"Enhanced Interrogation"

[TexasTiger 13,017]

We've seen the word play on many things. In fact, some folks here think they can talk us out of actually being engaged in the Iraq War by calling it something else. Turns out, "enhanced interrogation" as a euphemism for torture is nothing new:

The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the president. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding" was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush. As time went on, historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own. The "cold bath" technique - the same as that used by Bush against al-Qahtani in Guantanamo - was, according to professor Darius Rejali of Reed College,

pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943. The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...hfte_verne.html

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Sitting in air conditioning is not torture, nor is sitting in a cold water bath. Even having your chicken dinner served to you less than piping hot doesn't qualify as torture. You really want to know what torture is? Having your fingernails and toenails pulled out with a pair of pliers. Having the **** beat out of you, where you are left with multiple broken bones and lacerations with no chance of receiving medical attention. Being held in a tiny, dark cell with no outside contact (except for those that come in daily to beat the **** out of you) for years at a time. These acts, among others, are real torture techniques. These murderers you're pining for haven't come close to real torture. Our soldiers that fall into their hands can't say the same.

I do wish you and your terrorist sympathizing buddies would quit trying to water down the word, and quit making nazi references towards the troops. They're putting their lives on the line to protect your ungrateful ass.

[AFTiger 282]

Al Qaeda knows torture

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Sitting in air conditioning is not torture, nor is sitting in a cold water bath. Even having your chicken dinner served to you less than piping hot doesn't qualify as torture. You really want to know what torture is? Having your fingernails and toenails pulled out with a pair of pliers. Having the **** beat out of you, where you are left with multiple broken bones and lacerations with no chance of receiving medical attention. Being held in a tiny, dark cell with no outside contact (except for those that come in daily to beat the **** out of you) for years at a time. These acts, among others, are real torture techniques. These murderers you're pining for haven't come close to real torture. Our soldiers that fall into their hands can't say the same.

I do wish you and your terrorist sympathizing buddies would quit trying to water down the word, and quit making nazi references towards the troops. They're putting their lives on the line to protect your ungrateful ass.

You can never take an argument headon. You always have to change the facts and argue the facts you makeup. Of course, no on questions that the things you mention are torture.

These are policy decisions made at the top. I didn't mention the "troops" in regard to these decision. Why don't you respect the troops enough to quit using them as pawns in your rhetorical efforts to defend Bush and Cheney's decision making?

You use Al Qaeda as your benchmark. You only aspire to be better than them. That's not hard.

John McCain was captured and tortured and he and I see this very similarly.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I haven't changed squat. You post an article comparing torture methods used by nazis to those employed by our troops and intelligence agents. Tell me where I changed facts. They seem pretty clear to me.

The only people I'm defending here are the troops. I believe they should be given every tool needed to win the war on terror, on which, the fight in Iraq is a part. The longer we keep fighting this war with a fear of getting a little blood on our hands, the longer it's going to take. You have to be willing to be just a little more ruthless than the enemy. If we (the folks fighting the war and those that understand what is at stake in this fight) could get the ones who stand on the sideline criticizing to shut their frickin' yappers and let us do our job, it'd be over pretty quickly.

As far as the John McCain crack goes, good for you. I'm not a McCain fan. I have not condoned torture, but I do not condone calling things that don't even compare to college faternity initiation rituals "torture". Minimizing what torture really is is an insult to those who have really experienced its horror.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, like your hero, DICK Dubrin, you're comparing our troops to NAZIS. How quaint. Even though Michael Moore made it a key point of his pro-socialized medicine propaganda piece to state the the prison hospital at Guantanamo Bay was the best in the Caribbean. So the prisoners at Gitmo are getting damn good care. What they're NOT getting is; their fingers dislocated, their tongues cut out, their extremeties hacked off , electricuted, fed feet first into industrial sized wood chippers.... things that ALL happened in Saddam's reign. In other words, they're not getting TORTURED.

So stop F-ing saying we torture, you America hating #$$ - hole!

[AFTiger 282]

John McCain was captured and tortured and he and I see this very similarly.

TT is torturing all of us.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

So, like your hero, DICK Dubrin, you're comparing our troops to NAZIS. How quaint. Even though Michael Moore made it a key point of his pro-socialized medicine propaganda piece to state the the prison hospital at Guantanamo Bay was the best in the Caribbean. So the prisoners at Gitmo are getting damn good care. What they're NOT getting is; their fingers dislocated, their tongues cut out, their extremeties hacked off , electricuted, fed feet first into industrial sized wood chippers.... things that ALL happened in Saddam's reign. In other words, they're not getting TORTURED.

