This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like

[Stingray427]

So you don't have respect for the law, but yet you are defending it? Or do you think incompetence is limited to Detroit?


I don't care if its Detroit or everywhere. All I know is i'm not gonna look up have some crackhead bastard kill one of my residents in my hallway. I want to nip crime in the bud as it rears its ugly head. If you breach the security at MY properties, and there are gonna be repercusions.

[Stingray427]

Oh, and I vote we waterboard Dr. Phil.

[Tex]

Link please.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24653

Now, is this true or fabricated? You decide. It's what I heard the other day, as I mentioned in my post. It will be intersting to see if this is actually legit.



The Case for Waterboarding
By Vasko Kohlmayer

FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2006

Discussing his recent compromise with the White House on detention and interrogation of captured terrorists, John McCain said on the Today show that ‘there will be no such thing as waterboarding…You will never see that again. We stood up and said that cannot be done.’

It is not easy to grasp the thinking of senator McCain and others who seek to ban this practice in the light of its immense value in our fight against terror.

Take, for instance, the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured in Pakistan in March of 2003. One of the masterminds of 9/11 and al-Qaeda’s operational leader at the time, he possessed a wide-ranging knowledge of the network’s plans, logistics and personnel.

Unwilling to share it voluntarily, he was subjected to forced interrogation. As resilient as he was and defiant, he held out until the interrogators decided to proceed with waterboarding.

Two and a half minutes into the procedure, a broken Mohammed begged for relief. Stunned and shaken, his extensive confession amounted to nothing less than a treasure trove of priceless intelligence.

This case is unusual not in how quickly the waterboarding worked, but how long Mohammed was able to withstand it. Two and a half minutes is by all accounts a record of sorts, as most subjects usually break down inside a minute. CIA agents who undergo this procedure as part of their training rarely last more than 40 seconds. This despite the fact that they are in a friendly environment and know that death is not an option.

Although waterboarding is normally employed as the last resort and the frequency of its use kept secret, it has been made known that so far it has worked every time it has been tried. Thanks to its extraordinary efficacy, we have been able to obtain a great amount of critical intelligence that would have otherwise remained inaccessible.

With the help of this information we have captured al-Qaeda operatives, stopped deadly plots, and saved many innocent lives. One of the fruits of Mohammed’s confession, to give one example, was the thwarting of a conspiracy to fly an airliner into the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles.

Given these facts, it is almost incomprehensible that there are some people in this country who insist that we relinquish this life-saving tool. Resting their objections on ethical grounds, they try to convince us that the procedure is morally unacceptable. But theirs is a misguided stance, since careful consideration shows that waterboarding is in fact one of the least injurious among interrogation techniques.

To see why this is so, it is enough to contrast it with the most common approach which involves a combination of sleep deprivation and cold exposure. Frequently requiring days and even weeks to break the captive’s spirit, it carries a real possibility of long-term physical and psychological damage. Worse still, it often fails to achieve the desired effect with the result that the captive is subjected to prolonged hardships, but we still end up without the information we so urgently need.

Waterboarding, on the other hand, is fleeting in duration with the actual discomfort lasting seldom more than a couple of minutes. And since a man can be safely deprived of oxygen for at least twice as long, there is almost no risk of long-term harm. The possibility of injury is further reduced by the fact that the procedure calls for no direct physical contact between the subject and his interrogators.

Not even as much as pushing or chest slapping is required at any time, making waterboarding one of the safest and least confrontational among interrogation methods. Involving the lowest risk of long-term harm and the least amount of cumulative discomfort, it is also the most humane. Most importantly, it is the most effective.

While other interrogation procedures employ raw force, intimidation or long-term duress, waterboarding brings the terrorist face to face with that which he himself seeks to inflict upon his victims – the horror of dying.

Viewed in this light, waterboarding may well be the most just form of interrogation for this kind of criminal, because it gives him a taste of his own evil. The difference is that his anguish is stopped the moment he expresses a desire for it to be so. This, tragically, is something which his victims would never be granted. While the terrorist turns his prey into mangled corpses, waterboarding gives him a chance to see another day without being so much as scathed by his momentary ordeal. But even as he goes on living, we have in our possession crucial intelligence that will save innocent lives.

It is widely agreed that the horrors of 9/11 took place primarily because of our intelligence gathering failures. The fact that at the time we had in our custody the 20th hijacker makes this tragedy all the more painful. Even though we suspected that Zacarias Moussaoui knew something big was in the works, we did not interrogate him aggressively enough to extract this information from him.

