Me and several other posters are going to prove it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that it is torture
You and several posters like you are going to give your personal opinions, tepid attempts at jokes, and no proof whatsoever that waterboarding isn't torture.
What is your proof that it is torture? The hollow words of a few men who haven't got the balls to do what is necessary for the safety of this country? You state law; however, it was lawful under the Bush administration. You're circular logic does not prove you are right.
You say it is illegal because of how it is interpreted under the current administration, yet it was interpreted under the previous administration that it was not. So, what happens with the next administration? What happens if they decide, once again, that it is interpreted as a legal method of interrogation? Will you then state it is not torture because by law, it is not?
You can continue to post the opinions of retired generals as if they truly matter in the eyes of the American people. Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery? I'm not at all comparing waterboarding to slavery, only the idiocity of a particular military commander's stance on a specific subject as a support for one's argument.
How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
Torture
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Waterboarding causes pain both physically and mentally to coerce someone into answering a question.
In WWII it was defined as torture by military courts when the Japanese used it on us.
Originally posted by popinjay Me and several other posters are going to prove it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that it is torture You and several posters like you are going to give your personal opinions, tepid attempts at jokes, and no proof whatsoever that waterboarding isn't torture.
What is your proof that it is torture? The hollow words of a few men who haven't got the balls to do what is necessary for the safety of this country? You state law; however, it was lawful under the Bush administration. You're circular logic does not prove you are right.
You say it is illegal because of how it is interpreted under the current administration, yet it was interpreted under the previous administration that it was not. So, what happens with the next administration? What happens if they decide, once again, that it is interpreted as a legal method of interrogation? Will you then state it is not torture because by law, it is not?
You can continue to post the opinions of retired generals as if they truly matter in the eyes of the American people. Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery? I'm not at all comparing waterboarding to slavery, only the idiocity of a particular military commander's stance on a specific subject as a support for one's argument.
How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
Torture
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
So I guess when my brother and I fought with each other when we were kids, we were torturing each other? Excellent, I'm going to the Hague with this. Now it's payback time.
Originally posted by Sabiancym How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
It was a change of subject, but Htchens is a leftist hawk in the grand tradition of the Old Left. He also drinks like a pro. I've followed his career, and would say he is now a left wing libertarian, similar to Noam Chomsky (without the conspiracy theories and over reliance on linguistic analysis and deconstructionism). I've seen him speak and met him. I love his writing wven if we disagree on a great many things.
Now, it is most certainly torture by any standard -- so was the Chinese water torture. Harm does not determine torture, FEAR does. Anything that causes intense fear or can drive a person crazy is torture.
Torture should NEVER be policy in the United States. It should always be against policy to torture.
Should we do it sometimes? maybe, but only under the most dire circumstances, and I personally do not feel the times we know it was used were were dire enough to warrant it.
The problem is not so much that torture actually went on, but that the morons tried to make it legal, and trained their men that it was legal. That is as dangerous to our freedom as militant Islam, if not moreseo. This is coming from someone who firmly believes, like Hitchens, that we are in the middle of the beginning of WWIII.
We will defeat this enemy by utterly crushing him, by teaching him that to attack America, or the free world unleashes a fury that will make them question their belief in their Prophet, and will lead them to rethink their dreams of world conquest in his name.
By torturing them we lead them to think we are the spawn of Satan. When we make it our policy, they are right. We are.
Originally posted by Sabiancym How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
That's what you don't get. We don't think that by us stopping the torture that they will stop coming after us. We're saying that we don't have to stoop down to their level and lower our moral standards just to feel safer.
Plus waterboarding doesn't work. If I'm being water boarded, I would make up damn near anything to get them to stop.
Find me an example of someone who has been water boarded and doesn't call it torture.
Originally posted by Sabiancym How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
Our enemies in this case are monsters (the worst kind -- monsters by choice). That doesn't mean we should become monsters ourselves. This has nothing to do with the way they will treat us -- heck they treat their own women like tools. We are dealing with a vicious, evil ideology, not a religion, and we must utterly destroy it.
We utterly destroy that ideology by teaching them that when they act upon it, they will die. We also utterly destroy it by, at the same time, being the heroes that we are -- we must LIVE by our standards. The consitution, the declaration, everything we stand for -- are UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES. We either live by them or we don't.
In this Long War, we are thus far losing every time we fall this way.
It was a change of subject, but Htchens is a leftist hawk in the grand tradition of the Old Left. He also drinks like a pro. I've followed his career, and would say he is now a left wing libertarian, similar to Noam Chomsky (without the conspiracy theories and over reliance on linguistic analysis and deconstructionism). I've seen him speak and met him. I love his writing wven if we disagree on a great many things. Now, it is most certainly torture by any standard -- so was the Chinese water torture. Harm does not determine torture, FEAR does. Anything that causes intense fear or can drive a person crazy is torture. Torture should NEVER be policy in the United States. It should always be against policy to torture. Should we do it sometimes? maybe, but only under the most dire circumstances, and I personally do not feel the times we know it was used were were dire enough to warrant it. The problem is not so much that torture actually went on, but that the morons tried to make it legal, and trained their men that it was legal. That is as dangerous to our freedom as militant Islam, if not moreseo. This is coming from someone who firmly believes, like Hitchens, that we are in the middle of the beginning of WWIII. We will defeat this enemy by utterly crushing him, by teaching him that to attack America, or the free world unleashes a fury that will make them question their belief in their Prophet, and will lead them to rethink their dreams of world conquest in his name. By torturing them we lead them to think we are the spawn of Satan. When we make it our policy, they are right. We are.
You know I respect you Fisher, even though we disagree on some things. And I can disagree with you on this and still respect your opinion. I also have no problem with accepting anyone's opinion on this. If anyone believes that waterboarding is torture, that's fine, I accept that. There are conservatives who think waterboarding is torture. I respectfully disagree with them. As long as we can have a conversation on it and agree to disagree on it, I'm fine with that.
Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. He says, under no circumstances, will the United States waterboard anyone while he is President. That is his right, I accept his position. Although I think it could potentially put us in danger in the future depending on how the future unfolds.
But what I have a huge problem with is the pursuing of members of the Bush Administration for conducting these interrogation methods for the purpose of exacting vengence on Bush. That is what this current investigation boils down to. The lawyers interpreted that law as waterboarding not being torture, the CIA agents then proceeded to waterboard three terrorists. After they got the information they needed, the waterboarding stopped. The Obama administration took power and they said there will be no waterboarding.