So stop F-ing saying we torture, you America hating #$$ - hole!

You've never followed an argument yet. Why should today be any different?

You just post the same hate-filled garbage, regardless.

[sandyclawedtiger 206]

I'm not usually one to get in political debates.

I may get in trouble for asking this but, TT, what is your argument?

You say they can't follow your argument but I have yet to see your point because you haven't offered one.

AFT, TIS and AUR have given you their rebuttal to your article and all you can do is say they can't follow the argument. What's your point?

This is the same question I will ask any candidate that comes up for president.

So here's your chance, get my vote.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The part that really concerns me is fact that most of the Arab people now hate us, even if they didn't before. And, even the idea of us torturing people to get information, that may or may not be credible, will come at a price. It's called blowback, and it will only get worse for us. I believe we would be better off if they would just kill the guys instead of making a spectacle of what they are doing to them, torture or not. The media have their own speculative interpretation of what's really going on, and it just snowballs from there. Killing the captives would leave no one to tell what going on behind door number 4.

I hope they reinstate the draft because we are going to need it to fight these guys for the next 100 years.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I'm not usually one to get in political debates.

I may get in trouble for asking this but, TT, what is your argument?

You say they can't follow your argument but I have yet to see your point because you haven't offered one.

AFT, TIS and AUR have given you their rebuttal to your article and all you can do is say they can't follow the argument. What's your point?

This is the same question I will ask any candidate that comes up for president.

So here's your chance, get my vote.

The post I linked to was by Andrew Sullivan, a noted conservative who initially supported the invasion of Iraq, but have been very critical of certain practices. If you read to the bottom of it, he closes with this:

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes

Waterboarding has a been a particular focus of this debate. Here's a summary of the issues surrounding it:

Waterboarding is a form of torture[1] or more specifically water torture or water cure. It is used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and for punishment and intimidation. Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, which produces a severe gag reflex, making the subject believe his death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage. "The threat of imminent death" is one of the legal definitions of torture under U.S. law [2]. The UN Convention against Torture prohibits the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering [3][4] In November 2005, anonymous sources told ABC news that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency uses waterboarding, but does not deem it torture.[5] However CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon has said the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention." (ibid.)

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized its use in the interrogations of U.S. War on Terrorism detainees.[6] Though the Bush administration has never formally acknowledged its use, Vice President Dick Cheney told an interviewer that he did not believe "a dunk in water" to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[7]

According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "very exquisite torture" and a mock execution, which can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." [8]

...

[edit]Effects

The physical effects of poorly executed waterboarding can include extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can be long lasting. Prolonged waterboarding can also result in death. [13]

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states, "[He] argued that it was indeed torture. 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. 'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,' he said."[14]

Proponents argue that the technique is effective in producing information. Opponents, however, argue that this information may not be reliable because a person under such duress may be willing to admit to anything. The UN Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994 [1], provides in Article 2: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

[edit]Legality

On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual was adopted amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.

...

There have been many reports that the United States has used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners captured in its War on Terrorism. In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed the CIA had engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", against suspected members of al Qaeda, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

We don't call it "torture". We call it an "enhanced interrogation technique." Did you happen to see Tenet on 60 Minutes playing this word game?

TIS says this:

You have to be willing to be just a little more ruthless than the enemy.

He thinks to win the War on Terror, we MUST become more ruthless than the worst Al Qaeda terrorist.

I think that the more we become like them, they win.

But if our actual position as a country is that we are now willing to torture suspects, then let's at least be honest about that. If we are adopting TIS's view, let's not be disingenuous with word games. We should be able to embrace proudly what we believe and stand for, whatever it is. If we believe torture is necessary, then let's not lie about it or redefine the word to suit our purposes. That's a bit too Orwellian for me.

[bojack34 2]

I'm not usually one to get in political debates.

I may get in trouble for asking this but, TT, what is your argument?

You say they can't follow your argument but I have yet to see your point because you haven't offered one.

AFT, TIS and AUR have given you their rebuttal to your article and all you can do is say they can't follow the argument. What's your point?

This is the same question I will ask any candidate that comes up for president.

So here's your chance, get my vote.

