quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I feel that the vast majority of the time, they'll get the right people. They're already using torture judicially...partly as a result of all of this fall-out in the past couple of years on the issue. I feel confident that they are saving the torture for those for whom there is NO DOUBT they are genuine, dangerous enemies of ours. I sleep well at night knowing that their asses are suffering so that mine might live.

quote:

Bush’s proposal would “liberalize the definition of what is torture” by amending the War Crimes Act to “permit use of hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, stress positions, ‘long-time standing,’ prolonged sleep deprivation, and possibly waterboarding.” In his letter, Powell writes, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/powell-letter/

It has been well-documented that torture goes against the spirit of our very country. You support a war that is supposedly for the preservation of liberty, but you are not willing to die to preserve it? I find that highly odd - if you were consistent, you would acknowledge that the principles that make America what it is are far greater than any individual's life. That is the fundamental belief behind sacrificing your personal safety for the preservation of the state - it's why we got involved in World War II, and it's why the Union refused to allow the Confederacy to secede. Because in the end, what we stand for is far greater than who we are as individuals. I'm not willing to sacrifice that.

___________________

So we should all die and never try to defend ourselves, all so that we can say "we took the higher moral ground" (which I think is arguable anyway), while our enemies dance on our graves?

As has been stated in other threads, it's not about "one guy" getting tortured. It's about "one guy who has information that could save THOUSANDS of lives on our side, if we can just get him to tell us about it" being tortured. It would be WRONG not to try and get it out of him!

No country is ever perfect. I like our system of government though and I am confident that in the end, our people have FAR more freedom than we would under and A.Q. system of government, don't you?

You want us to be the friendly, fluffy government 24-7, but that's just not realistic in a war.

And our troops are already at risk. Cutting off heads and torturing them...how much worse can it get? I'd say we have nothing to lose there. The war in the Pacific in WW2 became a fight to the death, with POW's RARELY taken on either side. Sometimes, you just have to kill or be killed.

That's what this is all about.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So we should all die and never try to defend ourselves, all so that we can say "we took the higher moral ground" (which I think is arguable anyway), while our enemies dance on our graves?

Who said anything about not defending ourselves? I just said we should do it with some dignity. Torture has been proven time and again to be unreliable anyhow. False confessions are normal. Which begs the question: how do you tell who is innocent and who is not? Who is deserving of torture and who is not? Should we torture anybody we pick up? Anyone we're suspicious of? How many innocent people tortured before it's not ok anymore? If we torture 200 people to find one person who legitimately knows something about al-Qaeda, was it worth it? How much does that person have to know to make it worth it? Make it reliable?

Careful Donny, you're advocating a very Orwellian world.

quote:

No country is ever perfect. I like our system of government though and I am confident that in the end, our people have FAR more freedom than we would under and A.Q. system of government, don't you?

Meh, we've got a surplus on relative civil liberties and freedoms, so what does it hurt to give up a few? We'll still be better off than people who blow themselves up in markets, eh? Good enough for me!

quote:

And our troops are already at risk. Cutting off heads and torturing them...how much worse can it get?

Colin Powell (and everyone else who has argued for the closure of GITMO) seem to think otherwise - for every innocent person tortured by our government, that's more free publicity for the likes of al-Qaeda and any other anti-American group.

quote:

I'd say we have nothing to lose there.

I'd say we have the whole world to lose.

___________________

It really is interesting to continually hear the Bush supporters come out in favor of torture methodology. It seems that the arguments often held fall into two categories:

1. Waterboarding isn't torture, is it?

-Honestly I can't even fucking believe this is actually an argument that our country is holding. To me it's beyond unbelievable to even be debating this at all. Is this torture? Are you fucking kidding me? No, unfortunately stupid fucking ****s like Senator Bond (R-MO) have these thoughts on the matter:

quote:

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture? SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It’s like swimming, freestyle, backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that’s beside the point. It’s not being used. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/poli...apes_12-11.html

Holy God. I'm speechless. But let's make sure and understand if it is, indeed torture, from a Republican presidential candidate who knows a few things about torture firsthand:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007...in3554687.shtml

Here's 4 retired JAGs (judicial arm of the U.S. military):

quote:

We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. […] This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. […] In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation. http://thinkprogress.org/jag-letter-waterboarding/

Senator Lindsay Graham, another Republican and a member of the JAG corp himself in the U.S. Air Force:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071028/D8SIE8J02.html

Once this argument gets completely blown up, however, what we see is the second point (which is being argued in this thread):

2. Hey, everyone tortures. It's gone on for centuries. It's war, dammit! We have to protect our "way of life" somehow. And if we can obtain information via torture in order to protect our "way of life" and save lives, then it's worth it!

