Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
McCain’s thoughts:

“Waterboarding is torture”

Yes, water torture as he had to endure is indeed torture, but please understand the specific differences in technique.

Real water torture involves submerging the person’s head under water while they are completely restrained and unable to prevent you from drowning them. Also keep in mind that the Vietnamese were perfectly willing to kill him on a whim and that they used additional tortures such as beatings, breaking bones, electrical shock, etc.

The technique as used at Gitmo does not involve submerging the person’s head, and there is no threat of actually being drowned - the person is given the sensation of drowning for a maximum of 20 seconds (the average person can easily hold their breath for twice that length of time) during which time he is under no real danger of actually dying - in addition, the person has to cleared by a medical doctor to ensure that there are no underlying medical conditions (such as a weak heart, asthma, etc) that would compromise his health and actually make the procedure physically dangerous for him.

UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE - real torture involves real harm. These techniques have no real harm involved and all possible care is taken to ensure that no harm comes to the the individual.

What McCain experienced was real torture with the real threat and actual AFFECT of physical harm![/quote]

McCain was obviously talking about the technique used at Gitmo.

You’re welcome to argue that he is wrong, but please don’t try to obfuscate his argument.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
My Opinion:

Water-boarding is not torture. But it is certainly cruel and unusual.

Therefore, we should not do it.

(Not saying it is ILLEGAL. I’m not a constitutional law scholar. I just think it goes against the spirit of the natural rights described in our Bill of Rights).

No, they meant torture when they said cruel and unusual punishment. Taking away a kids favorite toy can be cruel.[/quote]

BTW - cruel and unusual punishment was written for dealing with citizen criminals not non-state enemy combatants captured during a time of war.

But hey- let’s keep taking things tangentially and out of all rational/logical bounds and simply make it the rule that we can never be cruel or mean or hurt anyone’s feelings. Time to destroy all of the guns, knives, staplers, bats, airsoft and paintball guns, hammers, pillows - anything that can be used to intentionally harm someone. Everyone will be forced to take valium and prozak and to sit around the fake campfire (no real flames -some one might get burned) and hummed softly to ourselves any tune that cannot be deemed offensive to any particular group of angry terrorist types.

Let abolish the military, sink the carriers, crash the planes, cut up the tanks, break the rifles, defuse the bombs - no need for an aggressive offensive military- we’ll hug the bad guys and buy them lollipops instead - unless they would prefer to simply kidnap and behead a few citizens now and then - after all - it makes them happy.

release all of the prisoners, do away with punishments of any kind - because if the standard is “cruel and unusual” a case can be made that any punishment is cruel and thus illegal. In fact, let’s keep all of the laws on the books (we are under the rule of law after all)- but simply make all of the punishments a “multiple choice/ write in” space that the law-breaker can choose for himself - thus making sure he is not treated cruelly.

Oh, and any time someone wants to kill someone else, we’ll ask nicely that he reconsider, but if he insists on killing them anyway, we’ll make sure he is not humiliated or disgraced by being called a murder - we’ll just call it an alternative life-affirming experience and get him a puppy.

The person who gets killed won’t be of any concern, because after all- they’re dead so there’s nothing we can do for them anyway - but we’ll think nice thoughts and smile warmly and pop a few more valiums.

I like this new world - I’ll call it happy-pink-fuzzy-slippers-and-puppy-cuddle-land. or maybe metro-pill-opolis. . . . .

We’ll do way with nations and borders, we’ll make sure all of the college football teams win a bowl game and can claim some type of title. There will be no more losing sides in anything - including boxing - oh wait- boxing is violent-no more boxing . …

oh look . . .a rabbit . . . .need more prozak . . . .

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

McCain was obviously talking about the technique used at Gitmo.

You’re welcome to argue that he is wrong, but please don’t try to obfuscate his argument. [/quote]

OH absolutely . . . the prozak tells me you are indeed correct and very ruggedly handsome too. In fact, you could double for Brad Pitt and Tom Selleck at the same time . . . nice toes . . .

