Why are you being such an ass? I am entitled to my opinion, which by the way, is the same as millions of other Americans. I have learned about this stuff over the past 8 years. I am not an expert, and I don't believe I have ever suggested otherwise.

yes, but we usually change for the better, not the other way around. How can we hold ourselves up as the moral beacons we claim to be if we engage in torture?

You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Absolutely nothing.

If you support torture, you're scum.

It really is that simple.

But that is always sufficient proof to extremists. It proved global warming does not exist. It proved that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". It proved that stem cell research only kills people. It proved we did not have secret prisons. It proved we were not torturing. Then it proved we were torturing because only torture could extract intelligence. It also proved that Saddam and bin Laden conspired to create 11 September. It even proved that Saddam had WMDs. Why do you always forget that last sentence?

Which standard are we using? One routinely found in Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and Fox News reality? One that also justifies lying? Or one that is exists in science, logic, and history?

Why the double standard? Oh. One standard for proof routinely used lies - ie a court case in Dover PA or Terry Schiavo incident.

Reality, the only way to 'turn' someone means no torture. But then six years of torturing John McCain proves that torture works? They even tortured one 'terrorist' 183 times in one month and still could not get the *truth*? Reality: only when 24 (a TV show) becomes proof that torture works. And yes, the tone is fully appropriate because I am using the attitude used by those who advocate torture.

Those who first need facts before knowing have repeatedly defined torture as useless - including the FBI. Those with a long history of knowing only because that is the extremist political agenda are also advocating torture. Coincidence? So we should believe their denials? In the real world, one believes how Jordan and Indonesia turned terrorist - not how wacko extremist Americans say it must have happened.

That is the nature of extremism. First one knows. Later one learns why they should know. How curious. Exact same logic was used to keep torturing someone 183 times in one month until he said what he *knows*.

Maybe Jordan did not really turn those extremists. Does not matter. We know only extremists advocate torture. An only because they are told to believe it using emotion and even a TV show.

Let’s see. Hundreds of facts all show how torture does nothing productive. And yet the same extremists deny it without any proof and with what extremists also routinely do - lie. Simple benchmark. Some are more centrists. Others only believe what they are told to believe. Which ones did Hitler need to come to power? Not an insult. A damning question - also called a lesson from history.

Which ones did he already have? The conservatives, liberals or socialists?

I can't fucking believe you just drew that comparison.

:neutral:

The conservatives. They make the best nationalists, and he was busy scrapping with the communists at the time.

Sug, post your opinion, but if you post it with that smarmy "Please don't tell me you didn't already know this", make sure you get it exactly right, or we have the right and the responsibility to pwn your ass.

I doubt la Pop will learn that until she's had her lily-pale ass pwnd a couple times. Her thinking is yet unsophisticated -- and very clone-y. Won't be pleasant, but it may mature her, and her understanding.

Meanwhile, exerpted:

From here.

Hey, tw, has or has not the Arctic ice cap largely expanded (like by about a fifth), not shrunk, in the past two years? That some are saying that somehow this is evidence that global warming marches on tells me the global climate models still have systemic limitations. I'm not putting much faith in these doomsday extrapolations, because I have experience with them. And those various doomsdays were supposed to be ten years ago. Or so.

To whom? Certainly not to me, and tw thinks I'm the kind of wacko extremist who'd accept it. I can't name anyone of my acquaintance who did.

Tw believes somebody else, somewhere in America, must believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It's a stupid belief the Left has. He is secure in this belief because he's never tested it. Again, I can't name a single American who does think Saddam did it, which would seem to rather test the idea. What a silly idea tw has. And he can't let go of the silly. Well is the Left served.

WMD's? Yeah, it transpires that the assessment that Iraq had a viable WMD capability was an intelligence mistake -- one shared globally among every single intelligence service that concerned itself with Iraqi military strengths. It simply tells us that Iraq had everyone fooled. I think it was mainly for CYA in midlevel Iraqi officialdom. If your dictator tells you to create WMD, you don't tell him you're failing, or you really can't, unless you like getting executed in imaginative ways. So you get really determined about your CYA just to keep breathing. It also transpired that while Saddam didn't have viable WMD up and running, it was not for want of trying, nor for want of burying key apparatus where they hoped arms inspectors wouldn't look, like scientists' backyards. If ever Ba'ath Iraq got the chance, they'd hare right on after their own WMD.

So now, there's no Ba'athist Party left in Iraq.

From the NRO link above

There you have it. Now it comes down to what you want to believe.

The NRO item is old and sometimes wrong based on what's come out since; for example, Mr Goldberg says the detainees were WB'd for a total of less than five minutes, which doesn't concur at all with the numbers listed in the torture memos.

I saw that too. I wasn't sure whether this was correct or the memo's, so I let it be.