I think these terrific points of Lebezniatnikov need to be restated for donny and any other Bush supporter:

quote:

If we change our fundamental beliefs about human decency, then they have won. If we shred the Constitution, even just a little bit, what victory have we won? Torturing the enemy goes against who we are and why this country was created in the first place. And that's a far greater price to pay.

IOW - we become no greater than our enemy. We stand on no higher moral ground than our enemy. Say we win against terrorism tomorrow. We wipe them out. We plant our American flag, beat our chests, and stand tall on their graves.

But we did so by torturing the fuck out of them. We did it by terrorizing the enemy, the enemy's allies, the enemies' friends, the enemies' enemies, and of course, completely innocent people who haven't a fucking clue who we are or who we call our "enemies".

Now, aside of the fact that we won and they lost, tell me the difference between us and them. And while you're at it, define to me our "way of life" and the justification on how we preserved it. Because defending democracy, liberties, and freedom by becoming the very evil of our enemies cannot possibly make us any greater than the enemies we are fighting against. We just became the enemy, and no matter how we justify our actions in order to "preserve our way of life", we cannot escape that underlying problem.

quote:

You support a war that is supposedly for the preservation of liberty, but you are not willing to die to preserve it? I find that highly odd - if you were consistent, you would acknowledge that the principles that make America what it is are far greater than any individual's life. That is the fundamental belief behind sacrificing your personal safety for the preservation of the state

Very well said.

But even if my hypothetical scenario above, it becomes completely negated with the simple fact:

quote:

Add to the fact that under duress of torture the rate of false confessions is extraordinarily high and experts attest that we can't be certain if any of the information we get from torture is actually accurate or not. The army officer who himself underwent waterboarding said the same thing. It is torture, it is unreliable, and it is something that the United States should never, ever, sink to the level of.

Which is why the Army Field manual specifically prohibits waterboarding:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf

They also specifically prohibit "mock executions", "using military working dogs", and inducing hypothermia or heat injury" in intelligence interrogations. This is the same manual and rules that our Congress is attempting to pass to get our CIA to follow as well.

One has to wonder why a major branch of our military (and intelligence) has these specific set of rules while another Executive branch of intelligence does not.

But hey, don't take my word for it, here's a Conservative-leaning magazine, the Armed Forces Journal, stating it as clearly as possible in reference to Giuliani's ra-ra cheerleading of torture:

quote:

For their tacit support of waterboarding. In an interview, Giuliani was asked for his views on using “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. He responded that in a hypothetical scenario that assumed an attack, “I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of.” Prompted again on the specific use of waterboarding, he repeated “every method they could think of.” Mukasey said he found waterboarding to be “repugnant,” but he wouldn’t answer whether it amounted to torture. Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue. http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108

Wait, I know that last part needs repeating:

quote:

In short, it doesn’t work.

What was that?

quote:

IN SHORT, IT DOESN'T WORK

Oh.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

And oh so strangely, new AG Michael "I can't make up my mind if waterboarding is torture" Mukasey wants Congress to delay investigating the CIA destroyed tapes case. Congressional members on both sides of the aisle ain't happy, and appear to be giving Mukasey the finger:'

quote:

Delay Is Sought by Justice Dept. on C.I.A. Inquiry By DAVID JOHNSTON and MARK MAZZETTI WASHINGTON — The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the Congressional inquiry presented “significant risks” to its own preliminary investigation into the matter. The department is taking an even harder line with other Congressional committees looking into the matter, and is refusing to provide information about any role it might have played in the destruction of the videotapes. The recordings covered hundreds of hours of interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda. The Justice Department and the C.I.A.’s inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department would not comply with Congressional requests for information now because of “our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence.” Over all, the position taken by Mr. Mukasey, who took office last month, represented what Justice Department officials described as an effort to caution Congress against meddling in the tapes case and other politically explosive criminal cases. The Justice Department request was met with anger from both Republican and Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, who said the department was trying to interfere with their investigation. The committee had summoned two C.I.A. officials to testify at a hearing next week, a session that will now almost certainly be postponed. The inquiry by the House committee had been shaping up as the most aggressive investigation into the destruction of the tapes, and in a written statement on Friday, the two senior members of the panel said they were “stunned” by the Justice Department’s request. The lawmakers, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, and Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, threatened to issue subpoenas to get testimony and other information from the C.I.A. “There is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work,” they said. The committee had demanded that the C.I.A. produce all cables, memorandums and e-mail messages related to the videotapes, as well as the legal advice given to agency officials before the tapes were destroyed. Friday’s deadline passed without the arrival of any of those C.I.A. records on Capitol Hill. The inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress began after the disclosure last week that the C.I.A. had videotaped the 2002 interrogations of two Qaeda operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The tapes were destroyed in November 2005 in a decision that the current C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was not in charge of the agency at the time, has said was made “in line with the law” to protect the security of C.I.A. officers who took part in the questioning. The preliminary joint inquiry by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. is aimed at determining how the tapes were destroyed, who authorized their destruction, and whether the action violated the law. The C.I.A. did not provide the tapes to the commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks or to authorities that have sought to prosecute terrorism suspects in the courts. The Congressional inquiries, by the House and Senate intelligence committees and other panels, are largely moving on a parallel track, but are also trying to determine whether anyone in the executive branch had sought to have the tapes destroyed to eliminate possible evidence that C.I.A. officers had used outlawed interrogation techniques. The Justice Department request to the House committee was made in a letter signed by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein and John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.’s inspector general, who are leading the preliminary criminal investigation. “Our ability to obtain the most reliable and complete information would likely be jeopardized if the C.I.A. undertakes the steps necessary to respond to your requests in a comprehensive fashion at this time,” the letter said. Mr. Wainstein and Mr. Helgerson asked the committee’s “indulgence,” and promised to advise the panel on when it might resume its inquiry without jeopardizing their own investigation. But they said they could not say when the Justice Department inquiry might be completed and asked to pursue their investigation at the appropriate pace. The House Intelligence Committee has been hoping to hear testimony next week from two C.I.A. witnesses: Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former leader of the agency’s clandestine branch, who is said to have ordered the destruction of the tapes, and John A. Rizzo, the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Mark Mansfield, a C.I.A. spokesman, declined to comment directly on the Justice Department’s letter. “Director Hayden has said the agency would cooperate fully with both the preliminary inquiry conducted by D.O.J. and the C.I.A’s inspector general and with the Congress,” he said. “That has been and certainly is the case.” The exchanges came as Republicans in the Senate moved on Friday to strip language from a bill that would have prohibited the C.I.A. from using what the White House has called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which allow the use of methods more aggressive than those permitted by other agencies. The House has approved a measure containing the prohibition, but the Senate action, together with a veto threat from President Bush, made it unlikely that it would become law. Mr. Mukasey was rebuffing requests from the Congressional committees that oversee the Justice Department. The committees sent him letters this week demanding information about the department’s role in the destruction of the tapes and in other issues related to the possible recording of interrogations. “At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice,” Mr. Mukasey wrote in one letter. Accordingly, he went on, “I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter.” That letter was sent on Friday to Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. Mr. Leahy said Friday that he was disappointed that “the Department of Justice declined to provide us, either publicly or in a classified setting, with any of the information Senator Specter and I have requested.” “This committee needs to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values,” Mr. Leahy added. David Johnston reported from Washington, and Mark Mazzetti from New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/w...bqDvXts0B8PxXPg

Good job, Dems. That Mukasey was a terrific replacement of Gonzo.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Let's address this presumption that if we don't use methods which, by comparison to our enemies, could hardly even be called "torture" (what's a little water up the nose to having your head lopped off?), we would be taking a higher moral road;

Where exactly does this scenario end? Do we not attack back anymore when we are attacked, for example, all so that we can take the higher moral ground? How long do you think we would last as a country if we keep letting anyone and everyone who wants to, walk all over us?

A.Q. is NOT a member of the Geneva Convention! And they have set the bar for how they're going to fight us (terror tactics, by attacking CIVILIANS, as well as our military). And as stated before, because they are not a member of the Convention, they don't follow the rules when they take our people prisoner. Of all the possible people we can be fighting right now, this group is the LEAST impressed by morality! They don't care how they attack us and kill us, or whether or not they attack women, kids, innocent civilians, or the military. In fact, they PREFER attacking innocent civilians! And they would be happy if they could kill every damn one of us. And if we give them that chance, then one day, they WILL succeed!

