valid for assessing any other situations.

You could reach two different conclusions about why we haven't been attacked again like on 9/11 based on the reasons above.

1) We haven't been attacked because we beat the odds, gained valuable info on terrorist plots, and therefore torture is logical.
OR
2) We haven't been attacked because we put our efforts into smart defenses like replacing the cardboard door on the cockpit and locking it.:hammer:

NOW, THE EMOTIONAL REASONS..........

These are easier and MUCH more prevalent.

EMOTIONAL REASON TO TORTURE............

They did it to us first.
They deserve it because of 9/11.
They torture our people.
I don't care how slim the odds are, if we can save just one life it's worth it.
We only tortured them, not killed them so that's ok.
And so on..........

EMOTIONAL REASONS NOT TO TORTURE........

We are not barbarians.
We do hold ourselves to a higher standard.
We are not hypocrites.
etc.



Bottom line is, if you want to do it for a logical reason, then know the limiting parameters and follow them.
If you want to because of emotional reasons, then you will only change your mind if you can examine yourself critically, over time.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> This doesn't refute my points, I said "While incidents of torture have happened throughout our history the difference is it was never official government policy. "
> 
> Captain/Major Edwin F. Glenn Was court martialed and found guilty for his part in water boarding prisoners. He only received a slap on the wrist, but it maintained the official U S stance against torture and acknowledge that water boarding is torture.
> 
> ...


I wish those who believe we're so atrocious would educate themselves on how different waterboarding was THEN and now, like we do to our own SEALs for training. W/docs present, safeguards there. Yes, a terrorist would think we're drowning them. That is the purpose.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> There agian, you'll have to show us how we behead care-sorders, rape civilians, behead children & parade their bodies...this is a short list of what others do.
> Waterboarding w/docs standing by, loud music, sleep deprivation...using these methods to keep our civilians safe is NOT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES DO!! IThat is NOT what we preach against!


We hung Japanese soldiers after WW II for doing what you think we should be fine with doing. 

Here is an article quoting many experienced interrogators that don't think torture is a good way to gather reliable information. 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...orture-doesnt-produce-useful-information.html



A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:
 "Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence."
Jim


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

k9 said:


> Costa Rica I believe doesn't have a military, might be a place for some folks to consider moving to.


I have often heard this and have even seen the t-shirts that depict turtles as its navy, birds as its air force and I can not remember what animal is depicted as its army (I think I still own one, somewhere). And every time that I hear that Costa Rica does not have a military or I see one of those t-shirts, I have to chuckle.

Costa Rica does not have its own military in the sense that we would normally think of it. They do have one heck of a "Police Force" as it is commonly called referred to in tourist literature, but in Costa Rica it is called "Fuerza Publica", whose literal translation is "public force". It has many branches that provide all of the security services that any country normally has. It also has "special operations" branches that are trained by other country's special operations forces. There are not too many "police forces" in the world that are trained in counterinsurgency, military free-fall, direct-action, small unit tactics, etc.

I know that Costa Rica does not have a military with tanks, jet fighters, rocket launchers, etc. and the Ticos are justifiably proud of that fact, but to say that they have no military at all and only have a police force is understating the obvious to a large degree.

It is not uncommon in Costa Rica to see "police force" members walking around with automatic weapons slung on their shoulders as a regular practice. That is only seen in the U.S. during what used to be called extreme circumstances and would be the cause of great concern here still.

And besides, why should they spend the money to outfit a military more in line with common standards when they have an agreement with the U.S. that in the event of war, the U.S. military will be at their disposal? It is really easy to talk the talk and hide behind your big brother when the neighborhood bully shows up. I know... I have a younger brother.

TRellis


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> I wish those who believe we're so atrocious would educate themselves on how different waterboarding was THEN and now, like we do to our own SEALs for training. W/docs present, safeguards there. Yes, a terrorist would think we're drowning them. That is the purpose.


And now also, as there were CIA Medics overseeing what was going on and how things were going. course a story like that is buried, and put on the back pages of newspapers and never reported on the news at all. But yes CIA Medics were present. Ands it is things like this that just is so sad the left never gets the entire story or just gets a small portion and never gets the details, and we wonder why there is so much division in this country. This is Just One Example of it.


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

personally I do not believe in torture.i do believe in just SHOOTING them.just maybe a joint at a time......I refuse to lose any sleep over muslim terrorists being treated badly.u came into our home looking for trouble-looks like u found it! too bad-so sad. MERICA!:thumb:


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Molly Mckee said:


> If you want those in the military to protect us, we need to do everything possible to protect them.
> 
> The question, it seems to me, is how many buildings full of people have been hit by planes since 9 11 ?


A couple of points, since when has our military been protecting us? Afghanistan was not involved in the 9-11 attacks, the majority of those on the planes were Saudi. In fact it was about drugs. The amount of opium exports at least tripled since we got involved in Afghanistan. Soldiers regularly came back describing guarding shipments being loaded onto U.S. aircraft. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie for Iraq? Iraq wanted to dump the petro-dollar, and their gold went missing too. How about Libya? First thing we did was steal the gold. Tunisia the same. Ukraine, the same 33 tons of it. Now we are bleeding the Japanese pension fund, making them invest in treasury bonds. Where do we need the military now? How about our boarder to the south... not there are they?



> âMilitary men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.â


 by Henry Kissinger

That is what our politicians think of our military. Our military deserve better.

Second point, any study into 9-11 shows it was an inside job. The deputy secretary of state said after he retired that the government knew in advance it was to happen and refused to do anything about it. It was not known how complicit our government was or if they were just following orders from the business elite in this country. Building 7 is your confirmation, it just collapsed in sympathy. 

Finally "do unto others as you would have them do to you," if you want our soldiers to be tortured when captured the by all means set the precedent and torture our captives.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

I cannot quote Gandhi's exact words [nor do I want to look for them] but in affect he said he could fight the British with non violence because they were a noble enemy. And this same method would not have worked on Hitlers Nazis.

I don't know who would be a Noble Enemy in today's world. But I know for sure it ain't Islam. They are insane and without honor.

Torture is sometimes necessary. It is the enemies of America that now want to call this criminal.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

trulytricia said:


> I don't know who would be a Noble Enemy in today's world. But I know for sure it ain't Islam. They are insane and without honor.


Just so you know....

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/11/breaking-germanys-dw-reports-isis.html

Nato is run mostly by the U.S. government. The U.S. and company want to stop the Iranian gas line that would go through the area, since they got prevented from over throwing Syria their trump card to stop the line is ISIS. So these evil Christian killing radicals are in the pocket of Nato, and most likely the CIA. What does that say about the U.S.? By the way, this isn't the first I have heard about this, but this is the first western broadcaster who has shown our involvement.
Why do I care?


> 4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary.


 Ezek. 9


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jim Bunton said:


> Captain/Major Edwin F. Glenn Was court martialed and found guilty for his part in water boarding prisoners. He only received a slap on the wrist, but it maintained the official U S stance against torture and acknowledge that water boarding is torture.
> 
> We tried and hanged Japanese soldiers after WW II for water boarding
> U. S. POWs at the Tokyo trials.
> ...





Jim Bunton said:


> We hung Japanese soldiers after WW II for doing what you think we should be fine with doing.
> 
> Here is an article quoting many experienced interrogators that don't think torture is a good way to gather reliable information.
> 
> ...






trulytricia said:


> It is the enemies of America that now want to call this criminal.



And right on cue, there it is.
Someone posts that this is and always has been a criminal act........and the response is denial.
Calling a spade a spade is unpatriotic.
How about showing you a picture of an American G.I. being waterboarded, sexually humiliated, kept without sleep and food for days on end?
Would that make your blood boil and cry out, "They are torturing our boys!"?

I know what I would say. But then again the truth never bothers me, it's those that deny the truth that make me cringe.

And for those that want "disloyal" Americans to leave, are we also talking about the Americans who have lived here for thousands of years too?
Doncha just hate it when bossy new neighbors move in and try to run roughshod over you?













arabian knight said:


> And now also, as there were CIA Medics overseeing what was going on and how things were going. course a story like that is buried, and put on the back pages of newspapers and never reported on the news at all. But yes CIA Medics were present. Ands it is things like this that just is so sad the left never gets the entire story or just gets a small portion and never gets the details, and we wonder why there is so much division in this country. This is Just One Example of it.




Why would you need medics if this was harmless fun?

Yes, the medics were there to do things like provide saline IVs when the prisoner swallowed so much water his electrolytes went out of balance or his stomach became distended.
There are lots of details in those reports, I think everyone should read them, then decide what gov't you want to defend.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ya really, and they have the BEST medical care anywhere on earth. Many wish they could be treated like that.


Do you really believe that? I mean you tell us how you go to the Mayo Clinic and how great it is, yet you think prison doctors in Cuba province better medical care to detainees than you get at the Mayo clinic? What rights do detainees have to see specialists and obtain access to advanced diagnostic & treatment equipment? I doubt much.

But even if Gitmo could provide better medical care than the Mayo Clinic, you would then have to admit that the government can provide better medical care that private industry can. I doubt you want to admit that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah now you don't like the Red Cross either. Nice deflection trying to bring MAYO into something that has nothing to do with them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ah now you don't like the Red Cross either. Nice deflection trying to bring MAYO into something that has nothing to do with them.


You said it was the best medical care on earth, so it must be better than Mayo.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

One thing to remember is that since WWI we have been using torture. During WWI we used gas and flame throwers. During WWII we used flame throwers napalm and bombs including atomic bombs. In Korea they used flame throwers napalm and bombs. During Vietnam they used napalm and bombs. How can it be that we used to burn people alive and not called it torture. War is a ugly and no armchair quarterbacks can make it better unless you want to re wright history.
This is only to re try the Bush administration nothing more. 
What would it look like if we went further back and tried Roosevelt and 
Truman for incinerating Japaneses city?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada you are just being a TROLL And I am not going to be suckered into it. Period~! Enough Already!


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Give me a break!

This whole thing is about some whiney libs covering their behinds. They all knew what was going on and have knowledge of even worse procedures that we endorse/permit to happen.

Any one of those prisoners would prefer it be done by the CIA than go through the rendition program set up by Clinton and still carried on by Obama. Look at/for the info on rendition!

Extraordinary rendition or irregular rendition is the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another for the sake of employing the use of torture for interrogation. The program was initiated by former President Bill Clinton and expanded under the Bush and *Obama administrations*


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Many here are saying this has always happened, and you are correct. The difference is the government never claimed it was legal before. This was carried out way down the chain of command from the Commander and Chief. It was often over looked by those in command until it couldn't be and then court martial proceedings were begun. 

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> One thing to remember is that since WWI we have been using torture. During WWI we used gas and flame throwers. During WWII we used flame throwers napalm and bombs including atomic bombs. In Korea they used flame throwers napalm and bombs. During Vietnam they used napalm and bombs. How can it be that we used to burn people alive and not called it torture. War is a ugly and no armchair quarterbacks can make it better unless you want to re wright history.
> This is only to re try the Bush administration nothing more.
> What would it look like if we went further back and tried Roosevelt and
> Truman for incinerating Japaneses city?


You are confusing collateral damage from acts of war with torturing prisoners under our control. While civilian casualties should be limited if possible. Torture of prisoners is against both treaty agreements, and the law.
Jim


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> You are confusing collateral damage from acts of war with torturing prisoners under our control. While civilian casualties should be limited if possible. Torture of prisoners is against both treaty agreements, and the law.
> Jim


OK then it is OK to burn people if they are not detainees? Even those that live in a city with no military experience? But when we captured them they now have more rights? What treaties is it against? The Geneva treaties applies to solders but not to anybody else. As far as it is against the law and since you cant say for sure what tourer is. You may be putting your foot in your mouth without proof.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> The Geneva treaties applies to solders but not to anybody else.


That's just not true. The Bush administration made that assertion, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to terror suspect detainees.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> OK then it is OK to burn people if they are not detainees? Even those that live in a city with no military experience? But when we captured them they now have more rights? What treaties is it against? The Geneva treaties applies to solders but not to anybody else. As far as it is against the law and since you cant say for sure what tourer is. You may be putting your foot in your mouth without proof.


I assume that was a typo and was meant to say torture. If that is true I have shown many times that we have considered water boarding to be torture for a very long time, and have tried and convicted people of torture for water boarding prisoners.

*18 U.S. Code Â§ 2441 - War crimes*


(A) * Torture.â * The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind. 

