Do You Want Obama to pursue Prosecution For Torture

The folks who conducted the interrogation of KSM should be given the Medal of Honor.

 

they would have been, in the bush precedent of giving medals to incompetent illegal actors.

the torturers, even violated express provisions authorized by these torture memos. clearly there is neither good faith, nor proper reliance on the OLC memos. thus, they do not qualify under the obama/holder regime of immunity.

 

Of the the stupid things you have said here......this one is by far the cream of the crop. It really sickens me that there are people out there like you that exist.

The people that conducted those interrogations.......and the people that sent the order.....and the people above them all need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.......civil court or Military.

Do you know what the Medal of Honor is for? In case you have no clue.....which you don't.....I'll share it.

"The Medal of Honor is awarded in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Armed Services, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against any enemy of The United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which The United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life."

Don't ever associate something a Honorable as the Medal of Honor with the criminals involved in this torture BS. That is a slap in the face to every other Medal of Honor recipient.......

 

HEY IDIOT, GO READ THE LINKS I POSTED FOR YOUR BROTHER ABOUT THE EXPERT INTERROGATORS FROM THE MILITARY WHO SAID QUITE CLEARLY THAT TORTURE DOESN'T WORK AND IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

Oh, that's right, you don't have the ability to comprehend the written word. I can suggest some remedial classes for you in the Houston area. Your attendance should be mandatory for further posting provileges.

 

I have no doubt that there are ways to make people talk using other methods, and that these methods are probably nearly as effective as torture, thus the argument torture is unecessary.

I agree that in most cases it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

But not all. There are scenarios where it can be useful, and it should be held as a final card to play when you know that someone has information and they are not offering up, and time is of the essence.

 

Here's the thing: Just because there may be a scenario where breaking a law is justified does not make the law itself unnecessary.

For instance, I can concoct a scenario where my wife is in labor and abut to give birth. Thus it is imperative that I run red lights and speed on the way to the hospital. Now, just because in this hypothetical case breaking our driving laws was necessary, does this mean that there should be no laws against speeding or stopping at red lights?

We have to trust our judges to understand those scenarios where breaking the law was necessary.

That being said, I highly doubt that waterboarding a dude 183 times a month when he's been in prison and out of the loop for years is going to produce anything useful. WTF could the guy know?

 

I am not perfect. I am the first person to admit that. I have a little bit of an anger problem when I see people rallying for better treatment of the man that was responsible for planning the attack on the WTC.

I say that I would do all kinds of things. If ever given the chance, I do not know what I would do. Truth is that you do not either.

 

Again, you need to read the information that expert interrogators published indicating that torture does not get reliable information. Even in the "24" instance that you reference (I can't believe so many people will support torture based on the fact that it works on a TV show), torture doesn't work. Please expose yourself to the facts before supporting the use of torture.

 

No, there are some things a civilized nation does not do. Torture is one of those things.

 

I have never watched "24" so I have no idea what you are talking about.


There was an interesting article many years ago on Slate (a liberal journal by the way) that opened up my mind on a torture a bit. I found it: http://www.slate.com/id/2106702/

No one in their right mind who tortures people and makes it work is going to say, "Hey, torture works, I should know, I am an interrigator".

No, torture is stupid as a form of rehabilitation or obtaining a confession - and in those cases, it shoudl never be used. But in the case of extracting information about who someone knows, or other connections, places of interest, etc...it has produced actionable intelligence. That has happened. So I am not sure what we are debating here.

Read the slate article. Just for kicks if you want.

 

If you want to know what torture does to the torturers, listen to this.

 

For so many people against torture, there sure seems to be a whole lot of experts on the subject. Most of you guys would squeal like a pig if I threatened to take away your internet access, much less threaten to inflict pain.

Im not endorsing torture, but Im surely not going to get up on my high horse and claim I'm an expert because I've read a couple memos from moveon.org or the heritage foundation.

 

And what are your judgments for people who are experts for torture?

 

The 20 released prisoners are boyscouts compared to the ones that are still in prison. Do we let the ones in prison go free?

 

like the uighurs who at least one federal judge ordered be released?

 

On the other hand, I'm not going to pretend like it works, because I want it to work, even though actual interrogators who interrogated KSM have spoken about how effective other methods were, and how waterboarding completely shut him down, and stopped the flow of useful information.

Now that has nothing to do with a memo from moveon. There are other statements from interrogators in Iraq that support the same conclusion, and evidence that our torture caused people who would not have joined militant groups in Iraq to join them and carry out attacks against our troops.

The army manual which also forbids torture isn't exactly a memo from moveon.

I don't think we are claiming to be experts, just pointing out facts and discussing what we can based on the information available. It would be great for others to do the same regardless of their side on the issue. I don't think anyone on this board has to be an expert to debate the topic. But pointing to legitimate experts is certainly fair, and valid.

 

Yes the ones who got the actual information. Waterboarding shut off the information that was coming from KSM. Pre-waterboarding the interrogators were getting useful intel. Once waterboarding happened, there WAS NO MORE USEFUL INTEL gathered.

 

Actually you are the one that has no clue about the military. The army field manual is against torture, the interrogators that successfully got information from captured terrorists and KSM are against torture and know that other techniques have worked.

Not only are you naive, you are advising the military to use techniques that don't work, and drop ones that do work. Do you want us to lose the war on terror?

 

I agree with the army field manual and that something like these prisons where so much humilation occurs should never ever be allowed.

But here's my question, does this mean all instances of torture should be outlawed? I think in the hands of the right interrogator, and there may only be a very select few, probably less than 5 - who could effectively use torture.

There is evidence this is the case. I think there is a lot of interrogators who have used torture with disasterous results, and I agree, that all of the examples here demonstrate a strong case against using torture.

But in all honesty, I think in very special cases, and with an interrogator who has a proven history of using ALL methods (including non-torture methods) to extract information (not confessions) has a use. And there is a need for more analysis here before a blanket ban is put in place.

I am only suggesting a pragmatic route forward.

 

So, we can't prove that it works, the only documented evidence we have is that it doesn't, and you still continue to claim that it does?

Wow. Just wow.

The Slate article doesn't sway me from the opinion that torture is wrong, our country should be morally opposed to it, and that people who support torture are neanderthals who deserve everything the karma bus has in store for them.