Had we done so, things could have turned out differently. One of the primary objectives of waterboarding is to bring forth the kind of intelligence that will prevent tragedies like 9/11 from occurring again.

Rather than depriving our interrogators of this tool for wresting intelligence from recalcitrant terrorists, we must ensure that it is available whenever the need arises. Our government officials would do well to remember what the stakes are and whose protection they have been entrusted with. Once they do so, they cannot but recognize that our government not only is fully justified in utilizing this invaluable technique, but has a moral obligation to use it to save lives.

And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist’s discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy?

Are two minutes of Moussaoui’s anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

If you can’t answer in the affirmative then hold your peace."

[Tex]

What don't you understand? False confessions would show the American public "Look we got 'em, they admitted it, you are all safer now". Fact is most people wouldn't question if someone admitted a crime they didn't committ while they were being tortured. A huge majority of people will say anything for the torture to stop. If you were not guilty, and had no intel,(AKA most people at Gitmo) and you were being tortured for intel you didn't have or a crime you never committed and were continually "Waterboarded" day after day wouldn't you break eventually?.

This isn't about getting a confession of guilt. It's about using these methods to extract intelligence, which a lot of our captives may possess, that would lead to the breakup of other terror plots in the works, cells, and just may save American lives.

I've said just for a "confession" it's wrong already, Halo, in my earlier post. To extract intel, well, if I was in charge waterboarding would look like a walk in the park compared to the lengths I'd go to get information to help our country.

If we know for a 100 percent fact the person is guilty of crimes against our country, or is planning to commit some violent act, there's not a doubt in the world he's guilty, whether tried yet or not, some form of coercion should be employed to get intel.

Just like Moussaoui, as is mentioned in the article I put up and bolded, who was involved in the 9-11 plot. What if at that time he was subjected to this kind of torture and gave up his buddies who ended up killing thousands on 9-11? It might have been averted.

I think if you had a time machine and could go back then your argument in the present of "innocent until proven guilty" wouldn't wash. You'd say to use these methods and wouldn't be so apt to feel sorry for these "innocent detainees." Though, maybe you would still see that shitbag having his rights violated and not want it to happen. God only knows. :eyeroll:


Training is not the same no matter how you put it. Would they be waterboarded until they pass out? Even if they did they have no pressure on them. They aren't accused of being terrorists or having specific intel. They are just receiving the physical part, and probably for a set amount of times..

Does the article say our intelligence agencies use that practice on detainees; that is, take it to the point of them passing out? If it does, then I flat ass missed it. My mistake.

They mention the training they receive in the article I put up, also. I'm sure it's not as aggressive, though. But they do undergo it to see how it feels.


If you have any evidence that torture stops terrorism I'd love to read it. Most articles or evidence I've read points to saying that we need to torture, but doesn't say how it works, why it works, where torture has been successful, etc...

I found that one link and article. I'll search for more later after my depo is through. As you said, "the more research the better." I'd have to agree.


We will never know who is guilty and who is not when torture is employed. Confessions or intel given under torture will hardly ever be correct. So we will be less safe. Is there any military leader who has said torture works? You admit yourself this is torture albeit torture "lite" :rolleyes: whatever that means.

On confessions, I'll agree. Intel is another matter entirely. Again, imagine if Moussaoui would have been subjected to waterboarding, or other extreme forms of coercion that I'd be okay with, then he might have cracked and 9-11 would have never occurred. Would his torture, even if it was extreme, have been worth it? I'd say you're damn right it would have been worth it.

I also don't buy into this hippie shit of "Then we're no better than them" garbage some people put up. Let's see. Getting beheaded or waterboarding? Hmmmmm. Which would I prefer? That's easy. Also, I've seen no evidence of anybody in our custody being killed because of this procedure, but just scared shitless to where they crack. Though, when your head gets lobbed off you cease to exist.

Think about that the next time you're so quick to worry about these people. Sure there might be a handful of innocents among the wolves, but the majority I'm sure are enemy combatants and held for a reason. Remember a couple hundred were already let go. The others must be there for a reason.

[Söy]

Because a majority of these innocent people aren't convicted of anything, that is why. Until the government convicts them, they are innocent.

by that logic, OJ is innocent, even though he was only aquitted because of proceedural errors, not a disproval of guilt :rolleyes:

[GoodCitizenDan]

Information is completely unreliable when a person has alterior motives in giving you that information.... say, to end the torture.

