TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush program extended beyond domestic wiretapping
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Sorry wrong again, take a look at the number of replies you have received right from the start of this thread because of your ignorance. You must live a in padded room.

You calling me ignorant is like someone with down syndrome calling me retarded. Keep it up..

OK captain, what ever you say. At least I am not the one posting up shit that everyone already knew about fuking ages ago.

A little slow is a huge understatement.

You win Kryptoshit, you can re-claim the throne as king of the stupid retards that was last held by you and move on now. You must be really bored of banging your head on those padded walls today, thanks for the laugh.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So you are accusing the current administration of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions or the US Army Field Manual? Ok, prove it.

I dunno what's in the Geneva Conventions OR the Field Manual, but I KNOW that you don't obtain sensitive information by offering a man a smoke and asking nicely. So either they AREN'T torturing, and are receiving NO relevant intelligence, or they ARE obtaining that needed info, and they are using some means of persuasion that the average western-world liberal would not approve of.

Whether the media discovers those means, reports those means if they do, or never find out, I refuse to believe that some form of torture, or torture-like action that falls in the gray-zone is not being used to acquire terrorist intelligence.

We're talking about an administration that stages it's own "Town Hall" meetings. You don't think they'd cover up their means of persuading prisoners to give up whatever information they have?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut OK captain, what ever you say. At least I am not the one posting up shit that everyone already knew about fuking ages ago. A little slow is a huge understatement. You win Kryptoshit, you can re-claim the throne as king of the stupid retards that was last held by you and move on now. You must be really bored of banging your head on those padded walls today, thanks for the laugh.

Don't try too hard coming up with a come back..

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I dunno what's in the Geneva Conventions OR the Field Manual, but I KNOW that you don't obtain sensitive information by offering a man a smoke and asking nicely. So either they AREN'T torturing, and are receiving NO relevant intelligence, or they ARE obtaining that needed info, and they are using some means of persuasion that the average western-world liberal would not approve of.

That is a false presumption that intelligence cannot be obtained without torture. If that were the case, then why don't the police torture every suspect they question? How do police obtain so many confessions and information WITHOUT torture, barring the fact that it's illegal to torture, domestically, or on the battlefield.

quote:

Whether the media discovers those means, reports those means if they do, or never find out, I refuse to believe that some form of torture, or torture-like action that falls in the gray-zone is not being used to acquire terrorist intelligence. We're talking about an administration that stages it's own "Town Hall" meetings. You don't think they'd cover up their means of persuading prisoners to give up whatever information they have?

I see your suspicions, but as of yet, you haven't provided any evidence, or "smoking gun", to prove the Obama administration continues a Bush torture policy that Bush himself ended in 2006.

There are plenty of coercive interrogation techniques that do not involve torture.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Don't try too hard coming up with a come back..

There is no come back, you are a fuckin idiot for posting this shit and believing that Bush's words (as if they mean anything) on this matter have actually stopped any of these torture methods. Talk about fukin ignorance, you take the cake asshole.

Get your head out of your ass and wake the fuk up already. You believe everything the government tells you while at the same time trying to make it appear to everyone here you are playing the subjective card which I might add you fukin fail at horribly.

You are a typical government, media brainwashed sheep. You linger on borderline subjects but as soon as you cannot take the heat you post shit like "give me the proof" or "who should we charge" when everyone already knows whats going on. The world is not so black and white and the USA in particular is full of gray, gray which is never going to be covered by your beloved media or cited by the same government who lied to you in the first place.

It's you that cannot see past the lies. You give them way too much credit and take everything word for word which is why you can never open your eyes. You need a headline flashing on FOX/CNN or a link to MSNBC to justify your beliefs while the rest of us know you are really watching a soap opera and actually laughing in your face for believing this bullshit.

Please go on now and try to convince everyone here they are not torturing anymore because it is "against the rules" and they said this in their own words it so it must be true.




IDIOT

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis There are plenty of coercive interrogation techniques that do not involve torture.

I just saw on CNN they force the prisoners to read Kryptoshit's posts on this forum as their main technique.