While many here may not agree that water boarding falls under this description many different courts have decided it does. 
Jim


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jim Bunton said:


> While many here may not agree that water boarding falls under this description many different courts have decided it does.
> Jim


Using an analogy that one senator used, admitting that torture is illegal but waterboarding doesn't fit your definition of torture is like admitting that armed robbery is illegal but holding up banks doesn't fit your definition of armed robbery.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

"True Americans serving as watchmen on the wall say, "Not on our soil. Not on my watch." And any American-loving leader should promise, "Whatever it takes to stop evil, to protect this nation, we shall do.""

https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10152935471888588
​I agree completely. If the President determines that "torture" is the most effective way to protect this country from attack, then he should use it under a strictly controlled, medically supervised process.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

It's nice when the people that make the rules have played the game.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

This thread once again proves that liberalism is truly a mental disorder.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> This thread once again proves that liberalism is truly a mental disorder.


That also describes ANY ideology where you defend a position on emotion when the facts are clearly presented in front of your eyes.

But don't take my word for it. Perhaps a non-partisan President's words might give the truth more credibility........:shrug:
Read his words and think about this country's honor - and your own.



*&#8220;Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause&#8230; for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.&#8221; &#8211; George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775&#8230;*

After the battle [of Trenton, New Jersey on December 26, 1776.], the Continentals were preparing to run some of the British Empire&#8217;s German mercenaries through what they called the &#8220;gauntlet.&#8221; General Washington discovered this and intervened. As &#8230; explained in the Huffington Post, Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:
*
&#8220;&#8216;Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,&#8217; he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.&#8221;*


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> That also describes ANY ideology where you defend a position on emotion when the facts are clearly presented in front of your eyes.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Perhaps a non-partisan President's words might give the truth more credibility........:shrug:
> Read his words and think about this country's honor - and your own.
> ...


When your source is the Huffington Post I know that everything you say is divorced from reality. Your lefty tripe only influenced the gullible.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

LOL!
My "source" as you call it, is the Founding Father of this country!!!

I could get the same Washington speeches from 1,000 different links.......but that wouldn't open your eyes, ears or mind would it?
BTW,
If you only knew my libertarian anti-totalitarian views, you'd be ashamed for saying that about me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Psssssttt.......

Breaking News.

Karl Marx thought the earth was round too and Christopher Columbus was a lefty lackey!


Now don't let the facts sway your opinions, lol.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> When your source is the Huffington Post I know that everything you say is divorced from reality. Your lefty tripe only influenced the gullible.


The quotes are way to easy to check for accuracy for you to try and impeach them by belittling the source. 

Jim


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I agree completely. If the President determines that "torture" is the most effective way to protect this country from attack, then he should use it under a strictly controlled, medically supervised process.


But knowing that there are law against doing it, doesn't that put the president above the law? If the president can ignore laws against torture then what other laws might he be able to ignore?

Honestly, do you really think authorizing the president to ignore the constitution and federal law when he wants to is a good idea?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Jim Bunton said:


> The quotes are way to easy to check for accuracy for you to try and impeach them by belittling the source.
> 
> Jim


It has been accused of liberals, but it really applies to anyone arguing a point, If you can't argue the logic, attack the messenger. It shows that the attacker can't really argue with what is said. In short you win the argument even though the attacker won't admit it.

My daughter and I have been discussing the topic, when patriotism begins to agree with evil deeds, then patriotism becomes idolatry, and the idol of patriotism is put ahead of God who hates evil deeds. Some will say if you don't like it go to a different country, but I compare it to your child becoming involved with a gang, do you support the child and say "what a good job your doing" or do you love your child and try to get your child away from the gang? I may criticize my country, and hope others will see what is wrong too and be able to change it from doing bad deeds. You just don't throw away your child and get a new one.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

BlackFeather said:


> It has been accused of liberals, but it really applies to anyone arguing a point, If you can't argue the logic, attack the messenger. It shows that the attacker can't really argue with what is said. In short you win the argument even though the attacker won't admit it.


I can testify that just a few posts back. Switch things up, attack and then deflect to something that has nothing to do with the OP is their modus operandi.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I'll just let Washington's words speak to those that have a heart to listen.
BTW, how do you suppose the redcoats legally classified our ragtag, shoeless, backwoods "army"?

Hint: The answer begins with the letter "T".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll just let Washington's words speak to those that have a heart to listen.
> BTW, how do you suppose the redcoats legally classified our ragtag, shoeless, backwoods "army"?
> 
> Hint: The answer begins with the letter "T".


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's just not true. The Bush administration made that assertion, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to terror suspect detainees.


The Supreme Court has made wrong decisions before.


Jim Bunton said:


> I assume that was a typo and was meant to say torture. If that is true I have shown many times that we have considered water boarding to be torture for a very long time, and have tried and convicted people of torture for water boarding prisoners.
> 
> *18 U.S. Code Â§ 2441 - War crimes*
> 
> ...


Since we are not at war how does this mean anything?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> But knowing that there are law against doing it, doesn't that put the president above the law? If the president can ignore laws against torture then what other laws might he be able to ignore?


Immigration law comes to mind.



> Honestly, do you really think authorizing the president to ignore the constitution and federal law when he wants to is a good idea?


I don't believe it is unconstitutional. And even if it was, the President could simply execute an executive order that includes pardoning anyone he authorizes to commit "torture".



> he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

simi-steading said:


> Torture, holding others with no due process, lack of representation.... A long list concerning "combatants" Of course our government has NEVER had the wrong person...
> 
> I don't think we need to talk about using drones to spread fear in the civilian population of other countries... We've killed more civilians than the terrorists killed civilians on 9/11... Seems we're just as much a terrorist to other civilian populations than the terrorists are to us...
> 
> ...


The largest part of America hasn't been awake since WWII. This country is the largest bunch of idiot sheeple in the world. 

Godspeed

Ranger


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> The Supreme Court has made wrong decisions before.
> 
> Since we are not at war how does this mean anything?


I showed this as an example of what we have defined as torture. Being at war is not a requirement.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

(a) * Offense.â * Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection 

(b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) * Circumstances.â * The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't believe it is unconstitutional. And even if it was, the President could simply execute an executive order that includes pardoning anyone he authorizes to commit "torture".


The president has the authority to pardon anyone he wants, with or without cause. But if he authorizes torture and pardons those who carried it out, the president becomes singularly responsible for the act.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Immigration law comes to mind.
> 
> I don't believe it is unconstitutional. And even if it was, the President could simply execute an executive order that includes pardoning anyone he authorizes to commit "torture".


Do you really want to give presidents this sort of power? 

Are you going to feel the same when TPTB read some of your writings and find you seditious?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> Do you really want to give presidents this sort of power?
> 
> Are you going to feel the same when TPTB read some of your writings and find you seditious?


I'm not giving it to him. 

The Constitution already did.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> The president has the authority to pardon anyone he wants, with or without cause. But if he authorizes torture and pardons those who carried it out, the president becomes singularly responsible for the act.


So what? He can pardon himself if it comes to that, but it never will. Torture has not been ruled unconstitutional and likely won't be.

Whether you or anyone else likes it, a President will always consider torture if he thinks it might help prevent an imminent attack. As CIC, I don't know if Congress has the authority to prevent him from doing so.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Torture has not been ruled unconstitutional and likely won't be.
> 
> Whether you or anyone else likes it, a President will always consider torture if he thinks it might help prevent an imminent attack. As CIC, I don't know if Congress has the authority to prevent him from doing so.




Ahem, Bill of Rights, 8th Amendment.
And the 1972 SCOTUS ruling on it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=238

Really long read.
Summary?
Torture is unconstitutional, and has been from the beginning.

I can also quote the U.S. military manual if you like, that should also cover CIC on down.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Ahem, Bill of Rights, 8th Amendment.
> And the 1972 SCOTUS ruling on it.
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=238
> ...


I think I will go with Justice Scalia, the intellectual giant currently serving on the Supreme Court:



> Scalia also said that while there are U.S. laws against torture, nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. "I don't know what article of the Constitution that would contravene," he said.


http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-constitution-silent-torture-175915820--politics.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Torture is unconstitutional, and has been from the beginning.


Yes, but if we don't prosecute torture we are effectively legalizing it. The next president who wants to use torture isn't going to hesitate. Why should he? He can just point to GWB and say, "You let him get away with it."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Yes, but if we don't prosecute torture we are effectively legalizing it. The next president who wants to use torture isn't going to hesitate. Why should he? He can just point to GWB and say, "You let him get away with it."


I try not to "let" anyone get away with anything. I _am_ limited in my ability to those that come within arms length of me, but I do my best, LOL.

Should anyone care to read it, another fierce patriot, Patrick Henry debated in favor of the 8th amendment.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs13.html


Amendment VIII



Document 13

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention

16 June 1788Elliot 3:447--48, 451--52
Patrick Henry: . . . Congress, from their general powers, may fully go into business of human legislation. They may legislate, in criminal cases, from treason to the lowest offence--petty larceny. They may define crimes and prescribe punishments. In the definition of crimes, I trust they will be directed by what wise representatives ought to be governed by. But when we come to punishments, no latitude ought to be left, nor dependence put on the virtue of representatives. What says our [Virginia] bill of rights?--"that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose Congress, to . . . define punishments without this control? Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights? You let them loose; you do more--you depart from the genius of your country. . . .

In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors?--That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.

But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany--of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone.

. . . . .

Mr. Nicholas: . . . But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. . . . If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded.

Mr. George Mason replied that the worthy gentleman was mistaken in his assertion that the bill of rights did not prohibit torture; for that one clause expressly provided that no man can give evidence against himself; and that the worthy gentleman must know that, in those countries where torture is used, evidence was extorted from the criminal himself. Another clause of the bill of rights provided that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted; therefore, torture was included in the prohibition.

Mr. Nicholas acknowledged the bill of rights to contain that prohibition, and that the gentleman was right with respect to the practice of extorting confession from the criminal in those countries where torture is used; but still he saw no security arising from the bill of rights as separate from the Constitution, for that it had been frequently violated with impunity.


The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment VIII, Document 13
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs13.html
The University of Chicago Press

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I think I will go with Justice Scalia, the intellectual giant currently serving on the Supreme Court:
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-constitution-silent-torture-175915820--politics.html


 Scalia's example is a perfect case of how horrendous crimes make terrible law. Under his scenario the constitution would be ignored and the consequences dealt with later. There is no provision in the constitution that would not be ignored to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in a major city.

Jim


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> I try not to "let" anyone get away with anything. I _am_ limited in my ability to those that come within arms length of me, but I do my best, LOL.


I think you are conflating 2 things that are not similar.

I don't believe torture as punishment and torture as a tool in an interrogation are the same thing. 

To torture a terrorist as punishment is prohibited by the Constitution, while using torture to help obtain information from a terrorist in a dirty bomb type scenario may well be Constitutional.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yeah, I read Scalia's comments when I was pulling up other links.
I generally like his rulings (this was NOT a SCOTUS ruling BTW) but his personality is one of an arrogant, pompous, horse's behind.
That was a stupid remark, even for him. He knows darn well that it's unconstitutional.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I think you are conflating 2 things that are not similar.
> 
> I don't believe torture as punishment and torture as a tool in an interrogation are the same thing.
> 
> To torture a terrorist as punishment is prohibited by the Constitution, while using torture to help obtain information from a terrorist in a dirty bomb type scenario may well be Constitutional.


I take it you didn't read the history of the 8th amendment.
The discussion by Patrick Henry was on torture being used to get information by suspects in the countries of Europe that we had just left.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> He knows darn well that it's unconstitutional.


AH yes just like John Roberts said and voted for Obamacare he KNEW dern WELL that that is also unconstitutional.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> AH yes just like John Roberts said and voted for Obamacare he KNEW dern WELL that that is also unconstitutional.


No doubt, for that matter go back to the Dred Scott decision. That poor guy couldn't convince the court that he was a human being and didn't deserve to be enslaved.
How long has THAT mistake haunted us?

I watched Dick Cheney today use the exact same reasons I posted on page 2 of this thread. If it wasn't so sad, it would be comical to know that such an intelligent man couldn't pull a logical argument out of his.......



EMOTIONAL REASON TO TORTURE............

They did it to us first.
They deserve it because of 9/11.
They torture our people.
I don't care how slim the odds are, if we can save just one life it's worth it.
We only tortured them, not killed them so that's ok.
And so on..........






Bottom line is you either have honor and character or you don't.
If you don't, then you can literally justify anything in your downward slide.
This issue is about us - not them.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> I showed this as an example of what we have defined as torture. Being at war is not a requirement.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
> 
> ...


So if I tourer a person I am guilty of a war crime? Oh well at least I get away with it so far. But of course this is only to retry the Bush administration nothing more. So go ahead and make any excuse to go ahead with this and next year we can try the Rosivelt administration and the Truman administration and then the Clinton administration and the Obama administration.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2014)

Interesting thread, it has enlightened me to say the least. It shows how we have lost morality, honor and digressed to barbarians in this country. All to enrich a select few and keep the key board warriors from yellowing their panties. So sad,,, Shalom


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

FarmrBrown said:
Bottom line is you either have honor and character or you don't.
If you don't, then you can literally justify anything in your downward slide.
This issue is about us - not them. 