Need an example? Ahmed Chalabi. He knew that if he gave us a bunch of info about weapons sites in Iraq(that didn't exist) and produced defectors with phony stories, we would bring him to the forefront of Iraq's reconstruction. He collected contracts worth multiple millions of dollars through the scam. Now imagine all the (fake)weapons sites and (fake)defectors he could have presented if we strapped him in a waterboard....

Like I said, whatever your intentions, torture is a wholly ineffective method of extracting information. More often, torture is used to scare the people who haven't been caught, illicit public confessions, and for the simple joy of humiliating your fellow man.

[Tex]

Information is completely unreliable when a person has alterior motives in giving you that information.... say, to end the torture.

Need an example? Ahmed Chalabi. He knew that if he gave us a bunch of info about weapons sites in Iraq(that didn't exist) and produced defectors with phony stories, we would bring him to the forefront of Iraq's reconstruction. He collected contracts worth multiple millions of dollars through the scam. Now imagine all the (fake)weapons sites and (fake)defectors he could have presented if we strapped him in a waterboard....

Like I said, whatever your intentions, torture is a wholly ineffective method of extracting information. More often, torture is used to scare the people who haven't been caught, illicit public confessions, and for the simple joy of humiliating your fellow man.

That sounds all well and good. But what if this is true? It's from the article I posted earlier in the thread.


Take, for instance, the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured in Pakistan in March of 2003. One of the masterminds of 9/11 and al-Qaeda’s operational leader at the time, he possessed a wide-ranging knowledge of the network’s plans, logistics and personnel.

Unwilling to share it voluntarily, he was subjected to forced interrogation. As resilient as he was and defiant, he held out until the interrogators decided to proceed with waterboarding.

Two and a half minutes into the procedure, a broken Mohammed begged for relief. Stunned and shaken, his extensive confession amounted to nothing less than a treasure trove of priceless intelligence.

Although waterboarding is normally employed as the last resort and the frequency of its use kept secret, it has been made known that so far it has worked every time it has been tried.

With the help of this information we have captured al-Qaeda operatives, stopped deadly plots, and saved many innocent lives. One of the fruits of Mohammed’s confession, to give one example, was the thwarting of a conspiracy to fly an airliner into the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles

So, if what's being said here is true, are you going to say we got "unreliable" information and this technique was ineffective?

[HaloGuardian]

by that logic, OJ is innocent, even though he was only aquitted because of proceedural errors, not a disproval of guilt :rolleyes:

He was never proven guilty, therefore yes he is innocent. He may not have been, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but that has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty.

[HaloGuardian]

Yes, I realize that. I know what the laws are.

What makes something inherent? If it was truly inherent then it would apply in every country and every planet at any point in time for anyone anywhere. Ok, so who says? In our country we say.
What about in Turkey? Does the USA alone hold the truth simply because we say so?
It's great that these are our inherent rights, don't get me wrong. But where and who we are is exactly what makes them inherent.

Now, if you want to go deeper and tell me that God says their inherent, I'll agree. But try that shit in Turkey and see what happens.

Yes. Inherent rights come from God. That is exactly what I believe. The Bill of Rights and many founding fathers stated that the government recognizes these rights and they will not violate them. When they do they violate that contract.


Don't you see what I'm asking? Rights do not equal truth.

Let's use you as an example and stick only to a criminal act, not one of war.
Say you break into someone's house and cut them to pieces with an axe. You are later detained and tried. Your inherent right is that you're innocent.

But you know damn well you did it, you're not innocent. Even if the court "proves" you are innocent, you aren't.

I realize rights do not equal truth. I raalize we will never live in a utopia. We will always have crime. We will always have murders. We will always have people getting away with things. In my opinion it is better to let 100 murderers free, than convict 1 innocent man of murder. My opinion, some may think it is insane, but it is exactly how I feel.


Rights are not the truth.
So, when I ask you why you think the government is detaining innocent people, I'm not asking you legal question. I'm asking you what you feel and why you feel that way.

The government lies. Power leads to more power. The government keeps gaining more and more power. Power corrupts. They are not trustworthy. They have admitted that a majority of those in Gitmo have actually done no wrong. That is exactly why I feel the way I do. If I thought the government was trustworthy, cared about my liberty and safety, a majority of those at Gitmo were proven terrorists who had actually commited atrocities sure I would believe otherwise.


The goal of the legal system is to align with truth, not dictate it.

Yes.

[GoodCitizenDan]

So, if what's being said here is true, are you going to say we got "unreliable" information and this technique was ineffective?

