What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[top gun]

As a side note about the manner in which the war was funded. That is really the best way to fund wars since you are able to get an actual number of how much it is really costing. To put money up front for it is simply a guess, and more than likely more will have to be added later.

Rob that couldn't be more of a trick if it had a magicians cape wrapped around it!

It's obviously much better that the American people at least get some idea of what a particular budget cost a conflict will be than to get no idea at all. And if you never budget for it and it just keeps evolving as however you want it to then that's no more accurate at all.

This was just another Bush tactic to push the invasion and following occupation. People don't like the costs of wars. He simply didn't want that costs constantly bashing him in the face in the budget everyday.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As a side note about the manner in which the war was funded. That is really the best way to fund wars since you are able to get an actual number of how much it is really costing. To put money up front for it is simply a guess, and more than likely more will have to be added later.

Yeah.....don't we know THAT??!!!​

"To distract people from the real price tag of a two-front war, the president and Congress have used an unprecedented and fiscally irresponsible budgetary trick: a series of “emergency” supplemental spending bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.

President Bush has never included a comprehensive war spending request in his annual February budget. Instead, he has submitted emergency war requests to Capitol Hill, usually sometime in the spring, weeks after the defense appropriation subcommittees begin picking through the Pentagon budget.

Although there are no official limits on the amount or type of spending that can be designated as an emergency appropriation, historically there has been an understanding that emergencies are sudden, unforeseen, temporary conditions posing a threat to life, property, or national security."​

There's one thing you've gotta admit, about Georgie de Sade......he certainly is a chip-off-the-ol'-block!!

​

 

[BigRob]

<Yaaaaawwwwwnnnnn.....>



....And, you're convinced of that, how?



(BTW -> "Everybody knows..." doesn't qualify.)

​

...Congress admits it. The National Security Act requires it. No one thinks they were not briefed except for you apparently. The debate is not even if they were briefed, the debate is over the manner it was done, which you are obviously not aware of.

 

[BigRob]

Condensed: Torture is wrong & waterboarding is torture. Don't care who said it was OK but do know the Bush administration as in his reasons going into Iraq used deception to convince people on many things he just wanted to do.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the cause of the war again, but the claims made by the Bush admin were backed up by not only our intelligence sources but multiple other nations. It was also backed up by bipartisan support, and many instances on both sides over the years. In fact it was Clinton's National Security Strategy that proposed regime change in Iraq as a good option. Bush's claims were nothing new, he just acted on the info we had. As it turns out, we had bad information.

I agree Bush made us much less popular around the world. In fact I was reminded of that repeatedly just a couple weeks ago in Jamaica by the British, French, Canadian and even one German tourists.

If it wasn't for the "anonymity" thing I love to give you my Facebook page so you could see the responses from all over the world sent to me on George Bush.

I go abroad pretty regularly as well and will always get right into when people want to talk about this. Typically (and certainly not always) they rarely know the whole story and many of them are surprised to even hear that there is another side that actually makes sense.

I canceled my facebook awhile back.

And I see both as just as equally bad. The goal here for me is not to find a loophole to torture anyone. Interrogate without torture... try... confict... if guilty punish harshly. That's how I roll...

Let me ask you this. If we classified these people as POW's would you be OK continuing to hold them without trail? I ask because POW's are not entitled to have a trial ever and can be held until the end of hostilities no questions asked.

The "chauffeur" was an analogy. In your sense of right & wrong he'd be eligible for torture. That could not be more clear... that's the problem.

Well that just goes back to the issue of what is torture.

I do not agree. And I feel for the soldiers parents because their sons were sent somewhere into harms way on a series of Bush initial lies. I respect the great sacrifice these soldiers make on a daily basis.

Their sons volunteered to serve their country. As for Bush lies, having bad intelligence does not make it a lie in my view. I have the utmost respect for the soldiers which is why I find it so outrageous that instead of acting on the credible intel we had to go save their lives we had to have a sit down and ensure the call did not violate FISA. I think you will find the vast majority of the country will happily give up some liberties to ensure this type of thing does not happen again. I think you saw that when Congress reauthorized the wiretapping program.

I'm simply saying Communism was looked at in the very same way (actually much worse) than radical Islam back in the day. I wasn't a fan of Joe Mcarthy... not a fan of President Bush... and for similar reasons.

That's a personal choice we make as we look at someone in their entirety. We all must make our own evaluations. That's mine... you're entitled to yours.

McCarthy was a bit before my day but from studying the time I can certainly agree Communism was a huge threat. Certainly people blew it out of proportion, but in my view that does not mean the threat is not real and present.

 

[BigRob]

Yeah.....don't we know THAT??!!!



There's one thing you've gotta admit, about Georgie de Sade......he certainly is a chip-off-the-ol'-block!!