The post I linked to was by Andrew Sullivan, a noted conservative who initially supported the invasion of Iraq, but have been very critical of certain practices. If you read to the bottom of it, he closes with this:

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes

Waterboarding has a been a particular focus of this debate. Here's a summary of the issues surrounding it:

Waterboarding is a form of torture[1] or more specifically water torture or water cure. It is used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and for punishment and intimidation. Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, which produces a severe gag reflex, making the subject believe his death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage. "The threat of imminent death" is one of the legal definitions of torture under U.S. law [2]. The UN Convention against Torture prohibits the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering [3][4] In November 2005, anonymous sources told ABC news that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency uses waterboarding, but does not deem it torture.[5] However CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon has said the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention." (ibid.)

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized its use in the interrogations of U.S. War on Terrorism detainees.[6] Though the Bush administration has never formally acknowledged its use, Vice President Dick Cheney told an interviewer that he did not believe "a dunk in water" to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[7]

According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "very exquisite torture" and a mock execution, which can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." [8]

...

[edit]Effects

The physical effects of poorly executed waterboarding can include extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can be long lasting. Prolonged waterboarding can also result in death. [13]

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states, "[He] argued that it was indeed torture. 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. 'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,' he said."[14]

Proponents argue that the technique is effective in producing information. Opponents, however, argue that this information may not be reliable because a person under such duress may be willing to admit to anything. The UN Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994 [1], provides in Article 2: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

[edit]Legality

On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual was adopted amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.

...

There have been many reports that the United States has used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners captured in its War on Terrorism. In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed the CIA had engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", against suspected members of al Qaeda, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

We don't call it "torture". We call it an "enhanced interrogation technique." Did you happen to see Tenet on 60 Minutes playing this word game?

TIS says this:

You have to be willing to be just a little more ruthless than the enemy.

He thinks to win the War on Terror, we MUST become more ruthless than the worst Al Qaeda terrorist.

I think that the more we become like them, they win.

But if our actual position as a country is that we are now willing to torture suspects, then let's at least be honest about that. If we are adopting TIS's view, let's not be disingenuous with word games. We should be able to embrace proudly what we believe and stand for, whatever it is. If we believe torture is necessary, then let's not lie about it or redefine the word to suit our purposes. That's a bit too Orwellian for me.

HEY DUMBASS in order to get ahead in the war on terror u need important information and the only way to get that is by torture, not by giving them a freakin candy bar. I say torture until they talk and if they don't talk kill em.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I'm not usually one to get in political debates.

I may get in trouble for asking this but, TT, what is your argument?

You say they can't follow your argument but I have yet to see your point because you haven't offered one.

AFT, TIS and AUR have given you their rebuttal to your article and all you can do is say they can't follow the argument. What's your point?

This is the same question I will ask any candidate that comes up for president.

So here's your chance, get my vote.

The post I linked to was by Andrew Sullivan, a noted conservative who initially supported the invasion of Iraq, but have been very critical of certain practices. If you read to the bottom of it, he closes with this:

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes

Waterboarding has a been a particular focus of this debate. Here's a summary of the issues surrounding it:

Waterboarding is a form of torture[1] or more specifically water torture or water cure. It is used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and for punishment and intimidation. Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, which produces a severe gag reflex, making the subject believe his death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage. "The threat of imminent death" is one of the legal definitions of torture under U.S. law [2]. The UN Convention against Torture prohibits the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering [3][4] In November 2005, anonymous sources told ABC news that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency uses waterboarding, but does not deem it torture.[5] However CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon has said the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention." (ibid.)

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized its use in the interrogations of U.S. War on Terrorism detainees.[6] Though the Bush administration has never formally acknowledged its use, Vice President Dick Cheney told an interviewer that he did not believe "a dunk in water" to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[7]

According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "very exquisite torture" and a mock execution, which can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." [8]

...

[edit]Effects

The physical effects of poorly executed waterboarding can include extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can be long lasting. Prolonged waterboarding can also result in death. [13]

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states, "[He] argued that it was indeed torture. 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. 'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,' he said."[14]

Proponents argue that the technique is effective in producing information. Opponents, however, argue that this information may not be reliable because a person under such duress may be willing to admit to anything. The UN Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994 [1], provides in Article 2: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

[edit]Legality

On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual was adopted amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.

...

There have been many reports that the United States has used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners captured in its War on Terrorism. In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed the CIA had engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", against suspected members of al Qaeda, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

We don't call it "torture". We call it an "enhanced interrogation technique." Did you happen to see Tenet on 60 Minutes playing this word game?