Did I obfuscate his argument? I’ll be sure to wipe that right up.

ooops - valium’s wearing off - I think it was quite clear that I do not find the techniques used at Gitmo to be torture as outlined in the memos (pops pills) while the technique used in the Hanoi Hilton (any relation to the Paris Hilton?) were indeed torture - so yep, I would be saying he was wrong if he disagreed with me (pops another pill and swallows vodka) ahhhhh . . …

but then again my left leg is longer then my right forearm so candy canes really are made of puppy tails and oooh look . . . . another rabbit . .

hey, has anyone else noticed that I look like that noob Irishsteel when I squint my left ear?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

McCain was obviously talking about the technique used at Gitmo.

You’re welcome to argue that he is wrong, but please don’t try to obfuscate his argument.

OH absolutely . . . the prozak tells me you are indeed correct and very ruggedly handsome too. In fact, you could double for Brad Pitt and Tom Selleck at the same time . . . nice toes . . .

Did I obfuscate his argument? I’ll be sure to wipe that right up.

ooops - valium’s wearing off - I think it was quite clear that I do not find the techniques used at Gitmo to be torture as outlined in the memos (pops pills) while the technique used in the Hanoi Hilton (any relation to the Paris Hilton?) were indeed torture - so yep, I would be saying he was wrong if he disagreed with me (pops another pill and swallows vodka) ahhhhh . . …

but then again my left leg is longer then my right forearm so candy canes really are made of puppy tails and oooh look . . . . another rabbit . .

hey, has anyone else noticed that I look like that noob Irishsteel when I squint my left ear?[/quote]

You’re kinda nuts, huh? That’s cool, you’ll fit right in here. Welcome to team PWI.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

borrek, I found the website you took your information from (be careful about using verbatim quotes without citation.)
[/quote]

I would certainly hope you found it, I linked it right above where I started quoting. That is how citation works.

According to the US government the plot did end with the capture of the four guys.

I will quote again (from the archive of the press briefing I nicely supplied you with: Press Briefing on the West Coast Terrorist Plot by Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism)

“The cell leader was arrested in February of 2002, and as we begin – at that point, the other members of the cell believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward.”

This is pretty clear and easy to understand. Maybe waterboarding brought the rest of the cell into detention, but it did not foil the plot. The plot was done before the first drop fell.

Brother you were done before you started. Kudos on the hubris though. Difficulty was fairly low, but execution was pretty good. Overall I give it an 8.5

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’re kinda nuts, huh? That’s cool, you’ll fit right in here. Welcome to team PWI. [/quote]

Thanks - I’ll try to keep it under control - but I can’t promise.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’re kinda nuts, huh? That’s cool, you’ll fit right in here. Welcome to team PWI.

Thanks - I’ll try to keep it under control - but I can’t promise.[/quote]

GL is another one for the ignore list.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’re kinda nuts, huh? That’s cool, you’ll fit right in here. Welcome to team PWI.

Thanks - I’ll try to keep it under control - but I can’t promise.[/quote]

Let it shine man. People dig that shit around here.

Really, it can’t be downplayed. It’s torture. But it could’ve been worse for the detainees. Yeah, they could’ve forced them to read PWI. Zing!

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
tme wrote:
The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. They assume that those techniques will work on others, because they know absolutely that they would work on them.

The Dick of course being the prime example. Probably include Hannity and minor ass-clowns like jeffro.

And if you’re pretending torture won’t work on you then you’re just a blowhard. Room 101.

mike[/quote]

I tried to follow this logic but I just can’t.

The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. Therefore anyone who is critical of torture is pretending that torture won’t work on them.

If I come down to Room 101 maybe you and jeffro explain it to me. Cause your logic isn’t flawed, it’s fucking retarded.

I know torture would work on me. I learned in SERE training in 1977 that even discomfort and deprivation have a profound effect over time. If you torture me I’ll tell you anything I think you want to know, whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter if it will make you stop.

But then that’s kind of why most information obtained with those tactics is of little or no value.

[quote]tme wrote:
If you torture me I’ll tell you anything I think you want to know, whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter if it will make you stop.
[/quote]

How do you know what i want to hear? you would not make a very good interrigator if you let on to what you want to hear or know already.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< The questions assume that IF you can approve of a scenario in which you would kill to prevent killing - why would you not agree with not killing and only depriving someone of sleep in the same scenario for the same outcome - is it that hard for you to understand a simple logical progression without getting distracted by the nuances we are negating by the original questions? >>>[/quote]

That is indeed exactly the question.

Only in place of “depriving someone of sleep”, I would insert whatever means that are best determined effective for the individual in question.

What we do if they don’t talk? Throw a yellow flag and give them 15 yards? Do we just say “oh well, sorry you folks may have to die, but at least we’re being nice?”

Do you want to explain to the families that you had a man who could have provided intel that would have saved Dad, Hubby, Mom, Wife, or child, but please take comfort in the fact that we took the moral high ground?

Did we indeed?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
If you torture me I’ll tell you anything I think you want to know, whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter if it will make you stop.

How do you know what i want to hear? you would not make a very good interrigator if you let on to what you want to hear or know already.[/quote]

Ok, so you’ve just proved the whole point of why torture doesn’t produce actionable intelligence.

Here’s a 2002 US military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency report:

[quote]tme wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
tme wrote:
The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. They assume that those techniques will work on others, because they know absolutely that they would work on them.

The Dick of course being the prime example. Probably include Hannity and minor ass-clowns like jeffro.

And if you’re pretending torture won’t work on you then you’re just a blowhard. Room 101.

mike

I tried to follow this logic but I just can’t.

The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. Therefore anyone who is critical of torture is pretending that torture won’t work on them.

If I come down to Room 101 maybe you and jeffro explain it to me. Cause your logic isn’t flawed, it’s fucking retarded.

I know torture would work on me. I learned in SERE training in 1977 that even discomfort and deprivation have a profound effect over time. If you torture me I’ll tell you anything I think you want to know, whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter if it will make you stop.

But then that’s kind of why most information obtained with those tactics is of little or no value.

[/quote]

Right, but if torture is used properly I’m sure you can get the info you need. You’d need to use torture in conjuction with other info you already have. I trust if a guy tells you BS info and you know it’s BS info and he gets tortured for it, he’ll end up giving you the info you need.

Or let’s imagine that you know that the target/bomb/ect is in one of two places but the bad guy doesn’t know you know that. You can torture him until he gives you one of those two places knowing that intel is pretty reliable.

I’m not advocating most types of torture, but as I see it, it’s all torture (to include any kind of confinement) so to be 100% anti-torture is insane.

And my logic is obviously flawed in saying that people who are critical of torture think they’d withstand it. I was just pointing out that to infer that people who think torture is okay are cowards is equally retarded.

mike

"

Damn what were some of you douchebags cheering for the enemy when they were cutting off americans heads. Some of you sound like queer ass college kids, oh wait you probably are.

tme hits the nail on the head in this thread

[quote]borrek wrote:
Jeff R wrote:

borrek, I found the website you took your information from (be careful about using verbatim quotes without citation.)

I would certainly hope you found it, I linked it right above where I started quoting. That is how citation works.

What you’ll find (if you are interested) is that the cell wasn’t confined to 4 guys. It was at least 17 members. What happened is that the 4 guys were captured, then ksm was captured, then waterboarded (he wasn’t talking prior to the waterboarding), then the CIA put the pieces together (including more direct questions to ksm), then more of the cell was captured and the plot was foiled.

Let me repeat, the plot didn’t end with the capture of the four guys.

According to the US government the plot did end with the capture of the four guys.

I will quote again (from the archive of the press briefing I nicely supplied you with: Press Briefing on the West Coast Terrorist Plot by Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism)

“The cell leader was arrested in February of 2002, and as we begin – at that point, the other members of the cell believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward.”

This is pretty clear and easy to understand. Maybe waterboarding brought the rest of the cell into detention, but it did not foil the plot. The plot was done before the first drop fell.

It’s important to let me know if you are interested in the actual facts. If you are going to think about the rest of the information, I’ll continue to discuss this with you. If not, we are done.

Thanks in advance,

jeffR

Brother you were done before you started. Kudos on the hubris though. Difficulty was fairly low, but execution was pretty good. Overall I give it an 8.5[/quote]

I wanted to put a little more distance between us: I stand corrected: Your quotes did come from that briefing.

