The CIA and DOJ has repeatedly said that interrogation information is classified and refuses to divulge if, when, and who might have been waterboarded. Which brings up an interesting question. Is this article publishing classified information, or he just making stuff up?
No. Here is the original question: "Originally Posted by gifford1967 Is it ok with tj and basso if american soldiers get waterboarded?"
No that's not correct. The army field manual isn't against killing terrorists. It is against waterboarding. Supporting the killing of terrorists is supporting our troops.
Yes and that question presumed that anyone reading it could make the inferences and connect the dots to understand that labeling it as acceptable, also made it acceptable to use on the troops.
No just because you don't want it to happen to the troops, but still favor it as a tactic doesn't mean there was a trap. It isn't a trap to actually look at the consequences of putting approval on a policy. The question comes down to supporting the troops, because if you ok waterboarding as a tactic that means when it is done to our troops it was something you approved. That's just a consequence. Because you choose to ignore that consequence doesn't mean anyone was trying to trap you by talking about it. Just because you ignore a consequence doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.
http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/02/cia-director-ad.html This information was declassified by the CIA director earlier this month. They wanted to "prove" that it's a necessary technique so that Congress wouldn't outlaw it.
But that only covers the things they publicized - the article claims that's the totality of ALL the waterboarding the US has ever done is 5 minutes. I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that they won't talk about if they have used it recently?
See, you have a little problem here because of course enemies will think that US soldiers are committing terrorist acts and in turn think they are all about defending country and religion, etc. Doesn't matter if they are wrong as it is their reality. Further, does this mean that you are cool with waterboarding terrorists because of the definition of their acts but would not be cool with waterboarding enemy troops if we were engaged in a war (the UK gets evil and attacks us, for example)? In any event, I agree that the exact numbers cannot be known because the CIA does not publish this stuff. This really isn't a US Armed Forces initiative.
Good for you, because that's what it was... a trap. It wasn't looking at what approving torture means for our troops. It was just a trap.
To be fair, I don't think FB laid the trap. I don't even know if gifford "laid" it intentionally or not but here is his "question": If it is "okay" that American troops get waterboarded (what a preposterous question), you are a beast because you are somehow connected to bringing down that same treatment on American troops. If you disapprove, you are a twit and a hypocrite. Can you all be so blind so as not to see what a sham that question was? I suggest you go back and look at Penn Jelette's video that basso posted. You craft illegitimate questions and then label your opponents for being obtuse or elusive because they recognize what's going on and refuse to fall into the trap.
Nope, you're only a twit and hypocrite if you're okay (find it acceptable) with enemy captives getting waterboarded, but not okay(do not find it acceptable)with US soldiers getting waterboarded. If you're okay with both getting waterboarded you're unamerican and twit, but you're not a hypocrite. I'm sure the question seems illegitimate and preposterous to the torture fan boys because to answer it honestly would force them to come to terms with the consequences of their position.
Giddy, it isn't a preposterous question. It is in line with the army's own thinking on the matter. One of the reasons they are against waterboarding is because they don't believe their troops should be subjected to it. It is beyond all logic to believe that one side can legitimately use an interrogation tactic and have that be A-OK. But another side can't use it. Obviously nobody wants it used on our troops, even people who support the use of it. But by saying it is an ethical way to interrogate for anyone, you are saying it is also ethical for the other side. It is especially odd to say that it is ethical for the side that is supposed to hold the moral highground, but for the other side it is unethical. The army understands the logic, and that is one of the reasons for their position on the matter. I'm not trying to trap anyone any more so than the U.S. army.
Well it would certainly take an insane person to hope that what happens to the enemy doesn't happen to the Home Team. Yeah, that's unrealistic... You won't find me crying foul if Americans get waterboarded, but wait until the enemy starts sawing heads off. Do you realize how McCarthy-esque this is to be calling people unAmerican?
I never said that I expected that. Good intel may just diminish this conflict better than anything out there. Wouldn't that save lives? If we waterboard, they may waterboard. If they saw off heads, we still won't saw off heads...
