Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[Dr.Who]

What else could he have possibly meant when vetoing a bill to ban waterboarding? His statement was clear, the meaning was clear. There is no need for interpretation.

He meant that he vetoed a bill against waterboarding that the state department defines as not torture.

You and I call it torture but that is not the gov def.

 

[Andy]

Let's say it is, and let's say that the ban on waterboarding is specifically what Bush does not want banned. This is no big deal. There are 3 democrats running for office, and all of them will ban information gathering technics against terrorist. So undoubtedly, waterboarding will be banned.

I'm just curious, since everyone seems against waterboarding, how do you purpose we get terrorists, who plan to commit suicide while killing us, to tell us the information we need to stop their attacks? Offer a plea bargain?

If he plans to kill himself, what exactly do you suggest we do to make him talk? Or do you suggest we just let it go and hope some Islamic defector warns us before every attack? I'm just curious how you suggest we handle this.

 

[PLC1]

He meant that he vetoed a bill against waterboarding that the state department defines as not torture.

You and I call it torture but that is not the gov def.

McCain calls it torture, too, and I think he knows the subject better than you, I, or the government, don't you?

I know I've never been subjected to it, I'm just assuming you haven't either.

I'm just curious, since everyone seems against waterboarding, how do you purpose we get terrorists, who plan to commit suicide while killing us, to tell us the information we need to stop their attacks? Offer a plea bargain?

How do you know what they say is the truth, when the statement is made under duress?

 

[9sublime]

I'm just curious, since everyone seems against waterboarding, how do you purpose we get terrorists, who plan to commit suicide while killing us, to tell us the information we need to stop their attacks? Offer a plea bargain?

Torture is counterprodutive in two ways - 1. It is not very successful in gaining the real truth, only the desired truth of the captors.
2. It rallies far more enemies against you than most of your other tactics.

The best thing your country could have is what you regard as a 'wimp' because you seem to be another person who believes bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the stone age is going to increase world harmony.

 

[Andy]

Torture is counterprodutive in two ways -

1. It is not very successful in gaining the real truth, only the desired truth of the captors.
2. It rallies far more enemies against you than most of your other tactics.

The best thing your country could have is what you regard as a 'wimp' because you seem to be another person who believes bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the stone age is going to increase world harmony.

Since I can not recall ever proclaiming that theory, I'll ignore it. Again, I'm not going to turn this into another "you suck!", "no you suck!" type garbage. Very few posters are worthy of that type of argument. Like Nummy for example, humors me to no end. But, if you disagree, feel free to vote for any of them. As for me, when they screw up America more, I can have peace of mind that I didn't vote for any of the fools.

Back to the 'torture' question.
1. You can say that... but... the information we got out of the possible three terrorist that was subjected to waterboarding was highly accurate. It was instrumental in preventing two or three separate terrorist plots that undoubtedly saved many lives, while also bringing in several other Al Qaeda major players.

Also, this claim is based on a false presupposition. The reason people believe torture leads to bad info is because we've seen how it has been used by evil Communist Dictators. Stalin's show trials for example, where they tortured people until they confessed publicly, to trying to undermine the government, namely Stalin, in ways that were impossible for them to have ever done.

But that isn't even close to what the CIA has done. We're not looking for confessions, nor are we trying to determine guilt. Zubaydah, for example, already had the death penalty in Jordan of all places, and had 37 aliases, and had been involved in over 30 terrorist acts in a dozen countries, and was personally recorded over the phone setting up terrorist attacks. We were not looking for a confession here. We're looking for information about his friends and buddies in Al Qaeda.

Not only are we not trying to extract a confession that we don't need, but we are trying to get information we KNOW he had. You can't be a major king pin in the Al Qaeda network for over 15 years, been a recruiter for AQ, and be a terror event planner for AQ, and somehow not know anyone else in the ring.

Also, terrorist subjected to waterboarding would likely never give bad information since doing so would be obvious and result in more waterboarding. You can't just make up that "Numinus Dingbat" is a terrorist and think the CIA won't notice that not a single scrap of evidence supports that someone by the name exist in Al Qaeda. Which of course is why he told them of several attacks that have now been prevented, and specific people who have been detained or captured.

2. This is untrue on so many levels. Do you need me to go through the thousands of time in history torture had the opposite effect of what you suggest? I am a bit surprised you would even claim this.

As a side note, in research, I almost changed to your view when I looked up more information on it, and discovered it's horrible uses in the past. Then, I found that both the CIA and US special forces routinely use waterboarding in their training. So I'm back to neutral. If the CIA uses it for training on their own people, then I can see it being used against terrorist monsters.

But I still do not see a real alternative. Lot a people don't like it, and have reasons they don't like it... but we need a solution. Anyone can say "that sucks", but we need something else that works to replace it.

 

[Dr.Who]

McCain calls it torture, too, and I think he knows the subject better than you, I, or the government, don't you?

I know I've never been subjected to it, I'm just assuming you haven't either.

You call it torture, I call it torture, McCaine calls it torture. As long as the state department calls it interrogation then it is not against the Geneva convention and can be used. As long as any legislation against torture does not specify waterboarding then it could be used. And so far the US has been allowed to use it just for those reasons.

How do you know what they say is the truth, when the statement is made under duress?

If they make a statement then an attempt can be made to verify it or falsify it. If they make no statement at all then nothing can be done to verify or falsify that.

 

[PLC1]

You call it torture, I call it torture, McCaine calls it torture. As long as the state department calls it interrogation then it is not against the Geneva convention and can be used. As long as any legislation against torture does not specify waterboarding then it could be used. And so far the US has been allowed to use it just for those reasons.


If they make a statement then an attempt can be made to verify it or falsify it. If they make no statement at all then nothing can be done to verify or falsify that.

I guess that means that they could bomb the hell out of wherever they want to bomb, and call it free goods delivered by air mail, and it would be OK. They could shoot civilians, and call it thinning the herd. Yes, it does depend on what you call it.

 

[Andy]

I guess that means that they could bomb the hell out of wherever they want to bomb, and call it free goods delivered by air mail, and it would be OK. They could shoot civilians, and call it thinning the herd. Yes, it does depend on what you call it.

If it was about torture, the first person to get it would be M. Moore. Of course that isn't what it's about. It is about getting information that will save lives. Now if you don't like waterboarding, alright, what do you suggest we do to them to make them tell us where their terrorist friends are?

 

[Dr.Who]

I guess that means that they could bomb the hell out of wherever they want to bomb, and call it free goods delivered by air mail, and it would be OK. They could shoot civilians, and call it thinning the herd. Yes, it does depend on what you call it.

That would depend on how well the definition of free goods delivered by air mail and thinning the herd stood up in court. So far the definition of waterboarding as interrogation rather than torture has not failed in a court case. And since it is now off the list of approved interrogation techniques it probably will never fail in a court case - how convenient.

 

[PLC1]

That would depend on how well the definition of free goods delivered by air mail and thinning the herd stood up in court.

Or, whether it ever got to a court at all.

So far the definition of waterboarding as interrogation rather than torture has not failed in a court case. And since it is now off the list of approved interrogation techniques it probably will never fail in a court case - how convenient.

Yes, how convenient. Now, it won't have to stand any further legal tests. It will just have to go underground, or simply be replaced by other "enhanced interrogation techniques."

 

[Questerr]

...

If it was about torture, the first person to get it would be M. Moore. Of course that isn't what it's about. It is about getting information that will save lives. Now if you don't like waterboarding, alright, what do you suggest we do to them to make them tell us where their terrorist friends are?

Army Interrogators are closer to the action, more likely to be in a situation where they would be able to have imminent threat information to be gained from interrogation, and are more likely to be able to save the lives of those in harm's way.

They aren't allowed to waterboard. They still get the job done.

Do the Math.

 

[BigRob]

Bush, who didn't veto any bill in the first six years of his presidency, has just approved his legacy as the pro torture president.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-08-voa10.cfm



Torture is the most valuable tools we have in the war on terror?

Is there one, even one lone, example of torture having prevented a terrorist attack? If so, I suppose the "liberal" media is not willing to share it with the country.

Here all this time, I thought credit was the most valuable tool. The war has thus far been financed on the collective MasterCard after all.

Torture is a valuable tool in the war on terror... as for you claim that torture has never prevented an attack, the foiled london airline plot was stopped because the information was tortured out of a detainee in Pakistan. (British MP told me that)

 

[PLC1]

Torture is a valuable tool in the war on terror... as for you claim that torture has never prevented an attack, the foiled london airline plot was stopped because the information was tortured out of a detainee in Pakistan. (British MP told me that)

Do you have a link to that, or do we have to take the word of an unknown British MP?

I've been looking in vain for a real example of how torture has saved the lives of innocent people, as is being claimed by the pro torture side.

I'd also like to see some examples of how torture has alienated allies and made the war on terror more difficult.

 

[BigRob]

Do you have a link to that, or do we have to take the word of an unknown British MP?

I've been looking in vain for a real example of how torture has saved the lives of innocent people, as is being claimed by the pro torture side.

I'd also like to see some examples of how torture has alienated allies and made the war on terror more difficult.

I have never looked for a link, and I will not divulge the name of this MP because if he wanted it know I am sure he would be saying it in the news.

All I can give you is that I take his word for it, and I have to leave it at that.

 

[Andy]

Army Interrogators are closer to the action, more likely to be in a situation where they would be able to have imminent threat information to be gained from interrogation, and are more likely to be able to save the lives of those in harm's way.

They aren't allowed to waterboard. They still get the job done.

Do the Math.

Like the sergeant who fired several shots from his pistol next to a terrorist's head, causing him to reveal where his friends were, and then later was court-marshaled for it?

How is a mock execution by a military man with a pistol any different than waterboarding?

No matter what method is used to extract information, we end up attacking those that got the information, not matter how many lives were saved. So make a choice... either accept terrorism, or accept interrogation methods. One or the other.