According to the CIA IG, there has never been an internal review to verify the claims made that the "harsh interrogations" provided any meaningful data or prevented any attack on the US (as has been asserted by Bush/Cheney). In act, suggestions for the necessity of such a review of interrogations tactics, because of their questionable nature, were ignored.

Kiriakou, the CIA analyst in question, by his words, was not present during the application of the "harsh interrogation techniques" and now acknowledges that waterboarding is torture and therefore, illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2007121100844

Not too long, we had a president who said this, regarding treatment of prisoners:
yes, Bush was talking specifically about abuses at Abu Ghraib....but why shouldnt it apply more broadly to any questionable treatment of prisoners?

But maybe the devil's in the details:

Not debating the waterboarding=torture issue, moreso the effectiveness which is also in question...

IMO, that is a cop out.

BY the standards of international treaties that we have signed, water board is torture -> torture is illegal.

Moreover, there is no credible independent evidence anywhere that you can cite that torture is more effective than other means of interrogation. The only thing you have in the above are second hand reports citing agents who may or may not have a personal vested interest in justifying their actions, paticularly if they believe those actions may be questionable as to the law.

And in any case, the ends dont justify the means......never...ever....except in the TV land of saving America from terrorists.

Either we are a country that lives by the rule of law or not.

Either we do as Bush said:

“It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered.”

Or we do as Bush did (unilaterally circumvent US treaty obligations and block investigations).

ok - fine call it a cop out but I offered some credible information from your post as to the effectiveness of waterboarding. I offered that disclaimer on my post specifically to challenge that point. There are two arguments going on here.
1) Waterboardings effectiveness aand
2) The legality of it.
Regarding, as you put it, "what Bush did" you better include a bunch of Democratic leaders like Pelosi in there also. At least be honest enough for that.
I have repeatedly posted my opinion on torture and its legal status.
You, however, have repeatedly dismissed citations by professionals and insiders that counter what you WANT to believe. That's fine too. Just so we are all clear.

Torture is illegal and immoral.

That is the bottom line for me.

I dont waffle over the issue or sugarcoat if with "what if" scenarios or second hand reports of its allegedl effectiveness as you have.

Its just a discussion - but another nice attempt at avoidance and criticism.

But along those lines - would you sacrifice thousands or even tens of thousands of lives by not "torturing" one man? Just curious.

LOl.....more waffles?

Either torture is acceptable or not....I have no fucking idea where you stand on the issue.

I have made my position as clear as can be.

If I wanted to play that game, I would audition to be Jack Bauer's replacement.

Its a bullshit scenario to justify an illegal action.

added:

IMO, It is appalling to see Scalia, a sitting US Supreme Court Justice, play that game:
Relevant background for constitutional jurisprudence......WTF?

WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.

WOW....how obtuse can you be not to understand what I posted?

Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.

YES....it is a bullshit question.

NO...i'm not gonna play your game.

How's that?

Or just change my answers...you're good at changing others words for them.

Only extremists see the world in terms of 'yes' and 'no'. The rest of the world has no answers if the answer does not come with the many reasons why.

Worse, the world is not binary. Everything is ternary. But to keep it simple - so that Rush can tell extremists how to think - everything is expressed only in binary terms: Yes and No.

I am repeating what King Abdullah said in an interview on Sunday Merc, and I said as much. Take it up with him, 'K?

no game - just a discussion of a real life situation that HAD to be dealt with. You chose not to decide that is your choice. Be very very thankful you had that option.

What real life situation have we faced, or even remotely possible that we may face, where the only response is that black or white.....NONE, dude.

But I am very very thankful that our current president is not making policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios.....now if we could only get Scalia to retire....I will feel safer for the country's future.

UT, I said that because classicman is a very informed individual, and I found it hard to believe that I would know something that he didn't. I didn't mean it in a condescending way. I meant it in a "I can't believe you don't know this" stunned kind of way. It's hard to imagine how people mean something when they're typing on the internet, because you can't see the expression on their face or hear the inflection in their voice.

And ftr, I DID get it exactly right. We absolutely HAVE prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding.

So you would let the thousands die - got it.

Well ow there is a first - I've been called A LOT of things...

WHAT???????? Are you high again?

Right, Sug, we have prosecuted people for the Japanese style of waterboarding.

I think she was also taking about the Reagan DoJ that prosecuted a Texas sheriff and deputies for waterboarding.

The difference between our servicemen being subjected to it, and a prisoner, is the servicemen KNOW they will be OK, that nothing will happen to them. The prisoners, not so much. There is a HUGE difference in the psychology of those two things.

