Do I get a trench coat and cool hat with that?
And a Groucho Marx nose and glasses........
Do I get a trench coat and cool hat with that?
No, then you would be "Super Secret Squirrel" and not "Super Secret Spy."Do I get a trench coat and cool hat with that?
At any rate, the waterboarding debate is all for political theater. In the doomsday scenario -- nuke in US city -- the President, regardless of who it is, will authorize any technique that has a chance of success. (I think we all actually, are aware of this.)
Ummm...you mean John Kiriakou...the one that says waterboarding is torture now and thinks America should be above such tactics?
Yes, they have...they are the ones the devise the interogation methods and oversee their implementation. The people you like to quote (actually the one person) never even witnessed the actual waterboarding.
The most vocal supporters of waterboarding are not specialist but more CIA bureaucrats.
Yeah, we all can just point out CIA agents and get official statements of their opinions.
You have been shown multiple examples of official statements that claim torture is not a reliable method of gathering information and you disregard that completely...maybe you need to be more specific about what type of proof you need.
Exactly, and this means that legitimizing torture as policy is the real danger. All you guys cheering now will be singing a different tune when Hillary starts using her inherited powers to go after the "terrorist gun owners".
I thought our rights as citizens of the US where "God Given" rights? Are you suggesting god only gave those rights to anglos?Irrelevant slippery slope. Citizens have rights. These folks don't.
Yes, the very same. But if you're going to quote him, then you should do us the favor of giving the whole quote, namely where he said...
"the harsh technique provided an intelligence breakthrough that "probably saved lives," but that he now regards the tactic as torture.
The director of the CIA is an appoitment...and "anonymous" interviews? Just how do you validate "anonymous" interview? You are willing to accept something like that as proof???I've also given you the director of the CIA as well as several agents that have given anonymous interviews.
Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture: The term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
I thought our rights as citizens of the US where "God Given" rights? Are you suggesting god only gave those rights to anglos?
Key word..."probably." He then later admitted he really had no way of knowing since he did not witness the retrieval of information or the tactics used. Pretty powerful statement for someone that was the "star witness."
The director of the CIA is an appoitment...and "anonymous" interviews? Just how do you validate "anonymous" interview? You are willing to accept something like that as proof???
If you are trying to say waterboarding is not torture then I suggest you read this...
I think waterboarding ver clearly falls under that description.
Exactely...he has no first hand knowledge. All his glowing statements were made based on second hand knowledge...or "here say."He admitted no such thing. He stated that he was not present while the waterboarding was going on, however he was briefed by those who were.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha....that is so ridiculous a statement it is funny.However when every single person associated with the CIA says the same thing
By that logic, cutting off fingers would also be effective and should be allowed.My argument is that waterboarding is an effective enough tool to keep in our tool chest. You keep trying to divert the argument from this issue
Exactely...he has no first hand knowledge. All his glowing statements were made based on second hand knowledge...or "here say."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha....that is so ridiculous a statement it is funny.
By that logic, cutting off fingers would also be effective and should be allowed.
First, you really need to define "ineffective" since it has already been pointed out that reeds under the fingernails also makes people sing like little birdies.
Sure, there is the narrow short term view that information was obtained, but there is also a lot of worthless information obtained. Confessions were given for acts that took place well after KSM was in custody.
Taking a single case where information yielded worthwhile results and expanding that to a generality on the technique doesn't hold water (so to speak). There is no difference between waterboarding and traditional medieval technique, so why wouldn't you apply knowledge about longterm ineffectiveness to waterboarding?
Second, that the recipient doesn't experience longterm damage is refuted by the fact that KSM only had to be waterboarded once. After that he said whatever he could to not have that applied again. The damage exists, and manifests itself in his behavior.
If a "24" situation comes up, feel free to use it. Until then, it certainly shouldn't be public policy. Any wonder why our allies aren't as friendly as they used to be? The US used to be "a shining city on a hill," and we should at least pretend to retain that image.
If waterboarding isn't torture, why can't our AG or head of CIA come out and say it is legal?
So by this standard, even gentle persuasion that elicits cooperation counts as "damage."Second, that the recipient doesn't experience longterm damage is refuted by the fact that KSM only had to be waterboarded once. After that he said whatever he could to not have that applied again. The damage exists, and manifests itself in his behavior.
Waterboarding doesn't fit nicely into the definition of torture since it doesn't have the traditional characteristics
What traditional characteristics do you think it lacks?Waterboarding doesn't fit nicely into the definition of torture since it doesn't have the traditional characteristics
In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
...must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death
According to that definition, if waterboarding simulates drowning, then it would be torture.
We are suppposed to better than they are.