But let's be straight about it, this is TORTURE no matter what CNN or FOX told us. They are lying as always.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut There is no come back, you are a fuckin idiot for posting this shit and believing that Bush's words (as if they mean anything) on this matter have actually stopped any of these torture methods. Talk about fukin ignorance, you take the cake asshole. Get your head out of your ass and wake the fuk up already. You believe everything the government tells you while at the same time trying to make it appear to everyone here you are playing the subjective card which I might add you fukin fail at horribly. You are a typical government, media brainwashed sheep. You linger on borderline subjects but as soon as you cannot take the heat you post shit like "give me the proof" or "who should we charge" when everyone already knows whats going on. The world is not so black and white and the USA in particular is full of gray, gray which is never going to be covered by your beloved media or cited by the same government who lied to you in the first place. It's you that cannot see past the lies. You give them way too much credit and take everything word for word which is why you can never open your eyes. You need a headline flashing on FOX/CNN or a link to MSNBC to justify your beliefs while the rest of us know you are really watching a soap opera and actually laughing in your face for believing this bullshit. Please go on now and try to convince everyone here they are not torturing anymore because it is "against the rules" and they said this in their own words it so it must be true. IDIOT

You're trying too hard loser. Why don't you go jack off to the next conspiracy theory...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That is a false presumption that intelligence cannot be obtained without torture. If that were the case, then why don't the police torture every suspect they question? How do police obtain so many confessions and information WITHOUT torture,

Police obtain information because your typical criminal isn't a brainwashed psychopath who's only one button away from blowing himself up on a bus. Most criminals are looking out for their own ass, and when the cop says "You better confess because we have TONS of evidence against you and the court will be more lenient if you cooperate", they break and confess.

Police also brutally beat people sometimes, and it goes unreported. What's to stop an army interrogator from using a bit of torture if the chances of him actually being caught are slim-to-none?

Military confessions are much harder to get because those people are trained soldiers, who are fighting for a greater cause than their own existence. Many would rather die, for instance, than tell a US soldier where their commanders are.

quote:

barring the fact that it's illegal to torture, domestically, or on the battlefield.

It's illegal to smoke weed, but I do it.

It's illegal to speed, but I do it.

It's illegal to download free music and movies, but I do it.

It's illegal to keep fish from Canadian lakes in my fish aquarium, but I have 4 in my 90 gallon right now.

It was illegal to torture when Bush was having it done, but he still had it done.

There are TONS of things that are illegal. That doesn't mean that laws are being followed. I think it's highly naive to say "Well, Bush said he ended the torture because the newspaper told me so." And actually believe that lying son of a bitch ACTUALLY stopped having it done.

The most probable fact is that torture of some sort is PROBABLY still being carried out, if not 'officially' than certainly unofficially. The President who's against torture can't know what an army investigator is ACTUALLY doing to a prisoner being interrogated, all of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Police obtain information because your typical criminal isn't a brainwashed psychopath who's only one button away from blowing himself up on a bus. Most criminals are looking out for their own ass, and when the cop says "You better confess because we have TONS of evidence against you and the court will be more lenient if you cooperate", they break and confess. Police also brutally beat people sometimes, and it goes unreported. What's to stop an army interrogator from using a bit of torture if the chances of him actually being caught are slim-to-none? Military confessions are much harder to get because those people are trained soldiers, who are fighting for a greater cause than their own existence. Many would rather die, for instance, than tell a US soldier where their commanders are.

Police don't use torture, because, first, it's illegal. Second, it's ineffective. If I am being tortured, I will confess to anything you want me to. Is it no wonder we got so much bogus "intelligence" on Iraq being in league with Al-Qaeda? People told us that because they were being tortured.

quote:

It's illegal to smoke weed, but I do it. It's illegal to speed, but I do it. It's illegal to download free music and movies, but I do it. It's illegal to keep fish from Canadian lakes in my fish aquarium, but I have 4 in my 90 gallon right now. It was illegal to torture when Bush was having it done, but he still had it done. There are TONS of things that are illegal. That doesn't mean that laws are being followed. I think it's highly naive to say "Well, Bush said he ended the torture because the newspaper told me so." And actually believe that lying son of a bitch ACTUALLY stopped having it done. The most probable fact is that torture of some sort is PROBABLY still being carried out, if not 'officially' than certainly unofficially. The President who's against torture can't know what an army investigator is ACTUALLY doing to a prisoner being interrogated, all of the time.

Your disregard for the law does not excuse our government violating it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Police don't use torture, because, first, it's illegal. Second, it's ineffective. If I am being tortured, I will confess to anything you want me to. Is it no wonder we got so much bogus "intelligence" on Iraq being in league with Al-Qaeda? People told us that because they were being tortured.

Are you seriously blaming the cooked intelligence about Iraq on terrorist confessions that were only obtained through torture? First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if I found out tomorrow that they didn't even actually QUESTION a member of Al-Queda about Iraq. The Bush administration was dishonest at the best of times.