What if it was your mom, or your wife who had to jump out of the WTC to their death? Or your child on one of those planes that hit the towers? I doubt you'd feel to benevolent towards A.Q. And given that it wasn't anyone close to you, how on earth do you guys have to audacity to tell these relatives that you want to treat the people who did this to them and their loved ones, with kit gloves?

I know the liberal media likes to hold up token examples of family members who don't support water-boarding and such, as if this small minority speaks for all of the families. But by the larger majority, you will find that they aren't speaking out against torture because they don't have the slightest problem with it. Why? Because they have experienced first hand what will happen to them and their families if we don't kill these fucking people and win!

We were already ON the "higher moral ground" here when this war began. We still are! We're not intentionally targeting women and children in Afghanistan. We're not looking to wipe out all Muslims because they don't believe in our favorite religion, etc...and we have a moral OBLIGATION to ourselves to ruthlessly stamp out these people like the bugs they are!

As for false confessions, you guys are confusing Police interrogations with military interrogations. In the military, there is plenty of corroboration going on (for the most part), as they are taking enough prisoners and getting enough intelligence out of them to cross-check stories for accuracy.

Well, you can gripe all you want about it, but the truth of the matter is that torture DOES work, enemies DO talk as a result of it, and lives get saved and wars get won as a result. It will go on, whether you like it, or know about it. I take comfort in that fact.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco

Well Donny, you certainly do stick to your talking points. But since you've said nothing new here, I'm just going to re-post a few questions for you that you've yet to address.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Who said anything about not defending ourselves? I just said we should do it with some dignity. Torture has been proven time and again to be unreliable anyhow. False confessions are normal. Which begs the question: how do you tell who is innocent and who is not? Who is deserving of torture and who is not? Should we torture anybody we pick up? Anyone we're suspicious of? How many innocent people tortured before it's not ok anymore? If we torture 200 people to find one person who legitimately knows something about al-Qaeda, was it worth it? How much does that person have to know to make it worth it? Make it reliable? Careful Donny, you're advocating a very Orwellian world. Meh, we've got a surplus on relative civil liberties and freedoms, so what does it hurt to give up a few? We'll still be better off than people who blow themselves up in markets, eh? Good enough for me! Colin Powell (and everyone else who has argued for the closure of GITMO) seem to think otherwise - for every innocent person tortured by our government, that's more free publicity for the likes of al-Qaeda and any other anti-American group. I'd say we have the whole world to lose.

The United States is the best country in the world because we stand for something: human decency and fundamental rights and liberty. It's nice to see people like you willing to start chipping away at our foundation in order to, as you put it, "ruthlessly stamp out these people like the bugs they are."

___________________

^^^If we are now chipping away at our fundamental rights and decency, when exactly do you think that it began? With this war on terror?

How about the Spanish/American War, in which we believed we were attacked in Cuba, when in fact, history now shows we were not?

How about the way we treated African Americans for decades? Or the Japanese-Americans in WW2?

I've read plenty of accounts (and talked to a few veterans personally even) from WW2 who killed POW's out-right in the field. Why? The other side was doing the same, that's why! It happened from time to time, even though over-all, we treated our POW's better than they did ours.

We are not perfect, nor have we ever been. I still think that over-all though, we've been a LOT better to our enemies and our to own people than other governments have been to their people, or to us. In my book, that says that we're still ahead of the game.

So my point is that we're not chipping away at anything by engaging in this form of so-called "torture". It's business as usual, because we have no choice. It gets results!

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

Last edited by donnybrasco on Dec-15-2007 at 22:01

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco

How in the world can you believe that "it's not that bad because we always do bad things for which we later apologize or change" is a serious argument?

quote:

It's business as usual, because we have no choice. It gets results!