I reiterate- the above IS the Bottom Line. Those that choose to support torture support evil. I wish to have nothing to do with them, for as they do, so is it that they are. My father was a bomber pilot in world war II, he saw the world in black and white - no shades of grey. You cannot consider any act that includes evil to be virtuous. 

So everyone, we now have a better idea of who is honorable and who is not, you have outed yourselves for the world to see.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> So if I tourer a person I am guilty of a war crime? Oh well at least I get away with it so far. But of course this is only to retry the Bush administration nothing more. So go ahead and make any excuse to go ahead with this and next year we can try the Rosivelt administration and the Truman administration and then the Clinton administration and the Obama administration.


No idea what you are talking about. I don't see any chance of anyone in the Bush administration being tried. As far as the other administrations you are referencing I don't remember any of them defending the use of torture in a public forum. Not sure what you think they did, but I am pretty sure you have nothing the links directly to high ranking members of their administrations.

Just to be clear I would rather a decision not to use these methods in the future came out of all this, then to see members of the Bush administration tried.

Jim


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

dlmcafee said:


> Interesting thread, it has enlightened me to say the least. It shows how we have lost morality, honor and digressed to barbarians in this country. All to enrich a select few and keep the key board warriors from yellowing their panties. So sad,,, Shalom


Thanks for the insults that add nothing of value to the thread.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Shine said:


> > FarmrBrown said:
> > Bottom line is you either have honor and character or you don't.
> > If you don't, then you can literally justify anything in your downward slide.
> > This issue is about us - not them.
> ...


It's comforting to know there are honor and character police to judge me and that you two have volunteered for the job. How insulting that some think they are pure enough to pass judgement on who is honorable and who isn't.

Let's say my child was kidnapped and I had caught one of the kidnappers. I would use any means necessary to find out where the child was being held. That includes shooting the kidnapper in the knee or anywhere else I thought might encourage them to give me the information. Kidnapper vs my child - my child wins every time.

If I was in a position of power and I had a captured terrorist who knew where a dirty bomb was hidden, I would use any means necessary to get the information from him. Terrorist vs American citizen - terrorist looses every time.

If you want to get on your high horse and say that torture is never allowable, fine. I will also get on my high horse and say I have the guts to use it and the guts to face the consequences. 

My policy would be "The US, under normal conditions, does not use torture; however, we reserve the right to use any means necessary to stop attacks on the US and it's citizens."

And while your father was flying around, mine was suffering in a German prisoner of war camp. If torturing a Nazi had got him out of the camp one day sooner, it would have been worth it. He suffered severe psychological effects for the rest of his life from the treatment he received in the camps. He suffered severe frostbite over much of his body and barely survived on a starvation diet where he lost 1/3 of his weight. 

I think some may be equating torture with sadism. Sadism seems to be implied whenever the word torture is used, but torture, by definition, is not sadism. Torture done for the pleasure of the torturer is evil and never should be done. "Torture" that is used in a controlled manner as a tool in an interrogation is a completely different thing.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Would it be ok to behead one prisoner in front of the group to get there information? If all is fair in war is there no line that you would stop at?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> It's comforting to know there are honor and character police to judge me and that you two have volunteered for the job. How insulting that some think they are pure enough to pass judgement on who is honorable and who isn't.
> 
> Let's say my child was kidnapped and I had caught one of the kidnappers. I would use any means necessary to find out where the child was being held. That includes shooting the kidnapper in the knee or anywhere else I thought might encourage them to give me the information. Kidnapper vs my child - my child wins every time.
> 
> ...


I am sorry to hear about the treatment your father received. Do you think the Germans were right in their treatment of him? What if they thought they could get information that could prevent a bombing run on one of their cities? 
The truth is there is serious debate among professionals if torture is even an affective way to get information. 

Jim


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Jim Bunton said:


> I am sorry to hear about the treatment your father received. Do you think the Germans were right in their treatment of him? What if they thought they could get information that could prevent a bombing run on one of their cities?
> The truth is there is serious debate among professionals if torture is even an affective way to get information.
> 
> Jim


If he was tortured for information, he never discussed it with me. What he received was common German pow treatment.

I'm just suggesting that rules are good and as a society we need them. But if there comes a time that a rule needs to be broken and a person is willing to suffer the consequences, then the rule needs to be broken. 

The President is in a unique position as the head of the government, the head of the Executive branch, the CIC, and has the power to pardon. As a country, we are largely limited in what we can do to a President and instead rely on the personal integrity of the office holder.

All the current fuss over torture is just rehashing what the Democrats and the media said 6 years ago. It is akin to the current "protests" going on around the country that are fueled by liberals and the media. In both cases, well meaning people are being manipulated for a political end.

As a general rule, almost everyone agrees we shouldn't use torture. Where the difference is, is in those few cases where it is thought a person may have information that can prevent an imminent attack or lead to a key terrorist leader.

I don't know which is right, but I know which action I support. In terms of Constitutionality, I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That overrides a terrorists right to terrorize.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> I assume that was a typo and was meant to say torture. If that is true I have shown many times that we have considered water boarding to be torture for a very long time, and have tried and convicted people of torture for water boarding prisoners.
> 
> *18 U.S. Code Â§ 2441 - War crimes*
> 
> ...


WHy do you refuse to see that waterboarding done then & after 9/11 is totally different? The dems all signed off on it. Was explained to them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Using an analogy that one senator used, admitting that torture is illegal but waterboarding doesn't fit your definition of torture is like admitting that armed robbery is illegal but holding up banks doesn't fit your definition of armed robbery.


And here again we see that liberals have no idea how to make an analogy.
Over&over&over we've told the left how waterboarding was done on the 9/11 terrorists. AND the dems ok'ed it. Enuf. Let's see the whole report.

Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center and National Clandestine Service said Sunday that Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Intelligence Committees of both houses were aware of all the enhanced interrogation techniques his agency was conducting on terrorism suspects.

Rodriguez disputed charges in the recently released Senate Intelligence Committee report that he withheld information on any of the techniques from elected officials in Congress or the White House.
"All of these people knew exactly what we were doing," Rodriguez said.

Despite her recent denials, Pelosi knew about all the techniques, he said. "She never objected to the techniques at all."

Rockefeller, a Democrat, actually told him to go after more suspects with more techniques, Rodriguez said.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jo...il_job=1599496_12142014&s=al&dkt_nbr=kyxtzi8z


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Glade Runner said:


> When your source is the Huffington Post I know that everything you say is divorced from reality. Your lefty tripe only influenced the gullible.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Grama and Moon. Down the slippery path you will find that once started then your acceptance of torture would seemingly become a solution for more and more problems. If we torture in any manner then it opens the door to others to torture also. I really don't care if you think that the way we do it is much more "civilized". You cannot justify Evil as a tool of those that operate with Honor. It is not mine to judge, it is only mine to observe. The Bible has provided that which judges. If you seek to prove the Bible wrong then that's going to be a long row to hoe for you.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Shine said:


> Grama and Moon. Down the slippery path you will find that once started then your acceptance of torture would seemingly become a solution for more and more problems. If we torture in any manner then it opens the door to others to torture also. I really don't care if you think that the way we do it is much more "civilized". You cannot justify Evil as a tool of those that operate with Honor. It is not mine to judge, it is only mine to observe. The Bible has provided that which judges. If you seek to prove the Bible wrong then that's going to be a long row to hoe for you.


If you really believe that the Bible judges, why do you keep judging? Doesn't your Bible say "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" (Matthew 7:1)?

Lecturing someone based on your own beliefs never wins an argument.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You can't judge what happened years ago and the way things were done then. Hot boxes etc. 
What tok place and I hope will continue to take place is what they are doing TODAY to get info out of the Enemy. You can't try to make Apples and Oranges the same.
Even Cheney said he would do it again. I sure hope that is true in THIS day in age.
We are not talking about WWII
We ARE talking about WWIII here there are many differences in the way we fight and the way we Gather info.
And being the enemy doesn't carry a flag of country is different also. Rules HAVE to change and the Way we do things AHD to change as well and they did. Running around in diapers is not torture.
Some may even think that Sheriff Joe Arpiro who makes his Convicted prisoners wear Pink Underwear is torture eating baloney sandwiches is torture. I say to those folks So Be It.
Don't want to be in pinks don't do the crime. Don't want to be waterboarded don't be a terrorists.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I have seen the light! Torture can be good. It could be used by the police, the IRS , EPA and other agencies to solve and stop crime. We could possibly raise enough revenue to solve our nations budget woes. Just think a country with no crime or problems. The possibilities are endless. I am now firmly in the torture camp, I mean harsh interrogation camp.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

No, I do not "judge" anyone. Using the teachings of the Bible I rationalize that which I am supposed to be doing. If others choose to listen and then hold themselves up to this particular light to consider if the shoe fits, then so be it. However, one must consider, is it possible to torture the wrong person? If you have cut the fingers off of someone or shot them in both knees only to find that you have identified the wrong person as YOUR person of interest then I would ask, what should your punishment be? I mean if you have Judged this person to be worthy of Torture then you have placed this person below you and you above them, that would be the most harsh act of judging another - wouldn't it? How should this premise be applied across the board for everyone?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> If you have cut the fingers off of someone or shot them in both knees only to find that you have identified the wrong person as YOUR person of interest then I would ask, what should your punishment be?


That's a big part of what we've learned from the report. Some of the detainees aren't accused of being guilty of anything. They were detained and tortured only because it was believed that they might know something.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> I have seen the light! Torture can be good. It could be used by the police, the IRS , EPA and other agencies to solve and stop crime. We could possibly raise enough revenue to solve our nations budget woes. Just think a country with no crime or problems. The possibilities are endless. I am now firmly in the torture camp, I mean harsh interrogation camp.


You're arguing with yourself. No one has suggested the government use torture except in the most serious cases where our country is at risk.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Shine said:


> No, I do not "judge" anyone. Using the teachings of the Bible I rationalize that which I am supposed to be doing. If others choose to listen and then hold themselves up to this particular light to consider if the shoe fits, then so be it. However, one must consider, is it possible to torture the wrong person? If you have cut the fingers off of someone or shot them in both knees only to find that you have identified the wrong person as YOUR person of interest then I would ask, what should your punishment be? I mean if you have Judged this person to be worthy of Torture then you have placed this person below you and you above them, that would be the most harsh act of judging another - wouldn't it? How should this premise be applied across the board for everyone?


I'm not judging anyone. I am making a rational decision based on evidence. Could I be wrong? Of course. But I wouldn't let the possibility of making a wrong decision paralyze me. As the saying goes, you play the cards you are dealt.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> That's a big part of what we've learned from the report. Some of the detainees aren't accused of being guilty of anything. They were detained and tortured only because it was believed that they might know something.


I doubt if you learned that from the report. You believed it before the report even came out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> You're arguing with yourself. No one has suggested the government use torture except in the most serious cases where our country is at risk.


I have suggested that. You see, the torture program was short-lived, ending before the beginning of 2003. So why did they stop the program? Was the risk of terror attacks over?

Not hardly. I believe that the torture program was aimed at getting justification to invade Iraq, not at keeping us safe from terrorism. All they had to do was torture while asking leading questions, like "Tell me about the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda." After getting a few detainees on record as saying that Saddam & Al Qaeda were working together there was no real need for torture, because the administration already had what they needed.

The fact is that if they really believed torture was necessary to keep us safe from terrorism then they wouldn't have stopped doing it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I doubt if you learned that from the report. You believed it before the report even came out.


The evidence that I had before the report was that the Gitmo detainees were all "hardened terrorists" and "the worst of the worst." Now we find out that many detainees are just innocent people who might know something.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...and even worse, those in favor of torture on this board are not the ones doing the torture nor are they the ones deciding who is deemed to have information worthy of requiring torture to get that information, these people are willing to stand back and allow others to torture in their name without having a care in the world that it is done in a rational fashion. A document that is most probably politically motivated DOES show valid concerns about the program, some on here say "Oh, because it's politically motivated then the wrongs identified are just attacks from the liberals/conservatives." [insert your own choice, it really does not matter] It all boils down to one thing, Are you willing to do EVIL in your search for safety/happiness/security/comfort/goodness? If you are, then that answers which side I should place you on with what I understand to be "Honorable Behavior" and how someone would act that is of "Good Character" as learned from the teachings of the Bible. No if's and's or but's.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Interestingly, during Cheney's appearance in Meet the Press yesterday he said that the "rectal hydration" treatment was not part of the enhanced interrogation program and was not authorized by the White House. So now we have evidence of rogue, unauthorized torture. Is anything going to become of that?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

It is interesting my daughter was talking about judging the other day, It is widely exclaimed in the forum that she is on, "Your judging me", she has come to realize that the ones who complain about being judged don't like being told they are wrong and use the judging argument to turn the tables and make the other person the guilty one.