TIS says this:

You have to be willing to be just a little more ruthless than the enemy.

He thinks to win the War on Terror, we MUST become more ruthless than the worst Al Qaeda terrorist.

I think that the more we become like them, they win.

But if our actual position as a country is that we are now willing to torture suspects, then let's at least be honest about that. If we are adopting TIS's view, let's not be disingenuous with word games. We should be able to embrace proudly what we believe and stand for, whatever it is. If we believe torture is necessary, then let's not lie about it or redefine the word to suit our purposes. That's a bit too Orwellian for me.

HEY DUMBASS in order to get ahead in the war on terror u need important information and the only way to get that is by torture, not by giving them a freakin candy bar. I say torture until they talk and if they don't talk kill em.

BTW, Sandclawed Tiger, BoJackass is another one those guys who can't really follow an argument or have a discussion.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, like your hero, DICK Dubrin, you're comparing our troops to NAZIS. How quaint. Even though Michael Moore made it a key point of his pro-socialized medicine propaganda piece to state the the prison hospital at Guantanamo Bay was the best in the Caribbean. So the prisoners at Gitmo are getting damn good care. What they're NOT getting is; their fingers dislocated, their tongues cut out, their extremeties hacked off , electricuted, fed feet first into industrial sized wood chippers.... things that ALL happened in Saddam's reign. In other words, they're not getting TORTURED.

So stop F-ing saying we torture, you America hating #$$ - hole!

You've never followed an argument yet. Why should today be any different?

You just post the same hate-filled garbage, regardless.

TT, you're just too much of an intellectual coward to go toe to toe w/ anyone who disputes your crap. YOUR WORDS - " Turns out, "enhanced interrogation" as a euphemism for torture is nothing new " . You have absolutely nothing to back that claim up, other than the similiarities between the language used. Tactics toward combatents by the U.S. have NEVER been revealed, and yet you're agreeing w/ the charge that we torture. That's horse$hit, and you know it. We DO NOT TORTURE. The faulty logic you use is that if the NAZIs used euphanisms for torture, and we use similarly translated words when discussing our interrogation tactics, then we ALSO must be guilty of torture. The only hate filled garbage being posted here is yours. For the sake of AUNation's enviroment, please stop the dumping.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

So, like your hero, DICK Dubrin, you're comparing our troops to NAZIS. How quaint. Even though Michael Moore made it a key point of his pro-socialized medicine propaganda piece to state the the prison hospital at Guantanamo Bay was the best in the Caribbean. So the prisoners at Gitmo are getting damn good care. What they're NOT getting is; their fingers dislocated, their tongues cut out, their extremeties hacked off , electricuted, fed feet first into industrial sized wood chippers.... things that ALL happened in Saddam's reign. In other words, they're not getting TORTURED.

So stop F-ing saying we torture, you America hating #$$ - hole!

You've never followed an argument yet. Why should today be any different?

You just post the same hate-filled garbage, regardless.

TT, you're just too much of an intellectual coward to go toe to toe w/ anyone who disputes your crap. YOUR WORDS - " Turns out, "enhanced interrogation" as a euphemism for torture is nothing new " . You have absolutely nothing to back that claim up, other than the similiarities between the language used. Tactics toward combatents by the U.S. have NEVER been revealed, and yet you're agreeing w/ the charge that we torture. That's horse$hit, and you know it. We DO NOT TORTURE. The faulty logic you use is that if the NAZIs used euphanisms for torture, and we use similarly translated words when discussing our interrogation tactics, then we ALSO must be guilty of torture. The only hate filled garbage being posted here is yours. For the sake of AUNation's enviroment, please stop the dumping.

Take a wiff of oxygen and answer a simple question-- Do you think waterboarding is torture?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

TIS says this:

You have to be willing to be just a little more ruthless than the enemy.

He thinks to win the War on Terror, we MUST become more ruthless than the worst Al Qaeda terrorist.

I think that the more we become like them, they win.

But if our actual position as a country is that we are now willing to torture suspects, then let's at least be honest about that. If we are adopting TIS's view, let's not be disingenuous with word games. We should be able to embrace proudly what we believe and stand for, whatever it is. If we believe torture is necessary, then let's not lie about it or redefine the word to suit our purposes. That's a bit too Orwellian for me.