No, actually, it doesn't.

quote:

History shows -- and I know a little about this -- that mistreatment of prisoners and torture is not productive. It's not productive. You don't get information that's usable from people under torture, because they just tell you what youwant to hear. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), quoted in Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Prisoner Abuse Scandal Puts McCain in Spotlight Once Again," NY Times, 5/10/2004

quote:

"Torture forces even the most innocent to lie." - Cicero

quote:

In the European Middle Ages, St. Augustine pointed out its moral perversity: "If the accused be innocent, he will undergo for an uncertain crime a certain punishment, and that . . . because it is unknown whether he committed it." The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Micropædia, 15th edition, 2002

quote:

Even milder torture . . . can result in false confessions, that is, information that is flat-out inaccurate. Steven Welsh, Center for Defense Information, quoted in Brad Knickerbocker, "Can torture be justified?" Christian Science Monitor, 5/19/2004

NOTE: I think when you refer to "getting a little water up your nose" you are referring to the process of simulated drowning, which meets the US definition of torture -- "creating psychological or physical harm"

quote:

As for those who do have something to say, we know very well that they do not talk. All of them, or nearly all of them. . . . One of the officers commented . . . . "For ten years, fifteen years, they all have had the same idea: if taken they must not talk, There is nothing we can do about it." . . . These tortures bring a poor return: the Germans themselves ended by realising this in 1944; torture costs human lives but does not save them. Jean-Paul Sartre, Introduction to Henri Alleg, The Question, 1958

quote:

Most of these prisoners have been warned to expect brutality. But if you say, "I'm your friend," they don't know how to react. Their orders don't cover this, so being humane is much more effective. A U.S. paramilitary expert in Saigon, quoted in William Tuohy, "A Big 'Dirty Little War'," NY Times Magazine, 11/28/1965

quote:

There are better ways of getting information from prisoners than torture. Sure . . . the guy will talk. But you never know whether the information is accurate. If I were being tortured, I'd whip out so much stuff it would take them six months to check it. A U.S. specialist in Saigon, quoted in William Touhy, "A Big 'Dirty Little War'," NY Times Magazine, 11/28/1965

quote:

Sanctioned abuse is deeply corrosive -- just ask the French, who are still seeking to eradicate the stain on their honor that resulted from the deliberate use of torture in Algeria. French soldiers had been tortured in Vietnam, in some cases revealing valuable information to their Vietminh captors. Senior French officers decided that the same tactics might work for them. As Alistair Horne put it in "A Savage War of Peace," use of torture may have won the battle of Algiers for the French, but it cost them Algeria. Donald P. Gregg, "Fight Fire With Compassion," NY Times Op Ed, 6/10/2004

quote:

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. Department of the Army, FM 34-52, Chapter 1. INTERROGATION AND THE INTERROGATOR. Principles of Interrogation: Prohibition against use of force, May 8, 1987

quote:

American interrogators working in Iraq have obtained as much as 50 percent more high-value intelligence since a series of coercive practices . . . were banned [in May]. . . . Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, said that . . . "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence." Dexter Filkins, "General Says Less Coercion of Captives Yields Better Data," NY Times, 9/7/2004

quote:

A new interrogation system established in April contains several layers of oversight and focuses on establishing a rapport between interrogators and prisoners, instead of employing coercive tactics. "You would be surprised at how far a can of orange soda would go," said Lt. Col. Mark Costello, who oversees interrogations at Abu Ghraib. Norimitsu Onishi, "Transforming a Prison, With U.S. Image in Mind," NY Times, 9/16/2004

I'm sure you probably thought Abu Ghraib was business as usual as well.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Let's address this presumption that if we don't use methods which, by comparison to our enemies, could hardly even be called "torture" (what's a little water up the nose to having your head lopped off?), we would be taking a higher moral road;

Ahh yes, and Abu Ghraib was just a fraternity prank, right Mr. Limbaugh?

Jesus.

quote:

Where exactly does this scenario end?

Where indeed does YOUR scenario end?

quote:

Do we not attack back anymore when we are attacked, for example, all so that we can take the higher moral ground? How long do you think we would last as a country if we keep letting anyone and everyone who wants to, walk all over us?

As Lebez had alluded to earlier, you're doing nothing but repeating your points without further analysis or support. No one here is advocating that we don't fight back. No one. What we are advocating, however, is not becoming the terrorists ourselves and stooping to their levels in order to supposedly "preserve our way of life". Believe it or not (and it's pretty obvious that you will not), we can interrogate our enemies with better efficiency without torturing them.

And wouldn't you know something? We actually can keep our dignity at the same time! Funny that.

quote:

A.Q. is NOT a member of the Geneva Convention!

Quite true, but Hamdan v. Rumsfeld determined that we have to treat "enemy combatants" with the same rights as Geneva:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...455.html?sub=AR

Geneva set a minimum standard of treating human beings under Common Article 3 that applies to ALL people.

quote:

And they have set the bar for how they're going to fight us (terror tactics, by attacking CIVILIANS, as well as our military).

So when we TERRORIZE them in the same manner, aka TORTURING innocent civilians caught in the middle of a war to whom we've freed from Gitmo and other prisons, uhh, what was the difference between us and them again?

Or are you going to try and sell me the bullshit line that we've never tortured innocent people?

quote:

And as stated before, because they are not a member of the Convention,

They are (by SCOTUS decision)

quote:

they don't follow the rules when they take our people prisoner.

I really hope you're not one of those people who hypocritically cry "FOUL!" when they capture our soldiers and torture the fuck out of them.

quote:

Of all the possible people we can be fighting right now, this group is the LEAST impressed by morality!

And what better a way to show them morality by, uhh, showing them none in return.

I'm sorry, are we really suppose to take pride in being a leader of the free world again with this mentality of yours?

quote:

They don't care how they attack us and kill us, or whether or not they attack women, kids, innocent civilians, or the military. In fact, they PREFER attacking innocent civilians! And they would be happy if they could kill every damn one of us. And if we give them that chance, then one day, they WILL succeed!

You're repeating yourself again. So I'll repeat myself again:

Who the hell said anything about giving up and letting them "win" against us? Is it possible that you could at least conceive the thought that we can have an all-out fight against them while at the same time not using the flawed torture methods of interrogation and instead use more effective methodology?

Or do you believe the Army has no fucking clue what they're talking about by not including torture in their field manual?

quote:

What if it was your mom, or your wife who had to jump out of the WTC to their death? Or your child on one of those planes that hit the towers? I doubt you'd feel to benevolent towards A.Q. And given that it wasn't anyone close to you, how on earth do you guys have to audacity to tell these relatives that you want to treat the people who did this to them and their loved ones, with kit gloves?

Ahh, so instead of merely repeating your silly points, you resort to an appeal to emotion. Nice touch.

And, once again, who the fuck said ANYTHING about "feeling benevolent" towards al Qaeda?

You want to know how much I hate them, donny? I hate them so much that I wish we fucking would have finished the job in Tora Bora rather than running off to fucking no where in Iraq and attacking a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11! Doesn't that make you angry as hell too? Doesn't that make you mad as hell to know that YOUR president diverted our attention away from the terrorist leader when we had his ass on the run in Tora Bora just to attack someone that had nothing to do with the bastard that attacked us?

Please tell me that makes you mad. I wouldn't want to think you're a terrorist enabler just like us libruls.

quote:

I know the liberal media likes to hold up token examples of family members who don't support water-boarding and such, as if this small minority speaks for all of the families. But by the larger majority, you will find that they aren't speaking out against torture because they don't have the slightest problem with it. Why? Because they have experienced first hand what will happen to them and their families if we don't kill these fucking people and win!

All right! A terrific assertion about the "larger majority"! Okay, champ, here's your chance to support your assertion with evidence. Please present it in your reply.

quote:

We were already ON the "higher moral ground" here when this war began. We still are! We're not intentionally targeting women and children in Afghanistan.

No - we're targeting and torturing some of their innocent husbands and brothers in efforts to get to those few terrorists, and then we set those innocent men free later.

Yep. Moral high ground.

We're not looking to wipe out all Muslims because they don't believe in our favorite religion, etc...and we have a moral OBLIGATION to ourselves to ruthlessly stamp out these people like the bugs they are!

quote:

As for false confessions, you guys are confusing Police interrogations with military interrogations. In the military, there is plenty of corroboration going on (for the most part), as they are taking enough prisoners and getting enough intelligence out of them to cross-check stories for accuracy.

Evidence, please.

quote:

Well, you can gripe all you want about it, but the truth of the matter is that torture DOES work, enemies DO talk as a result of it, and lives get saved and wars get won as a result. It will go on, whether you like it, or know about it. I take comfort in that fact.

Glad you take comfort. I sure feel better knowing that.

I'm just curious, donny. You talk a pretty tough game. Are you by chance in the military? If not, why haven't you considered enlisting yourself?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 tell me the difference between us and them.

easy. the three prisoners that have been subjected to waterboarding...


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed


Zubaydah


Unkown Dude

...were in the business and process of mass murder for Allah (praise be unto him). we are in the business and process of preventing that from happening.

people are afraid to make that distinction for whatever reasons, i'm sure there is a million of them, but make no mistake there IS a distinction...

...to believe there is no distinction, THAT IMO IS UN-AMERICAN! all the other "American way" righteous indignation can take a back seat