Matt 7:1 Judge not that you may not be judged, #2919 Strong's concordance, "to mean to condemn, ----, pass sentence." The idea that you convict someone of a crime.
We all make judgments, "that man is a bad influence so I'll stay away." You haven't condemned him, you hope he repents, but for your own good you choose not to associate with him. Torture, is an idea, and some ideas are good and some are bad, nothing wrong with making a judgment that an idea is bad and you should not associate with it. Nothing wrong with saying I wish not to associate or verbally support people who hold a bad idea, It is not the same as condemning someone, "your going to hell" but the bible is clear if you see your brother stray, their is nothing wrong with pointing it out an hoping they change their ways. James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

The debate is about what is wrong and what is right. Which is what this torture debate is about now, bringing up the don't judge me argument is in error. It is not for us to condemn or ---- someone, but nothing wrong with making a personal judgment and showing your reasons to others in hope they will see the same as you do. There is a line, a fine line between making a judgment and going further to condemn. It is important not to cross the line nor should one accuse others who may have not crossed the line. On the subject of torture, It should be logically looked at, but many of the arguments I have seen seem to be emotionally based, and emotional arguments always cloud the issues.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> You're arguing with yourself. No one has suggested the government use torture except in the most serious cases where our country is at risk.


The country is at risk. We may be facing another financial meltdown. It's time we get tough with tax evaders, dead beat dads, people who burn plastic, people who speed, and zillions of other law breakers. We must be a kinder, gentler nation and torture can bring this about. I hope it's put on a referendum in every state and I hope it passes in every state. Then we can get down to what ails this society. Every interrogation will be a fishing trip. All those little secrets you're keeping will be brought to light with just a few splinters driven under your finger nails. Cheap too, who needs NSA with all their surveillance equipment when a yearly trip to the interragator reveals all. I'm sure it'll be a growth industry. Heck even tech schools will probably get curriculums developed and cash in. In time even private buisness will get to employ it. No more blue collar crime. Just think of the savings to society!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Shine said:


> ...and even worse, those in favor of torture on this board are not the ones doing the torture nor are they the ones deciding who is deemed to have information worthy of requiring torture to get that information, these people are willing to stand back and allow others to torture in their name without having a care in the world that it is done in a rational fashion. A document that is most probably politically motivated DOES show valid concerns about the program, some on here say "Oh, because it's politically motivated then the wrongs identified are just attacks from the liberals/conservatives." [insert your own choice, it really does not matter] It all boils down to one thing, Are you willing to do EVIL in your search for safety/happiness/security/comfort/goodness? If you are, then that answers which side I should place you on with what I understand to be "Honorable Behavior" and how someone would act that is of "Good Character" as learned from the teachings of the Bible. No if's and's or but's.


I almost believed you when you previously said you didn't judge, but left that to the Bible.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> The country is at risk. We may be facing another financial meltdown. It's time we get tough with tax evaders, dead beat dads, people who burn plastic, people who speed, and zillions of other law breakers. We must be a kinder, gentler nation and torture can bring this about. I hope it's put on a referendum in every state and I hope it passes in every state. Then we can get down to what ails this society. Every interrogation will be a fishing trip. All those little secrets you're keeping will be brought to light with just a few splinters driven under your finger nails. Cheap too, who needs NSA with all their surveillance equipment when a yearly trip to the interragator reveals all. I'm sure it'll be a growth industry. Heck even tech schools will probably get curriculums developed and cash in. In time even private buisness will get to employ it. No more blue collar crime. Just think of the savings to society!


Make fun all you want, but tell me this. Which Presidents since 1900 would NOT have used torture to protect the US? Johnson? Maybe Reagan? Clinton? Eisenhower? Truman?


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, during Cheney's appearance in Meet the Press yesterday he said that the "rectal hydration" treatment was *not part of the enhanced interrogation program and was not authorized by the White House*. So now we have evidence of rogue, unauthorized torture. Is anything going to become of that?


I thought that Michael Hayden (former CIA Chief) explained that the "rectal feeding and rehydration" was more of a medical procedure for when detainees were on hunger strikes or refused to drink?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...f-defends-agency-admits-abhorrent-abuses.html

I am surely not defending these practices because I was not there and I do not know the reasons as to why these methods were used. I am also sure that others will claim that it was actually used as a torture method, but the funny thing is that they were not there either. 

If further clarification on the use of these methods is desired, maybe those Senators and Representatives that were briefed on the methods being used, and gave their official "Okie Dokie", should be asked. Both the Republicans and the Democrats!

It is really easy to pass judgement on someone else's actions from the comfort of one's home, without having been in the thick of things, with the benefit of time to think things through and using moral standards that may have changed over even a brief period of time.

I would bet money that if asked on 9/12 if the use of such methods would cause concern, almost everyone would have said, "No, get 'er done!" Maybe that would have been considered an emotional and/or knee-jerk reaction. Maybe not.

Perspectives change for many reasons. Generally, as time and distance from the incident increase, attitudes change.

TRellis


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Make fun all you want, but tell me this. Which Presidents since 1900 would NOT have used torture to protect the US? Johnson? Maybe Reagan? Clinton? Eisenhower? Truman?


Only if you tell me why it's important?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TRellis said:


> I thought that Michael Hayden (former CIA Chief) explained that the "rectal feeding and rehydration" was more of a medical procedure for when detainees were on hunger strikes or refused to drink?


That's true, but the report said it was done without medical necessity. In other words, he wasn't on a hunger strike but they shoved raisins up his butt anyway.

That's what's conservatives call returning dignity to the White House?


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's true, but the report said it was done without medical necessity. In other words, he wasn't on a hunger strike but they shoved raisins up his butt anyway.
> 
> *That's what's conservatives call returning dignity to the White House*?



Really??? You are going to make this political???

What about those Democrats that were said to have been briefed on the EIT's, having the methods explained to them and then giving their tacit approval, minimally, by not raising an objection?

Oh, that's right.... They are denying having been "properly" briefed or simply "do not recall" that they were briefed about the particulars. 

Well then, there is surely some record of them complaining that they were not properly briefed? 

Oh, that's right... They are saying that they did not want to speak out "due to government secrecy laws".

It seems like someone does not necessarily believe these Democrats' denials.

http://time.com/3625297/torture-report-democratic-lawmakers/



> September 2002: According to the Senate report, this is the first time leaders of the House Intelligence Committee are briefed on the CIA's techniques.


Bush supposedly did not receive his first detailed briefing until April 2006, about four months before making it public.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30416398

I really think that questions need to be answered from both sides of the aisle. The only way that the liberals can get away clean from this is to seemingly lie through their teeth and deny everything. But, that seems to work for them since most of mass media does not seem to question the liberals once they deny something.

In reality, there seems to be guilt enough to go around. And let us not even get started on the "dignity" that the present administration has brought back to the White House. It will not be pretty and I hate seeing a grown man cry.

Also, you question the methods used, and justifiably so, but you offer only criticism and never an alternative. Why is that?

I previously (in another thread) asked for your opinion on what you thought would be proper interrogation techniques. I was then and I am still genuinely interested in what you think would be proper interrogation techniques if you were 100% sure that the individual that you were interrogating had information that could help you prevent the impending deaths of numerous innocents or your military brethren. How far, in your mind, can someone go to get this time sensitive information?

TRellis


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TRellis said:


> What about those Democrats that were said to have been briefed on the EIT's, having the methods explained to them and then giving their tacit approval, minimally, by not raising an objection?


The report says they were misled. I'm not sure what they might have approved.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> WHy do you refuse to see that waterboarding done then & after 9/11 is totally different? The dems all signed off on it. Was explained to them.


I don't know why you would think it is OK if the Dems signed off on it. As far as water boarding being totally different know can you tell me how simulated drowning is better now then it used to be. The only thing I remember you saying specifically is there are medical personnel there now. that isn't new. There have always been medical personnel involved when torture is being used. They are there to keep the torturee alive, and conscious.

Jim


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The report says they were misled. I'm not sure what they might have approved.


What report?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's a big part of what we've learned from the report. Some of the detainees aren't accused of being guilty of anything. They were detained and tortured only because it was believed that they might know something.


Do you mean the summary or the actual report?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.


Sorry to say you blew this post of the day award. The quotes used were from George Washington The huffington post just also quoted him. To dismiss what Washington said because they appeared in the Huffington post 238 years later is hardly post of the day material. I usually enjoy your awards.

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

TRellis said:


> I thought that Michael Hayden (former CIA Chief) explained that the "rectal feeding and rehydration" was more of a medical procedure for when detainees were on hunger strikes or refused to drink?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...f-defends-agency-admits-abhorrent-abuses.html
> 
> ...


I can't speak for every one, but I would have been just as much against torture on Sept 12 as I am today. It doesn't work all that well and it creates a much more determined enemy.My first thought after realizing it was an attack was we need to hunt those responsible down and kill them. My second was how many rights we are going to lose because of this.

Jim


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

MoonRiver said:
I almost believed you when you previously said you didn't judge, but left that to the Bible. 

The Bible calls upon us to be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as doves. One must evaluate the arguments placed forward by others to determine their strength or their lack of merit. Once this is complete, one may make the decision regarding the tendencies of the person that presents them as reasonable. Please point out where I made a judgement upon this person or that person. I attacked a behavior and/or a belief, not a person. This has sound Biblical footings...


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> I can't speak for every one, but I would have been just as much against torture on Sept 12 as I am today. It doesn't work all that well and it creates a much more determined enemy.*My first thought after realizing it was an attack was we need to hunt those responsible down and kill them. My second was how many rights we are going to lose because of this.*
> 
> Jim


My first thought was the same as yours, that these individuals need to meet Allah as quickly as possible.

My second thought, believe it or not, was about Otto von Bismarck regarding his statement about laws and sausages. Even then I thought that the American public is not going to like how it (the eradication of the perpetrators) is done.

My old boss and I had an in-depth conversation about that very subject about a week or so after 9/11. He came to a similar conclusion.

TRellis


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

It has been widely stated and backed up in many instances that interrogation where the prisoner is treated humanely produces not only information with more quality but also in quantity. The problem with Christians is that many will tell you they are Christian but then show that they are not by their actions. Our pastor regularly tells us that we might be the only Christian that someone sees all week and asks us "What will they see?" - Imagine someone who has had a hard life, treated like crap and was turned towards terrorism, when captured the people that are his keepers actually treat him as a human? Imagine the world-changing perception that might occur. Jest sayin'


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> I don't know why you would think it is OK if the Dems signed off on it. As far as water boarding being totally different know can you tell me how simulated drowning is better now then it used to be. The only thing I remember you saying specifically is there are medical personnel there now. that isn't new. There have always been medical personnel involved when torture is being used. They are there to keep the torturee alive, and conscious.
> 
> Jim


As one that got the water boarding it is not torture. Yes you thought you were going to drown but they pulled the cloth off in time. Then you did it again. They did it three time on me. Each time I thought I was gong to drown. The only torture is what you though.
How many other people have gone through this I can't say but the day they did to me their was 35.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> As one that got the water boarding it is not torture. Yes you thought you were going to drown but they pulled the cloth off in time. Then you did it again. They did it three time on me. Each time I thought I was gong to drown. The only torture is what you though.
> How many other people have gone through this I can't say but the day they did to me their was 35.


Ot.....

How are you feeling my friend? Hope all is well with you and yours.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> As one that got the water boarding it is not torture. Yes you thought you were going to drown but they pulled the cloth off in time. Then you did it again. They did it three time on me. Each time I thought I was gong to drown. The only torture is what you though.
> How many other people have gone through this I can't say but the day they did to me their was 35.


Do you think it would have been different if you weren't confident they would pull the rag off?

Jim


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

So, Old Vet, even though we have prosecuted others for Water Boarding, [how can you change the sensation of drowning?] you say that it is not torture? What makes it different? What were the medics there for at Gitmo? Just to take the towel off or were there complications of a more serious nature? I assume it is not the pristine environment you endured, correct? You said only three times... wonder how many times a day it was used on the prisoners... I also wonder, were the detainees aware that they would only be made real uncomfortable for a period of time, don't worry about dying... We got the docs right here.... Then we can start again after they revive you - OK?

