Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Did we invade a country recently to free them from tyranny? I seemed to have missed that.
It all depends on which day you watched the news as to what reasons were cited.Did we invade a country recently to free them from tyranny? I seemed to have missed that.
Did we invade a country recently to free them from tyranny? I seemed to have missed that.
I just cannot fathom the mindset and lack of reasoning that people have who can get behind the notion that we, as a nation, invade other countries because we feel that "every individual being has the right to live free from tyranny" then turn around as say, out the other side of their mouths, that "these people have no rights because they are not US citizens." The hypocrisy and self-serving convenience of that mindset if just so blatantly evident.
You do NOT have a right to remain silent. You have a right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. If no charges are to be filed against you based on what is learned they can ask you anything and you are required to answer.
If the police ask you the location of a fugitive and you refuse to answer you are obstructing justice.
Once that is done YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. What you had was a right against self incrimination and that has now been ensured, you will not be charged. Using water boarding, which is after all NOT torture as so many here attest, is therefor perfectly reasonable since it is not punishment and is not being used to obtain evidence for use against you.
I am however against torture for the means of gathering information used to establish guilt. Torture is not an effective means of gathering reliable information.
I just do not see how water boarding can be claimed to not be allowed to be used on US citizens for Law Enforcement purposes so long as:
1. It is deemed "Not Torture."
2. Any evidence gained is not used against the person who provided it.
3. The gov't can justify the practice based on the need to protect American lives.
I would have more respect for those claiming it is not torture to buck up and admit its possible use on US citizens so long as the above conditions are met rather than sticking with the current line of it not being torture and not allowed to be done to citizens. At least the position would not be hypocritical.
Nobody has refuted the above except to say "it can't be done to citizens." None of those saying it isn't torture though and supporting its use can point out a plausible reason it wouldn't be allowed if the other two conditions were met.
Let's see that real world evidence. I was a 96b for years and each and ever class I ever took on torture, and all the real world applications I witnessed did not support your assertion.
Let's see that real world evidence. I was a 96b for years and each and ever class I ever took on torture, and all the real world applications I witnessed did not support your assertion.
I just cannot fathom the mindset and lack of reasoning that people have who can get behind the notion that we, as a nation, invade other countries because we feel that "every individual being has the right to live free from tyranny" then turn around as say, out the other side of their mouths, that "these people have no rights because they are not US citizens." The hypocrisy and self-serving convenience of that mindset if just so blatantly evident.
Are you trying to establish that one form of torture is more or less reliable and therefore more acceptable than others?And we went over this as well. If I recall correctly, you admitted to having no personal experience with waterboarding in actual use as well as the fact that your stint in intelligence we over long before these issue arose.
Hardly conclusive evidence and definitely not conclusive enough to invalidate decades of experience and official opinion of the intel community. Which takes the official stance that torture is not reliable or acceptable.As far as the real world evidence, we have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Are you trying to establish that one form of torture is more or less reliable and therefore more acceptable than others?
Hardly conclusive evidence and definitely not conclusive enough to invalidate decades of experience and official opinion of the intel community. Which takes the official stance that torture is not reliable or acceptable.
Sometimes a suspects conscience gets the best of them and they confess too, but that is hardly a reliable method to get information.
When you work in intel you will find that it is common knowledge that some countries that provide information are regarded as unreliable simply becuse of the methods they use to gather information.
Read AND comprehend...Really, so KSMs conscience got the beat of him eh. Despite the failure of the other increasingly harsh methods tried waterboaarding gave him a conviction of concience......hardly.
That argument only holds water if only 3 people were ever interrogated in that manner. I have owned two series 80 Colts. One was a complete lemon. Does that mean 50% of all series 80 pistols are lemons?Well I'm not quite sure what you consider conclusive. Again, three for three with people who successfully resisted all other forms of interrogation doesn't seem like a statistical anomaly to me.
What do you bae this assertion on? Personal experience? professional opinion? Or just opinion?Regardless of what you think it is distinct enough to merit its own evaluation, and thus far the real world results have destroyed the classroom consensus.
Like I already said...read AND comprehend.So you want me to believe that these men, who made a career out of killing innocent people, who have a hatred for the western world, and who refused to budge under other interrogation techniques, suddenly "got religion" and found their conscience.
That argument only holds water if only 3 people were ever interrogated in that manner. I have owned two series 80 Colts. One was a complete lemon. Does that mean 50% of all series 80 pistols are lemons?
What do you bae this assertion on? Personal experience? professional opinion? Or just opinion?
Like I already said...read AND comprehend.
You are the one supporting techniques frowned upon by every official branch of the intel community. You are support methods that every official training course I have ever taken puts forth as unreliable and too easily abused. I believe the burden of proof is yours and those that chose to use these methods. The methods themselves are questionable at best and the negative moral implications are not in doubt at all.I agree. However since you are the person contesting its success, then the burden is on you to provide the proof to the contrary. Lets see where the US has waterboarded terrorists and it failed. I'm certianly willing to listen
I think you are confusing facts with opinion. You are making a personal judgement on very limited information fed to you by the people that performed the questionable act.The facts.
You are reading, but not comprehending.I did, and the odds that all three found their conscience at the same time is just not plausible.