The matter should end there. And it would have if the radical left had not put intense pressure on Obama after he had already said that no one would be prosecuted for waterboarding.
This is going to be very divisive to the country if hearings and possible prosecutions go forward on this matter. And on top of that, it sets a very dangerous precedent for successive administrations of opposing parties. Suppose there are members of the Bush Administration who are prosecuted by the Obama Justice Dept for torture and there are Republicans who are outraged. And then if the next adminstration is a Republican one, what would happen if it decided to exact vengence on the Obama adminstration by intrepreting a law differently so as to say that what the Obama administration had done was illegal and decided to prosecute for that. This is how Banana Republics operate and would quickly lead to a decline in the United States.
You wanna believe that waterboarding is torture? Fine. You wanna believe that the interrogations conducted under the Bush administration were wrong? Fine. You wanna go back and dig up the past and prosecute members of the Bush administration for their actions? Actions that were done in good faith for the express purpose of protecting America. Actions that were known and approved of by certain Congressional members of the Democratic Party. That I have a problem with.
Originally posted by Sabiancym Plus waterboarding doesn't work. If I'm being water boarded, I would make up damn near anything to get them to stop.
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
It was a change of subject, but Htchens is a leftist hawk in the grand tradition of the Old Left. He also drinks like a pro. I've followed his career, and would say he is now a left wing libertarian, similar to Noam Chomsky (without the conspiracy theories and over reliance on linguistic analysis and deconstructionism). I've seen him speak and met him. I love his writing wven if we disagree on a great many things. Now, it is most certainly torture by any standard -- so was the Chinese water torture. Harm does not determine torture, FEAR does. Anything that causes intense fear or can drive a person crazy is torture. Torture should NEVER be policy in the United States. It should always be against policy to torture. Should we do it sometimes? maybe, but only under the most dire circumstances, and I personally do not feel the times we know it was used were were dire enough to warrant it. The problem is not so much that torture actually went on, but that the morons tried to make it legal, and trained their men that it was legal. That is as dangerous to our freedom as militant Islam, if not moreseo. This is coming from someone who firmly believes, like Hitchens, that we are in the middle of the beginning of WWIII. We will defeat this enemy by utterly crushing him, by teaching him that to attack America, or the free world unleashes a fury that will make them question their belief in their Prophet, and will lead them to rethink their dreams of world conquest in his name. By torturing them we lead them to think we are the spawn of Satan. When we make it our policy, they are right. We are.
You know I respect you Fisher, even though we disagree on some things. And I can disagree with you on this and still respect your opinion. I also have no problem with accepting anyone's opinion on this. If anyone believes that waterboarding is torture, that's fine, I accept that. There are conservatives who think waterboarding is torture. I respectfully disagree with them. As long as we can have a conversation on it and agree to disagree on it, I'm fine with that.
Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. He says, under no circumstances, will the United States waterboard anyone while he is President. That is his right, I accept his position. Although I think it could potentially put us in danger in the future depending on how the future unfolds.
But what I have a huge problem with is the pursuing of members of the Bush Administration for conducting these interrogation methods for the purpose of exacting vengence on Bush. That is what this current investigation boils down to. The lawyers interpreted that law as waterboarding not being torture, the CIA agents then proceeded to waterboard three terrorists. After they got the information they needed, the waterboarding stopped. The Obama administration took power and they said there will be no waterboarding.
The matter should end there. And it would have if the radical left had not put intense pressure on Obama after he had already said that no one would be prosecuted for waterboarding.
This is going to be very divisive to the country if hearings and possible prosecutions go forward on this matter. And on top of that, it sets a very dangerous precedent for successive administrations of opposing parties. Suppose there are members of the Bush Administration who are prosecuted by the Obama Justice Dept for torture and there are Republicans who are outraged. And then if the next adminstration is a Republican one, what would happen if it decided to exact vengence on the Obama adminstration by intrepreting a law differently so as to say that what the Obama administration had done was illegal and decided to prosecute for that. This is how Banana Republics operate and would quickly lead to a decline in the United States.
You wanna believe that waterboarding is torture? Fine. You wanna believe that the interrogations conducted under the Bush administration were wrong? Fine. You wanna go back and dig up the past and prosecute members of the Bush administration for their actions? Actions that were done in good faith for the express purpose of protecting America. Actions that were known and approved of by certain Congressional members of the Democratic Party. That I have a problem with.
yeah, I think using this as a political football the way some would like to do so is disgusting. I feel bush was wrong, his advisors were wrong.
I do not feel they should be prosocuted. I also do not feel they should be prosocuted for the Patriot act, which I feel is WORSE than torture. Ripping apart the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendment rights of all Americans is to me, worse than torturing a few monsters, but that's just me.
We change these things through persuasion, and we should not criminalize actions that, at the time of war, were thought not to be. Whether waterboarding is torture IS something we are debating now in our society.
And yes I always respect you as well. I never care if I agree or disagree with someone. You and I can always disagree in a respectful, decent manner. I LOVE that, long for it -- heck it is why I post here.
Originally posted by Sabiancym Plus waterboarding doesn't work. If I'm being water boarded, I would make up damn near anything to get them to stop.
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
Oh it most definitely saved lives. We who are against it shouldn't use false arguments to bolster our being against it.
Not to change the subject, but thank you for that joke.
I think we should save time. Let's cut to the ending of any waterboarding thread, shall we?
On the subject of waterboarding, it's always going to end up this way....
Me and several other posters are going to prove it is beyond the shadow of the doubt torture, that the United States signed a treaty saying we won't engage in it, and there is no debate the vast majority of people in the United States, our military, government officials and the world law also agrees that it's illegal.
You and several posters like you are going to give your personal opinions, tepid attempts at jokes, and no proof whatsoever that waterboarding isn't torture. You will go through every stall tactic, distraction, and insult to deflect the conversation about the legality of it. You'll link to other opinion pieces who have no more evidential fact than you do, but tons of opinion. You will never provide a legal opinion supporting waterboarding other than Bush's handpick man. In fact, the only people who don't think waterboarding is torture are the very types of people you'd try to waterboard. You wish to keep your heads in the sand long enough for it to blow over until, you hope dearly, there is some other attack on the U.S. so you can say we should have broken the law and "we were right."
You people would rather win an argument than keep your integrity, or the country's, halfway intact. It's past sad. It's pretty disgusting really.
You bore me with your deflections. And yes, it WAS to change the subject.