According to the members of the Tara Expedition, the ice is now only 3 feet deep, and the water underneath the ice, and the air, has warmed more than they thought it would have. It took them less than a year to travel across what took 2 years to travel 100 years ago. (or something like that. I'm going from memory.) You can go watch the program yourself... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840099/

HA! I actually know people who still claim that. It is not a figment of the imagination of the left.

classic, he said he doesn't believe in torture, so I believe the answer is right there. No. And there ARE other methods that can be used, and in the opinion of most people who know about such things, the "other ways" to get information work better and are more reliable.

Millions.

Yes. I actually cited 3 different references, I believe, this was one of them.

And waterboarding is waterboarding. It suffocates you. You lose consciousness. You have the fear you are drowning. The fact that the Japanese did other things in addition to waterboarding means nothing.

If you are in the hands of someone you trust, as in a demonstration or training situation, then mentally you know you will be OK because you know nothing bad is going to happen to you. In the case of being in the custody of an enemy, or a prison guard, the psychology is different. You fear for your life, because you DON'T know that, ultimately, you are safe. According to the definition of torture, that applies.

You have no frigging idea what you are talking about.

And if you are wrong? Will you run and hide like the rest of the Demoncratic roaches? How do you know that any president made "policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios". You don't. You are talking partisan bullshit as usual. You have no frigging clue because you are not read in.

I need more data for your real life scenario.

Is the alleged terrorist an Islamic extremist, an ideological urbane guerrilla, a mindless mercenary?

Hell, I could turn two out of the three just by playing their emotional strings....no challenge at all.

lol- good one or two, but seriously would you stick to your ideals and let potentially thousands die? Thats a scary scenario.

Tell us all about it, Rambo.

Millions.

Liberty or death wasn't just a speech. Either you have principles or you don't.

How often must facts be ignored? Jemaah Islamiya was destroyed BECAUSE nobody was tortured. That alone shows without doubt that classicman is lying. So that thousands would not die, Indonesia kept torturers (such as Nazis, George Jr, and classicman) away. Since they did not torture, thousands of lives were saved.

As the FBI and other professionals note (even America's WWII interrogators), the well is poisoned when torture is used. Only those educated by 24 (or with a UG mentality) would deny this. In fact, anyone who advocates torture is a threat to fundamental American principles.

They tortured the Iraqi General repeatedly so that he died. He would not disclose where Saddam was hiding his WMDs. Wacko extremists approved. Death proved that torture works. Obviously his death caused other to disclose Saddam’s WMDs. classicman's logic proves it. He *feels* it works - therefore it must work.

Extremists will even lie to themselves. 1) Extremists first denied that America was torturing. 2) Then lie again to claim torture works. 3) Then lie again to deny that thousands will die if torture is used. How many more lies? Wacko extremism is alive and well. Which even justifies lying? Only head in the sand are extremists who must always deny facts to believe their feelings.

Lying is routine among religous extremists and those who love to torture. Worse, classicman will not even deny his many lies including the above three.

This is really all you had to say.

You cannot be serious. I need not deny anything. It is here for all to see. Your insanity is leaching out in all your posts. You better take an extra dose before writing any more. Perhaps another Dr's visit is in order as well.

The fact that there is dissent in the opinions of those who know infinitely more than you or I does not constitute MY BELIEF. The fact that there is information and professionals who disagree with you and may be right - IS A REALITY. Deal with it.I post their opinions and the information as it is available. All you post are things that support your position. How enlightening that must be - NOT.

UT.....The DoJ OPR investigation (to determine if the attorneys who wrote the torture memos were guided solely by legal issues or slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted) could very well come down to e-mails:
IF....the OPR finds that there was political influence......the shit will hit the fan.

But as you noted....we await this finding.

And for people whose driving ideals are so unpopular they must use violence to persuade instead of reason -- id est, terrorists -- this is bad how?

All mankind except for sugarpop, who has never once looked at it this way, wants these enemies of humanity in precisely that state of mind. Thus, they may be cracked, and certain of their fellow creatures thereby denied a chance to assail other human beings.

The difference you're so concerned with is therefore unimportant. The terrs are people, sugarpop, who would as cheerfully lop off your head as they would mine, in your case after multiple gang rapes and sundry mutilations. Ever seen that one "after" picture of the partisan girl the Nazis got hold of in Russia? That might be you. That is their human rights record, and it is far worse than ours.

And I wouldn't do it to them. Despite knowledge of their human rights record. That's because I'm so much better a man than they can be. You might try being a sensible woman.

So if the police capture a suspected criminal, say a possible mass murderer, and drag in his family, neighbors and friends, and torment them for years with waterboarding, slapping them around, confining them in small boxes with things that are known to terrify them, etc., without charge and without access to lawyers or courts, you'd be perfectly ok with that? You wouldn't expect the community to go up in arms about police brutality because, after all, eventually one of them might crack and give up something that may turn out to be useful.

It's the ends that matter, not the means, right?

You're perfectly fine with that?

