Then Pelosi should resign from her leadership positions, immediately, as should Harmon and anyone else, of either party, who knew this was going on and went along with it, if true. And Bush should be impeached. They should all be thrown out, the House leadership as well as any senators that knew, in both parties, by the voters in the next election. This is the United States of America. We don't torture people. That's what oligarchs, totalitarian states, and tinpot dictators do. Throw out everyone who knew about it and didn't speak up. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional Leadership, in the minority now, most of all. B-Bob, I couldn't agree more. Impeach Bush.
I know it doesn't change the argument for some people, but there is at least some evidence that waterboarding does work, despite B-Bob's declaration otherwise. I think casting 'shame' on each other is a little overboard. If we take the extreme example of the hidden nuke on a clock, I would choose to torture someone that I was reasonably confident had such knowledge every time I was given the choice to find out where the nuke was. It would suck, I would dislike it, but I would do it. So for me it is not a black and white question, but one of degrees. Who, how, under what circumstances would I condone torture is the question, not would I ever condone it.
After reading the success story regarding the 35-second waterboarding of Abu Zubadah, how can you NOT support these interrogation techniques? It has been used with extreme caution and a formal approval process. Congress has been briefed repeatedly. The CIA says they work. It gets people to talk. It saves lives. I mean seriously, we are arguing over 35 seconds of discomfort for a KNOWN TERRORIST? The libs are EXPOSED by this story as trying to play politics at our own nation's peril.
Franc tireurs are accorded a number of rights according to the conventions, which include not to be tortured. The individuals in question, however, were not caught on the field of battle and are not combatants, essentially defining them as criminals under the Geneva conventions. But they, too, have by signature been accorded a right to not be tortured. I will say that I support waterboarding T_J and basso so they know what they are defending. Respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about with regards to drugs. The search for a truth serum was essentially abandoned in the late 1960. This is all fairly well documented. There is no such thing as a 'truth serum'. That fairly basic lapse makes me question your fitness to speak authoritatively on other torture methods. I appreciate why, in the interests of discussion, you say this. But it really is genuinely is shameful to me. I genuinely look at people who support waterbording or like I'm sure some of you look at people who rape their children. It is disgusting to me that you can get to the place where you think it is OK in your mind. This isn't excessive hyperbole or histrionics. That is truly the sort of visceral revulsion that I feel when I see people who think that it is ever OK to use torture techniques. There is never an appropriate time to rape children and there is never an appropriate time to torture people. To act like it doesn't disgust me in the interests of being polite would be like shaking hands with Idi Amin because he is smiling at me and acting friendly. To fail to be honest on this tacitly admits that it isn't so bad that it can't be thought about.
I don't have any problem with you having your viewpoint. I don't think it's unreasonable or crazy to hold that view. On the other hand, I can outline a potential scenario where I would condone torture. I could look myself in the mirror after that decision. I don't think that makes me unbalanced, illogical, nor does it make me the equal of Hitler or Stalin. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. While I can appreciate you want to voice your distain, if you don't make some concession to continuing civil dialogue then you have little chance of affecting a change. I would think that would be more important than getting some self satisfaction out of snubbing the opposing view.
you misunderstood my post(s), and in the process provided exhibit A1tothexxxxxM why political discourse in this country is so ****ed up. I support saving american lives. i also disdain blatant political opportunism. this debate is about the latter. we've already demonstrated how the actions of the administration, and our troops, have achieved the former. would that you could keep your eye on the ball- but that seems to be a particular weakness in this season of our (clutchfans) discontent.
Does not change the point given the numerous documented instances of innocents being tortured under US authority.
How can it not change the point? You said the Geneva Convention says they are to be given a tribunal no matter what - that is false. Whether or not numberous innocents have been tortured or not is not relevant to whether or not a known Al Quaeda member has protection under the Geneva Conventions. I'm not granting your generalized accusation, but it doesn't have anything to do with this particular discourse as far as I can tell.
No. It does. Given that the US is unable to determine innocence or guilt but tortures anyhow, any proclamations that some particular person is not entitled are subsequently suspect. You are correct however in that it's really irrelevant to this discourse. The US should not be torturing period. I understand you feel differently - fair enough. Can we at least agree that you'd like to torture the "right" people and not innocent taxi cab drivers etc?
It's not about a truth serum, it's about lowering inhibitions and putting the subject in a state where he is more prone to let something slip. Same concept as the treat them nicely and ask questions politely philosophy of interrogation, but with the added benefit that it is harder for them to resist intentionally. By no means is it fool proof, but then what interrogation method is? Sodium thiopental (among other things) can be used for this method.
Same thing. They quit all those things long ago as unreliable. Google 'MK-ULTRA' as a starting point.
Except that I'm talking about people like Abu Zubaydah that no one claims is an innocent. I don't know who you're talking about. Certainly.
The famous Afghani Taxi driver. German citizen Khaled el-Masri Canada citizen That's just a quick start. I'm too lazy to pull up the others. But hey, if the goal is wrongful torture of supposed terror suspects, one could use Abu Ghraib and other similar situations too.
The point is not this one person you doofus, it's all the innocents that get caught up in this web because the torture policy the US utilizes has no restraints or controls. You know, what the geneva conventions (at least in theory) attempt to provide/mandate. What are you talking about?
You just can't help yourself from making personal attacks, can you? No one is proposing NO controls or restraints. However, that does not equate to banning the practice either. None of the examples you linked to above talk about waterboarding, which is the topic of the thread. Your first example, the 'famous afghan taxi driver' isn't even talking about the CIA or waterboarding. The Geneva Convention attempt to provide for soldiers and civilians, not Al Quaeda. Waterboarding - you know, the subject of the thread. If your problem is that innocents get caught up then you don't really have a problem with known senior Al Quaeda members getting waterboarded, right?
Respectfully, the Geneva Conventions were not created with a loophole to add on classes of prisoners. Either you are discussed under the third convention on POW's or you fall under the fourth. In either case you are supposed to be subject to a trial. If you aren't a soldier, then you are a civilian. It was intended that people like al Qaeda be treated as civilian criminals, subject to the terms of the fourth convention. I appreciate that the party line surrounding the Iraq war is that enemy combatants are a new class that was created and that al Qaeda is different from anything else. But this was specifically not intended when they wrote the conventions. They were supposed to cover everybody. Either you are protected under the third, or you are protected by the fourth. Please, please do some background reading that isn't related to the discussion of the subject and the war in Iraq. It absolutely is a perversion of the Conventions to say that there is some class that suddenly came into being that was outside all of the conventions who were afforded no protections at all.