Well here we are with a new president that doubled the bailout budget and the killing continues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of Obama's handpicked cronies were caught breaking the law before they were even appointed. The corruption continues. So if in your naive little head you want to believe that the torture of terrorists has stopped, that's your right as an American.
What is your proof that it is torture? The hollow words of a few men who haven't got the balls to do what is necessary for the safety of this country? You state law; however, it was lawful under the Bush administration. You're circular logic does not prove you are right. You say it is illegal because of how it is interpreted under the current administration, yet it was interpreted under the previous administration that it was not. So, what happens with the next administration? What happens if they decide, once again, that it is interpreted as a legal method of interrogation? Will you then state it is not torture because by law, it is not? You can continue to post the opinions of retired generals as if they truly matter in the eyes of the American people. Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery? I'm not at all comparing waterboarding to slavery, only the idiocity of a particular military commander's stance on a specific subject as a support for one's argument.
All I can guess, is you have been mental blocking out the links I put up. Otherwise, you wouldn't ask me what proof other than "hollow words". But I'll try again. But I already know it will do no good with you.
Okay, President Ronald Reagan signed this. It clearly spells out that the United States will not participate in torture for any means, whether we are attacked or someone was planning an attack. We agreed to this and it was ratified. Bush hiring a lawyer to try and make torture sound like non-torture doesn't matter. He did not change that law, which is your fail point. The President doesn't have the right to make laws by issuing a memo. He can only enforce the U.S. laws. Here, he and his lawyer "misinterepted" the already standing laws. So your underlined part above is so wrong, it's not even funny because your premise is wrong. It was the crappiest legal advice in our nation's history. There is also Geneva Convention Article 3
Article 3:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
You are mistaken claiming or even suggesting Bush had a law on his side. In the end, that lawyer's opinion carried about as much weight legally as yours does... none. The links I provided in this post are what we as a nation use, not crackpot, snakeoil interpretations. The constitution saying little about paying taxes. And I bet I can find a lawyer somewhere in the U.S. who will find some way to say it's unconstitutional, therefore not illegal. It sounds good.. but when my ass gets in front of that judge, I'm in trouble, not the lawyer.
Second, those "hollow words" from a few men you claim? How dare you call men who served our country their entire lives in defense of it "hollow", and slander them saying they don't have the balls to do what's necessary to protect our country"? That is disrespectful beyond imagination. Those men's opinions mean something because every last one of those men gave their entire lives to this country, so you can be free to say the stuff you say and insult them. They were protecting this country long before you were even born. Your failure to join military service was picked up by men like them and me so you can sit here and try to win a internet argument armed with nothing more than just your sparkling personality. And for your information, its not just a couple retired generals. What you fail to realize is that these men:
Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
were the TOP LAWYERS for each branch of our services. Take a look at how each one serves in EACH branch of the service. They were the sitting Judge Advocate Generals and they didn't get there by passing time, no matter what you personally think of them. They are the highest legal minds in our military living on active duty today. These men KNOW torture... it's their job to know as a matter of course because for them, it's an occupational hazard.
In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .
Now you notice above, they were asked to submit responses to questions regarding the legality of waterboarding. They voted UNANIMOUSLY (and this was while BUSH was President, not OBAMA) that waterboarding is torture. I'll put it up again, so you don't miss it.
"unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions."
Your "slavery" analogy? You lose the thread. Slavery invocation is just as repetitive and unrelated to list as waterboarding is to Nazi invocation. This in no way is connected to slavery. The fact that you even say "Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery?," IS comparing waterboarding to slavery. Saying you don't want to compare it against slavery, then DO is mind boggling. It's like tell the jury to disregard a remark they already heard. How do you not see that?
The proof is there. If you choose to ignore it, no problem. Lots of people rationalize and hide from distasteful things because they know there will be a price to pay in the airing. America can take an investigation. America can take a hearing. American can take prosecutions. We have gone through stuff way more devastating than this, and have put it on trial and grew from it. The fact that some of your favorites will be exposed is no reason to delay justice.
Once again, I would advise you and some others to actually join the military then you might get an appreciation for what those Judge Advocates are saying and how your "opinion" is putting American troops lives at stake daily. All we need is for one of our troops to get captured and someone to start waterboarding because "it's not torture"... then they start on other stuff too because they know the U.N. won't investigate the U.S., so why them?
Originally posted by Zindaihas Originally posted by Sabiancym Plus waterboarding doesn't work. If I'm being water boarded, I would make up damn near anything to get them to stop.
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
Your link fails pretty hard.
It's given by Brent Bozell, the red-headed stepchild of Reality. That guy is patently nuts with his fake information half of the time. He's a regular Fox News contributor and was connected to quite a few of those nasty commercials during the last election. The information he's quoting makes his "news site" a laughing stock. You notice that BBC, Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or any mainstream print media organizations won't broadcast or print that "CIA release" he got? Know why? The timelines are too shaky to go to press with. That's how real news orgganizations do it most of the time.. they fact check and if it's not strong enough to print as fact, they shelve it until they can get more. Bozell the Clown runs his stuff the minute it looks halfway good.
Again, punch in your "story" and see NO major news agency worth its salt covered that story when it was printed by Bozell a. Oh wait.. Obama told them all not to report the good news the CIA released ONLY to Brent Bozell's "news agency", right?
I just don't know why, but this sure sounds a lot like the pre-Iraq "He's got WMD!" proof they sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with. It stinks real bad because they are cherrypicking what they want out this stuff. I still crack up when Cheney, after doing hundreds of waterboards, points to two memos in his desk saying they thwarted plots. Just two dubious ones. I believe they already debunked the Al Zarqwari info as bogus.
Originally posted by Fishermage It was a change of subject, but Htchens is a leftist hawk in the grand tradition of the Old Left. He also drinks like a pro. I've followed his career, and would say he is now a left wing libertarian, similar to Noam Chomsky (without the conspiracy theories and over reliance on linguistic analysis and deconstructionism). I've seen him speak and met him. I love his writing wven if we disagree on a great many things. Now, it is most certainly torture by any standard -- so was the Chinese water torture. Harm does not determine torture, FEAR does. Anything that causes intense fear or can drive a person crazy is torture. Torture should NEVER be policy in the United States. It should always be against policy to torture. Should we do it sometimes? maybe, but only under the most dire circumstances, and I personally do not feel the times we know it was used were were dire enough to warrant it. The problem is not so much that torture actually went on, but that the morons tried to make it legal, and trained their men that it was legal. That is as dangerous to our freedom as militant Islam, if not moreseo. This is coming from someone who firmly believes, like Hitchens, that we are in the middle of the beginning of WWIII. We will defeat this enemy by utterly crushing him, by teaching him that to attack America, or the free world unleashes a fury that will make them question their belief in their Prophet, and will lead them to rethink their dreams of world conquest in his name. By torturing them we lead them to think we are the spawn of Satan. When we make it our policy, they are right. We are.