First, I would question who supplied information about this apparently successfull interrogation. Then I would ask, assuming we foiled the plots based on his information like your post suggests, why haven't we heard of people being arrested in connection with those plots? Finally, I would want to know how they decide who qualifies for such a procedure. Exactly how sure do they think they need to be(that you have info) before they start forcing information out of you?

There are ALOT of questions that need to be asked if we are going to employ such methods of interrogation. They don't just need to be asked once, though, they need to be asked constantly for something this controversial.

To be overly brief, I'll sum up my problems with the procedure in 2 main points:
1 ) People get put in jail everyday who have not commited the crime they were accused of. Its a real problem, one that effects minorities especially hard. Now THAT is in a justice system that presumes innocence. So, if they were going to go ahead with a plan like this, they would have to be sure of guilt even BEYOND what is neccessary in a court case. No less, thats for sure.
2 ) When the war on terror ends(even though it may never, considering how usefull it has become), will torture be taken completely off the books? On that day that may never come, how do we know that these powers will be given up? Even looking at the shorter term, what if they decide torture is so effective at fighting terrorism that they move the practice over to other sectors? Its a chilling thought.

Now, I'm FULLY against torture, but this is the nation of compromise and I'd be willing to do so. I wouldn't have major qualms about the idea if for every allowance in the bill, there was an equally powerfull restriction(Ie: A time when the bill will expire/some kind of judicial oversight/STRICT guidelines on what can and can't be done)

What we have now is the president with absolute power to interpret what is and isn't torture. That just isn't acceptable.

[HaloGuardian]

oh and Tex. Just so you know the article you posted has no actual information, other than saying the intel worked. What actual intel did we find out? What did it stop? Why should I believe it? The government says things work all the time, it doesn't mean it does.

[Tex]

First, I would question who supplied information about this apparently successfull interrogation. Then I would ask, assuming we foiled the plots based on his information like your post suggests, why haven't we heard of people being arrested in connection with those plots? Finally, I would want to know how they decide who qualifies for such a procedure. Exactly how sure do they think they need to be(that you have info) before they start forcing information out of you?

I'm not saying the article is factual, and I'll be interested to see if it turns out to be the truth. As far as not hearing anything about arrests, no telling. Sometimes things can't be divulged to the public until all the loose ends are tied up, if you know what I mean. Not saying that's the case here, but it's a possibility if the article is true.


There are ALOT of questions that need to be asked if we are going to employ such methods of interrogation. They don't just need to be asked once, though, they need to be asked constantly for something this controversial.?

To be overly brief, I'll sum up my problems with the procedure in 2 main points:

1 ) People get put in jail everyday who have not commited the crime they were accused of. Its a real problem, one that effects minorities especially hard. Now THAT is in a justice system that presumes innocence. So, if they were going to go ahead with a plan like this, they would have to be sure of guilt even BEYOND what is neccessary in a court case. No less, thats for sure..?

I was one of them. I can relate. Shit happens. But they're not talking about using this method on American prisoners. Not even close. It's for enemy combatants. If this was ever used on American citizens the shit would most assuredly hit the fan. It wouldn't happen.

But most people don't care about the detainees, which is what this procedure is geared towards. And I also put a strong emphasis on "guilt." I've said if they're 100 percent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the only way I'd support it. The reason I hold that belief is, like I said, I've been locked up for something I didn't do. And it was more like guilty until proven innocent, in all honestly.


2 ) When the war on terror ends(even though it may never, considering how usefull it has become), will torture be taken completely off the books? On that day that may never come, how do we know that these powers will be given up? Even looking at the shorter term, what if they decide torture is so effective at fighting terrorism that they move the practice over to other sectors? Its a chilling thought.

Now, I'm FULLY against torture, but this is the nation of compromise and I'd be willing to do so. I wouldn't have major qualms about the idea if for every allowance in the bill, there was an equally powerfull restriction(Ie: A time when the bill will expire/some kind of judicial oversight/STRICT guidelines on what can and can't be done)

What we have now is the president with absolute power to interpret what is and isn't torture. That just isn't acceptable.

That makes sense. I just don't see this ever becoming part of the American system of handing out justice or interrogating our own. Our country wouldn't stand for it. It's a doomsday scenario that I can't fathom ever happening.

EDIT: I misread your point number 1. Hence, the edit.

[Tex]

oh and Tex. Just so you know the article you posted has no actual information, other than saying the intel worked. What actual intel did we find out? What did it stop?.


One of the fruits of Mohammed’s confession, to give one example, was the thwarting of a conspiracy to fly an airliner into the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles.


With the help of this information we have captured al-Qaeda operatives, stopped deadly plots, and saved many innocent lives.

A little vague here. The first quote says what it stopped, though.


Why should I believe it?

You think our government blew up the World Trade Centers. I didn't expect you to believe it, and I knew you wouldn't.

I, on the other hand, will keep an open mind and see if this is actually true. It might be hogwash. If it is true, though, they make a strong case for waterboarding.

And, again, I'll say if a person is 100 percent guilty, no doubt about it at all -- hell, let's even throw in a million dollar trial at taxpayer's expense to prove his guilt so you don't have that crutch to lean on -- torture in my eyes is justified.

This waterboarding is weak compared to things I'd agree to have done to somebody who is 100 percent guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt if it would maybe save American lives.

And a question for you. The guy we caught pre-9-11 that was going to be one of the highjackers, what's your take on his treatment? If he would have been subjected to waterboarding 9-11 might have been averted.

Would you have been against the procedure on him? I'm curious.

[GoodCitizenDan]

I'm not saying the article is factual, and I'll be interested to see if it turns out to be the truth. As far as not hearing anything about arrests, no telling. Sometimes things can't be divulged to the public until all the loose ends are tied up, if you know what I mean. Not saying that's the case here, but it's a possibility if the article is true.
I dunno. It seems like every time they foil even the slightest possible terror plot it takes about 12 seconds for their faces to be all over TV while Bush & Co talk about how this shows their policy is succeeding. Just look at those half-retarded guy they caught in florida who were trying to associate themselves with al queda.

Besides that, I've seen alot of information that has been fixed around policy coming from the Bush administration. This quote comes to mind: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction". To make my own 'simply stated' generalization, "Simply stated, I would trust a fiending crack addict before I'd trust the administration's word without hard facts"


But most people don't care about the detainees, which is what this procedure is geared towards.
Sorry, thats simply not good enough for me. I doubt you thought it would be, but still. I wont roll over on an issue just because it doesn't effect me directly.


And I also put a strong emphasis on "guilt." I've said if they're 100 percent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the only way I'd support it. The reason I hold that belief is, like I said, I've been locked up for something I didn't do. And it was more like guilty until proven innocent, in all honestly.

I agree that they need to be sure of guilt. The problem with me is that I can't just take someone's word for it, I have to see proof about HOW they know that the person they're interrogating is guilty. The civilian justice system is one of the best in the world at keeping innocent people out of jail and even IT screws up, as you are acutely aware. I sincerely doubt the current system is as thorough. Can you imagine allowing torture when you really aren't positive that the person knows something, or even if he was involved in the first place?

Surely, based on your experience with false conviction, you see how something like this could go horribly wrong? I was once accused by rape by an ex-girlfriend's father, and I remember how fucked up the whole thing made me feel(I was never convicted, but her dad was loaded, didn't like me, and the daughter didn't care what he did to me at that point. It wasn't one of my better breakups....)

[outsider]

I'm going to take some random dumbass off the street, waterboard him and tell him he has to tell me when the next terrorist plot is going to happen. Then I'm going to publish it in a newspaper and call it truth.

Oh wait....

[Tex]

I agree that they need to be sure of guilt. The problem with me is that I can't just take someone's word for it, I have to see proof about HOW they know that the person they're interrogating is guilty. The civilian justice system is one of the best in the world at keeping innocent people out of jail and even IT screws up, as you are acutely aware. I sincerely doubt the current system is as thorough. Can you imagine allowing torture when you really aren't positive that the person knows something, or even if he was involved in the first place?

Surely, based on your experience with false conviction, you see how something like this could go horribly wrong? I was once accused by rape by an ex-girlfriend's father, and I remember how fucked up the whole thing made me feel(I was never convicted, but her dad was loaded, didn't like me, and the daughter didn't care what he did to me at that point. It wasn't one of my better breakups....)

Sure, I could see how it could go wrong. But the truth is there will always be innocent people who are wrongly accused among the guilty, but the number will be miniscule compared to the majority.

Hell, when I was in jail I was around nothing but a bunch of degenerate assholes. Most were bragging about their crimes, and not one was saying they were innocent. And I had the highest bail, the most serious crime out of the whole bunch, when I didn't do shit but get caught up in a bad set of circumstances.

