• TinSoldier said on Feb 06, 2008....

  So explain to me again how lives were saved by these techniques that were obviously retaliatory in nature?
  
  Only three, huh? Well, it's still three too many.
  

• D6fer said on Feb 06, 2008....

  They cracked in seconds.....they should have done it twice....now that would be retaliatory!

• TinSoldier said on Feb 06, 2008....

  Which doesn't answer my question. Maybe it would have been better if they had lasted hours or days?
  
  Are these people weak in their convictions? Would it be better to threaten or torture their families? How soon would that make them break? Is physical discomfort the only thing that would make them abandon their principles?
  
  But if torturing only three people is okay with you then what can I say?
  

• D6fer said on Feb 06, 2008....

  You'll notice I said "so-called" torture....that changes the discussion doesn't it?
  

• TinSoldier said on Feb 06, 2008....

  No. It doesn't.

• D6fer said on Feb 06, 2008....

  It has been tested on cia agents.....they cracked on average in less than 14 seconds! Torture? I don't think so.....do you really think 14 seconds are going to cause longterm damage? I don't......That's not torture.

• TinSoldier said on Feb 06, 2008....

  What does "long term damage" have to do with torture? Isn't the feeling of discomfort so intense that you believe you may die close enough?
  

• stopmediabias said on Feb 11, 2008....

  I think we need to define what torture is.  Like Shelternuts above here.  As bad as Ms. England here with the leesh is, could you really call that torture?

  Does waterboarding cause anywhere near the damage both long and short-term that real torture does?  No.  And has everyone missed the fact we are at war, shelter? Doesn't war itself cause long-term emotional and physical damage? 

• stopmediabias said on Feb 11, 2008....

  Shelter-"We are not at war"

  What planet are you on? 

  The President cannot go to war without Congress, Congress voted, it's not just President Bush's war.

  "The majority of the citizens want out."

  Wrong, it's not just the majority it is everyone, the majority is the people who believe we should exit with victory, not a defeat.

  "Now that it has been found that that set of criminals lied to the citizens the citizens want us out."

  Broken record drivel, there are no criminals and no-one lied and you cannot prove anyone lied.  Everyone had the same information.

  "Do you think that the actions shown above do not cause long lasting psychological pain?"

  Psychological pain?  I'm sorry but in a world where school kids are being blown up and innocent people are getting their heads sawed off, I don't get concerned over psychological pain.

  "Their actions caused massive national security problems too. Rice too. It's flunkies like you who would torture the whole world with the exception of their own criminal leaders."

  Listening to you cry about the Bush Administration causes more "psychological pain" than waterboarding.  As always...all bark and no bite.  You say baseless stuff like this and you can't prove any of it without the help of some far leftys similar to people that think President Bush was a 9/11 conspirator.

  "Why have you made them the exception? There lies caused some 4,000+ dead U.S. soldiers, 25,000+ maimed U.S. soldiers, 5,000+ suicided U.S. soldiers. Their lies caused that and were made to extract some $16,000 from each U.S. household to do it. That is murder and theft on a grand scale."

  See?  You are a far left loon.  You will pick apart everything, take it out of context, then point your finger at President Bush.  Shameful...I must say.

  What would you say is a reasonable definition of torture?

  
   

   
  

   

   

   

• sheltercrow said on Feb 11, 2008....

  The war is over and it is a nation building occupation now. Even a f*****g moron knows this.
  
  Majority Continues to Consider Iraq War a Mistake
  
  Copyright © 2008 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
  
  I am not going to provide for the gaps in your f*****g knowledge any more. If you cannot keep up on the issues you should not comment or post on them. You are a f*****g tedious idiot.
  
  A f*****g tedious idoit.

• jackflash said on Feb 11, 2008....

  Hey,d6fer you are the blind one.Bush ran this country DRY like he did the oil companys he was in charge off and now he wants to rule the whole world.NO i say put bush chenney,rumsfelled all in nusses and hang them from the light posts in down town D.C.just to show the rest of the rat basterds the people mean business!!!!!   jackflash

• stopmediabias said on Feb 11, 2008....

  D6-With some of the people in here maybe your post should say: Koolaid Koolaid everywhere! :>

  Shelter-Now if you actually went to that link and read that article you would find that it was 57% majority answered yes to a bullshit question.  As long as we have terrorists in Iraq and around the world blowing people up we are at war.

  And stop getting pissed at me, it's not my fault you are a simple-minded dunderhead who dodges just about every question.