If not, why not? What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors? Is it the potential number of victims? Is one life, or 20, or 100, not as important to protect from the alleged mass murderer as the potential hundreds or thousands threatened by the alleged terrorists? Is it a quantity issue to you?

suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors

26 people interrogated with "harsh techniques", 3 with the harshest.

Is it a quantity issue to you?

It certainly is. Would you *not* do it if, say, everyone in NYC were at risk?

I would not do it under any circumstances. Even if your life were at stake. Even if my husband's life was at stake.

It is inhumane.

It is illegal.

It violates our Constitution.

It's in violation of International Treaties we've signed.

It's proven to be unreliable.

It bears repeating, it's illegal and inhumane.

Now, answer my questions, please. I'll repeat them with bullet points so you don't miss any.

• [i]f the police capture a suspected criminal, say a possible mass murderer, and drag in his family, neighbors and friends, and torment them for years with waterboarding, slapping them around, confining them in small boxes with things that are known to terrify them, etc., without charge and without access to lawyers or courts, you'd be perfectly ok with that?
  
• It's the ends that matter, not the means, right?
  
• What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors?
  
• Is one life, or 20, or 100, not as important to protect from the alleged mass murderer as the potential hundreds or thousands threatened by the alleged terrorists?
  
• Is it a quantity issue to you? (Apparently yes, but I'd like a clarification and a quantification. At what number of potential victims does torture become acceptable to you?)

Because you said please.

No, I would not legalize torture in any form to be used in law enforcement. However, it is routinely done. (see my thread: Is tasering torture?)

What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists

Enforcing rule of law is an entirely different matter from protecting a country during wartime. Do you want your cops killing gang members on the street? Of course not. Do you want your soldiers in 1944 shooting at Japanese soldiers, whose country's goal is to destroy the US? Yes you do.

It is inhumane.

To not do whatever you can to foil plots to kill thousands and hurt the country is inhumane.

It is illegal.

Ah, but the law is never so black and white...

It violates our Constitution.

Constitutional protections are not available for non-citizens who are not living in the US.

It's in violation of International Treaties we've signed.

I think this is true, but probably not important. I would expect that the authors did not consider the possibility of suddenly having to fight a shadowy network of combatants, scattered around every corner of the globe, some places which are signatories and some not.

It's proven to be unreliable.

I doubt it, and I'm sure all gathered intelligence is validated using sophisticated methods we can't even imagine.

So the fact that something you consider torture, which has not been legally classified as torture, happens in law enforcement from time to time, means what, exactly? False equivalence. If gang members took to the streets and started shooting at law enforcement, I would absolutely support the police shooting to kill. That's what happens during wartime; our troops are being fired upon, or are at imminent risk of being fired upon, and they are returning fire with fire, which is always an appropriate response. To not do whatever you can that works, and doesn't compromise the value of the information obtained is, indeed, inhumane. No one is suggesting that potential or accused terrorists be left entirely alone to further their plots unencumbered. The implication is absurd. The motto "by any means necessary" is contrary to the nature of the free world, and what separates us from those who you refer to as being for "unfreedom". We do not beat them by becoming them. It certainly is in this case. It has been prosecuted by both law enforcement and the military, resulting in convictions and court-martials. You misunderstand. It is a violation of our Constitution to violate the terms of our Treaties, that makes it defacto in violation of our Constitution. See Article VI, which reads, in part: Of course it's important. You don't get to just poo-poo away our responsibilities under treaties we're signatories to, just because they may not have anticipated a certain kind of enemy. That excuse is nothing new, by the way. From the previously linked NPR article: Your doubts notwithstanding, even the CIA admits to its unreliability.

Actually, she does, and you don't. To confirm that, why don't we ask one of our servicemen who was a part of that program. . . I think I'll take the word of someone with first-hand experience, both in training and being the recipient of this technique, over some dude on a message board whose partisan panties are in a twist.

You would kill the Japanese soldiers even if they weren't returning fire; you'd also kill civilians, who happened to be unlucky enough to be driving across a bridge at the wrong time, or working in a plant you destroyed.


We've already had that McClatchy story in the thread, and we've discussed it at length. The CIA IG didn't say enhanced techniques weren't effective, period; he said they weren't helpful in thwarting any specific imminent attacks.


What I find remarkable is how certain you are of the effectiveness of these methods. How could you have this level of certainty? You're at odds with the CIA interrogators whom, I'm certain, know more about it than do you or I or anybody writing for McClatchy. I'm guessing that it works because the CIA interrogators think it works. I'm also guessing that it works because I personally am a huge pussy, and would tell every intimate detail I had in order to avoid even getting tased.


I am guessing that your certainty is driven less from application of careful thought, and more from the fiery passionate hate you hold for torture. Your passion is admirable, and shows you deeply care. But don't let it burn you because at the end of the day there is no substitute for careful thought.