Your nuttier than a squirrels turd. To win this fight, we can't expect to remain perfectly sanitary. American troops do not torture the enemy, and your insinuation that they do is abominable. Right now we're too soft. We've got a military that is the equivalent of a Porche sports car (among AMC Pacers) being bridled by a self imposed 15 mph speed limit. We have the capability to win this war and win it decisively. Our only problem is the left won't let us do it. They insist we "pretty please" these savages into submission. It's not going to work. We have to put the fear of Allah into them, and playing patty cake isn't going to do it. If we are expected to be the only ones to adhere to these "rules", then we should abolish the Department of Defense altogether, disband the military, and raise the white flag of surrender right now, because we will never win this fight playing with such a stacked deck. These rules you like to wave in our face were brought about to provide guidelines of treatment of captured uniformed members of an opposing countrys armed forces. These people we are fighting do not fit this description. They are allowed to hide and shoot from behind civilians, shoot from hospitals and holy places, capture and torture (the true form of the word) uniformed members of the military, murder at will, and generally conduct themselves in every manner outside of the conventions of wartime conduct all the while being afforded liberties and protections based on our constitution and judicial system.

I predicted this problem prior to 2003. I said, "We can not win this war in a courtroom or on the front page of the newspaper. It has to be won on the battlefield, and our military has to be trusted by the American people to get the job done." I've said it numerous times since then and I'll repeat it just for you, TT. Some peoples hatred for the president is so deep that it clouds their ability to think rationally. This seething hatred allows them to label anything associated with this administration (including the military) as evil and part of the overall problem.

Answer me this. If you were personally going to have to fight someone, would you allow your hands to be tied behind your back after your first couple of punches while your opponent is allowed to use every known dirty trick and tactic at his disposal to kill you? If you answer yes, you're a **********ing liar. Why do you insist our troops be treated as such? By your view, even tickling these savages until they pissed themselves would be described as torture since their soiled trousers would cause them emotional distress and pain. This is what I have a problem with. You all say that Iraq isn't worth the life of an American soldier, yet you devalue the life of that soldier by taking information that may save his life out of his hands.

Read your history books. Look how we conducted ourselves in WWII. We did what had to be done to defeat the threat and end the fight as quickly as possible. We bombed the **** out of entire cities and killed countless non-combatants. What effect did the bombing of Tokyo have on the morale of the Japanese military? Was the outcome worth the cost in civilian lives? Our leaders and our citizens understood that we had to go in and be willing to use everything necessary to win the fight. The difference in then and now is people back then didn't naturally assume their country and their warriors to be the enemy and the root of the problem in the fight. War today has changed a lot. The American soldier is expected to take every precaution to avoid civilian casualites and they do a damn good job of it. They are the only ones on the battlefield that give a damn about the civilian population, yet these soldiers are considered to be the real terrorists by some of their own countrymen. I still believe that people like you are the minority, but it still doesn't excuse the endless and baseless nazi references made against our troops. Sleep well at night knowing that there are brave men and women in the world who will be standing guard to keep you safe. These people are doing their jobs admirably, despite being spat at and stabbed in the back by a small group of ungrateful malcontents back home.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Who's going to pay for this?

ACLU Sues Boeing Subsidiary for Participation in CIA Kidnapping and Torture Flights

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Company, on behalf of three victims of the United States government's unlawful "extraordinary rendition" program. The lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel and Ahmed Agiza to secret overseas locations where they were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/29920prs20070530.html

[AURaptor 1,126]

TexasTiger wrote:

Take a wiff of oxygen and answer a simple question-- Do you think waterboarding is torture?

No. But you seem to have a problem distinguishing why it is we'd ever even CONSIDER using waterboarding in the 1st place. We're questioning hardened terrorist, who have been trained to NOT give in to standard interrogation methods. We're trying to get information out of these guys , with the hopes of saving lives. Be it lives of innocent civilians or the lives of soldiers. We want to track these ba$tards down and capture them, so we can put an end to the madness. Many times, we go the opposite direction, and shower them with kindness, so as to gain their trust. UNLIKE Saddam or the al Qaeda types, those guys want to simply inflict pain and agony for the sake of inflicting pain and agony on anyone they deem worth their time. That's the point you're oblivious to. You equate the methods used as meaning we must be EXACTLY like them. We're not, not by a long shot.