​

Were you somehow unable to view the requests for funding? Was Congress somehow kept out the loop? After all they did have to vote on it. Anyone with a computer could have read the bills, and it was no secret when they came to Congress for a vote. The idea that he was trying to "sneak" anything past anyone is hilarious. If you paid any attention at all you would have always known the amount being voted on.

 

[BigRob]

Rob that couldn't be more of a trick if it had a magicians cape wrapped around it!

It's obviously much better that the American people at least get some idea of what a particular budget cost a conflict will be than to get no idea at all. And if you never budget for it and it just keeps evolving as however you want it to then that's no more accurate at all.

This was just another Bush tactic to push the invasion and following occupation. People don't like the costs of wars. He simply didn't want that costs constantly bashing him in the face in the budget everyday.

As I posted to Shaman, all of these requests were in the news and able to be seen online. It was well known the amounts that people were voting on. Congress was perfectly able to lower the amount or do whatever they wanted. I think putting it solely on Bush as saying people had no idea is somewhat ridiculous.

 

[Dr.Who]

...Congress admits it. The National Security Act requires it. No one thinks they were not briefed except for you apparently. The debate is not even if they were briefed, the debate is over the manner it was done, which you are obviously not aware of.

I would add that if the members of the various security councils or oversight committees were not happy with the quality of the information they were getting then it was their job to demand to be informed more. They have the power to call people before congress and to compel testimony.

But that was not how it was. The cia has been clear that people like Nancy Pelosi not only knew what was going on but demanded more.

 

[foggedinn]

Waterboarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, stress positions, use of harmless insects, slamming detainees into false walls, grabbing of faces, and many other non-lethal methods that do no permanent damage have all been deemed torture... So... What interrogation techniques will the squeamish hand-wringers allow?

Is this too harsh?

But seriously... I would like to know 3 things:

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

3. What Can we do to get information from suspects?

I'd like answers to those questions and please don't forget the list of interrogation techniques you would approve.

We all know what you think is inappropriate, so please don't bore everyone with tripe about, "we shouldn't torture, so anything short of torture is fine with me" nonsense... that's a total cop-out answer and the kind of answer people who feel, rather than think, would give to such a question.

None of the above list were considered torture by the people using the tactics. So if you are one who has complained about our use of those enhanced interrogation techniques, prove that you are willing to give the topic some thought, that you're not just a knee-jerk reactionary, by providing a list of techniques you would approve.

1.) The only rights anyone has are the rights to die and pay taxes.
2.) See my answer to #1.
3.) Men should be called to witness publicly, before God and man.
Interrogation is a bunch of crap.

 

[top gun]

As I posted to Shaman, all of these requests were in the news and able to be seen online. It was well known the amounts that people were voting on. Congress was perfectly able to lower the amount or do whatever they wanted. I think putting it solely on Bush as saying people had no idea is somewhat ridiculous.

I'll agree. I think we all hold some responsibility for not being more vigilant. That doesn't change the whole bury it as much as possible tactic... but sure I'm all for digging.

And while numbers were flying around all over the place if they're not in the budget you'd have to agree it gives a false sense "ledger wise" as to what the debt actually is. It's a... Well we'll tack that on later sort of thing.

I think seeing the costs in the budget much like seeing the caskets coming home if the families approve helps limit or at least brings a glaring reality to war time... and I'm personally in favor of that.

But as I said I do accept your point... people knew it was expensive on some level.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Rob said: I don't really want to get into a debate about the cause of the war again, but the claims made by the Bush admin were backed up by not only our intelligence sources but multiple other nations. It was also backed up by bipartisan support, and many instances on both sides over the years. In fact it was Clinton's National Security Strategy that proposed regime change in Iraq as a good option. Bush's claims were nothing new, he just acted on the info we had. As it turns out, we had bad information.

Ever play that game where you sit in a circle and whisper a story in someones ear and then the last person has to state out loud what the story was 'supposed to be'...what happened with WMD's was tantamount to that little game...we were releasing information out as soon as it was coming in the door {some verified some not/some reliable sources some not} and those same 'agents' were telling their specific countries their own misinformation and the rumor mill was just circling the globe!!! Had they had the opportunity to get all of the informants into one room and ask the simplistic question who told you what and when...OMG...the exchanges of finger pointing and exclamations about "no, you told me...I didn't tell you" would have made a deafening roar!

Meanwhile Saddam could just sit back and chuckle about the 'rumors and fear' that his persona was stirring up globally and he had 'NOTHING - NOTHING' of the magnitude that the rumors were spewing...we just kept feeding his superior ego and he reveled in it!

But my take on all of this: there were many a nation that had borders joined to Iraq and after we hit Iraq during Desert Storm and then we just left despite General Schwarzkopf {I know I didn't get his name right...but I enjoyed his book} saying it was a mistake...we made a mess of that and Saddam was pissed off, and the surrounding countries were afraid of retribution!