More to the point, I'll bet that information was being fed to the US by AQ prisoners before any form of torture was enacted. I'm sure that Al-Queda is intelligent enough to know that the US is weaker if they spread their forces. Not only that, that ANYWHERE the USA attacked would be bad for their Public Relations with other nations. Not only THAT, but that an attack on Iraq would help draw more poor, angry men from the Middle East to their cause because the US would be viewed as simply attacking Muslim nations. And on TOP of all those things, that they knew it would be EASY to convince Bush Jr. to start a war and make it all happen.

quote:

Your disregard for the law does not excuse our government violating it.

No one's excusing them. Not ONCE have I said I agree that torture should be used. But let's be realistic here. All governments are corrupt and do things that are illegal, the best governments are just better at covering it up. And I'm certain that somewhere in a dark, damp cell. An American military interrogator is using SOME form of torture to obtain information. To simply declare that it isn't happening because "That politician said it stopped and the newspaper printed the story, so it's official!" is pure fantasy.

To accept anything a politician SAYS (Like "We no longer torture" or "I will not raise taxes") at face value is incredibly foolish from my perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Are you seriously blaming the cooked intelligence about Iraq on terrorist confessions that were only obtained through torture? First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if I found out tomorrow that they didn't even actually QUESTION a member of Al-Queda about Iraq. The Bush administration was dishonest at the best of times.

We'v tortured or had tortured hundreds of people, a lot of whom have been released! Are you telling me not one of them is going to say anything just to make it stop? Of course they were questioned on Iraq. A special unit in the Pentagon was set up specifically to come up with "evidence" of an Iraq/Al-Qaeda link.

quote:

More to the point, I'll bet that information was being fed to the US by AQ prisoners before any form of torture was enacted. I'm sure that Al-Queda is intelligent enough to know that the US is weaker if they spread their forces. Not only that, that ANYWHERE the USA attacked would be bad for their Public Relations with other nations. Not only THAT, but that an attack on Iraq would help draw more poor, angry men from the Middle East to their cause because the US would be viewed as simply attacking Muslim nations. And on TOP of all those things, that they knew it would be EASY to convince Bush Jr. to start a war and make it all happen.

You bet? I'm not betting on anything. I'm looking for facts. Not hunches and suspicions. No offense, but I need proof.

quote:

No one's excusing them. Not ONCE have I said I agree that torture should be used. But let's be realistic here. All governments are corrupt and do things that are illegal, the best governments are just better at covering it up. And I'm certain that somewhere in a dark, damp cell. An American military interrogator is using SOME form of torture to obtain information. To simply declare that it isn't happening because "That politician said it stopped and the newspaper printed the story, so it's official!" is pure fantasy.

Again, you are certain based on what? A hunch? An assumption? We'r going into conspiracy theory territory here. We KNOW Bush's administration authorized torture. We also KNOW the Bush administration halted it in 2006. We KNOW the Obama administration has denounced torture and the law dictates adherence to the Geneva Convention and US Army Field Manual. You accuse the Obama administration is essentially breaking the law. All I'm asking you is, prove it, just as if we are in a court of law. Until then, I really can't take you seriously here.

quote:

To accept anything a politician SAYS (Like "We no longer torture" or "I will not raise taxes") at face value is incredibly foolish from my perspective.

Again, if you are accusing the Obama administration is breaking the law by authorizing torture, you must prove it. Otherwise, we can't go any further here in this discussion..

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you are substituting "hope" with knowledge. please stop doing that. thats how we ended up with a Community Organizer-in-Chief...who btw has endorsed, continued, and enhanced everything you hate Bush for.

Wrong. Obama overturned the repeal of embryonic stem cell research. While that may have nothing to do with National security or the topic at hand, I just find it retarded that you would imply that Obama's policies are the exact same as Bush's.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen While that may have nothing to do with National security or the topic at hand,

this

now stfu

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats how we ended up with a Community Organizer-in-Chief...who btw has endorsed, continued, and enhanced everything you hate Bush for.

I wouldn't say "everything", but I agree that unfortunately Obama has endorsed many of his predecessor's past policies pertaining to warrantless surveillance and torture.

The fact that another president want to retain the same policies that his predecessor pushed forth does not entail those policies to be any more legal, however. It simply means the new guy likes the increased amount of power he was given. Unfortunately this is historically true for most historical leaders and presidents.

And I guess it makes me all the more a purity troll for believing it was wrong and illegal no matter who is in power. Just out of curiousity, though, I'm wondering how you feel about a Democrat holding the same amount of power as Bush does, especially in regards to warrantless surveillance?

quote:

define reasonable? and what freedoms have we laid at the alter un-reasonable security?

I know we've discussed this before. Surely you remember a conversation or two about civil liberties, the right to privacy, etc. regarding warrantless surveillance?

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Wrong. Obama overturned the repeal of government sponsored embryonic stem cell research...

Fixed.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.