Hopefully a shred of sunlight can make it into your dark mind and you can see the light here.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Okay, Sandyclaw, now I can say that neither TIS or Raptor followed my point. They make up arguments and assertions and argue against those instead. I never once said our troops were torturing, but TIS constantly uses them for rhetorical purposes. I talked about our policy making at the very top levels.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Have you ever really "had a point" in this forum?

BTW, where's your boy Al? Haven't seen him around here in a long while.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Have you ever really "had a point" in this forum?

BTW, where's your boy Al? Haven't seen him around here in a long while.

I suspect he tired of wasting his time.

BTW, if you want honestly feel someone is tying our hands behind our back and not letting the military fight this fight, your anger at me is misplaced. I have no power. I simply said, let's decide what our policy needs to be, own it and be proud of it:

But if our actual position as a country is that we are now willing to torture suspects, then let's at least be honest about that. If we are adopting TIS's view, let's not be disingenuous with word games. We should be able to embrace proudly what we believe and stand for, whatever it is. If we believe torture is necessary, then let's not lie about it or redefine the word to suit our purposes.

This war started with a President with overwhelming support in Congress. Even after Dem support faded, he still controlled both houses of Congress until 2007. If the policy in Iraq has been too restrictive on the military, how is that anybody else's fault but the commander-in-chief? How on earth am I to blame for that? Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush...they called the shots. If your hands were tied, they tied them, not me.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Okay, Sandyclaw, now I can say that neither TIS or Raptor followed my point. They make up arguments and assertions and argue against those instead. * I never once said our troops were torturing, but TIS constantly uses them for rhetorical purposes. I talked about our policy making at the very top levels.

Once again, for the reading impaired.

* TexasTiger wrote: Turns out, "enhanced interrogation" as a euphemism for torture is nothing new.

Umm, looks like you're saying that our troops are torturers. By comparing what the NAZIS said and what they did, you're equating that to what our troops are doing to the Islamo-fascists when they engage in 'enhanced interrogation'. I'm following your point, using your own words. Sorry, but if what you mean can't be derived at by what you SAY, then stop saying stupid stuff in the 1st place.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Okay, Sandyclaw, now I can say that neither TIS or Raptor followed my point. They make up arguments and assertions and argue against those instead. * I never once said our troops were torturing, but TIS constantly uses them for rhetorical purposes. I talked about our policy making at the very top levels.

Once again, for the reading impaired.

* TexasTiger wrote: Turns out, "enhanced interrogation" as a euphemism for torture is nothing new.

Umm, looks like you're saying that our troops are torturers. By comparing what the NAZIS said and what they did, you're equating that to what our troops are doing to the Islamo-fascists when they engage in 'enhanced interrogation'. I'm following your point, using your own words. Sorry, but if what you mean can't be derived at by what you SAY, then stop saying stupid stuff in the 1st place.

You infer what you want based on your own perverted filter. Another option would be actually reading the whole thing and thinking a moment before launching into one of your hatefilled rants, but I suppose the only reason you come here is to vent your anger. Hope it keeps you from taking it out on those within arms reach.

[AFTiger 282]

Face it Raptor, you are too stupid to understand TT's harangues.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Okay, Sandyclaw, now I can say that neither TIS or Raptor followed my point. They make up arguments and assertions and argue against those instead. * I never once said our troops were torturing, but TIS constantly uses them for rhetorical purposes. I talked about our policy making at the very top levels.

Once again, for the reading impaired.

* TexasTiger wrote: Turns out, "enhanced interrogation" as a euphemism for torture is nothing new.

Umm, looks like you're saying that our troops are torturers. By comparing what the NAZIS said and what they did, you're equating that to what our troops are doing to the Islamo-fascists when they engage in 'enhanced interrogation'. I'm following your point, using your own words. Sorry, but if what you mean can't be derived at by what you SAY, then stop saying stupid stuff in the 1st place.

You infer what you want based on your own perverted filter. Another option would be actually reading the whole thing and thinking a moment before launching into one of your hatefilled rants, but I suppose the only reason you come here is to vent your anger. Hope it keeps you from taking it out on those within arms reach.

1. There's no inferring required here, pal. The only thing perverted is your own comments. I posted YOUR OWN WORDS. If you can't handle having your own words read back to you, then stop posting.

2. There's nothing 'hatefilled' about my post, what so ever. You call our troops torturers, I'm gonna come after you. It's just that simple.

3. Fortunatly for you, you're out of arms reach. Because I am angry at those who try to blame America for that which it isn't at fault.