You've got to be telling me that this is a dream right? No one could do this to another willingly? Or are they out there, on the supposed side of Right and Pure?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, Old Vet, even though we have prosecuted others for Water Boarding, [how can you change the sensation of drowning?] you say that it is not torture? What makes it different? What were the medics there for at Gitmo? Just to take the towel off or were there complications of a more serious nature? I assume it is not the pristine environment you endured, correct? You said only three times... wonder how many times a day it was used on the prisoners... I also wonder, were the detainees aware that they would only be made real uncomfortable for a period of time, don't worry about dying... We got the docs right here.... Then we can start again after they revive you - OK?
> 
> You've got to be telling me that this is a dream right? No one could do this to another willingly? Or are they out there, on the supposed side of Right and Pure?


If someone killed a member of my family and I had them in custody, and they told me that as soon as they get released, they would do everything they could to continue killing not only my family members, but anyone else that is not a muslim, water boarding would be the least of their worries. Compared to what humans have done to other humans, water boarding, sleep deprivation and enemas are frat house pranks.

Did anyone have to be "revived", or is that just wishing it to be true on your part?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Strawman Argument. You are willing to do evil to another human? That answers the question. I would bet with an expectation that I would be correct that this will not happen to you or your family. Is this the argument that you wish to use to sign onto the torture bandwagon?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

"Revived" - you didn't read the report?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I will go a step further. Consider the premise of "blowback". Blowback is known in the firefighter realm with regards to a structure that is on fire, fully engulfed. Should a firefighter open a door and provide extra oxygen to that fire there is somewhat of a super-heated explosion. 

A former CIA agent has tried to warn the US Government of the concept of "Blowback" with regards to the tactics that we are using in many places of the world. The US Government barges forward without guarding against the premise of "Blowback".

Consider this: The people on this site that wish to be self-sustaining now fit the template, as per the published government documents, of a possible threat to National Security. People who respect and expect the Constitution to be adhered to also fall within that gambit. Would you accept the torture of the people on this site in the name of national security?

You wish to apply that which the government is doing in your name with 100% trust that it is honorable to something that cannot, in any sense, be accepted in a world where we try to convince others that we are the shining city on the hill? A city where all are respected, where right is right and wrong is wrong?

I am lost in trying to understand your rational. You say the only answer is more killing and torture when those in our government have established the fact that they will act in another country's sovereign realm to produce that which they deem to be favorable to THEIR operation.

Is our government's actions one that protects our people or is this the action of some entity that is driven by a profit lust that does not benefit you nor I?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I get it. They did it so we can too. Should you and others find this honorable then it will never end. 

Who is the man that stands in an honorable light? Will no honorable men come to stand tall? Or are humans so decrepit that there will be no self-redemption, no one who will carry the high ground? What is your answer?

I'll await my Maker, believing that I have done right under His sight....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Strawman Argument. You are willing to do evil to another human? That answers the question. I would bet with an expectation that I would be correct that this will not happen to you or your family. Is this the argument that you wish to use to sign onto the torture bandwagon?



If you don't care about America and your fellow Americans, that's your issue.
Ill leave it up to you. Did you see the interview with Dr. James Mitchell? I suggest you do. The summary that was released is not the report. And hearing what REALLY happened from the man who was there from the begining compared to what was "released" was desperation.

If my fellow cia agents, using the best information at the time, told me that my country and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives were in eminent danger, and they had some very powerful "leaders" in custody who had information to stop it, i would do whatever needed to be done in order to get the information that may save those lives. Remember this was right after 9/11 and most democrats were ok with it.

Im glad you didn't have any relatives or friends that died 0n 9/11! Some of us did and we remember!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And I bet I you could ask them if torture is too god for those terrorists they would agree it is too good should be even harsher treatment.
Some of these leading hearts on th left guess 9/11 is already out of their minds.
I just watched Home Alone 2
When he gets to NY what do you see? Both Twin Towers. Brings a tear for sure, and one scene is from on top of the towers overlooking NY Some should get and watch th movie at least the beginning of it anyway.
Yes ask those victims that were terrorized and killed if a little water running on them is too good, or running around in undies is treatment enough to get information that would save American lives and fighting troops lives. Ask them what THEY would do to them. LOL


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Would it be ok to behead one prisoner in front of the group to get there information? If all is fair in war is there no line that you would stop at?


And what's your point? That we do the same as the terrorists?
Seems to me you are confusing the way waterboarding was done in WWII w/beheadings.
Do you actually know how our CIA did waterboarding or are you content to just go by a partisan report that shows 1/3 of the entire report?

I think I already know the answer.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> I have seen the light! Torture can be good. It could be used by the police, the IRS , EPA and other agencies to solve and stop crime. We could possibly raise enough revenue to solve our nations budget woes. Just think a country with no crime or problems. The possibilities are endless. I am now firmly in the torture camp, I mean harsh interrogation camp.


Don't ya just love sarcasm! Especialy when someone has no idea what the point is...

Torture, like pulling out fingernails, the rack, etc, is horrible torture. Waterboarding-w/doc present, no deaths, is not. So...anyone who thinks this conservative group is FOR torture, go ahead, speak up. We'll set ya straight.

I cannot believe the ignorance...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> No, I do not "judge" anyone. Using the teachings of the Bible I rationalize that which I am supposed to be doing. If others choose to listen and then hold themselves up to this particular light to consider if the shoe fits, then so be it. However, one must consider, is it possible to torture the wrong person? If you have cut the fingers off of someone or shot them in both knees only to find that you have identified the wrong person as YOUR person of interest then I would ask, what should your punishment be? I mean if you have Judged this person to be worthy of Torture then you have placed this person below you and you above them, that would be the most harsh act of judging another - wouldn't it? How should this premise be applied across the board for everyone?


No one is advocating this torture. 
What we're saying was ok to happen is what all the dems signed off on after 9/11. So you can just stop w/the finger chopping stuff.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> "Revived" - you didn't read the report?


Neither did you. All anyone can read is 1/3 of a report, the parts the dopey dems want all to know. 
Another of their travesties. I don't know how anyone can belong to that evil party.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Don't ya just love sarcasm! Especialy when someone has no idea what the point is...
> 
> Torture, like pulling out fingernails, the rack, etc, is horrible torture. Waterboarding-w/doc present, no deaths, is not. So...anyone who thinks this conservative group is FOR torture, go ahead, speak up. We'll set ya straight.
> 
> I cannot believe the ignorance...


Are you accusing me of being off topic? I had a revelation I wanted to share.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> If you don't care about America and your fellow Americans, that's your issue.
> Ill leave it up to you. Did you see the interview with Dr. James Mitchell? I suggest you do. The summary that was released is not the report. And hearing what REALLY happened from the man who was there from the begining compared to what was "released" was desperation.
> 
> If my fellow cia agents, using the best information at the time, told me that my country and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives were in eminent danger, and they had some very powerful "leaders" in custody who had information to stop it, i would do whatever needed to be done in order to get the information that may save those lives. Remember this was right after 9/11 and most democrats were ok with it.
> ...


Post of the decade award.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

http://www.batr.org/totalitariancollectivism/121614.html


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Grama, Knight, Jeffrey, et al - You go ahead and believe what you want. You'll not sway me with any of these supposed "thousands or Millions of people at risk" type of arguments, it's exactly the way the sinister people in the government want you to think. They want you to allow them to do as they will. There is more than enough information out there to counter any perceived benefit to this type of evil. Maybe one day you'll have a clearer look. Humanity does not allow for this type of behavior on the part of the "bad" people or on the part of the "good".


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Shine said:


> Grama, Knight, Jeffrey, et al - You go ahead and believe what you want. You'll not sway me with any of these supposed "thousands or Millions of people at risk" type of arguments, it's exactly the way the sinister people in the government want you to think. They want you to allow them to do as they will. There is more than enough information out there to counter any perceived benefit to this type of evil. Maybe one day you'll have a clearer look. Humanity does not allow for this type of behavior on the part of the "bad" people or on the part of the "good".


You can be as sanctimonious and judgmental as you like but maybe if someone had been persuaded to talk, over 100 kids in Pakistan would be alive.

We had a friend that was in the subway station on 911, my SIL lost several friends. I really don't care what is done to prevent that from happening again.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

That attitude Molly is exactly what TPTB want. Don't expect them to respect you and yours when you hand them everything.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

There seems to be an awfully lot of people on this forum very willing to trade freedom for security


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> There seems to be an awfully lot of people on this forum very willing to trade freedom for security


There sure is, especially when it's your freedom. They are the same ones who also trade in freedom for a few extra dollars in their pocket.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> There seems to be an awfully lot of people on this forum very willing to trade freedom for security


Yes, and this scares me to the core. No one speaks to the issue of how torture can be performed upon anyone "they" deem to be a threat. That places everyone within their purview. You and I can fall prey to those that say that they are our protectors. In a naive fashion, many on this board would hand unknown people the keys to their entire world and also expect us to do the same. No, I find that to be unreasonable.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

For the Torture Supporters, please read this:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/16/cia-torture-report-physicians-human-rights-report

Your opinion upon completion would be appreciated.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Yes, and this scares me to the core. No one speaks to the issue of how torture can be performed upon anyone "they" deem to be a threat. That places everyone within their purview. You and I can fall prey to those that say that they are our protectors. In a naive fashion, many on this board would hand unknown people the keys to their entire world and also expect us to do the same. No, I find that to be unreasonable.


It's difficult to reconcile conservatives wanting smaller government with less teeth yet are willing to give the government the authority to torture whomever it pleases.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's difficult to reconcile conservatives wanting smaller government with less teeth yet are willing to give the government the authority to torture whomever it pleases.


Believe me, it is more difficult to reconcile liberals who want everything handed to them by an ever growing government with more teeth, yet do not know nor care that the money to support all of the government supplied freebies has to come from somewhere. 

Oh, I forgot, as long as the money does not come from them.

TRellis


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's difficult to reconcile conservatives wanting smaller government with less teeth yet are willing to give the government the authority to torture whomever it pleases.


Who said "whomever it pleases"? Known terrorists are not whomever!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Who said "whomever it pleases"? Known terrorists are not whomever!


What if they say you're a terrorist? It's not like you'll get a trial. They can just say "we have reason to believe" and that's enough.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Who said "whomever it pleases"? Known terrorists are not whomever!



You don't really believe this do you?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What if they say you're a terrorist? It's not like you'll get a trial. They can just say "we have reason to believe" and that's enough.


Lots of "what ifs". You never answer my questions, why should I answer yours? Are you saying that Obama and Holder would allow this to happen?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> You don't really believe this do you?


If I've done nothing wrong, why should I be fearful?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, Old Vet, even though we have prosecuted others for Water Boarding, [how can you change the sensation of drowning?] you say that it is not torture? What makes it different? What were the medics there for at Gitmo? Just to take the towel off or were there complications of a more serious nature? I assume it is not the pristine environment you endured, correct? You said only three times... wonder how many times a day it was used on the prisoners... I also wonder, were the detainees aware that they would only be made real uncomfortable for a period of time, don't worry about dying... We got the docs right here.... Then we can start again after they revive you - OK?
> 
> You've got to be telling me that this is a dream right? No one could do this to another willingly? Or are they out there, on the supposed side of Right and Pure?


I wasn't sure about anything. I was blindfolded and could not see anybody. If you called a jungle a pristine environment you are mistaken.But of course you can make all types of excuses and what if but is only what you think that is torturer. None of them lost toes or finger or any other body parts. None of them were beheading. All water boarding did was make you think something might happen just like going to a scarey movie and dreaming about it later.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> None of them lost toes or finger or any other body parts. None of them were beheading. All water boarding did was make you think something might happen just like going to a scarey movie and dreaming about it later.


You think pointing out that we could have done more to them makes it OK?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Old Vet, you did not answer my question regarding the reason for the medical personnel and the noted "Severe" side-effects to this sort of torture. Only three times you say. What if it had been 20, or 50 or days on end?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...and we are so quick to accept the governments identification of this person being a terrorist or that person being a terrorist. What about the government document citing Constitutionalists as "possible" terrorists?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> If I've done nothing wrong, why should I be fearful?



Unfortunately you don't get to decide if you have done anything wrong!

And you would be one of an elite group who go about their day and break no laws.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Unfortunately you don't get to decide if you have done anything wrong!
> 
> And you would be one of an elite group who go about their day and break no laws.



Sure I do!! 
What would you do?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> ...and we are so quick to accept the governments identification of this person being a terrorist or that person being a terrorist. What about the government document citing Constitutionalists as "possible" terrorists?


Ill ask you the same question. 

What would you do?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You think pointing out that we could have done more to them makes it OK?


We got information from known terrorists that saved American lives. That, makes it worth it. 
What would you do, knowing there was a credible eminent threat and you only had hours to act?