So when the 'rumors' started flying around about WMD's...I think that most of it was mass hysteria and if other nations promoted that Idea then The USA was sure to muscle there way into the Iraq country again and keep them from having to do something on their own!!! JUST MY OPINION

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But my take on all of this: there were many a nation that had borders joined to Iraq and after we hit Iraq during Desert Storm and then we just left despite General Schwarzkopf {I know I didn't get his name right...but I enjoyed his book} saying it was a mistake...

.....But, that was (back) before The Dickhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY was runnin'-the-show (for Lil' Dumbya).

BTW........​

Rob said: I don't really want to get into a debate about the cause of the war again, but the claims made by the Bush admin were backed up by not only our intelligence sources but multiple other nations. It was also backed up by bipartisan support, and many instances on both sides over the years. In fact it was Clinton's National Security Strategy that proposed regime change in Iraq as a good option. Bush's claims were nothing new, he just acted on the info we had. As it turns out, we had bad information.

What BigRob had (quite obviously) forgotten, was.....​

"On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . My Administration, as required by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts."

The idea that Bill Clinton endorsed/encouraged direct U.S. Military INTERVENTION is (quite simply) more "conservative"-B.S.!!!!!!!!!!!!​

 

[GenSeneca]

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

Q. What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?
A. Everything up to the point of torture.

The problem lies in your complete inability to use specifics as to where the "Point" of torture can be found on your scale. Another big problem you're having is specifying techniques directly on either side of your "point" of torture.

A crude illustration:
1----------------2---------------3
1. Unquestionably not torture
2. The point where interrogation becomes torture
3. Unquestionably torture

You have "specified" that the "point" of torture is "somewhere between 1 and 3" but you've not given the necessary examples to narrow that "definition".

What you are being asked to do is give a specific examples of interrogation techniques. On the crude illustration, I am asking for 3 specific interrogation techniques: 1.99 (as close to torture as you can get), 2.00 (the point where it becomes torture) and 2.01 (from here on over is torture). You need only name these 3 techniques to stop failing.

Instead, you give extreme examples (1 & 3), you launch personal attacks, you insist on derailing the topic, and the most common thing you offer (besides logical fallacies) are vapid, generic, pre-programmed, rhetorical responses that avoid the specifics being asked of you.

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

Searching previous pages... and you're a failure. See above.

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!

The above line is a classic example of your troll bait tactic of trying to derail the topic. I could answer your bait by pointing out that its you "Progressives" that are in love with the darkside (government)... I could point out its you "Progressives" that seek to hold "all power over the citizens of America"... I could point out that our "Honorable and strong" leader is playing the roll of Don Corleone in the new Democrat Thugocracy... But I won't answer your troll bait... Because that would give you an excuse to continue to avoid the specifics that have been asked of you.

Obama And The Jedi Mind Trick

 

[samsara15]

How about making them listen to old speeches by GWB and his ideological forebears? Or is that too cruel?

 

[GenSeneca]

How about making them listen to old speeches by GWB and his ideological forebears? Or is that too cruel?

Perhaps you would like to take a crack at the question that's been posed:

A crude illustration:
1----------------2---------------3

What you are being asked to do is give specific examples of interrogation techniques. On the crude illustration, I am asking for 3 specific interrogation techniques: 1.99 (as close to torture as you can get), 2.00 (the point where it becomes torture) and 2.01 (from here on over is torture).

 

[top gun]

Q. What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?
A. Everything up to the point of torture.

The problem lies in your complete inability to use specifics as to where the "Point" of torture can be found on your scale. Another big problem you're having is specifying techniques directly on either side of your "point" of torture.

You have "specified" that the "point" of torture is "somewhere between 1 and 3" but you've not given the necessary examples to narrow that "definition".

What you are being asked to do is give a specific examples of interrogation techniques.

The problem is that not being a professional interrogator I would doubtlessly leave out 100's of things that I've just never thought of that could be used that aren't torture... and I'm positive there are tortures that I've never even heard of.

So when I say... Anything not allowed to be done to POW's in the Geneva Convention & Army Field Manual should not be allowed. That does seem a fairly informative blanket response... because that has already been established by people who do know everything in this regard.

Does that really not seem honest & fair to you?

I could go back and forth... Sleep deprivation, not... Twisting someones arm to get a confession, is... putting a bug in a prisoners blacked out cell, not... waterboarding, is... I mean this could go on for the entirety of this board.

Perhaps the correct way would be if you listed various actions and I could respond down YOUR list... I'd be more than glad to do that.

Searching previous pages... and you're a failure.

Well that's because you're trying to build a box that I won't enter. I've several times now in several threads posted that the Geneva Convention and Army Field Manual rules should be the standard.

What you want is for me to list everything that's torture (which of course nobody knows) which would allow you to then pop up with something bizarre and say... See you didn't cite this, you Progressives think making someone shoot up battery acid isn't torture, you Progressive like shooting up.

Not Bitting my friend, we're always 3 chess moves ahead... your Sith mind tricks don't work on us... or even the rest of the country anymore.