But you're just feeding into the whole Dem vs. Rep mindset. I'm pretty sure the point of this thread was to show an example of the level of effectiveness between two different tactics in gaining information through captured terrorists. One being a more diplomatic, legal method that was effective vs. an ineffective barbaric method that misrepresents what the US is and should be about.
So was John Walker Lindh. The difference between them and McVeigh and the DC Sniper is that they have taken up arms with foreign governments/entities against the US, and that is what differentiates between a domestic terrorist who gets a civilian trial and an enemy combatant, no? And if this: is a response to this: I'm not following you.
Yes because that is the only other interrogation tactic besides torture. If they aren't torturing surely the only thing they can be doing is asking politely. Come back with a real argument please instead of this
My point is that we need to do what keeps us safe and is effective in the war on terror as well. Torturing is not what keeps us safe, has not worked thus far, and we know is actually one of the reasons given by those who have attacked and killed our troops over seas. That's the whole point. What works is not waterboarding. We didn't waterboard in this case nor was useful information gained via waterboarding that we didn't already get using other means of interrogation. So my view that whatever is necessary to stop terrorists is what works. Waterboarding doesn't work. Other methods do. I would also like to point out that we should all have a little more faith in our justice system. What good is it, if it needs to be abandoned at the first sign of danger?
Do you work for the CIA or any other Intel agency? How do you know for a fact that waterboarding has never been useful? Do you think someone is going to announce to the world " Hey, we waterboarded the hell out of this guy and he sung like a bird"
Research posted in the most recent 117 threads on waterboarding, etc. Including military research. Subjects tend to only say what they think will make the torture stop. That does not necessarily have a good ven diagram with the truth -- you savvy?
Torture works for some. Threatening their family works for others. Kindness works for others. Different strokes for different folks. However, if the United States wants to be a gold standard for humanity, we shouldn't be doing the first two. But, if Jack Bauer has taught us anything, sometimes it's necessary! (FWIW, I don't think this particular person divulging information via kindness means anything. It's just anecdotal, just like cold weather supporting AGW-denial arguments. It's more of a "hey, sweet, information!" moment to me.)
I know based on the fact that someone did say they waterboarded the hell out of a guy and he sung like a bird. It was the bush administration. Turns out that in hearings the actual interrogator who first was there came forward and spilled the beans that all the useful information was brought out prior to waterboarding and that waterboarding brought about information that caused us to waste resources and manpower chasing down false leads.
Hey Bob.........Can I call you Bob? Do you happen to know or have a list of the approved interrogation techniques that have the blessing of the left? I'm really curious.
How many top Al Qaida leaders have Obama killed and Captured compared to Bush? How many al qaida and taliban fighters have Obama killed compared to Bush? How many people did Obama FREED compared to Bush? Obama: 0 Bush: 65,000,000 If you say Bush is a killer and a murderer and a liar then you must say the same things towards the democrats who voted to oust Saddam out of Iraq, they saw the same intel that the republicans saw, and they voted for it and gave the president the authority for war...
Call me whatever. The question sounds sarcastic. The answer is not: I don't give two ****s about the left. I do care about the recommendations of the Army Field Manual and also the Geneva Convention. Beyond that, I care about being part of a nation that both talks the talk of the moral high ground and then walks that walk. People who don't care about that high ground and consistency, and don't care about the recommendations of decades of military experience, leave a strong impression of being non-patriotic, not very intelligent, and amoral. And here's a common rule of both debate and combat for you that might come in handy: don't bring a knife to a gun fight. PS -- ask that lefty John McCain how he felt about the Bush era interrogation policies.
what works well is after a terrorist kills thousands of americans, we need to feed the guy lobsters, fine wines, strippers, america's finest lawyers, and even though the guy aint an american, give him "american rights" etc... im sure he'll tell EVERYTHING afterwards..
Please do tell about the 100's of cases of the US negotiating with a terrorist who nearly blew up a plane on US soil? Fact is there are no previous records of dealing with a terrorist after a failed plot to bomb hundreds of Americans.
The ones listed in the United States army field manual. The ones that got Abu Zubadayah to divulge all of the useful information we got out of him. Here is part of it. Most of it relies on using what information is known and tricking the suspect.
A strawman is a false argument pinned on those you seek to best in an argument. TV talking heads and a lot of really talentless politicians do this all the time. It's giving your opposition a position they never stated because the strawman is actually the only thing you can parry. Please find a link or quotation to anyone asking alleged terrorists to be treated to the ridiculous things you list. ... (crickets chirping) ... Again, go to the field manual -- ain't no waterboarding, and their ain't no lobster. There are some techniques proven to be effective at generating actionable intel. Or what do you have against the troops exactly?