What has been done to these vile humans is nothing compared to what has been done to others in the past. Asians are very good at it except they do great physical injury, Germans too, not to mention what the Muslims are doing on a daily basis. Where's the outcry about those atrocities? But God forbid a wet rag gets placed over your face! Oh, the humanity! !!:facepalm:


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

To start I am raising my voice in opposition to any of what I feel are over zealous security measures. After that I guess I'll be forced to do something else.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> To start I am raising my voice in opposition to any of what I feel are over zealous security measures. After that I guess I'll be forced to do something else.


Why now? Why not 10 years ago? This was common knowledge all along. Where was the outrage back then?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> If I've done nothing wrong, why should I be fearful?


Standard gambit. Full of holes. Just what they want you to think. Unaware of the possibilities. Prime Target. There is no need to guard against those that think in this fashion, they won't see it coming.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> We got information from known terrorists that saved American lives. That, makes it worth it.


Yeah, except the report said they didn't get any information.



JeffreyD said:


> What would you do, knowing there was a credible eminent threat and you only had hours to act?


Which credible eminent threat was that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, except the report said they didn't get any information.
> 
> 
> 
> Which credible eminent threat was that?


What report?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Jeffrey asks: What would I do? A man can only control that which is in his realm of control. My children understand what is right and wrong and so far have proven themselves to be honorable. Those in my circle of contact know that I can be counted upon, and also know that I will speak when I see something wrong or someone doing something that should not be done and am ready to back up that observation firmly. 

You can see evidence of that in this thread...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Standard gambit. Full of holes. Just what they want you to think. Unaware of the possibilities. Prime Target. There is no need to guard against those that think in this fashion, they won't see it coming.


I'm well aware of the possibilities, just not delusional about it. To each his own. I'll still pull the trigger on a terrorist that has info that could save lives. Head meet sand!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

There have been numerous instances where the lack of substantive tips derived from the enhanced interrogation were explored and exposed but those do not suit your argument - I guess they're not real?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Why now? Why not 10 years ago? This was common knowledge all along. Where was the outrage back then?



what makes you think I didn't voice opposition?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Jeffrey asks: What would I do? A man can only control that which is in his realm of control. My children understand what is right and wrong and so far have proven themselves to be honorable. Those in my circle of contact know that I can be counted upon, and also know that I will speak when I see something wrong or someone doing something that should not be done and am ready to back up that observation firmly.
> 
> You can see evidence of that in this thread...


How are you going to " back up that observation"? Talk the talk on the inteweb?
What would you do if you knew there was an eminent threat to YOUR family and someone proven to be a murderer had information to prevent their deaths?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> There have been numerous instances where the lack of substantive tips derived from the enhanced interrogation were explored and exposed but those do not suit your argument - I guess they're not real?


Where do you get your information from? Link please.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> what makes you think I didn't voice opposition?


The fact that you didn't tout your previous experiences is very telling!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Where do you get your information from? Link please.


Sorry, I charge to do the work that others refuse to do. FYI these are comments straight out of the mouths of the CIA, the FBI and other government entities, that should help you to do the work that you should already have done to make yourself knowlegable regarding that which you are strongly representing as the "best" solution.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> How are you going to " back up that observation"? Talk the talk on the inteweb?
> What would you do if you knew there was an eminent threat to YOUR family and someone proven to be a murderer had information to prevent their deaths?


What is it with you and your imaginary boogie men? If there is a threat to my family I will handle it with whatever action that I find to be reasonable at that point in time. If it is someone I absolutely know that has the information that will guarantee my families safety then it is on. Are you trying to tell me that there is absolutely no possibility that those which have been tortured in OUR COLLECTIVE NAMES were beyond any reasonable doubt sitting on the information that would save [in words that have already been posted on this subject] Thousands or even Millions??? My question at this point would be: Why then have so many been released without further charges? Why then are those that have been tortured asking for their day in an OPEN COURT? You are the one that appears to not know what you are talking about with all of your talking point arguments, did you think those up for yourself or did you like the way they sounded on the TV?

So Jeffrey, man up. Do the work necessary for you to speak with authority on this subject. You're way behind the curve here.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Sorry, I charge to do the work that others refuse to do. FYI these are comments straight out of the mouths of the CIA, the FBI and other government entities, that should help you to do the work that you should already have done to make yourself knowlegable regarding that which you are strongly representing as the "best" solution.


It's ok if you can't prove your statements, just say so! Im not refusing to look, I already have and found that many statements being made here are simply not true. 
You made a statement and I simply asked that you back it up with proof. The fact that your not willing to prove your statements is quite telling. The CIA and the FBI have made no statements about this. Up until Dr. Mitchells interview, the only information is coming from the partisan "summary" from the democrats, not the actual report, as that has not been released to the public and the democrats don't want it released. Dr. Mitchell was there and said useful information was obtained. So do others that were there. You can see the Dr's interview I posted.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I'm sure that the torture supporters will not answer this but I will toss it out there...

What should be the penalty be for someone that tortures someone that is innocent and should that person have their day in court to right that wrong?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> What is it with you and your imaginary boogie men? If there is a threat to my family I will handle it with whatever action that I find to be reasonable at that point in time. If it is someone I absolutely know that has the information that will guarantee my families safety then it is on. Are you trying to tell me that there is absolutely no possibility that those which have been tortured in OUR COLLECTIVE NAMES were beyond any reasonable doubt sitting on the information that would save [in words that have already been posted on this subject] Thousands or even Millions??? My question at this point would be: Why then have so many been released without further charges? Why then are those that have been tortured asking for their day in an OPEN COURT? You are the one that appears to not know what you are talking about with all of your talking point arguments, did you think those up for yourself or did you like the way they sounded on the TV?
> 
> So Jeffrey, man up. Do the work necessary for you to speak with authority on this subject. You're way behind the curve here.


It it YOU that is way behind the curve. Do some research and stop listening to the talking heads. Listen to those that were involved, not sitting in an office somewhere. The terrorists have proven how much they care for and support our way of life, yeah, right!!!!! Kumbyay and all.that!!!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

&#8226; Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:&#8220;Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.&#8221;​&#8226; The C.I.A.&#8217;s 1963 interrogation manual stated:Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex &#8216;admissions&#8217; that take still longer to disprove.​&#8226; According to the Washington Post, the CIA&#8217;s top spy &#8211; Michael Sulick, head of the CIA&#8217;s National Clandestine Service &#8211; said that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint.&#8221;
&#8226; The CIA&#8217;s own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not &#8220;efficacious&#8221; in producing information.
&#8226; A 30-year veteran of CIA&#8217;s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.
This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn&#8217;t work &#8212; it doesn&#8217;t &#8212; but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.​&#8226; A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.​&#8226; Another former high-level CIA official (Bob Baer) says:And torture &#8212; I just don&#8217;t think it really works &#8230; you don&#8217;t get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you.​&#8226; Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, says:&#8220;I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear.&#8221;​&#8226; A retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002 (Glenn L. Carle) says:[Coercive techniques] didn&#8217;t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information&#8230;Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.&#8221;

​Re-Google anyone of those for the complete information. I now am leaning towards the understanding that you are this site to promote the idea that torture, when we do it, is OK. I hope that you are not getting paid for this viewpoint and are just misguided.

Oh, yeah... Answer the question above...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> I'm sure that the torture supporters will not answer this but I will toss it out there...
> 
> What should be the penalty be for someone that tortures someone that is innocent and should that person have their day in court to right that wrong?


What is torture? Did the person doing the "torturing" know that this person was truly innocent? You left a lot out of the equation. 

What if, what if, what if!

I'm sure the terrorist supporters won't answer this but I'll through it out anyway.
.
What if the person being "tortured" knew something that could help save lives, maybe a member of your family, would you still be against it? Answer honestly.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...what was that - like a minute and a half of looking for "Torture provides bad results" - ? lol Kum-by-ya that Yippie-yo-Ki YEA - Boom, ha - look at that...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Knew you'd dance around it. Just answer the question as straight-forwardly as it was asked. don't add nor subtract anything - simple question...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> â¢ Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:âExperience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.â​â¢ The C.I.A.âs 1963 interrogation manual stated:Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex âadmissionsâ that take still longer to disprove.​â¢ According to the Washington Post, the CIAâs top spy â Michael Sulick, head of the CIAâs National Clandestine Service â said that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration. âI donât think weâve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint.â
> â¢ The CIAâs own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not âefficaciousâ in producing information.
> â¢ A 30-year veteran of CIAâs operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.
> This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesnât work â it doesnât â but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.​â¢ A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.​â¢ Another former high-level CIA official (Bob Baer) says:And torture â I just donât think it really works â¦ you donât get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you.​â¢ Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, says:âI personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear.â​â¢ A retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002 (Glenn L. Carle) says:[Coercive techniques] didnât provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy informationâ¦Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.â
> ...


Haha....:hysterical: 

You will believe what you want as you have proven here and your really, really confused. You need to learn how to look up current issues. The quick Google search you cheery picked are obsolete. I'm not paid to be here, I'm just an American who hates to see the terrorists win the pr war. You've proven they have! Carry on. Well just have to disagree.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Knew you'd dance around it. Just answer the question as straight-forwardly as it was asked. don't add nor subtract anything - simple question...


You left out far to many variables to make a cognizant decision. I asked for more information and you respond with this?
This is a simple question:

Why would you be willing to let your fellow Americans die if you could save them?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> You left out far to many variables to make a cognizant decision. I asked for more information and you respond with this?
> This is a simple question:
> 
> Why would you be willing to let your fellow Americans die if you could save them?


Hmm, is this with regards to smoking? Traffic deaths? Heart Disease? oh wait, you are talking about the death of 3000 people by people mostly from Saudi Arabia, correct? And you want me to tell a shadowy government that it can use any means to find the evil people that concocted this, right? You're not talking about the ISIS terrorists who are killing the people of Syria and were just re-supplied with American Weapons are you? No, what about the people killed during Operation Ajax, No? 

Your contention that the question that I posed has too many variables is not answerable by you because to answer it truthfully would destroy your whole slant. 

Here, I'll answer your question just as you have asked it - do me a favor and return the favor.

You asked:
Why would you be willing to let your fellow Americans die if you could save them?

I would not let my fellow Americans die if I could save them, nor would I be willing to allow that if I absolutely knew one, 10 or 100 person(s) had the information that could save them. I would use the techniques known to provide actionable intelligence and those in line with the laws of this land with the utmost urgency.

Now, your turn.

Also, please notify me of which of the items posted regarding "Torture provides bad intelligence" is not true.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Hmm, is this with regards to smoking? Traffic deaths? Heart Disease? oh wait, you are talking about the death of 3000 people by people mostly from Saudi Arabia, correct? And you want me to tell a shadowy government that it can use any means to find the evil people that concocted this, right? You're not talking about the ISIS terrorists who are killing the people of Syria and were just re-supplied with American Weapons are you? No, what about the people killed during Operation Ajax, No?
> 
> Your contention that the question that I posed has too many variables is not answerable by you because to answer it truthfully would destroy your whole slant.
> 
> ...


I would do whatever it takes to save the lives of my fellow Americans. 

What you posted are liberal talking points. 

What did you think of the interview with Dr. Mitchell? He was there. The folks you posted above. ...not there. Dr. Mitchell stated that much information was obtained that led to actions that stopped some terrorist acts! Why would anyone take the word of government officials over a man that had much to do with enhanced techniques? That is beyond belief.

Eta:

Look up.....the Manchester manual.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Mitchell eh? the Brit psychologist [lol - psychologist] that's trying to cover his butt? That's your trophy witness? He redesigned the waterboard process to cause even more suffering. Oh well, thought I might have learned something - dead end.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> I would do whatever it takes to save the lives of my fellow Americans.
> 
> What you posted are liberal talking points.
> 
> ...


 First hand eye witness and still the left can't relate. What a world this is. Even eye witnesses now have to be PC. and try to neuter them right away.
That is ridiculous 
They have to twist and tweak things and kink to so called opinion pieces that have no warrant or substance in this one bit.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> The fact that you didn't tout your previous experiences is very telling!



Huh? Not sure of what you are saying


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Your "Eye Witness" has a conflict of interest.

Seems there is some conflict in the ranks, who would you trust more, the brit loony doctor who designed the program and needed it to be viewed as successful or CIA agents including one "Head of Investigations" that were tasked to execute the program on real life subjects? Seems you've pulled a dead pigeon out of that rabbit's hat...

According to the Senate report, while with the CIA, the doctors&#8217; programme was not entirely popular. One head of CIA interrogations knew problems loomed. &#8220;This is a train wreak [sic] waiting to happen and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens,&#8221; he wrote, before retiring due to his &#8220;serious reservations&#8221; about the torture in 2003. Another CIA officer said no &#8220;professional in the field would credit&#8221; the doctors&#8217; judgments &#8220;as psychologists assessing the subjects&#8221;. They were both accused of &#8220;arrogance and narcissism&#8221;.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Mitchell eh? the Brit psychologist [lol - psychologist] that's trying to cover his butt? That's your trophy witness? He redesigned the waterboard process to cause even more suffering. Oh well, thought I might have learned something - dead end.


