How, exactly, are we destroying our way of life? I'm guessing that you're attempting to employ empty rhertoric in support of your argument, because, quite frankly, this makes no sense.

Let's say we're talking about out-and-out torture (even though I support no such thing). Employing said torture against those who are not protected by our freedoms; who, in fact wish to destroy our freedoms, does NOT compromise said freedoms in any way. In fact, it may protect them.

Nice job attempting to use a lefty talking-point, without attempting to make sense of it.

:har::har::har::har:
Have you ever considered learning to read?
Try this line again very slowly , get a responible adult to help if you get stuck....
Now then would that American interogator be who did interrogations on over 300 terrorists in Iraq deal with people who did bombings ?
Did he say that in the ticking bomb situations relating to both IEDs and suicide bombings the torture doesn't really work ?
So please tell me as I am quite interested in the workings of a fruitcake mind , who is this mythical STUPID person you refer to who claimed that terrorists don't attempt to bomb ?
Once you have figured that one out we can deal with how the mythical STUPID person pretends there are no national interests .

Wow , thanks for explaining that , I always wondered why I needed a passport and why Saudi Arabia has crazy laws , now I realise its because the world has different cultures and nations . Blimey I must have been really ignorant before you enlightened me , I offer my heartfelt thanks to you for curing me of the strange confusion I got when I looked at those funny lines in an atlas .

Such hard questions .:rotfl:
What is the United States of America ? what are its founding principles and driving ethos ?
How does the rejection of the rule of law and the acceptance of barbarous practices that the State rightly condemns when others do it destroy that ?
Come to think of it didn't one of your founding fathers have a very well used line that summed it up .

Awful, and there's absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. I admit that our stance on torture won't deter our current enemy, but what we're doing now sets a dangerous precedent.

Stop taking out all your prejudices against the left on me. Where do I call them sadists? Where do I say they were doing it for cheap thrills? POINT ME TO AN EXACT *******ING QUOTE!

In my opinion those who authorized and used methods that are now officially considered torture did so thinking that they were doing good. They were pursuing a very narrow goal (getting a detainee to talk), and they failed to see the wider consequences of their actions. They were guilty of shortsightedness and narrow thinking, not malice.

Again, stop portraying me as your (fictional) stereotypical leftie. You wouldn't like it if I came here and started slandering you with everything I don't like about the right.

The use of the methods that are now considered torture was widespread. Lots of detainees were tortured, and some were tortured hundreds of times. You can't honestly believe that they were going after a specific piece of info in every case.

I personally think that the methods were authorized for a very specific circumstance, and once it was used the first time the dam was broken, so to speak. Their use became more widespread until it became systematic.

Well, I guess I'll go back to the guy who told me those things and tell him he's wrong. He's only the former Director of the CIA, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Have you ever considered learning to write, much less comprehend?

Please read the specifics of what I was responding to. Should be simple: I used the "quote" feature.Again, I ask you to consult a specialist on educating you to read. None of this is related to my point.

When did I state there was a mythical "stupid" person that terrorists don't attempt to bomb? Seriously, is that the best you've got? :rotfl:

Also, is the entire basis of your argument structured around the insight of one singular individual speaking to the Washington Post?

Perhaps I should start a thread about how the world is flat because one individual from the Flat Earth Society said so... :doh:Ah, yes ... thick sarcasm to explain that you acknowledge that what I am saying is fact, all the while taking positions and attempting to make points that are in direct contravention with said facts.

Nice work. You just earned a Bronze in the Debate Special Olympics.

You know, if you want to make a point on a topic it helps to actually make a point, rather than feigning insult. In other words, you should be able to show why I'm wrong substantively. Yet, you clearly dodge the issue.

Hmm, wonder why...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051103412.html


Torture always gets you what you want to know. Whether what you want to know is true or not.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/op...=3&ref=opinion

From an FBI interrogator


More on this from Andrew Sullivan - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6168270.ece

Our stance on so-called "torture" isn't meant to deter an enemy. It is designed to acquire information. This is a very important distinction.Blah, blah ...

Please read my point again. There are only THREE real reasons for using enhanced interrogations. One reason is that it works (which you don't believe). The second reason is that those using it are idiots because it doesn't work (you believe that it doesn't work). The third is that those using the method don't care whether or not it works, because they enjoy the method.

So, considering that you clearly state that you don't believe it works, we are left with two options. Now, (pay attention, as this is difficult), either our service people and CIA operatives are complete morons and continue to use a method of interrogation that doesn't work (as you somehow managed to figure out with no real-world experience whatsoever), or they are sadists.

I apologize - I deduced your position based upon available facts. I didn't mean to make an educated inference without a specific quote to prove it.

It's called "intelligence". It works.What a broad statement...

A CIA or military interrogator is not charged with seeing "the wider consequences" - they are charged with gaining the needed information.

As such, we default to the three options.Honestly, I wouldn't cry about it because I'm not completely on the right (although I do lean right). You can say whatever you want with my point of view, and even generalize it ... and I have the intellectual integrity to back my view up or specifically explain why your summation of said view is inaccurate.Actually, I can say that they were going after specific information in each case ... because that's what makes sense.

You are the one making the charges. Therefore, furnish proof that I am wrong, as that is your burden.

In any case, if you're correct and there is broad, indiscriminate torture being used on a wholesale basis, I am against it just as much as you are. But your point seems to infer that your problem is with indiscrimate application of enhanced interrogation (just as I am). Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the point.

That inference naturally leads to that you are okay with enhanced interrogation being used for specific information from specific individuals ... which means you agree with me all along.

So, let's ask the question and cut the crap, shall we? If we have someone in custody, who's aware of an imminent threat and is not disclosing it, should we be able to use enhanced interrogation methods?I give you credit for not attempting to over reach blame here. However, are you implying that, should we go back to specifics it would be okay?Somehow I doubt that ... either that, or you don't understand what he's talking about.

Like I said, indeed there is an abundance of information ... sorting through it is not the problem, however. We don't have the RIGHT information.

I know. For a fact.

Simple-minded.

Seriously, is it that hard for you to think of a simple way to confirm the veracity of the information given under pressure? Just ask, and I'll spell it out for you.

Oh, and don't expect anyone to go crazy over an FBI agent's account for what works and doesn't work. They are citizens, just like you and me, and therefore are subject to the same politcal bias'.

What?
Information obtained under torture turns out to be unreliable, concocted, made up.

What?
There was no attempt to confirm that information, because it was that they wanted to hear. Saddam and Al-Qaeda working together.

So you think that this first-hand account is not to be believed, because the writer............is a citizen?


An update from toady's NYT on the circumstances of Congressional knowledge. - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/op...html?th&emc=th

It's crazy how we, as a nation, wrote all this stuff down, isn't it?

Funny how our Constitution doesn't cover the topic...

Again, I ask you to demonstrate how this specifically will destroy the American way of life. For some reason I'm betting you'll avoid this question yet again, as you clearly have no answer.

Under certain conditions, you're right.

However, under other conditions it invariably turns out to be accurate.

This is the difference between asking "what do you know" to someone who knows nothing and "where's your base" to someone who knows.Please tell me you're not serious... You honestly think this is the only information ever obtained, and therefore is your example at making a point?

Like I offerred, I could explain a very simply way such questioning would work and be verified. Ironic how you dodged that and set a straight course for an ultra liberal talking point (which makes little sense to begin with).Erm, no ... this is, like, the easiest point to get ... (seriously, Aramike's in the ring, dude)...

Being a "citizen" was only PART of my point. You clearly ignored my outright statement of "subject to political bias". Also, you ignored my inference that he is ONE CITIZEN.

Bet you there's ONE CITIZEN of similar qualifications who's on the other side of the issue...

In any case, politcal bias on both sides is why I don't rely on either of them to form my opinion. I use common sense. I suggest you try my technique.

Says it all , torture is torture , no two ways about it , putting it in parenthesis just shows that your views are totally ignorant on the subject.


Yes therei s a way , which is why the ticking bomb to justify torture arguement is crap , because torture doesn't provide reliable information .

You have no point , you are attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

Perhaps you shouild look at the multitude if interrogators who have spoken during this recent episode , and then go back through recent history or even ancient history and maybe realise why it is you who is the equivalent of the flat earther on this subject .

No that is sarcasm directed at the irrelevant crap you wrote .

You described a position as STUPID , you implied that someone was taking that position , since no one has then obviously you are refering to a mythical person .

Posession of a funtioning brain shows you to be wrong , substantively wrong . Torture is illegal , waterboarding under every definition of torture is torture , torture is ineffective at providing reliable information , unreliable information is not much use and is actually a hinderence in cases like the "ticking bomb" where accuracy is essential .
Plus of course for good measure your knowledge of both international and American law is woefully lacking any credibility , which of course completely undrmines your "destroying way of life" nonsense .

But hey lets put it simply so that perhaps even you can grasp it . America says waterboarding is torture , American courts say waterboarding is torture . Every year the American government does these nice little reports on how screwed up countries are , one measure for assesment of how screwed up the country is is the use of torture in those countries , crazy tin pot dictatorships get bad marks from the State Dept because they use torture . If you support your country using torture you are lowering it to the same level of those crazy tin pot dictatorships .
Now if you don't think that making your country the moral equivalent of N.Korea or Sudan is destroying your way of life then you really havn't thought at all

No. I don't think that. I haven't a clue where you're picking that up from. Show me where I said that this was the "only information ever obtained".

The information received under torture of this person was the centrepiece for Colin Powells claim that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working on WMD's together. I posted that above.
The information was wrong, and known to be problematic by DIA and some CIA. But it was included anyway. To me that displays a lack of concern to whether the information is accurate, or at least a willingness to accept non-verified information. Like Curveball.

Go on then, you don't need my permission to post something.

Not everything comes down to someone's "side". This guy was in the room, doing the interrogation. And he states that normal interrogation was working, contrary to what the OLC memo states.

So listening to the people who were involved in the process isn't "common sense"?
The words of the interrogators are discounted because of possible political bias?

Can you leave this out? It's really tiresome.

I'm going to have to start throwing penalty flags for personal attacks if you people cant have a discussion without lacing it with condescending remarks about others.

Keep it civil, or keep it the hell off of this forum. Simple as.

May as well lock it anyhow its wandered so far off the topic its not even reconizable.