Originally posted by Fishermage Our enemies in this case are monsters (the worst kind -- monsters by choice). That doesn't mean we should become monsters ourselves. This has nothing to do with the way they will treat us -- heck they treat their own women like tools. We are dealing with a vicious, evil ideology, not a religion, and we must utterly destroy it. We utterly destroy that ideology by teaching them that when they act upon it, they will die. We also utterly destroy it by, at the same time, being the heroes that we are -- we must LIVE by our standards. The consitution, the declaration, everything we stand for -- are UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES. We either live by them or we don't. In this Long War, we are thus far losing every time we fall this way.
I do agree with you that this should be used as a last resort - what those that disagree with me on this matter seem to think is I believe this should be used all the time for any sort of information. If there was an impending attack on the US, whether it be of mass destruction, biological, or a 9/11 type of attack, then I believe such methods should be used. I don't, however, believe waterboarding, or any other extreme interrogation methods, should be used to find standard information - as say "Where is OSama", for example.
I do agree, if I am understanding your stance, that their religion should be used against them.
Suicide bombings, or even a gun fight, could be squelched by using the ideology that the unclean body cannot ascend to heaven. Simply state that we will take their remains, wrap it in pig skin and further make their bodies unclean by placing menstral blood on their bodies. Furthermore, we will bury their bodies facing downwards, pointing away from Mecca with a cross as a marker.
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
Your link fails pretty hard.
It's given by Brent Bozell, the red-headed stepchild of Reality. That guy is patently nuts with his fake information half of the time. He's a regular Fox News contributor and was connected to quite a few of those nasty commercials during the last election. The information he's quoting makes his "news site" a laughing stock. You notice that BBC, Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or any mainstream print media organizations won't broadcast or print that "CIA release" he got? Know why? The timelines are too shaky to go to press with. That's how real news orgganizations do it most of the time.. they fact check and if it's not strong enough to print as fact, they shelve it until they can get more. Bozell the Clown runs his stuff the minute it looks halfway good.
Again, punch in your "story" and see NO major news agency worth its salt covered that story when it was printed by Bozell a. Oh wait.. Obama told them all not to report the good news the CIA released ONLY to Brent Bozell's "news agency", right?
I just don't know why, but this sure sounds a lot like the pre-Iraq "He's got WMD!" proof they sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with. It stinks real bad because they are cherrypicking what they want out this stuff. I still crack up when Cheney, after doing hundreds of waterboards, points to two memos in his desk saying they thwarted plots. Just two dubious ones. I believe they already debunked the Al Zarqwari info as bogus.
And your posts continue to reveal what a narrow minded left-wing kook you are. Your links attempt to refute the reporting of the foiled plot, not the source of the information itself, a typical ploy these days of liberal websites. The CIA memos are ironclad. Whether you choose to believe them is your decision. It also apparently wouldn't occur to you that the mainstream media chose not to report this information because they have a vested interest in making the Bush administration, which it regularly was at odds with, look bad. For instance, it's estimated that President Bush's AIDS fighting program in Africa saved about 1.2 million lives. I bet you didn't hear that reported in the mainstream media either, did you? Why? Because it would have made Bush look good. That's the last thing the mainstream media wants.
I notice you didn't make a post on the thread, "Political opposites you respect". I have to wonder if, just like your left-wing "brother" Sabiancym, you can even find one you do respect. That's a common sign of an extremist ideologue.
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
Your link fails pretty hard.
It's given by Brent Bozell, the red-headed stepchild of Reality. That guy is patently nuts with his fake information half of the time. He's a regular Fox News contributor and was connected to quite a few of those nasty commercials during the last election. The information he's quoting makes his "news site" a laughing stock. You notice that BBC, Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or any mainstream print media organizations won't broadcast or print that "CIA release" he got? Know why? The timelines are too shaky to go to press with. That's how real news orgganizations do it most of the time.. they fact check and if it's not strong enough to print as fact, they shelve it until they can get more. Bozell the Clown runs his stuff the minute it looks halfway good.
Again, punch in your "story" and see NO major news agency worth its salt covered that story when it was printed by Bozell a. Oh wait.. Obama told them all not to report the good news the CIA released ONLY to Brent Bozell's "news agency", right?
I just don't know why, but this sure sounds a lot like the pre-Iraq "He's got WMD!" proof they sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with. It stinks real bad because they are cherrypicking what they want out this stuff. I still crack up when Cheney, after doing hundreds of waterboards, points to two memos in his desk saying they thwarted plots. Just two dubious ones. I believe they already debunked the Al Zarqwari info as bogus.
I notice you didn't make a post on the thread, "Political opposites you respect". I have to wonder if, just like your left-wing "brother" Sabiancym, you can even find one you do respect. That's a common sign of an extremist ideologue.
Sorry champ, I did post in that thread saying that I do respect some conservatives.
The fact that they had to waterboard that guy khalid whatever 183 times pretty much shows that either it is ineffective or they did it out of pure joy.
In any case you guys don't seem to have a fucking clue what human rights are.
Originally posted by Zindaihas I notice you didn't make a post on the thread, "Political opposites you respect". I have to wonder if, just like your left-wing "brother" Sabiancym, you can even find one you do respect. That's a common sign of an extremist ideologue.
Sorry champ, I did post in that thread saying that I do respect some conservatives.
I saw your post on that thread and this is what you said:
"I don't respect anyone that is the exact opposite of me."
You also went on to say that you're sure you could find some things with which you could agree with conseratives on. But you didn't mention anyone by name, nor did you mention any specific issues. You could have been talking liking the same sports teams for all I know.
Originally posted by Fishermage Our enemies in this case are monsters (the worst kind -- monsters by choice). That doesn't mean we should become monsters ourselves. This has nothing to do with the way they will treat us -- heck they treat their own women like tools. We are dealing with a vicious, evil ideology, not a religion, and we must utterly destroy it. We utterly destroy that ideology by teaching them that when they act upon it, they will die. We also utterly destroy it by, at the same time, being the heroes that we are -- we must LIVE by our standards. The consitution, the declaration, everything we stand for -- are UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES. We either live by them or we don't. In this Long War, we are thus far losing every time we fall this way.