Clearly your confused. Dr. Mitchell is an American. What you glanced at was a comment on google that said he over saw some British intelligence officers doing waterboarding. Closed minds can't learn. If you can't get your facts straight, it only your opinion.

Why do you see it as covering his butt? Maybe he just wants the truth to come out. I watch body language and can usually tell when lies are being told. Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's telling the truth. 

Answer truthfully. ...did you watch the whole interview, only a part, or not at all? It is apparent that you have a preconceived notion about what happened, and now that's been proved wrong your upset...i get that, but to poo poo information by folks that were there and can prove every word they say is simply closed minded.

You won't change my views and I won't change yours.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Your "Eye Witness" has a conflict of interest.
> 
> Seems there is some conflict in the ranks, who would you trust more, the brit loony doctor who designed the program and needed it to be viewed as successful or CIA agents including one "Head of Investigations" that were tasked to execute the program on real life subjects? Seems you've pulled a dead pigeon out of that rabbit's hat...
> 
> According to the Senate report, while with the CIA, the doctorsâ programme was not entirely popular. One head of CIA interrogations knew problems loomed. âThis is a train wreak [sic] waiting to happen and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens,â he wrote, before retiring due to his âserious reservationsâ about the torture in 2003. Another CIA officer said no âprofessional in the field would creditâ the doctorsâ judgments âas psychologists assessing the subjectsâ. They were both accused of âarrogance and narcissismâ.


First..he's not British. That "report", is that the one that the liberal senators released? Just so you know...it's just a summary of cherry picked items that were already proven to be lies. If thats the information that your relying on, you need an un biased source. The AG of the United States said everything was legal. He has not been arrested. ..as a matter of fact, no one has!!

You keep posting comments but no links to get the context from. Why are you afraid to post the links?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

http://www.newsweek.com/neurosciencetorture-doesnt-work-and-heres-why-79365

Torture does not work,


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> http://www.newsweek.com/neurosciencetorture-doesnt-work-and-heres-why-79365
> 
> Torture does not work,


First, a clearly biased article in News week hardly is scientific proof. The article had comments from 1 doctor (who I have yet to vet).

Just curious, did you read the whole article? I don't believe you did, because it's doesn't really say what you said it does. Some of does, but that wasn't the conclusion. How about an article from something like Psychology Today, or the Journal of Neuroscience? Why would you take the word of a reporter that has no clue as to how the interrogations work? You just keep digging that whole deeper! Not sure why?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Legal? Huh? Reading Problem? Why is the UN pushing for a full investigation? It is legal if you manipulate the law so as to contravene the intent of the law, is that honorable? It violates Geneva, it violates the UN Accordance, it violates human nature. Cherry pick? Sure - for a 2 minute google search, you take what you can get, the site that I pulled up the Doctor showed him wearing a British Military Uniform. I don't care where he is from, he has a conflict of interest when providing proof that a PROGRAM that HE Designed is successful. You cannot really think that providing him as a testifier is legit do you? Is that the only "Eye Witness" that you have? I will create a post with many valid citations and you will squirm around those too, no one has answered my reasonable question so that means that you cannot.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I guess that you did not open any of the reports in that article. It is filled with them and just what do you mean regarding that the article did not support my claims, there you are changing the facts so that some casual reader thinks that you won the argument. More and more your prose fits that of someone else, not an interested poster. I'll provide definitive citations and you can suck eggs...


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, Old Vet, even though we have prosecuted others for Water Boarding, [how can you change the sensation of drowning?] you say that it is not torture? What makes it different? What were the medics there for at Gitmo? Just to take the towel off or were there complications of a more serious nature? I assume it is not the pristine environment you endured, correct? You said only three times... wonder how many times a day it was used on the prisoners... I also wonder, were the detainees aware that they would only be made real uncomfortable for a period of time, don't worry about dying... We got the docs right here.... Then we can start again after they revive you - OK?
> 
> You've got to be telling me that this is a dream right? No one could do this to another willingly? Or are they out there, on the supposed side of Right and Pure?


No they drown them and that is why we prostitute them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Legal? Huh? Reading Problem? Why is the UN pushing for a full investigation? It is legal if you manipulate the law so as to contravene the intent of the law, is that honorable? It violates Geneva, it violates the UN Accordance, it violates human nature. Cherry pick? Sure - for a 2 minute google search, you take what you can get, the site that I pulled up the Doctor showed him wearing a British Military Uniform. I don't care where he is from, he has a conflict of interest when providing proof that a PROGRAM that HE Designed is successful. You cannot really think that providing him as a testifier is legit do you? Is that the only "Eye Witness" that you have? I will create a post with many valid citations and you will squirm around those too, no one has answered my reasonable question so that means that you cannot.


The UN hates America and everything we stand for. You just keep parroting the same old, same old.

I have answered every question you put forth. Why haven't you? Did you ever read the Geneva Conventions? If you had, you would clearly see that enemy combatants do not qualify. They fly no country flag or wear a uniform. 

I am looking forward to that post.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> For the Torture Supporters, please read this:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/16/cia-torture-report-physicians-human-rights-report
> 
> Your opinion upon completion would be appreciated.


I don't need to read that trash. I know what it is because I lived through it. How many that wrote that trash have been water boarded? How many here have endured water boarding and call it torture? I am sure that if you look enough you may make a case of torturer. I know that being with out a phone will say you torture them.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

enemy combatant - newly defined term to avoid the proscriptions in the geneva convention. You say you answered every one of my questions: What post number answered the following question:

What should be the penalty be for someone that tortures someone that is innocent and should that person have their day in court to right that wrong? 

You won't answer it - you will squirm again.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Close-minded much? OV


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> Old Vet, you did not answer my question regarding the reason for the medical personnel and the noted "Severe" side-effects to this sort of torture. Only three times you say. What if it had been 20, or 50 or days on end?


The sever side effects were nightmares or a cold.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> Old Vet, you did not answer my question regarding the reason for the medical personnel and the noted "Severe" side-effects to this sort of torture. Only three times you say. What if it had been 20, or 50 or days on end?


Who was water boarded 20 or 50 times? Your suppositions are showing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

A number of them as per governmental admissions. Why did they need the medics there and what of the side effects of water boarding?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

You obviously are avoiding the truth or are not knowlegable of the truth.

The damage that prolonged Water boarding causes is well documented.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Jeffrey - what of the questions in post 183 - you answer those too?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OV - still no answer to the need for medics


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Torture damages the brain and causes it to slowly stop functioning in a normal fashion. Can't access real memories and the creation of unreal memories.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309001995

The Brain's response to even a small amount of stressful torture.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309001995
> 
> The Brain's response to even a small amount of stressful torture.


I always wonder about the kids today that call just about everything they don't want torture.Now I know.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
> 
> Torture damages the brain and causes it to slowly stop functioning in a normal fashion. Can't access real memories and the creation of unreal memories.


Yes bamboo shoots under fingernails have that effect.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I now doubt your credibility, you are looking at reasonable proof regarding the use of torture and then acting like it is nothing. It serves no purpose to speak with or seek an honest response from you, you appear to not want to respond with honesty or cannot.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shine said:


> I now doubt your credibility, you are looking at reasonable proof regarding the use of torture and then acting like it is nothing. It serves no purpose to speak with or seek an honest response from you, you appear to not want to respond with honesty or cannot.


When you were water boarded how many times did the do it to you?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

So far, all throughout this thread, the only real defense pulled out to justify torture is the Boogie Man Argument. I rest my case.

For others, as I tire of this diatribe, I will nail the coffin shut tomorrow.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Oh yeah, one other defense was offered, an Eye Witness to the success of the program that he and his cohort designed and received somewhere around 81 million for it, he says torture is good.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

So all you know is what other people have told you. Post any knowledgeable information that was not written with out going through it. If you can't have first hand knowledge then you must teach.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> I don't need to read that trash. I know what it is because I lived through it. How many that wrote that trash have been water boarded? How many here have endured water boarding and call it torture? I am sure that if you look enough you may make a case of torturer. I know that being with out a phone will say you torture them.



Who were you being water boarded by If you don't mind saying?
Jim


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
> 
> Torture damages the brain and causes it to slowly stop functioning in a normal fashion. Can't access real memories and the creation of unreal memories.


For some reason, you think I care about the terrorists well being. That couldn't be further from the truth. Sorry to say, but if I had my way, having "unreal memories" would be the least of their worries. Have to say that really sounds like whining about nothing! Frat houses are far worse.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I just noticed this thread. Once again we get engrossed in discussing another topic related to the middle east.

We seem to have a never-ending obsession with all things over there. Strange, really.

Apparently millions of Americans wake up every morning and look out the window for a muslim terrorist.

We just can't leave them alone, and then we wonder why they might want to react against us - blowback. We create the problem, and then we have to provide a solution. Like doctors breaking legs - good for business.

I mean, we have to torture them because of 9/11. And 9/11 happened for no good reason, except they are evil and they don't like us "because we are rich and free", or because they are jihadists going after Christians, right?

Now why is it they aren't wanting to attack, say, Brazil, which is a rich and free Christian country? Why isn't Brazil spending trillions of dollars fighting in the middle east, and now they have so much money they are buying up our land? Why isn't Brazil worried about their own security?

Is it possible that we might have instigated an attack upon us? I mean, if China was to come over here and mess with us, I bet a few of us would become terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh. I thought you had to be a muslim jihadist to be a terrorist. How many little kids did he kill?

I mean, their dislike of us over there really couldn't have anything to do with our actions?

Our overthrow of Iran's elected leader, and installing a dictator and training his thugs to brutalize his people, which led to blowback, and taking of our hostages. Then with the instability, Saddam invaded them.

Our backing of Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, providing him materials to make WMDs. We led him to believe we were okay with him invading Kuwait, but then we turned against him and destroyed his country. Then imposed sanctions resulting in the deaths of at least 500,000 children. You see, we kill in a 'civilized' manner.

Our superior methods of killing: Starvation, and lack of medical care through sanctions. Or bombing from high in the sky, even with drones piloted from Arizona. I mean, that is how good people kill. Of course, lots of accidents happen, killing the wrong guys, or little kids, but that's okay, because we are the good guys.

Anyway, we invade, install dictators, occupy, starve, bomb, and then surprise, surprise, they retaliate with 9/11, and then we get to bomb and torture and spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of lives and have many more thousands of soldiers with fried brains and lost limbs.
But by golly, we're getting even!

Fortunately for the military industrial complex, the war on terror will never end, because we will keep producing more terrorists by our actions. 
Quite a scam going there, and most of the country falls for it hook, line and sinker. People are easily manipulated.

What I don't get is if the people in the middle east are such barbarians, why don't we leave them alone and let them kill each other? Seems we just need somebody to hate, in spite of Jesus telling us to love our enemies. We can't force our goodness on them. At some point they have to want it themselves. And as we become more like them, we become less of a good example.




> Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
> --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


 &#12288;


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Our sec. of state saying that deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children from our sanctions was "worth it." So for those keeping score, who has lost more lives, them or us? Does anyone count the deaths from our bombs?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8[/ame]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OV... I see you avoided answering the question again... - you have had quite a bit of time to get this vetted through any persons that you might be beholdened to... 
care to discuss the need for a medic in the environment where you experienced water boarding and contrast that same need in the case of the detainee? You indicated that you were unaware of the multiple water-boardings in so much that you had not kept your finger on the pulse of those things that the government is doing. Aren't we supposed to be doing that? Hence, I asked you the question... since you have been water=boarded. Think for a moment... You got the unfortunate task of being water-boarded, you know the experience. I am not going to argue with you further but I would ask you to consider this: Imagine that you HAD been captured by foreign forces. The detainees know that they were. Then imagine your captors use these tools. Imagine that you had no real information to provide. Imagine being water boarded for days instead of the three times that you had to endure, imagine that.

Here, I do not support the terrorist but I do understand that the image of America is being tarnished. These processes that we adhere to are the tarnishing agent. We are destroying America, and we continue to not put forth the effort to find out what the facts are.

I posted websites in a few posts. These citations came from Universities and Laboratories, yet they were compared to be on par with Cartoon shows. Sure, I posted an article from NewsWeek, some of the links there provide you with valuable info -

So here we are. Whomever might be considering their position on Torture might well be advised to listen to the information that you are able to find, consider if it is valid or not, follow up, verify and treat it as if it were important. Do not take the first article you see and decide whether it is the answer. - compare articles... learn how to look for the truth. I would bet that there is at least 90/95% of the people on here that are really good people, we all just need to search for the truth. 