There's probably somebody like me who's sitting in Gitmo now. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Such is life.

But relating Gitmo to your local county jails around the country, most people that are there are there because they broke the law. Most would consider people in county jail as societies' rejects on the whole. The same should apply to Gitmo.

Yet we have people in our country who seem to -- not saying you or anybody here: just venting -- act as if this whole collective group of Muslims are just being horribly mistreated and held for no reason. It boggles my mind.

That said, I do wish they would get their day in court. It can't come soon enough for me so the whining will subside. And I hope that if any coercion technique is used the person is without a doubt guilty of the crime he's alleged to have committed and he's not tortured (however one defines that term) for a confession.

For intel I can see the reward. For a confession, well, that's just bullshit.

[HaloGuardian]

That makes sense. I just don't see this ever becoming part of the American system of handing out justice or interrogating our own. Our country wouldn't stand for it. It's a doomsday scenario that I can't fathom ever happening.


What you don't understand is that everything, and I mean everything is done in secret now. How can you trust a government that holds secret trials and then reports what happens to you? Do you honestly believe that national security horse shit? If it is a national security threat in releasing info, release it all. Then people will know what to look for. Instead we are told to give up our liberty, bend over, take one for the team for our protection. Now we have no choice if we ourselves are labled terrorists. This country is over, I have lost all hope for change in the current system with the "anti-terror" bill passing. Revolution is all that is left. It is sad but true.

Next terrorist attack, and we all know their will be one.
1. Martial Law
2. Rounding up suspects to be put in camps.
3. Killing "guilty suspects" who were tried in secret without a jury.

[HaloGuardian]

A little vague here. The first quote says what it stopped, though.

I knew the proof would be vague because that is how the government works. Instead of releasing everything and being open and honest they operate in secret. Just releasing little tidbits that the retarded masses accept like candy.



You think our government blew up the World Trade Centers. I didn't expect you to believe it, and I knew you wouldn't.

Yes I do belive the government blew up the WTC. Not by choice, but because I have to. I wish I could think the government was good. I wish they were truthful. I wish I could see leadership who believed in peace and liberty. But no, it isn't that way, and positive outlook and thinking won't change a thing.


I, on the other hand, will keep an open mind and see if this is actually true. It might be hogwash. If it is true, though, they make a strong case for waterboarding.

Oh yeah. Torture works. It's been proven. Riiight...


And, again, I'll say if a person is 100 percent guilty, no doubt about it at all -- hell, let's even throw in a million dollar trial at taxpayer's expense to prove his guilt so you don't have that crutch to lean on -- torture in my eyes is justified.

If you are already guilty and no chance in hell of getting out of prison why would you tell the truth? That "logic" makes no sense at all.


This waterboarding is weak compared to things I'd agree to have done to somebody who is 100 percent guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt if it would maybe save American lives.

That claim has never been substantiated other than what the government tells us.


And a question for you. The guy we caught pre-9-11 that was going to be one of the highjackers, what's your take on his treatment? If he would have been subjected to waterboarding 9-11 might have been averted.

Would you have been against the procedure on him? I'm curious.

It wouldn't do any good. Give up hope that torture works. It does more harm than good. I'm against all torture, I've told you that before.

1.) Torture does not get truth more times than not.
2.) It's illegal (see the 8th amendment)
3.) It doesn't solve anything.
4.) Torturing someone just because it makes you feel good is retarded and sickening.
5.) It causes more harm and ruckus in the world when it is exposed.

[TheZenMan]

Yes. Inherent rights come from God. That is exactly what I believe. The Bill of Rights and many founding fathers stated that the government recognizes these rights and they will not violate them. When they do they violate that contract.

I realize rights do not equal truth. I raalize we will never live in a utopia. We will always have crime. We will always have murders. We will always have people getting away with things. In my opinion it is better to let 100 murderers free, than convict 1 innocent man of murder. My opinion, some may think it is insane, but it is exactly how I feel.

The government lies. Power leads to more power. The government keeps gaining more and more power. Power corrupts. They are not trustworthy. They have admitted that a majority of those in Gitmo have actually done no wrong. That is exactly why I feel the way I do. If I thought the government was trustworthy, cared about my liberty and safety, a majority of those at Gitmo were proven terrorists who had actually commited atrocities sure I would believe otherwise.

Yes.

Fair enough sir, thank you.

[Stingray427]

by that logic, OJ is innocent, even though he was only aquitted because of proceedural errors, not a disproval of guilt :rolleyes:


OJ was framed.