I do agree with you that this should be used as a last resort - what those that disagree with me on this matter seem to think is I believe this should be used all the time for any sort of information. If there was an impending attack on the US, whether it be of mass destruction, biological, or a 9/11 type of attack, then I believe such methods should be used. I don't, however, believe waterboarding, or any other extreme interrogation methods, should be used to find standard information - as say "Where is OSama", for example.
I do agree, if I am understanding your stance, that their religion should be used against them.
Suicide bombings, or even a gun fight, could be squelched by using the ideology that the unclean body cannot ascend to heaven. Simply state that we will take their remains, wrap it in pig skin and further make their bodies unclean by placing menstral blood on their bodies. Furthermore, we will bury their bodies facing downwards, pointing away from Mecca with a cross as a marker.
Do you think they would still be so bold?
That makes a false assumption -- that we are fighting against a religion. We are not. We are fighting against a form of fascism, a form of authoritarianism -- a political ideology that stems from a sick psychology and USES religion to justify its evil. If we fight it as if it is a religion, then we are attacking every member of that religion.
The answer to this war is to ecourage MODERATE, REFORM versions of this religiom. You do not do this by performing acts that disgust the moderates.
we win by KILLING THEM, defeating them. When we do that we show them that God is on OUR side in this, not because we are Christian crusaders, but because they are practicing EVIL in the name of their religion, using an ideology to twist it, warp it, and make it into something that turns against them.
That is how we win. It will take longer to do it this way, but it is the only way to win WWIII.
Originally posted by Sabiancym How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
So you would you consider rape to be torture? Or only discomfort?
The fact that they had to waterboard that guy khalid whatever 183 times pretty much shows that either it is ineffective or they did it out of pure joy. In any case you guys don't seem to have a fucking clue what human rights are. Democratic constitutional state my fat ass.
the news article that reported 183 was proven to be false information. so your info fails you.
Originally posted by Fishermage That makes a false assumption -- that we are fighting against a religion. We are not. We are fighting against a form of fascism, a form of authoritarianism -- a political ideology that stems from a sick psychology and USES religion to justify its evil. If we fight it as if it is a religion, then we are attacking every member of that religion.
Yes, but religion is their backbone. They are extremists of Islam. They are told they will go to heaven because of martyrdom. We would not fighting a religion in its entirety. I state what I did as a warning to the extremists. Now, if we were attacking the belief systems of their religion, then I would agree it would be an attack to all Muslims, but we would be using their own belief against them.
Originally posted by Fishermage That makes a false assumption -- that we are fighting against a religion. We are not. We are fighting against a form of fascism, a form of authoritarianism -- a political ideology that stems from a sick psychology and USES religion to justify its evil. If we fight it as if it is a religion, then we are attacking every member of that religion.
Yes, but religion is their backbone. They are extremists of Islam. They are told they will go to heaven because of martyrdom. We would not fighting a religion in its entirety. I state what I did as a warning to the extremists. Now, if we were attacking the belief systems of their religion, then I would agree it would be an attack to all Muslims, but we would be using their own belief against them.
religion is not their backbone. Evil is. We are fighting the evil, not the religion.
Comments
What is your proof that it is torture? The hollow words of a few men who haven't got the balls to do what is necessary for the safety of this country? You state law; however, it was lawful under the Bush administration. You're circular logic does not prove you are right.
You say it is illegal because of how it is interpreted under the current administration, yet it was interpreted under the previous administration that it was not. So, what happens with the next administration? What happens if they decide, once again, that it is interpreted as a legal method of interrogation? Will you then state it is not torture because by law, it is not?
You can continue to post the opinions of retired generals as if they truly matter in the eyes of the American people. Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery? I'm not at all comparing waterboarding to slavery, only the idiocity of a particular military commander's stance on a specific subject as a support for one's argument.
How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
Torture
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Waterboarding causes pain both physically and mentally to coerce someone into answering a question.
In WWII it was defined as torture by military courts when the Japanese used it on us.
What other proof do you need?
The Official God FAQ
What is your proof that it is torture? The hollow words of a few men who haven't got the balls to do what is necessary for the safety of this country? You state law; however, it was lawful under the Bush administration. You're circular logic does not prove you are right.
You say it is illegal because of how it is interpreted under the current administration, yet it was interpreted under the previous administration that it was not. So, what happens with the next administration? What happens if they decide, once again, that it is interpreted as a legal method of interrogation? Will you then state it is not torture because by law, it is not?
You can continue to post the opinions of retired generals as if they truly matter in the eyes of the American people. Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery? I'm not at all comparing waterboarding to slavery, only the idiocity of a particular military commander's stance on a specific subject as a support for one's argument.
How can you even deny it being torture? How out of touch with reality do you have to be?
Torture
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
So I guess when my brother and I fought with each other when we were kids, we were torturing each other? Excellent, I'm going to the Hague with this. Now it's payback time.
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
It was a change of subject, but Htchens is a leftist hawk in the grand tradition of the Old Left. He also drinks like a pro. I've followed his career, and would say he is now a left wing libertarian, similar to Noam Chomsky (without the conspiracy theories and over reliance on linguistic analysis and deconstructionism). I've seen him speak and met him. I love his writing wven if we disagree on a great many things.
Now, it is most certainly torture by any standard -- so was the Chinese water torture. Harm does not determine torture, FEAR does. Anything that causes intense fear or can drive a person crazy is torture.
Torture should NEVER be policy in the United States. It should always be against policy to torture.
Should we do it sometimes? maybe, but only under the most dire circumstances, and I personally do not feel the times we know it was used were were dire enough to warrant it.
The problem is not so much that torture actually went on, but that the morons tried to make it legal, and trained their men that it was legal. That is as dangerous to our freedom as militant Islam, if not moreseo. This is coming from someone who firmly believes, like Hitchens, that we are in the middle of the beginning of WWIII.
We will defeat this enemy by utterly crushing him, by teaching him that to attack America, or the free world unleashes a fury that will make them question their belief in their Prophet, and will lead them to rethink their dreams of world conquest in his name.
By torturing them we lead them to think we are the spawn of Satan. When we make it our policy, they are right. We are.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
That's what you don't get. We don't think that by us stopping the torture that they will stop coming after us. We're saying that we don't have to stoop down to their level and lower our moral standards just to feel safer.
Plus waterboarding doesn't work. If I'm being water boarded, I would make up damn near anything to get them to stop.
