The proof to back up your assertion exists. link Subsequently, the court decisions regarding this affront to justice was withdrawn and censored under the guise of "classified information". Unredacted Opinion Redacted Opinion The big difference - a nice detailing of how extraction of data in this methodology is totally useless: Of course, Egypt's torturing under US sponsorship is considered "2nd tier". Washington Post Link
well, the drawbacks of the universal soldier program were evident from how those events played out. We may agree on Lord Hood. However, I respectfully submit that Spartan John-117 is a shining example of how important such programs are to the future of the human race. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, hippie.
This whole thing started when basso questioned my humanity (and that of Ottomaton) because we don't have the same view of the war as he does. Now, maybe I come from a different generation, but when someone questions your humanity, that's a fairly big FU that, in my view, goes beyond the bounds of even the most of bare-knuckles political debate. I pointed out that basso's defense of the administration regarding torture was more indicative of a lack of humanity than being against a war and the propaganda that goes with it. basso responded that I didn't know what he thought about torture. So I asked him. He has obviously refused to answer. And with all due respect, if you think his responses show that basso does not support torture, you haven't been paying attention. He can't even bring himself to agree with the Declaration of Independence because that little phrase about all men are created equal undercuts the justifications this administration has put forward for "enhanced interrogation" and basso supports the administration above all else. There was a reason I asked the question and there's a reason basso hasn't responded. I do disagree a little with Batman. This is not fun as much as it is tragic.
filthy, angry, childish, sanctimonious rage- you are the perfect embodiment of the modern democratic party. oh, and impotent- you can't forget the impotence.
perhaps we should pose the question to members of the french resistance in WW2, many of whom gave up their families under torture by the germans.
A little unclear here, basso. Would you be in support of torture by the Germans or only by Americans? As for your last post, another petty dodge. rimrocker's right. It's incredibly telling that you refuse to weigh in on an issue as massive as state sanctioned torture. And impotence? You're one of the last people in the country to support, without question, the lamest, most ineffective of lame duck presidents. It really is remarkable how each of the insults you dish out applies so much better to yourself than your target.
Batman, please explain to me how the simulated drowning of a terrorist is too steep of a price to pay to save many innocent lives.
This has been explained to you ad nauseum. I'm busy today. Not getting into a back and forth. Short answer is it's a bogus question. All experts agree torture is the most unreliable way to get good info as the tortured will say whatever the torturer wants to hear. More important to me though is that torture is anathema to what this country stands for. I'm not surprised that you're in favor of it.
Simulated drowning is another one of those Orwellian euphamisims like 'enhanced interrogation technique'. There is nothing simulated about it. Slow motion or incrimental drowning is the appropriate description. [rquoter] 2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word. Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral. Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again. [/rquoter] But, hey, good thing you know what it is you are actually defending T_J.
This lie simply can not go without a response. You are off the reservation if you believe this. MANY military and intelligence personnel agree that torture has produced successful results over the years. Why do you think they want to keep it in place? Furthermore, my question was not bogus. It PERFECTLY illustrates how you simply can not deal with 'torture' in the abstract. It MUST be situation-dependent and it MUST be a threat that is available to the interrogator. Additionally, it must be present in the mind of a terrorist, to facilitate compliance and strike fear in them. If the liberals got their way, a terrorist could stroll into an interrogation room with no qualms whatsoever about sitting there in silence. That's why you have to leave the option on the table and can NOT deal with 'torture' in the abstract. And lowering ourselves to their level? That's ignorant and ill-informed. They are beheading innocent civilians with knives. Yet we can't dunk someone in water or simulate drowning? Ridiculous. The libs' policies would cripple our military's ability to operate.
So... you are saying that you respect the use of beheading and agree that the tactic of beheading is an effective one, and so we should do our best to move in that direction? Personally, I think beheading is barbaric; it serves no useful purpose, and even worse (for them) makes people less sympathetic to the cause of these animals. But if you want to use them as a yardstick for measuring your morality, I'm not too surprised, I guess.
The army field manuel instructs against it. There have been numerous references to experts and military personnel against the use of torture. I don't think the army's own field manuel would cripply our nation's military. The fact that you do, is interesting.
Because that is the only other possible technique for gaining info. Either it's torture or asking politely.
who are these "many military and intelligence personnel" you speak of? you are going to need to provide a link to back up your assertions b/c they go against the word of interrogation experts like military intel officers, cia agents, army generals, admirals, military judges, jag officers and the army field manual.
Notice the response. He wants to say "torture works" but can't quite get there. So we have the passive intro perhaps we should pose. So, if one of us says "Well, it looks from that post like you think torture is effective," basso has plausible deniability. By the way, this is what he's talking about... More... Contrary to basso' indirect reference to Dershowitz, the Nazi torture of the French Resistance was not particularly effective. Many gave false info and had the Nazis running all over the place looking for stuff. No doubt some talked, but the Nazis had four years to squash the resistance and yet it was still strong through Normandy. Ike: "Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves." It should also be noted that to have the limited "success" they had, people were killed and crippled. If you believe torture produces reliable information, you believe in witches. Thank goodness right-thinking men used torture to identify witches and eliminated them before our time.
I can't imagine how any of us would know that. How many times do you think is okay? One? Two? A thousand? Is your failure to answer a simple yes or no question about supporting torture tied to that standard dodge about not knowing what torture is? Do you agree with Mukasey that waterboarding might not be torture? I know you won't answer any of those questions. Just asking them to hear myself talk.
We don't know. That's part of the larger issue isn't it? What do you think about government-sponsored torture?