  Jackflash-Did you go off your medication again, you're a sad state. 

• D6fer said on Feb 11, 2008....

  jackflash......wow....just like they do in the middle east?
  
  I think if this country went into civil war, you would come to a sorry realization that you would be in a minority.....a very small minority.
  

• silverwhisper said on Feb 12, 2008....

  smb asserted:
  does waterboarding cause anywhere near the damage both long and short-term that real torture does? no.

  
  your evidence would be...?
  
  

  smb queried:
  and has everyone missed the fact we are at war, shelter?

  
  you missed the fact that congress never declared a war. legally speaking, we are unambiguously not at war. besides that, however: that's a complete red herring, smb. even if we were legally at war, the UCMJ does not permit torture, nor do our own laws.
  
  if you want to change the laws, then write your congresspeople. but do stop trying to project your wishes for a more torture-friendly legal environment onto reality.
  
  b/c right now, that isn't the reality.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Feb 12, 2008....

  And the definitions of torture have been amply provided in this discussion. Get your fucking heads out of the sand.

• TinSoldier said on Feb 12, 2008....

  My point isn't to argue whether you think that waterboarding is right or wrong, or whether you think that torture is right or wrong.
  
  Waterboarding is not allowed by the US Army in interrogations. The government has stated that the technique is of questionable legality.
  
  Most people who support waterboarding say that torture is okay in extreme circumstances anyway. So it's a moot point, isn't it?
  
  And Sheltercrow and ed are absolutely correct -- this country is not at war. Well, except for abstract wars such as "the war on terrorism" and "the war and drugs". No declaration of war by Congress exists.
  
  We are, however, occupying two countries which we overthrew by violence, and I agree that by being at war in an abstract sense -- one might even call it "WWIII" -- that the American people by and large don't care much about it nor are they willing to sacrifice or pay much for it. And most of our so-called leaders refuse to tell the people the truth about that.
  
  Anyway, for the short of attention span, The UN Convention Against Torture. And the Wikipedia link, too.
  

• sheltercrow said on Feb 12, 2008....

  Shelter-Now if you actually went to that link and read that article you would find that it was 57% majority answered yes to a bullshit question.  As long as we have terrorists in Iraq and around the world blowing people up we are at war.

  When the fact do not fit your professional opinion (me laughing here) you term them "bullshit". What is the point except to get hits on this post? You are nothing more that a weasel looking for hits on your posts! Shame on you.

  We are not at war in Iraq we are an occupying power forming a puppet junta. The resistance movement their opposes that junta. We are supporting a junta against it's population in the same way we supported all those junta's in central America that massacred their own people to satisfy Washington's needs for client states.

  Lets torture you and see if there are any lasting scars. That torture causes lasting scars has been proved over and over by the psychological community. Shame on you. You should call yourself "I_am_and_always_will_be_biased".

  You are nothing more that a weasel looking for hits on your posts! Shame on you.

• TinSoldier said on Feb 12, 2008....

  And thirdly -- if we are at "war" then we should treat our detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
  
  Shetercrow -- a lot of the so-called "resistance movement" in Iraq is made up of foreign fighters. I don't think it's so much a junta in the way that you are describing it.
  
  Of course, I know that you and I disagree on attacking Iraq in the first place as well as continuing the occupation.
  

• sheltercrow said on Feb 12, 2008....

  The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not "Saddam Hussein loyalists" but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are "wary of a Shiite-led government."

  The Los Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that "Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals."

• sheltercrow said on Feb 12, 2008....

  We are not at war in Iraq we are an occupying power forming a puppet junta. The resistance movement their opposes that junta. We are supporting a junta against it's population in the same way we supported all those junta's in central America that massacred their own people to satisfy Washington's needs for client states.

• sheltercrow said on Feb 12, 2008....

  I stand by this assertion:

  We are not at war in Iraq we are an occupying power forming a puppet junta. The resistance movement their opposes that junta. We are supporting a junta against it's population in the same way we supported all those junta's in central America that massacred their own people to satisfy Washington's needs for client states.

• sheltercrow said on Feb 12, 2008....

• stopmediabias said on Feb 12, 2008....

  Silver-how long does a minute of simulated drowning stay with a person as compared to having a couple of fingers chopped off?

  If waterboarding is torture then everything is torture and we might as well forget about interrogating people who could have vital information.

