|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 13th, 2007 11:02 PM | ||
| george | cause if we become a bunch of fascist torture crazy assholes then the terrorists have won. | |
| Nov 10th, 2007 08:42 AM | ||
| mburbank |
"If we can extract information that leads to catching more terrorists and furthering our goals in Iraq through torture, why shouldn't we use it with knowledgable targets who are not cooperative?" -KKK Lets see, now... because it is illlegal and we are a country of laws because we have condemend peopel to death in war crimes trials for the very same 'technique' because it is immoral and our entire rational for our foreign policy is that we have moral superiority because it is at very best a technique which yields more false tthan accurate information because sooner or later it will end up being used on people we think are guilty who turn out because if you allow your government to commit crimes in secret their will be an unavoidable temptation for those crimes to grow because to date there is no historical evidence that a 'ticking time bomb' scenario has ever taken place becaue the idea that such a technique might be useful is a complete hypothetical and torture is barbaric becaue it puts us in the company of the Spanish Inquistion, the imperial Japanese army, the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis because it increases the odds that US sooldiers will be similarly tortured because we assumes we are always right nabout who is 'knowledgable' because it is supported by people of serious moral confusion who actively enjoy the idea of inflciting pain because it is supported by you and you are a very troubled young man |
|
| Nov 10th, 2007 12:23 AM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Well, KK, if you think that waterboarding is okay, then perhaps you will volunteer to have it done to you? We'll see how long you last, and what kind of information you spill. Since you're so certain that this technique is an excellent way to get information, I'm sure you'll be willing to volunteer for this experiment to assuage our doubts and concerns. Perhaps you could make Youtube video of someone doing it to you? You'd have to be sober, of course, we can't allow any other factors to get in the way. Whaddya say? |
|
| Nov 10th, 2007 12:13 AM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
Here is a question: If we can extract information that leads to catching more terrorists and furthering our goals in Iraq through torture, why shouldn't we use it with knowledgable targets who are not cooperative? You just like your ad hominems. |
|
| Nov 9th, 2007 12:41 PM | ||
| mburbank |
"For instance, one can be torturing two people and have then confirm the same facts and increase torture and degredation to the victims to get more and more out. It sounds like a good idea." That's because you are a drunken lout who enjoys being hit it in the face and is willing to publish their own humiliation. It's hardly surprsing a perverse, violent drunken proto fascist bit of cannon fodder like you thinks torture is a good idea. It's somewhat more upsetting when people with the actual ability to determine policy think it. |
|
| Nov 9th, 2007 12:18 AM | ||
| ScruU2wice |
Quote:
|
|
| Nov 9th, 2007 12:05 AM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
I do not think that is always true. Sometimes honest information is revealed, sometimes crap information; sometimes it is best to get the honesty. For instance, one can be torturing two people and have then confirm the same facts and increase torture and degredation to the victims to get more and more out. It sounds like a good idea. |
|
| Nov 8th, 2007 10:07 PM | ||
| ScruU2wice |
Remember that game kids use to play called uncle? If you twisted a kids arm enough and made him eat enough dirt he would say uncle through as many teeth he has left. But in the end you weren't his uncle. If you put enough water into someone lungs to activate their gag reflexes they will sing Air Supply songs to you and tell you that 3x4=56, if it makes you happy. I can't see how it is a good idea for us to sink ourselves to the point where we are as bad as the people we are fighting. Why don't we go MKULTRA on their asses and get them hooked on opiates and then force withdrawals till they talk? The only thing that pisses me off is that politicians (none of which have faced anything more than a dentist drill in their lives) are sooooooo worried about aligning themselves with a party that they will think that torture or whatever sugar coated term they have for it, is an OK idea. |
|
| Nov 8th, 2007 10:43 AM | ||
| mburbank |
More on our Pro Torture nation from that bastion of left wing bias, the Wall Street Journal: Pentagon Forbids Marine to Testify By Jess Bravin WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration blocked a Marine Corps lawyer from testifying before Congress today that severe techniques employed by U.S. interrogators derailed his prosecution of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist. The move comes as the administration seeks to tamp down concerns about detainee policies that flared up after attorney general-designate Michael Mukasey declined to tell senators whether he believes that waterboarding, or simulated drowning of prisoners, constitutes torture. The debate has focused on whether severe interrogation practices, some of which critics consider to be torture, are legal, moral or effective. |
|
| Nov 8th, 2007 10:37 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Daniel Levin, the Dept of Justice and waterboarding Here's my list of people who need to step up to the issue like Levin did. Gulliani Mukasey Gonzales Yoo Bush Chenney Pelosi Schumer A Firsthand Experience Before Decision on Torture By Scott Shane The New York Times Wednesday 07 November 2007 Washington — The debate over torture here can get heated, as it did this month when a dispute over the legal status of waterboarding threatened to sink the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general. Still, it usually remains a matter of strictly abstract legal analysis. But three years ago, Daniel Levin, then the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, decided to bring reality to bear on his deliberations on the torture question. He went to a military base and asked to undergo waterboarding. Mr. Levin, 51, a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago Law School, had served in several senior posts at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department since the administration of the first President Bush. But he had never served in the military, where American pilots, special operations troops and others for decades have undergone waterboarding to prepare them for possible treatment if captured by an enemy. Waterboarding has been used in interrogations at least since the Spanish Inquisition and was used by the Central Intelligence Agency on three high-level terrorism suspects in 2002 and 2003, according to officials familiar with the agency's secret detention program. It involves strapping a suspect to a board with feet elevated, covering his face with a cloth and pouring water on it to produce a feeling of suffocation. Mr. Levin, now a partner with White & Case, declined to comment on the experience, which was first reported Friday by ABC News. A former senior administration official confirmed on Tuesday that it took place. After his waterboarding, Mr. Levin went on to sign a new legal opinion on the limits of interrogation, released on Dec. 30, 2004, that made news with its ringing opening sentence: "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms." That memorandum replaced a much-criticized opinion written in August 2002, which had defined torture as treatment producing pain equivalent to organ failure or death and had suggested that a president might be able to authorize torture under his constitutional war powers. A footnote to the 2004 interrogation opinion signed by Mr. Levin, insisted on by the White House and the C.I.A., said that despite the shift in legal reasoning, interrogation techniques authorized under previous Justice Department opinions remained legal. Those techniques included waterboarding. Mr. Levin became the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2004, after the departure of Jack Goldsmith, who had withdrawn the 2002 memorandum on torture and provoked a separate crisis by finding flaws in the legal justification for the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program. After writing the opinion denouncing torture, Mr. Levin, who had supported Mr. Goldsmith's actions, was told by Alberto R. Gonzales, the incoming attorney general, that he would not be nominated to lead the Office of Legal Counsel. Instead, Mr. Levin took a job as legal adviser at the National Security Council. He was replaced at the Justice Department by Steven G. Bradbury, who signed a series of new legal opinions in 2005 justifying harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, The New York Times reported last month. In court papers filed Monday in New York, the Justice Department confirmed that the Office of Legal Counsel had issued three legal opinions on detention and interrogation to the C.I.A. in May 2005. The filing does not describe the contents of the opinions, which are being sought in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. |
|