There is much dissembling going on...


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> For some reason, you think I care about the terrorists well being. That couldn't be further from the truth. Sorry to say, but if I had my way, having "unreal memories" would be the least of their worries. Have to say that really sounds like whining about nothing! Frat houses are far worse.


For some reason you think I care about terrorists. I don't oppose torture for the enemies sake. I oppose torture for our sake. We haven't had an official no torture policy for over 200 years because of deep concern for our enemies it has been because it is the right way to treat defenseless prisoners. 

Add to that from what I have read it's not the best way to get the information we are after. Some give up information some lie just to through us off, and those that don't have the information we want eventually lie to get the torture to stop. We begin to rely on the lies and our policies are wrong. 

The fact that we use torture is a great recruitment tool and incentive for our enemies. 

Jim


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> So all you know is what other people have told you. Post any knowledgeable information that was not written with out going through it. If you can't have first hand knowledge then you must teach.


Here's another perspective from one who has an intimate knowledge of torture. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-mccain-statement-cia-terror-report/20144015/ 

I'll ask you what questions were asked of while you were being "water boarded." What other threats were being made to you and your family? How long were you stood chained in stress positions and not allowed to close your eyes while hostile people yelled and screamed and threatened that not only you would never see the light of day but your wife and children would be next? How many of your aquaintances were chained to a concrete floor until they died from hypothermia? 

When we lower ourselves to the level of those we despise we become no better than them. When we allow fear to drive us to such actions and then justify it the threshhold for such actions becomes lower going into the future.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Lots of "what ifs". You never answer my questions, why should I answer yours? Are you saying that Obama and Holder would allow this to happen?


In a heartbeat! Look what they did to the Tea Party...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You think pointing out that we could have done more to them makes it OK?


Ya know, its best not to comment on absolutely ridiculous posts...
What we're saying is, what the CIA did is NOT torture. NOT. We are trying to tell ya what rel TORTURE is. But I'm seeing that those who do not want to see are the blindest of the blind.
Wait til the Idiotincharge is accused of allowing rap to be played all nite for a couple terrorists. Or rectal feeding for some who are on hunger strikes. They all you who love the Idiotincharge will be saying: "Well, it wasn't what GWB did!".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> There have been numerous instances where the lack of substantive tips derived from the enhanced interrogation were explored and exposed but those do not suit your argument - I guess they're not real?


I really cannot believe that some are standing by such an incomplete report. Not listening to Rodriques or whats-his name? Head of the interrogation? He said we DID get correct info.
Of course not ALL the time. But we did get info.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> I'm sure that the torture supporters will not answer this but I will toss it out there...
> 
> What should be the penalty be for someone that tortures someone that is innocent and should that person have their day in court to right that wrong?


Depends on what they defined as torture. If its loud music all nite? Is it waterboarding w/docs present? Or maybe threats of electrocution?
And most importantly, do they still have their HEAD?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> First..he's not British. That "report", is that the one that the liberal senators released? Just so you know...it's just a summary of cherry picked items that were already proven to be lies. If thats the information that your relying on, you need an un biased source. The AG of the United States said everything was legal. He has not been arrested. ..as a matter of fact, no one has!!
> 
> You keep posting comments but no links to get the context from. Why are you afraid to post the links?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Legal? Huh? Reading Problem? Why is the UN pushing for a full investigation? It is legal if you manipulate the law so as to contravene the intent of the law, is that honorable? It violates Geneva, it violates the UN Accordance, it violates human nature. Cherry pick? Sure - for a 2 minute google search, you take what you can get, the site that I pulled up the Doctor showed him wearing a British Military Uniform. I don't care where he is from, he has a conflict of interest when providing proof that a PROGRAM that HE Designed is successful. You cannot really think that providing him as a testifier is legit do you? Is that the only "Eye Witness" that you have? I will create a post with many valid citations and you will squirm around those too, no one has answered my reasonable question so that means that you cannot.


The UN? BWahahahaha! The UN, really. since when do they do anything credible??


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> enemy combatant - newly defined term to avoid the proscriptions in the geneva convention. You say you answered every one of my questions: What post number answered the following question:
> 
> What should be the penalty be for someone that tortures someone that is innocent and should that person have their day in court to right that wrong?
> 
> You won't answer it - you will squirm again.


I answered it. IF there was cut off fingers, beheading, eye-gouging...all I can think of now. Then there should be prosecution. IF it was what the Dems signed off on? Naw.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Depends on what they defined as torture. If its loud music all nite? Is it waterboarding w/docs present? Or maybe threats of electrocution?
> And most importantly, do they still have their HEAD?


Beheading is not torture it is execution. Why do you keep bringing it up as a comparison to how we torture? Do you feel we put prisoners in an electric chair as a form of torture? The torture part of beheading is to bring them into a room put them into the position to be beheaded go through the motions so they become convinced they are going to be beheaded and then not going through with it at the last second. That is what water boarding is designed to be like only with droning instead of beheading. I would say beheading would be a much more humane way to be executed then drowning.

Jim


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Who is being drowned? Is that a new way now to kill our enemies now? Or is it just a way to twist things around and not saying with the OP.
But then hmmmm sounds like a plan now don't it. Lets just drown them, saves ammunition.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Cute replies AK, grama. Act as if you are unaware of the severity of the processes that were used, then make-believe that they were not combined and done repeatedly. Looks like we lost Jeffrey, that is OK, he overspun his way around and around the questions and then just stopped posting. Torture is on the way down the slippery slope, we've passed it and went right on to worse tactics and more evil operations. It is unthinkable that we would kill a house full of people to get at a suspected terrorist. But hey, people on this board appear to be just fine with that, so torture is much less evil than killing that house-full of people, that makes it a good thing, look how benevolent we are, we didn't kill them...

There are a LOT of reasons not to torture, the least of which is the terrorist's feeling, if indeed they really are actual terrorists. 

The question has not been answered by the supporters about how many have been released - guess they were innocent... 

It was OK to torture them though...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For those of you who have used the "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to fear rationale. First I commend you on leading such an exemplary life. Second, how long under these humane treatments would it take for you to admit to doing things you didn't just to make it stop? How many threats of such treatments being tried out on your wife or children would it take before you started talking about your neighbors, friends or brother in law who might have a skeleton or two in their closet? Or making up those skeletons?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Now, for those of you who claim they would go to any extreme to save a loved one. We all have our breaking point but we have to live with the social and spiritual consequences of any action. You're entitled to a jury of your peers and you may convince them of your righteousness. But if you have to ask forgiveness from those actions of a higher being maybe you should ask if they would find them forgivable.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes a MIB around and behind every tree. I see. Lets see now I have this place under the Premise ID I have used a debit card now for the last 25 years so what if someone has a whole file on me I have nothing to hide even when I was hauling my horse in the back seat for the last 15 years in many states in this country not one LEO has stopped me. I do not feel them as many seem to do on here.
I have not changed the way I live or way I go or what I do at all. Being on Medicare and Medicaid the State and Feds know all about me but I still am not on the look out for those black helicopters and MIB to come and threaten me or haul me off. Or any MIB sneaking around to see what I have or am doing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes a MIB around and behind every tree. I see. Lets see now I have this place under the Premise ID I have used a debit card now for the last 25 years so what if someone has a whole file on me I have nothing to hide even when I was hauling my horse in the back seat for the last 15 years in many states in this country not one LEO has stopped me. I do not feel them as many seem to do on here.
> I have not changed the way I live or way I go or what I do at all. Being on Medicare and Medicaid the State and Feds know all about me but I still am not on the look out for those black helicopters and MIB to come and threaten me or haul me off. Or any MIB sneaking around to see what I have or am doing.


Many of those taken to black sites and interrogated didn't see the helicopters until they landed. But that doesn't answer the question. How much of this treatment could you endure before you startrd telling your captors anything they wished to hear?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

#227, excellent post DJ. We are reaping what we have sown.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Within Post #227 we also find this statement:

Our backing of Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, providing him materials to make WMDs. We led him to believe we were okay with him invading Kuwait, but then we turned against him and destroyed his country. Then imposed sanctions resulting in the deaths of at least 500,000 children. You see, we kill in a 'civilized' manner.

Let us be certain that we understand the whole scope of our backing of Saddam. Not only did we provide the technology and materials that Iraq needed to develop nuclear isotopes, Great Britain and the US provided chemical and biological precursors that would only be useful to create weapons from.

For those that are unable to verify information on their own, please see the report titled US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq.

How does this relate to Torture? One of the reasons that we got involved in the death and destruction of Iraq cited them having WMD. Hypocrisy, you might ask? That's like a cop handing a thug, who had been his prized informant, a knife and then shooting them because they were armed.

No one sees a problem in this?


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

torture was never committed - period.

so this is a false narrative


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Oh, here's Madeline "half million dead children is fine with me" Albright getting some tasty bites of crow fed to her:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRC4KZvtj0[/ame]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Tyler? you got some 'splainin to do...


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...t-911-torture-–-propaganda-cultural-sickness-


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I don't give a rip what the UN says or thinks or is even in existence. Period.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> Who were you being water boarded by If you don't mind saying?
> Jim


By the CIA and Army under their directions.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> I don't give a rip what the UN says or thinks or is even in existence. Period.


So, you'll only honor the Laws that you want to honor, is that what I am hearing you say? Do you find the Constitution unworkable or do you think that it's requirements are reasonable?

What about the US Code - do you only adhere to portions of that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Cute replies AK, grama. Act as if you are unaware of the severity of the processes that were used, then make-believe that they were not combined and done repeatedly. Looks like we lost Jeffrey, that is OK, he overspun his way around and around the questions and then just stopped posting. Torture is on the way down the slippery slope, we've passed it and went right on to worse tactics and more evil operations. It is unthinkable that we would kill a house full of people to get at a suspected terrorist. But hey, people on this board appear to be just fine with that, so torture is much less evil than killing that house-full of people, that makes it a good thing, look how benevolent we are, we didn't kill them...
> 
> There are a LOT of reasons not to torture, the least of which is the terrorist's feeling, if indeed they really are actual terrorists.
> 
> ...


You didn't loose me....i went to bed....i have a company to run! And to be exact..I'm not the one spinning...you are. You even said you were done here! Ha!

Actual terrorists! Don't need to carry this on any further. You've said it all. Every liberal talking point has been spun by you. I have work to do, so have fun.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Many of those taken to black sites and interrogated didn't see the helicopters until they landed. But that doesn't answer the question. How much of this treatment could you endure before you startrd telling your captors anything they wished to hear?


I would not be taken alive in the first place. You?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> I knew that if you look hard enough you will find terror. So where dies water boarding fit in? way down the list. The topic about this post was water boarding and if it was torture.


There is plenty of case law to show water boarding does qualify as torture under descriptions given by Shine and every one on this board that cares to know the truth has had the opportunity to verify that. 

Jim


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> There is plenty of case law to show water boarding does qualify as torture under descriptions given by Shine and every one on this board that cares to know the truth has had the opportunity to verify that.
> 
> Jim


It really depends on your source! Ive read and listened to a lot of folks, my conclusion: I would kill.a terrorist to save a fellow humans life. AG said it's not torture, as have many other legal experts. Amnesty International and the UN don't count! 

Just to be clear, you would let your fellow Americans die because you think torture is bad?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> You didn't loose me....i went to bed....i have a company to run! And to be exact..I'm not the one spinning...you are. You even said you were done here! Ha!
> 
> Actual terrorists! Don't need to carry this on any further. You've said it all. Every liberal talking point has been spun by you. I have work to do, so have fun.


Spin, rinse, and repeat that is all they can do and repeat and repeat, sometimes even enough they actually Believe it is true. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Actual terrorists! Don't need to carry this on any further.


No, the report says that some of those tortured weren't alleged to have been terrorists at all. They were tortured because they had some connection with suspected terrorists so it was possible that they might have known something.

You have faith that Cheney's assertion that everyone in Gitmo is a hardened terrorist and are considered to be the worst of the worst. That turns out to not be the case. That strengthens my belief that they are only there to keep them from talking about torture & death at the hands of Americans.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, the report says that some of those tortured weren't alleged to have been terrorists at all. They were tortured because they had some connection with suspected terrorists so it was possible that they might have known something.
> 
> You have faith that Cheney's assertion that everyone in Gitmo is a hardened terrorist and are considered to be the worst of the worst. That turns out to not be the case. That strengthens my belief that they are only there to keep them from talking about torture & death at the hands of Americans.


What report? Link please!.....report, not biased liberal summary. 

If you ignore this question again, I'll know for a fact that your using the summary and calling it the report. Cheery picked information is not the truth is it?

You do have some rather strange beliefs I have to say!!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

This is going no further. It's turned into a bunch of mud slinging. And the mud fight stops now.


----------

