What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[ASPCA4EVER]

I did not see it, I dont like Charlie Gibson. Do you have a website for the actual documents? After Dan Rather not tell the truths documents I like to make sure they are real.

Ya, me too...so I went looking on MSNBC and figured out that Charlie Gibson is on another Media Carrier...I'm looking and I'll find it!


http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7475437

Here it is and WOW...did we ever screw up this right to torture...someone needs to be prosecuted!!! IMO

 

[GenSeneca]

Interesting but I guess not percentage wise unsuspected I guess if you break it down and analyze it.

The Radical arm of the Religious Right has had a stranglehold on the GOP which is comparatively the Party of torture.

So when you run the numbers it makes sense that the tilt would be there percentage wise with church goers and torture do in part to likely political bend.

Don't want a bunch of people saying I'm just anti-church... I'm not I'm neutral.

Not saying church goers are all torture apeasers... just saying your statistics make sense.

More propagandist bilge and filth... That's what you do though.

Can you even attempt to answer my request and stay on topic?

No?

Then you're a failure.

 

[top gun]

More propagandist bilge and filth... That's what you do though.

Can you even attempt to answer my request and stay on topic?

No?

Then you're a failure.

Look my mentally challenged friend (and I say that not as a personal attack but because you keep making these absurd assertions when you could clearly just go back and see I'm answering another persons post not starting the conversation).

You do your text book Republicant fearmonger thing promoting torture and let me respond to the more interesting crowd... deal... cool.

Oh... an also just for clarification purposes. Shaman's post to me was also itself on topic. He was connecting the torture techniques TOPIC to who statistically is most likely to support those techniques.

So as the kids might say... If this upsets you then quit dippin' in our conversation.

 

[GenSeneca]

Look my mentally challenged friend

Still no answer.....

In the time it took you to write that reply, you could have answered my request... You chose not to but instead continued with your troll bait, insults, red herrings and straw men.

Top Gun, Darth Cheney left a messege for you:

Oh believe me Darth Cheney... The Fail is strong with Top Gun.

 

[Pandora]

Ya, me too...so I went looking on MSNBC and figured out that Charlie Gibson is on another Media Carrier...I'm looking and I'll find it!


http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7475437

Here it is and WOW...did we ever screw up this right to torture...someone needs to be prosecuted!!! IMO

I watched the news report. I am not as outraged as you are. The only new news in the report is the guy who helped plan 911 was water boarded 183 times, and one other guy who was once thought to have been water boarded once was water boarded more than originally thought.

First, I don’t necessarily trust the news source. They are not known for telling the truth and gave no evidence that the report they have is true. It could be another Dan Rather not tell the truth moment. But for arguments sake lets say it is true. They were still misleading.

Charlie Gibson said we have no way of knowing if the water boarding was effective… well that is an outright lie. We do have the proof but Obama refuses to release the proof to you and I. The former vice president has asked for the documents to be released showing what we learned from the water boarding and Obama said there is no point in releasing it because it wont change his opinion on water boarding. Well I really don’t care if it changes his opinion or not, I want it released for the people of the country to read and let them decide.

I also did not know that they put a mask on the person being water boarded. I wonder how they figure they have a chance of drowning if they have a mask on? I did not know they wore masks when they did it. How do you even think your gonna choke on water if you have a mask on?

And now I might be wrong but I think that water boarding was not considered torture until after it was actually done. I am under the impression that later AFTER it was done, it was deemed or considered torture and we have not done it since the new ruling.

If I am wrong can someone correct me, if I am right why is that little fact skipped over and they just keep saying the old administration tortured?

 

[top gun]

Still no answer.....

In the time it took you to write that reply, you could have answered my request... You chose not to but instead continued with your troll bait, insults, red herrings and straw men.

Top Gun, Darth Cheney left a messege for you:

Oh believe me Darth Cheney... The Fail is strong with Top Gun.

The Sith has already been defeated my rejected Darth Cheney clone.

The Jedi top gun had already answered the topic question in full in a previous post and was then agreeing with yet another citizen.

