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.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.
Instead of prancing and pounding your chest (which only impresses the dull witted) how about you discredit anything I have said.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.
Just once would be nice...more if you absolutely fell you have to.You mean SOME MORE? LOL.....
The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
Sources........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.
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.
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.What the 'experts' show opposite about waterbording, and the bloodthirst of 'people like Bush', and these studies showing exactly the opposite.
"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."
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.”
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.
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.
If you look back to page two (I think) you will see where I quoted the official USA/UN joint sanctioned definition of torture.I already have when I asked you to show me where the US has specifically stated that waterboarding is 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.
See, you do not want to hear the facts. That is first class rationalization.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.
If you look back to page two (I think) you will see where I quoted the official USA/UN joint sanctioned definition of torture.
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?
Don't ignore the Generals statement saying this would not make interrogations more effective. He clearly is more informed than you are.
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.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.
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.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)
And these would be??? I was under the impression treaties were signed with nations and not individual armies.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.
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, 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.
And these would be??? I was under the impression treaties were signed with nations and not individual armies.
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.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.
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.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.