  Tin-I ask you the same question: What planet are you on? (Shelter and Silver are right???!!!)  I'll remind you and everyone else in here of 9/11 and the Beslan school incident.  As long as there is just one more of these cockroaches running around we are at war.  The Geneva Conventions are not worth the paper they were written on.  They protect the enemy and shit on our soldiers.

  Shelter-I think you need to get the fuck out of this country.  You are ashamed of your own country and tear it down every chance you get.  I'm sick of you highlighting what supposed savages Americans were in the past as if we are responsible.   It shows what a spineless far-left goon you are.  

  It's a bullshit question because if you asked a real question "Should we secure victory in Iraq?" The overwhelming majority would say yes. 

  Its so funny how no-one cared about waterboarding when it might actually be a usefull tool that could save lives, then all of the sudden the torture bandwagon started then suddenly we are the same as the Vietcong, that is what is shameful.

   

   

• stopmediabias said on Feb 12, 2008....

  p>Silver-how long does a minute of simulated drowning stay with a person as compared to having a couple of fingers chopped off?
   
  If waterboarding is torture then everything is torture and we might as well forget about interrogating people who could have vital information.
   
  Tin-I ask you the same question: What planet are you on? (Shelter and Silver are right???!!!)  I\'ll remind you and everyone else in here of 9/11 and the Beslan school incident.  As long as there is just one more of these cockroaches running around we are at war.  The Geneva Conventions are not worth the paper they were written on.  They protect the enemy and shit on our soldiers.
   
  Shelter-I think you need to get the fuck out of this country.  You are ashamed of your own country and tear it down every chance you get.  I\'m sick of you highlighting what supposed savages Americans were in the past as if we are responsible.   It shows what a spineless far-left goon you are. 
   It's a bullshit question because if you asked a real question \"Should we secure victory in Iraq?\" The overwhelming majority would say yes.  
   
   Its so funny how no-one cared about waterboarding when it might actually be a usefull tool that could save lives, then all of the sudden the torture bandwagon started then suddenly we are the same as the Vietcong, that is what is shameful.<

• stopmediabias said on Feb 13, 2008....

  Shelter loves me :>

• D6fer said on Feb 14, 2008....

  I heard a vietnam vet tell a story about a mission that he was on.....a vehicle a couple ahead of his was hit in an ambush.....a few of his buddies were killed.....they were under mortar fire all night....the next day they caught 4 of the Vietcong responsible......they tried regular interrogation techniques....nothing would work.....then one of the Vietnamese officers on our side took one of them up in a helicopter and threw him out in plain sight of the other 3.....they spilled their guts!.....their units were eliminated, saving possibly a couple hundred American lives......now that was harsh!.....waterboarding is nothing compared to that!
  

• silverwhisper said on Feb 15, 2008....

  d6, what's going on w/ this blog entry? every few days i see someone's commented but when i look at it, the last thing i see is sheltercrow's comment from 3 days ago (as i write this).
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Feb 15, 2008....

  let's see if this will work again......I deleted some of the graphics.....sorry shelter 

• sheltercrow said on Feb 16, 2008....

  This is a good lesson for myself if it works to get this post back.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 16, 2008....

  d6: thank you.
  
  smb: i like how you completely ignore the fact that waterboarding is illegal: it's against US civil law and US military law. the JAG office is very clear on this point, as several blogs by bloc illustrate.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Feb 16, 2008....

  Silver-no I don't ignore it, I am aware of it.  National Security supercedes the law in extreme situations. 

• TinSoldier said on Feb 16, 2008....

  Now there's a recipe for tyranny...

• silverwhisper said on Feb 16, 2008....

  smb: that's an opinion, not a statement of fact. you say that it trumps the law, which means then that in your view, the presidential oath of office is nonsense: when sworn in, the president swears to protect the constitution.
  
  the law quite obviously disagrees. the wonderful thing about the law is that nobody and nothing is above it. that's why we have things like impeachment: the framers of our constitution understood darned well just how dangerous too much executive power could be, having just gotten away from that very thing in the person of england's monarchy.
  
  i have previously leveled at you the charge that you don't want a president: you want a monarch. the reason behind that charge is precisely b/c of views like this.
  
  the president works for us. we, the people, decide to hire or fire him/her.
  
  i fear a number of presidents have forgotten this, and yes, i do mean other presidents than just our current one.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Feb 16, 2008....

  In the minds of some in politics "National Security [supersedes] the law in extreme situations." is quite legitimate as long as they do not get caught at it. Then when we find that the law supersedes and empowers National Security I would think those that have thus redefined and broken the law, now under scrutiny for same, would voluntarily undergo torture in the name of National Security and patriotism.