Find me an example of someone who has been water boarded and doesn't call it torture.
The Official God FAQ
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
Our enemies in this case are monsters (the worst kind -- monsters by choice). That doesn't mean we should become monsters ourselves. This has nothing to do with the way they will treat us -- heck they treat their own women like tools. We are dealing with a vicious, evil ideology, not a religion, and we must utterly destroy it.
We utterly destroy that ideology by teaching them that when they act upon it, they will die. We also utterly destroy it by, at the same time, being the heroes that we are -- we must LIVE by our standards. The consitution, the declaration, everything we stand for -- are UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES. We either live by them or we don't.
In this Long War, we are thus far losing every time we fall this way.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You know I respect you Fisher, even though we disagree on some things. And I can disagree with you on this and still respect your opinion. I also have no problem with accepting anyone's opinion on this. If anyone believes that waterboarding is torture, that's fine, I accept that. There are conservatives who think waterboarding is torture. I respectfully disagree with them. As long as we can have a conversation on it and agree to disagree on it, I'm fine with that.
Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. He says, under no circumstances, will the United States waterboard anyone while he is President. That is his right, I accept his position. Although I think it could potentially put us in danger in the future depending on how the future unfolds.
But what I have a huge problem with is the pursuing of members of the Bush Administration for conducting these interrogation methods for the purpose of exacting vengence on Bush. That is what this current investigation boils down to. The lawyers interpreted that law as waterboarding not being torture, the CIA agents then proceeded to waterboard three terrorists. After they got the information they needed, the waterboarding stopped. The Obama administration took power and they said there will be no waterboarding.
The matter should end there. And it would have if the radical left had not put intense pressure on Obama after he had already said that no one would be prosecuted for waterboarding.
This is going to be very divisive to the country if hearings and possible prosecutions go forward on this matter. And on top of that, it sets a very dangerous precedent for successive administrations of opposing parties. Suppose there are members of the Bush Administration who are prosecuted by the Obama Justice Dept for torture and there are Republicans who are outraged. And then if the next adminstration is a Republican one, what would happen if it decided to exact vengence on the Obama adminstration by intrepreting a law differently so as to say that what the Obama administration had done was illegal and decided to prosecute for that. This is how Banana Republics operate and would quickly lead to a decline in the United States.
You wanna believe that waterboarding is torture? Fine. You wanna believe that the interrogations conducted under the Bush administration were wrong? Fine. You wanna go back and dig up the past and prosecute members of the Bush administration for their actions? Actions that were done in good faith for the express purpose of protecting America. Actions that were known and approved of by certain Congressional members of the Democratic Party. That I have a problem with.
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
You know I respect you Fisher, even though we disagree on some things. And I can disagree with you on this and still respect your opinion. I also have no problem with accepting anyone's opinion on this. If anyone believes that waterboarding is torture, that's fine, I accept that. There are conservatives who think waterboarding is torture. I respectfully disagree with them. As long as we can have a conversation on it and agree to disagree on it, I'm fine with that.
Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. He says, under no circumstances, will the United States waterboard anyone while he is President. That is his right, I accept his position. Although I think it could potentially put us in danger in the future depending on how the future unfolds.
But what I have a huge problem with is the pursuing of members of the Bush Administration for conducting these interrogation methods for the purpose of exacting vengence on Bush. That is what this current investigation boils down to. The lawyers interpreted that law as waterboarding not being torture, the CIA agents then proceeded to waterboard three terrorists. After they got the information they needed, the waterboarding stopped. The Obama administration took power and they said there will be no waterboarding.
The matter should end there. And it would have if the radical left had not put intense pressure on Obama after he had already said that no one would be prosecuted for waterboarding.
This is going to be very divisive to the country if hearings and possible prosecutions go forward on this matter. And on top of that, it sets a very dangerous precedent for successive administrations of opposing parties. Suppose there are members of the Bush Administration who are prosecuted by the Obama Justice Dept for torture and there are Republicans who are outraged. And then if the next adminstration is a Republican one, what would happen if it decided to exact vengence on the Obama adminstration by intrepreting a law differently so as to say that what the Obama administration had done was illegal and decided to prosecute for that. This is how Banana Republics operate and would quickly lead to a decline in the United States.
You wanna believe that waterboarding is torture? Fine. You wanna believe that the interrogations conducted under the Bush administration were wrong? Fine. You wanna go back and dig up the past and prosecute members of the Bush administration for their actions? Actions that were done in good faith for the express purpose of protecting America. Actions that were known and approved of by certain Congressional members of the Democratic Party. That I have a problem with.
yeah, I think using this as a political football the way some would like to do so is disgusting. I feel bush was wrong, his advisors were wrong.
I do not feel they should be prosocuted. I also do not feel they should be prosocuted for the Patriot act, which I feel is WORSE than torture. Ripping apart the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendment rights of all Americans is to me, worse than torturing a few monsters, but that's just me.
We change these things through persuasion, and we should not criminalize actions that, at the time of war, were thought not to be. Whether waterboarding is torture IS something we are debating now in our society.
And yes I always respect you as well. I never care if I agree or disagree with someone. You and I can always disagree in a respectful, decent manner. I LOVE that, long for it -- heck it is why I post here.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
Oh it most definitely saved lives. We who are against it shouldn't use false arguments to bolster our being against it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I think we should save time. Let's cut to the ending of any waterboarding thread, shall we?
On the subject of waterboarding, it's always going to end up this way....
Me and several other posters are going to prove it is beyond the shadow of the doubt torture, that the United States signed a treaty saying we won't engage in it, and there is no debate the vast majority of people in the United States, our military, government officials and the world law also agrees that it's illegal.
You and several posters like you are going to give your personal opinions, tepid attempts at jokes, and no proof whatsoever that waterboarding isn't torture. You will go through every stall tactic, distraction, and insult to deflect the conversation about the legality of it. You'll link to other opinion pieces who have no more evidential fact than you do, but tons of opinion. You will never provide a legal opinion supporting waterboarding other than Bush's handpick man. In fact, the only people who don't think waterboarding is torture are the very types of people you'd try to waterboard. You wish to keep your heads in the sand long enough for it to blow over until, you hope dearly, there is some other attack on the U.S. so you can say we should have broken the law and "we were right."
You people would rather win an argument than keep your integrity, or the country's, halfway intact. It's past sad. It's pretty disgusting really.
You bore me with your deflections. And yes, it WAS to change the subject.
