No Waterboarding, Your Child Dies

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.[/quote]

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It is serious. I’ve seen the light. Talked to Jesus. Recognized that torture is that path to enlightenment. Woo-hoo America. Wrap me in the stars and stripes and walk me to Washington.
[/quote]
again, way to contribute

Then why comment? The rest of are indeed having a serious discussion.

I really don’t give a shit what you call it. If you refuse to define it, it really doesn’t matter what you call it. Just for you, I will only refer to torture for the rest of the thread.

Again, you explain the difference and I will be happy to use the proper term via your astute definition.

why? is there anyone you trust that has evidence to the contrary?

This mean absolutly nothing unless you define torture. Complete 100% arbitrary bullshit.

Yeah, I am sure that wasn’t politically motivated. So as long as we haven’t prosecuted anyone for a technique, we should be ok. gotcha. great fucking definition. That really clears things up for the rest of us. You position makes so much more sense now. Brilliant.

[quote]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

I can tell you that i would skip right past waterboarding. but I doubt I would be very effective in extracting useful information unless luck interviened. I would frame the question a bit differently. Let’s assume that professionals would be doing the extracting, I mean torture. Sorry Irish.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Wasn’t necessarily directed at you. More like the internet warriors like Dhicky and the ever charming SuperChickenHawk Headhunter.

Why don’t you just take off and let the grown-ups have a conversation here. You obviously have no intention of adding anything useful.

It’s better than the happy horshit that you spew that counts as “politics.”

Take your “grown up” talk and fuck yourself with it. [/quote]
How clever.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

Hopegully I had two suspects. I would shove some bacon in the mouth of the first and shoot him in the head. Then I would ask questions to the second. My kin deserves life over these scum and I would do anything in my power to insure their safety.

Scaring someone with bugs or doing what we do to our own troops is mild to the level
I would use.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

The honest answer for the vast majority of people is that they’d get past the “icky factor” and brutalize another human being who threatened the life of a family member, if that’s what it took to save said family member. Not just waterboarding, either. I’m talking about knocking someone’s teeth down their throat. We don’t care enough about non-family, usually, to do this.

Heck, didn’t the whole “Saw” franchise depend on the premise of people being forced to save themselves by harming/killing a stranger? I suspect it’s what made the movies (at least the first one or two) popular. The audience knew deep down–even if they didn’t want to admit it to themselves–there were some dark truths about human nature being in showcased in gory detail. So, what would we do to save the ones we love? Aren’t these the people we imagine ourselves willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for if that’s what it took to safeguard them?

I suspect the majority, if not the vast majority, would be capable of doing the most shocking things to save themselves and/or family. It’s other people’s families that might not be worth the ick factor.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

That’s not a fair question push. It’s the same reason that once a murderer is convicted, they don’t let the family decide the sentence- it’s too close to home.

If, for some reason, a family member that I cared about was held in that fashion, the odds are is that it would be similar to the movie “Man on Fire.” And the odds that I would torture and then kill them regardless of what they gave me is very high.

However, the big question of torture is not about that. It is about the legal rules between countries, and what’s expected of a country that often claims the moral high ground on every issue known to man.

The fact is, when an American soldier gets captured, he should not be tortured. Does that stop them? Not always. But the fact remains that if I believe that OUR soldiers shouldn’t be tortured, it means dually that THEIR soldiers shouldn’t be tortured. And the current situation is even worse, because they scooped up so many people initially, and some have been proven not to have anything to do with what we took them for.

I don’t want America turning into a nation that gets in to wars, sweeps up citizens, and tortures them in illegitimate wars that are fought in part with private security forces. It’s just not the direction I think this country should head in.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question. [/quote]

Just to make sure I’m following this:

I oppose letting our elected government violate it’s own laws and treaties regarding torture, making torture our policy, and torturing in my name. So therefore, I “abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time”? Gotcha.

And if I oppose torture as policy, then I would not torture under any circumstance, including saving one of my own children. Right.

If I would resort to torture to save a loved one, then I therefore must agree to the torture of anyone and everyone someone else deems a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant”. Check.

So now we get to argue against a poorly conceived, logically flawed multi-tier straw-man?

Up until Bush and Cheney, waterboarding has always been considered to be a form of torture by the US government, to the extent that we’ve even prosecuted US soldiers for using it. As has been pointed out already, and you very well know, the “ticking time bomb” scenario exists solely in Hollywood fiction. But if it were actually real and was prevented by some information extracted by torture, we’d never know about it and there would never be a prosecution. I’m perfectly fine with that, and with the exception of The Dick, Faux News and a handful of blowhards on AM radio and the Internets, so is most everyone else.

Except, obviously, for the internet blowhards and cowards who whole heartedly endorse it as official policy.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.[/quote]

I’m against the use of torture, so I’ll chime in with some good ol’ fashioned leftism.

There is an important distinction in the scenario of torturing someone when you know you’ll be saving a loved one, versus torturing someone when there may or may not be any threat to anyone.

Even being against the use of torture in my name by my government, I would personally torture anyone I knew was going to harm my children. I don’t find this hypocritical at all. If we torture to find unknown threats, then we have to torture all insurgents/terrorists. That’s just not where I want my country to be.

[quote]dhickey wrote:

why? is there anyone you trust that has evidence to the contrary?
[/quote]

No. But the no one that I know is about as reputable as the CIA, who are often known to… ahh… “invent” things. But what do I know. Maybe they were going to use the WMD’s that Iraq didn’t have to bomb the city.

Hey, we prosecuted for it. Doesn’t that mean it’s a crime? Or, like I said, is it only a crime when you lose the war?