• stopmediabias said on Feb 17, 2008....

  Well if you guys are experts then tell me how President Clinton when searched Alrich Ames's house without a warrant didn't violate the Constitution.  President Bush's handling of the Jose Padilla situation, violation of the Constitution?
   
  Both cases National Security trumped due process, it is in rare extreme circumstances.  It is not tryranny because if the Congress feels the President has stepped over the line they can vote to censure or impeach him.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 17, 2008....

  can you give me some more information re: non-warrant search of ames's house? b/c that absolutely should be illegal.
  
  and if you argue that the executive branch can willy-nilly set something above the proper constitutional checks & balances--and it looks like you are--then the president can simply claim national security again and exempt anything he or she likes without fear of penalty.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Feb 17, 2008....

  I can see in extreme situations. Such as civil war or insurrection, or invasion. Or the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation.
  
  However, we are not facing those threats right now. As I have said before, we are still far safer than we were during the Cold War.
  
  If we were in an extreme situation, then there are many, many more steps that the Congress and the President should take in order to defend against it. Such as re instituting the draft, raising taxes, fixing prices and preventing profiteering, and fully mobilizing the country.
  
  We've done that in the past when external threats were "extreme". Hell, we've done that in the past even when external threats did not necessarily threaten the existence of the country.
  
  Oh, and just to show where I'm coming from:
  
  
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Feb 17, 2008....

  Silver-Aldrich Ames was a CIA spy who sold secrets.  And I repeat the checks and balances comes in with oversite from Congress.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States

  Tin- I think 9/11 put us in an extreme situation.  Not in the sense of imminent threat but intent of what they want to do and are capable of doing.

• TinSoldier said on Feb 17, 2008....

  Right. 9/11 did put us into an extreme situation, which is where I agree with your comment.
  
  What year is it now? When did 9/11 happen? How long should such measures last?
  
  Have you ever read "The Short Victorious War" by David Weber? I'm sure that most of the citizens of the Republic of Haven (especially the diminishing middle class) still saw themselves as a vigorous democratic republic for a very long time until their leaders led them into ever more disastrous conflicts. And even then I'm sure that at least a plurality of them saw their pragmatic actions as a better choice for the greater good over any form of idealism.
  

• silverwhisper said on Feb 17, 2008....

  smb: i'm familiar w/ who aldrich ames is. i never knew that a warrantless search resulted in the evidence against him.
  
  wait--you're depending upon a clinton action being good to make the case that bush's actions are acceptable? you realize that's just another case of "they do it too", right?
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Feb 17, 2008....

  Tin.....I think the measures should last as long as it takes for the would be terrorists and the rest of the world gets the message, that we will not stand for terrorism.....and it must be defeated.

• stopmediabias said on Feb 18, 2008....

  Tin-9/11 was a while ago but there are still terrorist attacks all over the world.  Until we can be assured that Islamic terrorism is in check (if that is even possible) then we must stay on offense.

  Sliver-I agreed with Clinton on the Ames matter just as I agree with President Bush on the Waterboarding/NSA spying/Padilla matters.

  This is what drives a neocon like me crazy.  I honestly believe President Bush has done the things he has done because he honestly believes there is a real imminent (keep in mind imminent can be defined as an attack within a year away) threat to our homeland.  He is getting pounded over this, relentlessly.

  Bill Clinton on the other hand should vanish under the slimy rock of history (with Nixon and Carter) for his handling of Waco (along with his mis-use of a fine cigar :>) and he is propped up as the golden boy of the Democrats.  You want to talk torture, if waterboarding is torture then what about the people in Waco?  What makes this even more laughable is the Democrats want to put him back into office! 

• silverwhisper said on Feb 19, 2008....

  smb: see, the problem is that you keep looking at the reason why to excuse the what, and when we're talking about law, you can't do that. the law cannot be made to serve the why: it can only address (successfully) the what. i'm opposed to certain forms of hate crime legislation for the same reason.
  
  clinton, incidentally, was democratic payback for reagan. reagan might have ended the cold war, but clinton fixed the budget. it isn't really quite that simple in either case, but that's how history will teach 'em, i suspect.
  
  ed

Comment on "Waterboarding Waterboarding everywhere! And not a drop to drink!"

Currently tagged	torture politics liberals CIA sere junta (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously