This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like

[Tex]

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..

I admitted that quote was vague, but that the one I put up before it was specific, which you didn't acknowledge. It was specific. Though, it wouldn't matter if they had put up dates, times, witnesses, videotapes, etc., to prove their assertion is true. You still wouldn't believe it.


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...

An incident where specificity was released to what you call the "retarded masses," but you drew an illogical, retarded conclusion.


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

If the article is true and we got the intel it says we did, and with specificity the act it stopped from occurring, are you saying it didn't work? Interesting.


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.

Oh, shit. I don't know. Maybe to stop the suffering.


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

Which automatically means it's a lie. :eyeroll:


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.

Well, saying it wouldn't do any good is a personal opinion. Again, if the article turns out to be true, it was beneficial.

And I'm amazed you wouldn't want the highjacker that was part of the plot to blow up the Trade Centers to be subjected to this method when it could have possibly (not assuredly) but possibly saved thousands of lives.

But after saying that, I guess with you believing the government blew the buildings up it's easy to take that approach.

Let's take this one. Say your mom, child, father, someone you love, was taken hostage and we had in custody the person who admits to taking said person. We know that person knows the exact location of your loved one. If the authorities don't find out within a week where they are, they'll be killed.

Would you advocate that the scumbag who boasts about kidnapping and putting your loved one in harm's way shouldn't be tortured (again, however you define that term) by something such as waterboarding, when there's a chance it might coerce them to give up the intel that would save your loved one's life?

I think I know what your answer will be, your humane answer will be, but I believe if the shoe was on that foot you'd be singing a different song and dance.

[Tex]

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Scroll down a bit to the video. It's an ABC chief investigative correspondent appearing on Fox News saying that from his CIA sources, some who even oppose waterboarding, that it has been successful, and in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as mentioned in my other post, an attack was thwarted, along with valuable intel being gathered.

They also mention, if memory serves, 12 other incidents, without going into detail, that have been averted.

Fact or fiction? I know Halo's answer. I'll be interested to hear more about this from various sources. I just wanted to put this up because what I orginally posted was just an article on some stupid website.

And even though this is from Fox News, which I know a lot of you love, it's somebody actually sticking their neck out and going on record saying that what I posted in the article is in fact true. At least according to him.

[HaloGuardian]

I admitted that quote was vague, but that the one I put up before it was specific, which you didn't acknowledge. It was specific. Though, it wouldn't matter if they had put up dates, times, witnesses, videotapes, etc., to prove their assertion is true. You still wouldn't believe it.

I wouldn't because I shouldn't. Why do you trust them? What have they proven to you?



An incident where specificity was released to what you call the "retarded masses," but you drew an illogical, retarded conclusion.

I call bullshit. Lets see the documentation then. There is nothing specific. 1 line in an editorial is not specificity.



If the article is true and we got the intel it says we did, and with specificity the act it stopped from occurring, are you saying it didn't work? Interesting.

The article is not true because there is no proof of it.




Oh, shit. I don't know. Maybe to stop the suffering.

1. You are assuming the interrigators want the truth, and not a scripted answer. Neither of us know if they actually want the truth because it is all done in secret.
2. You are assuming the person being interrigated actually has information.
3. You are assuming the torture will stop if they give the information

None of these assumptions will ever be proven




Which automatically means it's a lie. :eyeroll:

Yes. It does.




Well, saying it wouldn't do any good is a personal opinion. Again, if the article turns out to be true, it was beneficial.

And I'm amazed you wouldn't want the highjacker that was part of the plot to blow up the Trade Centers to be subjected to this method when it could have possibly (not assuredly) but possibly saved thousands of lives.

But after saying that, I guess with you believing the government blew the buildings up it's easy to take that approach.

Get over it. Torture does not get truth. It get's a scripted answer


Let's take this one. Say your mom, child, father, someone you love, was taken hostage and we had in custody the person who admits to taking said person. We know that person knows the exact location of your loved one. If the authorities don't find out within a week where they are, they'll be killed.

Would you advocate that the scumbag who boasts about kidnapping and putting your loved one in harm's way shouldn't be tortured (again, however you define that term) by something such as waterboarding, when there's a chance it might coerce them to give up the intel that would save your loved one's life?

I think I know what your answer will be, your humane answer will be, but I believe if the shoe was on that foot you'd be singing a different song and dance.

Let's see. Torture doesn't work. So no I wouldn't support it. The authorities would tell me torture would work. They would probably still torture the moron and it would just make it worse.

[Tex]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/22/tyrrell.detainees/index.html


Reportedly, one of the 14 terrorists from those secret CIA hoosegows with whom the Red Cross will confer is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, reputedly the mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities. He apparently has had a rough time. He allegedly underwent what is called "aggressive interrogation." That includes such exactions as sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes and exposure to loud rock and roll. It could have been worse. He could have been exposed to loud performances of Mozart's 41st Symphony or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. He might even like rock and roll.

One form of aggressive interrogation that he apparently did not like was "waterboarding." The delegation from the Red Cross will want to ask him if was "waterboarding" that made him crack and divulge the names of other killers. Water boarding is not to be confused with skateboarding, which is infinitely more dangerous, causing sprained ankles and broken bones. But waterboarding is apparently now being ruled out even by our government as a form of interrogation.

As the Fox News piece said, waterboarding caused him to divulge names and addresses of other top leaders in his crazy Jihad.

So, this method of torture is not effective, Halo? So far three sources I've put up say this asshole divulged information due to the procedure, which they say got names and adresses of other scum like him, and that it stopped an attack.

How much more effective could it be? Hey, I can accept it turns your stomach. The guy in the Fox News report said some other CIA officials felt the same way, but admitted it was effective.

You're putting up this argument that it's not effective at all.

Prove it. Or discredit what I'm posting with links to counter your argument. And conspiracy theory sites don't count. :laugh:

EDIT: Don't know why I bother, really. I could post 100 sources that say the same thing, and you'd probably believe they're all lying.

[Tex]

Let's see. Torture doesn't work. So no I wouldn't support it. The authorities would tell me torture would work. They would probably still torture the moron and it would just make it worse.

So says HaloGuardian, the expert on torture in the modern age. It appears from what I've put up so far it does "work." Though, you discount three sources so far as false.

Unbelievable, too, you wouldn't want to exhaust every means possible to save your loved one's life. My hypothetical, also, only went so far as wateboarding without carrying it further. I was trying to be sensitive to your character.

Hell, I know if my daughter was in similar circumstances as my hypothetical, I'd authorize everything under the sun as far as torture goes, and barbaric as it could become, to break whatever asshole knew her location so I could keep her alive and have her returned safely to me.

But I guess I'm not worried about the rights of an asshole who's admitted to the abduction of my kid and hiding her. I'm more concerned about the life of the innocent over the life of a shitbag. And, yes, I'm making a correlation with the Gitmo boys in my statements and hypothetical.

Again, I can respect your view that it's barbaric, whatever else you want to call it, you don't agree with it, but it can be effective.

Also, I don't need to put up an article for that to be proven. It's just common sense. Of course, what you've said about people giving false info to stop the pain, false confessions, etc., could also be true in a lot of cases. But you're saying over and over torture is ineffective, and such is not the case 100 percent of the time across the board.

[HaloGuardian]

If torture was really effective, the government should:

1. Show a video of them torturing the guy.
2. Let us hear his confession.
3. Show everyone the men the information led to.

No. Instead they don't. Because of all the heat they have been getting for torture it makes sense for them to do this just from a PR standpoint. But nope, they just say something works, say it lead to something else without offering any proof. I want documentation. If it so successful why aren't they running a campaign on it, with proof after proof?

Oh and I like how they call Waterboarding "agressive interrigation". Gee that article doesn't have an extreme bias.

And no I'm not an expert. Leading military officials, experts on governments, mostly agree that torture doesn't work. Ask them, not Fox News or the Republican Party.

[MsThang]

iF SOMEONE YOU LOVED HAD BEEN IN THE wtc YOU WOULD WANT THEN TO WATERBOARD AS MANY PEOPLE AS THE AD TO TO PREVENT 911.


puhleez

[Tex]

puhleez

I agree with him. That is, if we're talking about the prospective highjacker we had in custody, who if subjected to this procedure might have cracked and given up the location of Ata, the plan they were contemplating committing.

Hell, it might have been stopped. Him being subjected to waterboarding in my opinion would be worth saving thousands of American lives. And I hold that opinion not losing anybody I loved.

I think if I did lose somebody I cared about, I'd feel even more strongly about it. You might, too. But maybe not. God only knows. :eyeroll:

[MsThang]

I agree with him. That is, if we're talking about the prospective highjacker we had in custody, who if subjected to this procedure might have cracked and given up the location of Ata, the plan they were contemplating committing.

Hell, it might have been stopped. Him being subjected to waterboarding in my opinion would be worth saving thousands of American lives. And I hold that opinion not losing anybody I loved.

I think if I did lose somebody I cared about, I'd feel even more strongly about it. You might, too. But maybe not. God only knows. :eyeroll:

It's the propaganda and spin put on that.

He was basically saying "If you don't think torture is okay, you are not patriotic"

or even so far as to saying you don't care about Americans dying. Bullshit.

[Tex]

It's the propaganda and spin put on that.

He was basically saying "If you don't think torture is okay, you are not patriotic"

or even so far as to saying you don't care about Americans dying. Bullshit.

I didn't get that from reading what he put up.

[TheZenMan]

It's the propaganda and spin put on that.

He was basically saying "If you don't think torture is okay, you are not patriotic"

or even so far as to saying you don't care about Americans dying. Bullshit.


Really?

I don't think Rays spins shit, he speaks from the heart and pretty much just says what's on his mind. In fact, he never said anyone was anything.

At least that's what I've come to know of him here on mc, I could be wrong.

:dunno:

[MsThang]

Ah well maybe I'm reading too far into it, but whenever I hear shit like that-Donald Rumsfeld comes into my mind.

Maybe that's not how Ray meant it, but that is how I perceived it.

[MsThang]

Really?

I don't think Rays spins shit, he speaks from the heart and pretty much just says what's on his mind. In fact, he never said anyone was anything.

At least that's what I've come to know of him here on mc, I could be wrong.

:dunno:

And it wasn't that Ray specifically spun it, it's the attitude in general about being against something. Being against something to a lot of people (including a lot of you on here) seems to mean you are for the "bad guy."

And I think that we have a lot to learn when we wish harm on other people because they want to do harm to us. I don't want people to be tortured period. And what's worse is the way in which we go about deciding whether or not someone is "worthy" of being tortured. No Habeas Corpus for non-citizens is ridiculous.

[TheZenMan]

And it wasn't that Ray specifically spun it, it's the attitude in general about being against something. Being against something to a lot of people (including a lot of you on here) seems to mean you are for the "bad guy."

And I think that we have a lot to learn when we wish harm on other people because they want to do harm to us. I don't want people to be tortured period. And what's worse is the way in which we go about deciding whether or not someone is "worthy" of being tortured. No Habeas Corpus for non-citizens is ridiculous.

Now those are some serious political spin issues.

The public Republican media loves to call you unpatriotic when you defend detainees rights. And the Democrats have their own smear agenda.

And they're both taking a nasty dip down low as we approach the elections.
I hate it. It makes both parties look ridiculously desperate and childish.

I have to agree that it's all bullshit though, people take one thing someone else says and tack on an entire paradigm of what not only that person, but the entire party stands for.
It's pretty useless.

[outsider]

It's the propaganda and spin put on that.

He was basically saying "If you don't think torture is okay, you are not patriotic"

or even so far as to saying you don't care about Americans dying. Bullshit.

The reason I don't like stuff like what Ray had written is because it attempts to invalidate your opinion for not having lost someone in the 9-11 attacks. It also makes the attempt to draw you in an uncaring light since obviously you don't want to torture detained people to prevent another 9-11.

The truth is you and I both don't want another 9-11 to happen here or in any other part of the world (I believe I'm making an educated assumption in your desire here) but that neither of us think that torture of any sort fits in the framing of our country's set of laws and certainly not within our Constitution.

[Stingray427]

I was speaking from a personal perspective. If someone ANY of us loved had been in the WTC would we really give a shit what they did to a terrorist to prevent it? I would bet even the most liberal, earth day, no nukes, save the spoted owl, one of us would be willing to give a little to not see that loved one die.

Spin? this is the no spin zone!

[outsider]

torturing people after the fact though Ray, it doesn't bring anyone back.

I have lost a friend in this whole war on terror and to the best of my knowledge the only other one doesn't post here (and I hope know one else has) and it's true I'd do a lot to have saved his life. The problem with this torture though Ray is that it wouldn't have saved his life and after the fact it's just vulgar revenge. Try and execute them or try them and hold them for life in a deep dark cell somewhere. Feed them the absolute minimum required and put them on a chain gang. The torture itself isn't stopping or solving anything.

There are other ways to not become the bad guy while still doing what needs to be done. And really, I'm sorry but all I see from the pro-torture crowd is pure hypocrisy when so many of you cited torture as reason for us to invade Iraq after it was shown there weren't any WMDs. It's just more flash fuel for the fire.

[MsThang]

I totally agree with the last two posts from outsider. I couldn't put it into words. Damn, I've been really bad at that lately.

[Stingray427]

I was speaking of prevention. As in BEFORE, I agree after IS useless. But that only applies if you think its all over and we will never be attacked again.

[outsider]

I was speaking of prevention. As in BEFORE, I agree after IS useless. But that only applies if you think its all over and we will never be attacked again.


Then why do you keep using terrorist attacks to justify torture? Also, implying that we either agree with you or else we think we'll never be attacked again is another horrible flaw in logic. It's a false dilemma.

On the contrary though Ray, it could be said that the things people will say to stop the torture may very well be diverting our forces and our intelligence agencies from real and actual threats.