While it's true your Death Star has been decimated has even your computer lost even it's power to go to... previous pages?

You have lost all power over the good citizens of America... The Force is with us and our honorable & strong new leader! We say bring it on bucket head... continue to loose you will!

 

[top gun]

And just to make sure the answer IS also on this page...

As I've said before in multiple threads. Anything that does not violate the spirit of the Geneva Convention or the military Army Field Manual is fair game.

Waterboarding is not allowed by either.


This clip makes it perfectly clear... the US itself has even prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime.

 

[PLC1]

And just to make sure the answer IS also on this page...

As I've said before in multiple threads. Anything that does not violate the spirit of the Geneva Convention or the military Army Field Manual is fair game.

Waterboarding is not allowed by either.


This clip makes it perfectly clear... the US itself has even prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime.

But, we're the good guys. When we do it, it's good. When the Japanese did it in WWII, they were the bad guys, so it was bad. Surely, you can see that kind of logic, can't you? If not, then how could you possibly support Bush and Co?

 

[BigRob]

But, we're the good guys. When we do it, it's good. When the Japanese did it in WWII, they were the bad guys, so it was bad. Surely, you can see that kind of logic, can't you? If not, then how could you possibly support Bush and Co?

The manner in which it was conducted was not even remotely similar. I guess they forgot to mention that on the news clip?

Further, the fact that our people were entitled to Geneva protections, whereas detainees are not, makes it even more of an issue.

 

[PLC1]

The manner in which it was conducted was not even remotely similar. I guess they forgot to mention that on the news clip?

Well, we did keep doing it over and over until we finally got it right.

Further, the fact that our people were entitled to Geneva protections, whereas detainees are not, makes it even more of an issue.

They were entitled to the Geneva protections that were passed in '54, when exactly?

 

[top gun]

But, we're the good guys. When we do it, it's good. When the Japanese did it in WWII, they were the bad guys, so it was bad. Surely, you can see that kind of logic, can't you? If not, then how could you possibly support Bush and Co?

Exactly!

 

[top gun]

The manner in which it was conducted was not even remotely similar. I guess they forgot to mention that on the news clip?

Further, the fact that our people were entitled to Geneva protections, whereas detainees are not, makes it even more of an issue.

That's just such a sad statement for you make here Rob... and you know although we are on opposite sides "politically" I think you know I do believe you to be a good & decent guy.

The fact that the simulated DROWNING... I SAID DROWNING... was done by dunking a RESTRAINED PRISONER IN YOUR CARE & CUSTODY in a dunk tank... or by stuffing his mouth with a rag and then pouring buckets of water into the rag... or by using hoses down the throat and nose is just absolutely a pitiful and I do mean pitiful defense.

It would be exactly like the Viet Cong saying... we didn't pull your soldiers fingernails off... we just jammed bamboo shoots under them all the way to the cuticle. You cannot seriously rationalize this.

It's ridiculous and saying this is OK only guarantees our captured the worst treatment possible without us having any moral high ground on the issue to the rest of the world. It's just plain sad.

Then you always want to grope for that one supposed legal loophole as to why the TORTURE was OK.

Your pat answer is always symantics... by what name did the Bush administration tag these prisoners... some names ALLOW TORTURE. It's still PEOPLE being TORTURED by the UNITED STATES of AMERICA! That's just beyond anything even remotely reasonable.

These were soldiers in an organized and declared conflict. The fact that this force didn't have nice crisp issued uniforms is no excuse to TORTURE. And I'll go back to the Viet Cong... most of the time all but the high ranking wore just plain solid black standard clothing for that region.

It's distressing to me because I see good people like you able to look the other way and rationalize something so obviously not right and certainly not up to our American values & standards.

PLC1 got it exactly right. For some anything our side does is OK and justified. This is such a slippery slope I thank GOD for President Obama if for nothing else for making this an issue.

Because if not soon under the Bush/Cheney doctrine we'd have been waterboarding school kids with families in the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or burning whole villages to scare the women into maybe giving up some information... and using your exact same rationale.

Rob you're a good man... but you're just totally ethically , morally and I believe if it were to go to open trial legally wrong here.