Second, from your link: [quote]And you can see from the timeline the arrests, one by one, it’s the cell leader, it’s KSM, it’s the members of the cell, it’s ultimately Hambali. I mean, the chronology of it makes very clear that these people continued to plot against us not only past 9/11, but Hambali continued through JI and his operatives to plot other attacks. And so it was critical that they all be gotten and put in custody in order to disrupt potential attacks against the United States. So, I mean, there is no question in my mind that this is a disruption. And this is – it’s not about credit, it’s about protecting the American people. And the American people are absolutely safer as a result of these arrests.[/quote]

Again, what you will find is that the LA plot had was led by a guy called hambali. He was the head of the Guruba cell. That cell had 17 members. They were the major cell involved in the “second wave” aka…LA.

The information from ksm WATERBOARDING–led to the capture of hambali.

Don’t believe me? Google “Steven G. Bradbury” and “John A. Rizzo.”

They’ll spell it out for you.

In summary, no waterboarding, no capture of hambali.

I’d have to give you a C-. You’d get a D, but, you did actually quote the White House.

Where you fell woefully short, is your insistence on believing only once source from 2006. What you didn’t take into account (hence the poor grade) is the recently released memo’s. Then you failed to realize that al qaeda isn’t a monolithic entity. There are multiple cells operating with the same purpose. One fails, the other goes forward. It’s their insurance policy.

The actionable intelligence from ksm/waterboarding lead to the disruption of the FAR LARGER Guruba cell.

To achieve higher grades, you must do your own work. Do your own thinking.

Good luck.

JeffR

[quote]valiance. wrote:
tme hits the nail on the head in this thread[/quote]

tme hits his head too much.

He should give his brain a chance.

[quote]tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
If you torture me I’ll tell you anything I think you want to know, whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter if it will make you stop.

How do you know what i want to hear? you would not make a very good interrigator if you let on to what you want to hear or know already.

Ok, so you’ve just proved the whole point of why torture doesn’t produce actionable intelligence.

Here’s a 2002 US military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency report:

In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance, the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the interrogation process is to assess the prisoner’s knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access should drive the questioning process. )

[/quote]

Right. Some may not know how to effetively interrogate. What you should be looking to do is fill in blanks in a large body of information you already have. Otherwise you are just torturing for the sake of torturing.

Why would you bother to interogate someone if you know it will fruitless. If you can’t tell if the information is bullshit, you shouldn’t be interogating. Our guy aren’t some third world ameteur thugs.

Or you have two or more people that should have the same info. An intellegent interogator should be able to work this to their advantage.

It appears the simpletons that appose harsh interogation have the wrong impression. They think it’s a bunch of ameteur thugs beating the shit out people and screaming “tell me what you know”. These guys to do this for a living. They study interogation techniques. They use all the tools available to them. They are well versed in gathering accurate information.

This is all a bunch of emotional crybaby bullshit from people that gave up using logic and reason to asses any situation presented to them. They are happy to let big brother and the press tell them what they should think.

[quote]valiance. wrote:
tme hits the nail on the head in this thread[/quote]

Stop torturing the nails!! for crying out loud - when will we move past this needless violence. He could have just glued his point to the nail or simply placed it in close proximity.

It’s not the nail’s fault that there a point to be made. It simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up in an illegal sweep of the nail bin. I think they were using racial profiling - its just not in keeping with our standards in this progressive day and age.

Why do we have to assume that because it is a nail that it should be hit and beat - it cannot help what it is. It is merely the victim of circumstances - when have we tried talking to the nail without preconditions or expectations?

How do we know that we couldn’t simply screw the point in really deep with a special ops drill - it’s what we trained them for.

But in the larger picture, why are we even trying to make the point stick? Did we get invited to this discussion? Did we have a consensus on the point being made? Why didn’t we get some other opinions before we assumed that this was the right point at the right time and in the right place?

Uh oh - happy pills wearing off . . . .(swallows goblet of vodka - shoots self in head with staple gun) . . . ok back on point now . . .