Well here we are with a new president that doubled the bailout budget and the killing continues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of Obama's handpicked cronies were caught breaking the law before they were even appointed. The corruption continues. So if in your naive little head you want to believe that the torture of terrorists has stopped, that's your right as an American.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
All I can guess, is you have been mental blocking out the links I put up. Otherwise, you wouldn't ask me what proof other than "hollow words". But I'll try again. But I already know it will do no good with you.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
Okay, President Ronald Reagan signed this. It clearly spells out that the United States will not participate in torture for any means, whether we are attacked or someone was planning an attack. We agreed to this and it was ratified. Bush hiring a lawyer to try and make torture sound like non-torture doesn't matter. He did not change that law, which is your fail point. The President doesn't have the right to make laws by issuing a memo. He can only enforce the U.S. laws. Here, he and his lawyer "misinterepted" the already standing laws. So your underlined part above is so wrong, it's not even funny because your premise is wrong. It was the crappiest legal advice in our nation's history. There is also Geneva Convention Article 3
You are mistaken claiming or even suggesting Bush had a law on his side. In the end, that lawyer's opinion carried about as much weight legally as yours does... none. The links I provided in this post are what we as a nation use, not crackpot, snakeoil interpretations. The constitution saying little about paying taxes. And I bet I can find a lawyer somewhere in the U.S. who will find some way to say it's unconstitutional, therefore not illegal. It sounds good.. but when my ass gets in front of that judge, I'm in trouble, not the lawyer.
Second, those "hollow words" from a few men you claim? How dare you call men who served our country their entire lives in defense of it "hollow", and slander them saying they don't have the balls to do what's necessary to protect our country"? That is disrespectful beyond imagination. Those men's opinions mean something because every last one of those men gave their entire lives to this country, so you can be free to say the stuff you say and insult them. They were protecting this country long before you were even born. Your failure to join military service was picked up by men like them and me so you can sit here and try to win a internet argument armed with nothing more than just your sparkling personality. And for your information, its not just a couple retired generals. What you fail to realize is that these men:
were the TOP LAWYERS for each branch of our services. Take a look at how each one serves in EACH branch of the service. They were the sitting Judge Advocate Generals and they didn't get there by passing time, no matter what you personally think of them. They are the highest legal minds in our military living on active duty today. These men KNOW torture... it's their job to know as a matter of course because for them, it's an occupational hazard.
Now you notice above, they were asked to submit responses to questions regarding the legality of waterboarding. They voted UNANIMOUSLY (and this was while BUSH was President, not OBAMA) that waterboarding is torture. I'll put it up again, so you don't miss it.Here's the complete letter: Letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy
Your "slavery" analogy? You lose the thread. Slavery invocation is just as repetitive and unrelated to list as waterboarding is to Nazi invocation. This in no way is connected to slavery. The fact that you even say "Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery?," IS comparing waterboarding to slavery. Saying you don't want to compare it against slavery, then DO is mind boggling. It's like tell the jury to disregard a remark they already heard. How do you not see that?
The proof is there. If you choose to ignore it, no problem. Lots of people rationalize and hide from distasteful things because they know there will be a price to pay in the airing. America can take an investigation. America can take a hearing. American can take prosecutions. We have gone through stuff way more devastating than this, and have put it on trial and grew from it. The fact that some of your favorites will be exposed is no reason to delay justice.
Once again, I would advise you and some others to actually join the military then you might get an appreciation for what those Judge Advocates are saying and how your "opinion" is putting American troops lives at stake daily. All we need is for one of our troops to get captured and someone to start waterboarding because "it's not torture"... then they start on other stuff too because they know the U.N. won't investigate the U.S., so why them?
"TO MICHAEL!"
I posted a link to an article in an earlier post that demonstrates specifically where waterboarding did work. To the extent where it may have saved thousands of lives. So this statement of yours is false.
Your link fails pretty hard.
It's given by Brent Bozell, the red-headed stepchild of Reality. That guy is patently nuts with his fake information half of the time. He's a regular Fox News contributor and was connected to quite a few of those nasty commercials during the last election. The information he's quoting makes his "news site" a laughing stock. You notice that BBC, Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or any mainstream print media organizations won't broadcast or print that "CIA release" he got? Know why? The timelines are too shaky to go to press with. That's how real news orgganizations do it most of the time.. they fact check and if it's not strong enough to print as fact, they shelve it until they can get more. Bozell the Clown runs his stuff the minute it looks halfway good.
This is why in a nutshell: Explanations of L.A. Tower plot.
Los Angeles Times coverage of your information years ago.
Again, punch in your "story" and see NO major news agency worth its salt covered that story when it was printed by Bozell a. Oh wait.. Obama told them all not to report the good news the CIA released ONLY to Brent Bozell's "news agency", right?
I just don't know why, but this sure sounds a lot like the pre-Iraq "He's got WMD!" proof they sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with. It stinks real bad because they are cherrypicking what they want out this stuff. I still crack up when Cheney, after doing hundreds of waterboards, points to two memos in his desk saying they thwarted plots. Just two dubious ones. I believe they already debunked the Al Zarqwari info as bogus.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I want to give you one of my stars.
Not because you agree with me on waterboarding.
But because you agree with the law.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I do agree with you that this should be used as a last resort - what those that disagree with me on this matter seem to think is I believe this should be used all the time for any sort of information. If there was an impending attack on the US, whether it be of mass destruction, biological, or a 9/11 type of attack, then I believe such methods should be used. I don't, however, believe waterboarding, or any other extreme interrogation methods, should be used to find standard information - as say "Where is OSama", for example.
I do agree, if I am understanding your stance, that their religion should be used against them.
Suicide bombings, or even a gun fight, could be squelched by using the ideology that the unclean body cannot ascend to heaven. Simply state that we will take their remains, wrap it in pig skin and further make their bodies unclean by placing menstral blood on their bodies. Furthermore, we will bury their bodies facing downwards, pointing away from Mecca with a cross as a marker.
Do you think they would still be so bold?
Your link fails pretty hard.
It's given by Brent Bozell, the red-headed stepchild of Reality. That guy is patently nuts with his fake information half of the time. He's a regular Fox News contributor and was connected to quite a few of those nasty commercials during the last election. The information he's quoting makes his "news site" a laughing stock. You notice that BBC, Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or any mainstream print media organizations won't broadcast or print that "CIA release" he got? Know why? The timelines are too shaky to go to press with. That's how real news orgganizations do it most of the time.. they fact check and if it's not strong enough to print as fact, they shelve it until they can get more. Bozell the Clown runs his stuff the minute it looks halfway good.
This is why in a nutshell: Explanations of L.A. Tower plot.
Los Angeles Times coverage of your information years ago.
Again, punch in your "story" and see NO major news agency worth its salt covered that story when it was printed by Bozell a. Oh wait.. Obama told them all not to report the good news the CIA released ONLY to Brent Bozell's "news agency", right?
I just don't know why, but this sure sounds a lot like the pre-Iraq "He's got WMD!" proof they sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with. It stinks real bad because they are cherrypicking what they want out this stuff. I still crack up when Cheney, after doing hundreds of waterboards, points to two memos in his desk saying they thwarted plots. Just two dubious ones. I believe they already debunked the Al Zarqwari info as bogus.
And your posts continue to reveal what a narrow minded left-wing kook you are. Your links attempt to refute the reporting of the foiled plot, not the source of the information itself, a typical ploy these days of liberal websites. The CIA memos are ironclad. Whether you choose to believe them is your decision. It also apparently wouldn't occur to you that the mainstream media chose not to report this information because they have a vested interest in making the Bush administration, which it regularly was at odds with, look bad. For instance, it's estimated that President Bush's AIDS fighting program in Africa saved about 1.2 million lives. I bet you didn't hear that reported in the mainstream media either, did you? Why? Because it would have made Bush look good. That's the last thing the mainstream media wants.
I notice you didn't make a post on the thread, "Political opposites you respect". I have to wonder if, just like your left-wing "brother" Sabiancym, you can even find one you do respect. That's a common sign of an extremist ideologue.
Your link fails pretty hard.
It's given by Brent Bozell, the red-headed stepchild of Reality. That guy is patently nuts with his fake information half of the time. He's a regular Fox News contributor and was connected to quite a few of those nasty commercials during the last election. The information he's quoting makes his "news site" a laughing stock. You notice that BBC, Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or any mainstream print media organizations won't broadcast or print that "CIA release" he got? Know why? The timelines are too shaky to go to press with. That's how real news orgganizations do it most of the time.. they fact check and if it's not strong enough to print as fact, they shelve it until they can get more. Bozell the Clown runs his stuff the minute it looks halfway good.
This is why in a nutshell: Explanations of L.A. Tower plot.
Los Angeles Times coverage of your information years ago.
Again, punch in your "story" and see NO major news agency worth its salt covered that story when it was printed by Bozell a. Oh wait.. Obama told them all not to report the good news the CIA released ONLY to Brent Bozell's "news agency", right?
I just don't know why, but this sure sounds a lot like the pre-Iraq "He's got WMD!" proof they sent Colin Powell to the U.N. with. It stinks real bad because they are cherrypicking what they want out this stuff. I still crack up when Cheney, after doing hundreds of waterboards, points to two memos in his desk saying they thwarted plots. Just two dubious ones. I believe they already debunked the Al Zarqwari info as bogus.
I notice you didn't make a post on the thread, "Political opposites you respect". I have to wonder if, just like your left-wing "brother" Sabiancym, you can even find one you do respect. That's a common sign of an extremist ideologue.
Sorry champ, I did post in that thread saying that I do respect some conservatives.
The Official God FAQ
The fact that they had to waterboard that guy khalid whatever 183 times pretty much shows that either it is ineffective or they did it out of pure joy.
In any case you guys don't seem to have a fucking clue what human rights are.
Democratic constitutional state my fat ass.
Sorry champ, I did post in that thread saying that I do respect some conservatives.
I saw your post on that thread and this is what you said:
"I don't respect anyone that is the exact opposite of me."
You also went on to say that you're sure you could find some things with which you could agree with conseratives on. But you didn't mention anyone by name, nor did you mention any specific issues. You could have been talking liking the same sports teams for all I know.
I do agree with you that this should be used as a last resort - what those that disagree with me on this matter seem to think is I believe this should be used all the time for any sort of information. If there was an impending attack on the US, whether it be of mass destruction, biological, or a 9/11 type of attack, then I believe such methods should be used. I don't, however, believe waterboarding, or any other extreme interrogation methods, should be used to find standard information - as say "Where is OSama", for example.
I do agree, if I am understanding your stance, that their religion should be used against them.
Suicide bombings, or even a gun fight, could be squelched by using the ideology that the unclean body cannot ascend to heaven. Simply state that we will take their remains, wrap it in pig skin and further make their bodies unclean by placing menstral blood on their bodies. Furthermore, we will bury their bodies facing downwards, pointing away from Mecca with a cross as a marker.
Do you think they would still be so bold?
That makes a false assumption -- that we are fighting against a religion. We are not. We are fighting against a form of fascism, a form of authoritarianism -- a political ideology that stems from a sick psychology and USES religion to justify its evil. If we fight it as if it is a religion, then we are attacking every member of that religion.
The answer to this war is to ecourage MODERATE, REFORM versions of this religiom. You do not do this by performing acts that disgust the moderates.
we win by KILLING THEM, defeating them. When we do that we show them that God is on OUR side in this, not because we are Christian crusaders, but because they are practicing EVIL in the name of their religion, using an ideology to twist it, warp it, and make it into something that turns against them.
That is how we win. It will take longer to do it this way, but it is the only way to win WWIII.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If you want to see real torture, go to Ogre and search for Nick Berg's, or any other individual's, beheading by a combat knife.
That is torture.
Waterboarding is discomfort.
It amazes me that all of you think us showing a gentle interrogation will somehow convince those who wish to harm us will no longer show brutality.
Do you think if you were in a situation where you were on the receiving end of an war enemy that they would care whether or not you thought waterboarding was right or wrong?
So you would you consider rape to be torture? Or only discomfort?
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
the news article that reported 183 was proven to be false information. so your info fails you.
Yes, but religion is their backbone. They are extremists of Islam. They are told they will go to heaven because of martyrdom. We would not fighting a religion in its entirety. I state what I did as a warning to the extremists. Now, if we were attacking the belief systems of their religion, then I would agree it would be an attack to all Muslims, but we would be using their own belief against them.
Remind me of any incidents where there was actual rape of detainees.
Yes, but religion is their backbone. They are extremists of Islam. They are told they will go to heaven because of martyrdom. We would not fighting a religion in its entirety. I state what I did as a warning to the extremists. Now, if we were attacking the belief systems of their religion, then I would agree it would be an attack to all Muslims, but we would be using their own belief against them.
religion is not their backbone. Evil is. We are fighting the evil, not the religion.
fishermage.blogspot.com