And when I hear people try and cover for things Bush did like this it even makes me want to be in the group lobbying for war crime trials and not just be content to let this sorry time in our history pass... like I really am trying to be.

This is a prime example of why I and a whole lot of people always are and should be worried & frankly scared of Conservatives with any power. They can rationalize anything as OK as long as it's for their side.

 

[BigRob]

They were entitled to the Geneva protections that were passed in '54, when exactly?

The first Geneva convention was adopted in 1882. But aside from that, the general framework for what would become the Geneva Conventions that dictate the treatment of POW's was already in place before the actual ratification. Just because it was not called the Geneva Conventions at the time does not mean it did not exist.

 

[BigRob]

That's just such a sad statement for you make here Rob... and you know although we are on opposite sides "politically" I think you know I do believe you to be a good & decent guy.

The fact that the simulated DROWNING... I SAID DROWNING... was done by dunking a RESTRAINED PRISONER IN YOUR CARE & CUSTODY in a dunk tank... or by stuffing his mouth with a rag and then pouring buckets of water into the rag... or by using hoses down the throat and nose is just absolutely a pitiful and I do mean pitiful defense.

It would be exactly like the Viet Cong saying... we didn't pull your soldiers fingernails off... we just jammed bamboo shoots under them all the way to the cuticle. You cannot seriously rationalize this.

But it is not the same. It would be like the Viet Cong conducting whatever they were conducted but ensuring that no actual soft tissue damage occurred and there would be no physical harm to come from the act, which is what we did when we waterboarded the admitted masterminds of 9/11.

It's ridiculous and saying this is OK only guarantees our captured the worst treatment possible without us having any moral high ground on the issue to the rest of the world. It's just plain sad.

Our treatment of these people is not going to have any impact on how our soldiers are treated when captured. We treated many Taliban soldiers who followed the Geneva Conventions as POW's as already have released them. There were some crossovers, but they were not the norm. Depending on who captures our people, they are going to be treated normally, unless a terror group is the one that captures them and then they will be treated poorly regardless of how we treat anyone.

Then you always want to grope for that one supposed legal loophole as to why the TORTURE was OK.

Your pat answer is always symantics... by what name did the Bush administration tag these prisoners... some names ALLOW TORTURE. It's still PEOPLE being TORTURED by the UNITED STATES of AMERICA! That's just beyond anything even remotely reasonable.

We "tortured" three people who were openly involved in carrying out the worst attack against the United States. If you study the mentality of these people, see some of their plans, and their goals, it really is not hard to go along with waterboarding only three people.

These were soldiers in an organized and declared conflict. The fact that this force didn't have nice crisp issued uniforms is no excuse to TORTURE. And I'll go back to the Viet Cong... most of the time all but the high ranking wore just plain solid black standard clothing for that region.

You do not have to have a uniform, you have to have some form of an emblem. But when you hide among the population and wear suicide vests under women's robes to avoid detection I hardly call that an organized and declared conflict.

It's distressing to me because I see good people like you able to look the other way and rationalize something so obviously not right and certainly not up to our American values & standards.

PLC1 got it exactly right. For some anything our side does is OK and justified. This is such a slippery slope I thank GOD for President Obama if for nothing else for making this an issue.

I do not say anything that we do is OK and justified, but in the case of what we have done, I think it has all been OK so far. I think the biggest American value is the protection of the country and our way of life, and if waterboarding someone like KSM gives us an advantage in that, then so be it. The war that we are fighting is one that we cannot afford to lose in my opinion.

Because if not soon under the Bush/Cheney doctrine we'd have been waterboarding school kids with families in the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or burning whole villages to scare the women into maybe giving up some information... and using your exact same rationale.

This is a bit of a stretch in my view. I have always said that US citizens and those who abide by the rules of war should be treated as such. If you do not however, you should expect none of the treatment that you would otherwise get.

Rob you're a good man... but you're just totally ethically , morally and I believe if it were to go to open trial legally wrong here.

And when I hear people try and cover for things Bush did like this it even makes me want to be in the group lobbying for war crime trials and not just be content to let this sorry time in our history pass... like I really am trying to be.

