Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about instead you stand by the debunked tripe you've been [trying and failing] passing off as legitate points [but can't / won't legitimize] to APPEAR credible [but repetedly are shown not to be] and stop the fuffy prancing.

as you like to say: Sources please........
 
Just for fun...I will offer a prize to the first person that successfully guesses my MOS (either old or new nomenclature) based on my posts.
Click to expand...
If I were to guess I'd say it was 96B. I suspect you're going to say 97E, but you don't talk like any of the 97E folks I've ever talked to/worked with.
 
How about instead you stand by the debunked tripe your [trying] to pass of as legitate points [but can't / won't legitimize] to APPEAR credible [but repetedly are shown not to be] and stop the fuffy prancing.
Click to expand...
Instead of prancing and pounding your chest (which only impresses the dull witted) how about you discredit anything I have said.
 
How about showing you were RIGHT for a change. You don't accept information that contradicts what you have you mind set on.

So how about explaining:
The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
Click to expand...

You blew past that. NOT effective but IS usefull...go ahead there.

OR.............
A) As I do not believe (and I think most do not) that our elite military interrogators are performing waterboarding out of some sadistic revenge impulse, then it logically follows that waterboarding has generated important intelligence, and is expected to continue to do so.

B) The United States is irrefutably the leader of the world, and is looked to for establishing political and moral leadership. This higher standard is a burden we bear whether we choose to accept it or not.

C) Our enemies are ill-prepared to appreciate the complexities of identity under the Geneva Conventions, they are brutal and sadistic. Our friends are less inclined to recognize and accept the technical correctness (torture vs compulsion, nat'l affiliaton vs none) of our operations under the GCs, because they hold us to a higher standard.

D) In conclusion, while waterboarding-as-policy is yielding actionable intelligence, it's value must be weighed against the damage it is doing to our image and reputation.
Click to expand...

A) "Elite military interrogators" are not the ones setting the policy and all studies done by "experts" and others show the opposite.

B) Only Americans actually believe that. Leave the country and see how well that idea is accepted.

C) I agree but they feel that people like Bush are just as bloodthirsty and ruthless and he has done everything he can to make them appear correct.

D) Once again, studies show exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
Sources........

Obviously the American leadership thing is too difficult to substantiate but the world does hold us to a higher standard.

What the 'experts' show opposite about waterboarding and/or doing it for sadistic reasons, and the bloodthirst of 'people like Bush', and these studies showing exactly the opposite.

As for yesterday try search the thread for 'wrong', 'flat wrong', and 'wrong s'more'.
 
What the 'experts' show opposite about waterbording, and the bloodthirst of 'people like Bush', and these studies showing exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
Links have already been posted to case studies, reports, and manuals by myself and others that say exactely that. How about you now address those studies and explain how you know better. Just saying "wrong" then stating your contrary opinion does not invalidate reality.

As for my comments about Bush, I think that one is not hard to prove. It is pretty obvious that most of the rest of the world sees Bush as a bloodthirsty cowboy. They do not try and hide it.
 
General David Petraeus wrote in 2007,
"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. …our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual, [section] (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees."
Click to expand...

Quote in from http://whitehouse.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=292932 which also sources other useful quotes. You want the field manual? Go to http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf&ei=KGzXR9f4M6POigGL4vyFAg&usg=AFQjCNGU0xWuF3tCSjlb5sf1iwGSlD407g&sig2=_ejB1MIqJHOo1lYox0Z4KA

So we can then hopefully realize that the statement "frequently neither useful nor necessary" is a synonym for "ineffective" and that the techniques in the manual are effective, even when limited by such "quaint" things as the Geneva Convention.

I agree with Dick Armitage as quoted in the first link above:
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who underwent waterboarding during SERE training, said this: “As a human being, fear and helplessness are pretty overwhelming. … this is not a discussion that Americans should ever be having. It is torture.”
Click to expand...
 
That is not a real request because you have already been shown case studies and official statements about torturous acts and you choose to keep playing this game of semantics by saying waterboarding is not specifically mentioned...despite the fact it fits all descriptions.
Click to expand...

Again, you say it does. Others say it doesn't. You ASSUME that the authors of the articles share your presumption yet you fail to provide any evidence to support this.

It is equally likely that the authors did not consider waterboarding when they wrote what they wrote. Your entire argument relies on a guess plain and simple.

And this isn't even taking into consideration the real world results.




That is like saying rum will not harm your liver because all studies just say "alcohol" and not rum specifically.

And I would love to see your response to the second part of that post.
Click to expand...

I already have when I asked you to show me where the US has specifically stated that waterboarding is torture.
 
I already have when I asked you to show me where the US has specifically stated that waterboarding is torture
Click to expand...
If you look back to page two (I think) you will see where I quoted the official USA/UN joint sanctioned definition of torture.
 
So we can then hopefully realize that the statement "frequently neither useful nor necessary" is a synonym for "ineffective" and that the techniques in the manual are effective, even when limited by such "quaint" things as the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

And again, the army has legal issues that the CIA does not have to deal with. I'm perfectly fine with them staying out of this game.
 
And again, the army has legal issues that the CIA does not have to deal with. I'm perfectly fine with them staying out of this game.
Click to expand...
See, you do not want to hear the facts. That is first class rationalization.

PS: What are the issues that MI has to deal with that the CIA (another govt entity) does not have to deal with?
 
And again, the army has legal issues that the CIA does not have to deal with. I'm perfectly fine with them staying out of this game.
Click to expand...

Don't ignore the Generals statement saying this would not make interrogations more effective. He clearly is more informed than you are.
 
If you look back to page two (I think) you will see where I quoted the official USA/UN joint sanctioned definition of torture.
Click to expand...

Then why is congress arguing about it. The US doesn't torture people. And yet we are waterboarding people. That would seem to suggest that it isn't torture.

See, you do not want to hear the facts. That is first class rationalization.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just doing what you've done for 8 pages. If you get to dismiss the position of CIA agents as well as the director of the CIA then I get to dismiss the opinions of a single general (who probably has no experience with waterboarding)


PS: What are the issues that MI has to deal with that the CIA (another govt entity) does not have to deal with?
Click to expand...

The military is bound to certian treaties and conduct that other governmental agencies are not. As a quick example, the military is prevented from using HP ammo whereas these agents are not.
 
Don't ignore the Generals statement saying this would not make interrogations more effective. He clearly is more informed than you are.
Click to expand...

But not more informed than the CIA. The army doesn't waterboard remember.
 
Then why is congress arguing about it. The US doesn't torture people. And yet we are waterboarding people. That would seem to suggest that it isn't torture.
Click to expand...
Because this argument only exists in the political theater and they are making a show of it. But in reality, there is not much of an argument. There are those that say it is torture and those that evade the question.
No, I'm just doing what you've done for 8 pages. If you get to dismiss the position of CIA agents as well as the director of the CIA then I get to dismiss the opinions of a single general (who probably has no experience with waterboarding)
Click to expand...
No, you are dismissing true examples from multiple reliable and qualified sources based on a few statements by an "ex-CIA officer" who has since reversed his statement and some alleged "anonymous statements." The rest is all conjecture. You have no real idea what the official CIA stance is on anything. You just know what an appointed mouthpiece has said in the public arena...and even then they make no substancial claims to the value of the tactic. They just say they should be able to do it. That is mainly, IMHO, because this administration sees being told to follow the rules as a slap in the face and a question of their absolute authority.
 
wow...this is an awesome thread :D

I think someone was kind of right PBP, i don't know how much the CIA has to conform to the the rules of the game. I mean, i know all the conspiracies are stupid, but some of the stuff they do has got to be against international regulations. No one plays fair when they are not going to get caught.

YK
 
The military is bound to certian treaties and conduct that other governmental agencies are not. As a quick example, the military is prevented from using HP ammo whereas these agents are not.
Click to expand...
And these would be??? I was under the impression treaties were signed with nations and not individual armies.
 
Because this argument only exists in the political theater and they are making a show of it. But in reality, there is not much of an argument. There are those that say it is torture and those that evade the question.
Click to expand...

Thats just baloney. There is no doubt that extrocution is torture. There is no doubt that slicing off limbs and fingers is torture. There is however a serious argument as to whether waterboarding is torture.

You can dismiss this by calling it "political theater" but that doesn't change the fact that there is NO definitive ruling or decision as to whether waterboarding is torture.


No, you are dismissing true examples from multiple reliable and qualified sources based on a few statements by an "ex-CIA officer" who has since reversed his statement and some alleged "anonymous statements." The rest is all conjecture. You have no real idea what the official CIA stance is on anything.
Click to expand...

This is where I start to really question your credibility. Both you and I know that the reversal of that agents statements was not regarding the effectiveness of waterboarding. He outright said BOTH times that it was highly effective. Stop trying to twist things to fit your argument.

As far as the official CIA stance, I would think that the director is as good a source as any to determine what their stance is. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that their official position is 180 degrees opposite from what the director is advocating?

And these would be??? I was under the impression treaties were signed with nations and not individual armies.
Click to expand...

Treaties are signed with nations, however many only deal with warfare between standing armies. Their scope does not extend to non-military agencies.
 
Thats just baloney. There is no doubt that extrocution is torture. There is no doubt that slicing off limbs and fingers is torture. There is however a serious argument as to whether waterboarding is torture.
Click to expand...
Okay, show me a source outside the administration and it's talking heads that has stated waterboarding is not torture. If it is highly contested then there should be a pretty equal number of responses on both sides. McCain says it is torture, the senate says it is torture, the house says it is torture, the SCOTUS says it is torture, the Geneva convention says it is torture, the UN says it is torure, etc, etc.
This is where I start to really question your credibility. Both you and I know that the reversal of that agents statements was not regarding the effectiveness of waterboarding. He outright said BOTH times that it was highly effective. Stop trying to twist things to fit your argument.
Click to expand...
Vague speak at best...effective at what? Surely he can sight relevant information to counter all the official stances, such as the one expressed by General Patraeus and the Army, to the contrary...many of which are actual case studies and not just opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top