Whatever definition I gave you of torture wouldn’t be enough for you. But the basic question is- is water boarding torture? Yes. Should America use it? No. Who are the biggest proponents of using it? Those who have never been tortured, and never run the risk of being captured. Is this supremely ironic? Ten years ago I would have said yes. Now nothing surprises me.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Was the CIA lying when they claimed to have stopped a planned attackin LA based on info they gathered from KSM? I know enough of the CIA to chuckle a bit while typing that, but unfortunatly they are all we have. If they say it works, who else can we cite to say that it doesn’t?

I have seen others disect reports and peal out parts they like, but have not seen anyone refute that we have gathered useful information.
[/quote]

I posted this in another thread, but per a Bush Whitehouse briefing, it was stated that the LA plot was busted before KSM was even apprehended.

Here is the link to the briefing again: Press Briefing on the West Coast Terrorist Plot by Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

So, yes, the CIA lied.

As another dispute of how useful the information collected was, here is a list of the 10 pieces of intel gathered from Abu Zubaydah by torture, as reported by the 9/11 Commission: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/abu-zubaydah-waterboarded-83-times-for-10-pieces-of-intelligence/

And finally after 17 hours in a coffin, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, gave the golden ticket to the CIA by telling the there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

[i]The emir of the Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, al-Libi was one of hundreds of prisoners seized by Pakistani forces in December 2001, crossing from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Most of these men ended up in Guantanamo after being handed over (or sold) to US forces by their Pakistani allies, but al-Libi was, notoriously, rendered to Egypt by the CIA to be tortured on behalf of the US government.

In Egypt, he came up with the false allegation about connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was used by President Bush in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, just days before Congress voted on a resolution authorizing the President to go to war against Iraq, in which, referring to the supposed threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, Bush said, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.”

Four months later, on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same claim in his notorious speech to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to drum up support for the invasion. “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al-Qaeda,” Powell said, adding, “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.” As a Newsweek report in 2007 explained, Powell did not identify al-Libi by name, but CIA officials - and a Senate Intelligence Committee report - later confirmed that he was referring to al-Libi.

Al-Libi recanted his story in February 2004, when he was returned to the CIA’s custody, and explained, as Newsweek described it, that he told his debriefers that “he initially told his interrogators that he ‘knew nothing’ about ties between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden and he ‘had difficulty even coming up with a story’ about a relationship between the two.” The Newsweek report explained that “his answers displeased his interrogators” who then apparently subjected him to the mock burial. As al-Libi recounted, he was stuffed into a box less than 20 inches high. When the box was opened 17 hours later, al-Libi said he was given one final opportunity to “tell the truth.” He was knocked to the floor and “punched for 15 minutes.” It was only then that, al-Libi said, he made up the story about Iraqi weapons training."[/i]

It is very possible that torture gave the administration the final ingredient of the lie pie, and put us in a war we should have avoided.

hypothetically speaking, if your family was going to be killed unless you let 4life butt rape you and jizz on your face, would you do it?

we already know dhickey would but im confident the rest of you will answer truthfully.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
hypothetically speaking, if your family was going to be killed unless you let 4life butt rape you and jizz on your face, would you do it?

we already know dhickey would but im confident the rest of you will answer truthfully.[/quote]

Standing example of why people think the PWI forum sucks.

Good job PB you fucking oxygen thief.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
hypothetically speaking, if your family was going to be killed unless you let 4life butt rape you and jizz on your face, would you do it?

we already know dhickey would but im confident the rest of you will answer truthfully.[/quote]

Way to raise the level of debate guy.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
hypothetically speaking, if your family was going to be killed unless you let 4life butt rape you and jizz on your face, would you do it?

we already know dhickey would but im confident the rest of you will answer truthfully.

Standing example of why people think the PWI forum sucks.

Good job PB you fucking oxygen thief.[/quote]

because it does. its chock full of threads like this that revolve around absurd hypotheticals that are clearly just bait, hh responded once in this thread and it was with a quote.

this thread was over on page 2. the last two pages have been 90% name calling, and the last 10% just nonsensical arguing in an effort to bury other peoples points on page 2 that should have ended this thread.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
hypothetically speaking, if your family was going to be killed unless you let 4life butt rape you and jizz on your face, would you do it?

we already know dhickey would but im confident the rest of you will answer truthfully.

Way to raise the level of debate guy.[/quote]

hah what debate? after page 2 it was already in the dirt. why not kick it while its down.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I will say this unequivocally, IF my child or someone very close to me were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, I would do ANYTHING including ANY kind of torture to prevent it.

Now y’all are free to differ with me.

Evidently you can kill them or let them be. Torture or harsh interogation is just for silly neanderthals. I haven’t quite sorted whether this is becuase it doesn’t work or it’s just not proper treatment for murdering combatants.

I’d like to hear others, especially those who abhor waterboarding in any shape, form, or fashion against anybody at any time, respond with their feelings to my above hypothetical question.

I say this because I distinctly hear and understand both sides of this argument. But when you draw it up so that it hits really close to home it becomes a no-brainer to me.

So let’s start with oh…let’s say…the Salzburg Kid. Orion, ol’ chum, how do you answer the specific question, “IF your child or someone very close to you were threatened with death by someone(s) whether by terrorist attack or anything whatsoever, where would you draw the line on what you’d do to extract the necessary information from them to save your kin’s life?”

This is a specific, personal question and yes, it is slightly off the beaten path of the thread, just slightly, but indulge me, por favor.

The rest of you chime in too, please.
[/quote]

how would you already know that this specific person already knows the exact information, plot, and every detail you know to stop it? and under this impossible situation how could you believe what they say? you don’t know if its a trap until its too late.

in such an imaginary world where this is possible, no one in the right mind would say theres an line that you cant cross.

but since a situation like that is impossible, whats the point of even asking?