I think as much as people hate Bush, there is no real legal case they can bring against him for war crimes trials, and that upsets a lot of people. I think that if this does go to trial, we will see the most partisan country ever, and then follow it up with acquittals.

This is a prime example of why I and a whole lot of people always are and should be worried & frankly scared of Conservatives with any power. They can rationalize anything as OK as long as it's for their side.

I will agree with Democrats when they take measures to protect the country as well. I agree with Obama that some of these people cannot be tried or released. I agree with Obama that we need continue to take the fight to the terrorists, but there is a lot of stuff that I disagree with him on as well. It is a not an issue of party on this one, if Clinton had done this, I would be behind him 100% on this issue.

 

[top gun]

But it is not the same. It would be like the Viet Cong conducting whatever they were conducted but ensuring that no actual soft tissue damage occurred and there would be no physical harm to come from the act, which is what we did when we waterboarded the admitted masterminds of 9/11.

It is the same. It is causing actual physical pain and could cause internal medical problems or even death if overused or used on a person with a wide range of medical conditions.

It's like sometimes people die when they're tazed. Let go on long enough, on enough subjects, someone would eventually die.

It is an act to extract information whether it is available or not by inflicting real & physical pain & suffering while the person is made to feel as if they are dying.

You can agree with doing something wrong in an end justifies the mean way... but you cannot turn wrong into right.

Our treatment of these people is not going to have any impact on how our soldiers are treated when captured.

Not only can it affect the treatment of our own captured now... it can have lasting ramifications in all future conflicts & in our attempts in the future to prosecute others who torture.

Furthermore we look so bad in the eyes of the world there is a Spanish Court trying to set up arrest warrants for various members of the Bush administration as we speak.

We "tortured" three people who were openly involved in carrying out the worst attack against the United States. If you study the mentality of these people, see some of their plans, and their goals, it really is not hard to go along with waterboarding only three people.

Obviously not for you. There are a lot of child rapists killers and mass murders too. They shouldn't be and aren't tortured even if we believe they have a live captive somewhere.

It sometimes is not easy being a country of laws and a country that doesn't torture to try and build a case or prevent a death. But America is a place where we send people to trial & punish... not have a jailer become judge & jury.

You do not have to have a uniform, you have to have some form of an emblem. But when you hide among the population and wear suicide vests under women's robes to avoid detection I hardly call that an organized and declared conflict.

Bush declared the conflict. Bin Laden declared the conflict. That's as declared a conflict as anyone can get when one side is not fighting out of a single recognized country but out of a region.

The fighters wear their local garb just as the Viet Cong did. And how can you choose to forget the stories out of Vietnam where the little kid would walk up to an American GI with a hand grenade on them or in a stuffed toy???

I do not say anything that we do is OK and justified, but in the case of what we have done, I think it has all been OK so far.

Unfortunately now I am convinced that you do think everything has been just fine Rob.

This is a bit of a stretch in my view. I have always said that US citizens and those who abide by the rules of war should be treated as such. If you do not however, you should expect none of the treatment that you would otherwise get.

Torturing people is torturing people. It's not right whoever does it I'm sorry.

I think as much as people hate Bush, there is no real legal case they can bring against him for war crimes trials, and that upsets a lot of people. I think that if this does go to trial, we will see the most partisan country ever, and then follow it up with acquittals.

It's looking more & more like the American people and the world should maybe get a chance to find out. I myself am starting to think about it favorably and I certainly didn't start out that way.

I will agree with Democrats when they take measures to protect the country as well. I agree with Obama that some of these people cannot be tried or released. I agree with Obama that we need continue to take the fight to the terrorists, but there is a lot of stuff that I disagree with him on as well. It is a not an issue of party on this one, if Clinton had done this, I would be behind him 100% on this issue.

A lot of talk about Presidents Clinton & Obama........ but President Bush was fully in charge and in total control with both Houses of Congress at his immediate disposal when the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil took place.

I'm not comforted one little bit by saber rattling Republicans. And 9-11 shows us why no one should be.