What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[ASPCA4EVER]

Clipped from the article: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

"We No Longer Believe"​

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Thank you for the trip down memory lane...but it still doesn't set well for me! I still think that all of the smoke & mirrors about the Iraq invasion was and still is up for much debate {and I'm sure that many a collegiate debate team will pursue this topic with fine tooth combs, getting to the substance and truth}...but this article to me; reinforces my belief that when his {G.W.B.'s} ta-ta's were so publicly exposed as unfounded reasoning and unsubstantiated facts to plead his case and justify the invasion...the scramble was on to validate and get creative with 'reports' so that his firm resolve in going after Saddam Hussein would be a 'glowing effort and historically correct event'.

In a nut shell...I don't buy it, I don't believe this 'NEW' 2004 report and smoke and mirrors got us into this fiasco and only looking a the correct time line of people and events will ever bring this to the light of who: knew what / when / where!

 

[top gun]

This is why I think it is so important to see what obligations you have to uphold to get POW status. "Detainees" did not meet these obligations, and therefore are not to be treated under Geneva Convention protocols.

Should be. It's totally disingenuous to pretend Al Qeada and Taliban fighters AREN'T military fighters. We see on the news everyday the pictures of them on the battlefields with full tilt military weaponry and chains of command.

I really think we should be able to agree the following. It appears to me that President Bush was able to use the wording and get at least some prior legal opinions to back up his plan. Not saying it was right IMO.

But since only one person died in custody and it is not believed to be from waterboarding... it was declared a "suicide"... I think this whole "should we prosecute" thing is really a moot point and tend to agree with President Obama and you by saying... we should just move on.

Secondly we should now move toward treating all foreign fighters as POW's and detain, interrogate, prosecute & sentence accordingly.

These Radical (nut bag) Islamic fighters are bad, very bad... but no worse than the Nazis & the Japanese in WW2. The Nazis gassed and burned in ovens millions of innocent civilians and the Japanese coined the word Kamikaze implementing an insane number of suicide missions killing tens of thousands.

Hopefully we can be hard nosed and still abide by the Geneva Convention. But I do tend to be a little suspicious from my wife being on the inside @ Intelligence for all those years (when she was in she reported to more to the NSA more than she did the Army). The "official" word stated to the public is not always exactly what's actually going on... and left unchecked that brings us things like a prolonged Vietnam that the government & military on the inside was saying between themselves we couldn't win years before we ever got out.

That's a lot of extra dead US kids for the sake of posturing. I know you and I both care deeply for the soldiers.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca I cut a lot of your responses out as I've already answered as honestly as I can. I'm not wasting time going into any "what is ALMOST torture" because that is such a variable it could be almost anything.

[On a side note: You say arm twisting IS torture? Then I was "tortured" routinely in grade school and high school... My schools wrastlin team was all a bunch of torturers]

Well if your arm was bent to the point were you felt like it was going to break putting you in excruciating pain to get you to confess to something... then yes those kids tortured you. Maybe that explains some of the acting out now, I really don't know.

I know you'd be glad to do that... after all you are a coach and standing on the sidelines is what you know best... That's all Monday morning quarterbacks like yourself have been doing is standing safely on the sidelines judging those with the guts to take the field. I'm asking you to come out on the field but you instinctively know that in doing so, those still on the sidelines will begin judging you... and that terrifies you into sticking with blanket statements, made from the safety of the sidelines.

Well I was also a starting defensive end & second string quarterback in high school and the captain of my high school basketball squad... and a starting shooting guard playing basketball in college... but yeah I've also been a coach. I really don't get what you're talking about here but it doesn't matter. I've both done it and taught it. One thing doesn't limit the other.

 

[BigRob]

How 'bout PRECEDENCE?​

Like the years of legal precedence that the "torture" decision stood on? Or you mean just the "precedence" that you like?

 

[BigRob]

Should be. It's totally disingenuous to pretend Al Qeada and Taliban fighters AREN'T military fighters. We see on the news everyday the pictures of them on the battlefields with full tilt military weaponry and chains of command.

That is not the only things you need to follow to get POW status. Further, most Taliban fighters were treated as POW's, and have already been released. There are a few crossovers Al Qaeda/Taliban mixes but that is not the norm.

Further, only a state has the right to declare war internationally, so Bin Laden's "declaration of war" has no legal authority. If you do not abide by the rules, do not expect to be treated like you did.

I really think we should be able to agree the following. It appears to me that President Bush was able to use the wording and get at least some prior legal opinions to back up his plan. Not saying it was right IMO.

But since only one person died in custody and it is not believed to be from waterboarding... it was declared a "suicide"... I think this whole "should we prosecute" thing is really a moot point and tend to agree with President Obama and you by saying... we should just move on.

I agree we need to move on.

 

[top gun]

That is not the only things you need to follow to get POW status. Further, most Taliban fighters were treated as POW's, and have already been released. There are a few crossovers Al Qaeda/Taliban mixes but that is not the norm.

Further, only a state has the right to declare war internationally, so Bin Laden's "declaration of war" has no legal authority. If you do not abide by the rules, do not expect to be treated like you did.



I agree we need to move on.

Moving on but just to clarify my position.

My point is that in this day and age it seems more coherent to adjust the "rules" to fit the current forms of foreign fighters that are without any doubt an official military force but are religious based and not country based as POW's... than it is to just declare them as something other than a fighting military force just so that we can torture them

If not then it seems this is not a real military issue in the first place and we should go back to treating this as a criminal issue like we always did before Bush.

It's the loophole limbo thing that doesn't set well with me. Surely we can classify these fighters as POW's or crimminals... I care not which.

Appreciate your angle.

 

[GenSeneca]

GenSeneca I cut a lot of your responses out as I've already answered as honestly as I can. I'm not wasting time going into any "what is ALMOST torture" because that is such a variable it could be almost anything.

Your answer again was: "everything to the point of torture"
I asked for specifics reguarding that statement to which you say its a waste of time. I would like to point out that your "answer", to use your own words; "is such a variable it could be almost anything"

I would like to refer to Big Robs post because he gets it:

It gets even worse when trying to come up with policy options on a strategic level.

Hence the need for specifics.

Secondly we should now move toward treating all foreign fighters as POW's and detain, interrogate, prosecute & sentence accordingly.

You are being contradictory in your statements...

If we treat them as POW's, they would be held until the end of hostilities... Period. That's what we do with "POW's"

...We don't put them on trial, they don't get their day in court, we don't prosecute them (unless they are charged with war crimes) and they wouldn't be senetenced or released.

I said earlier, both you and PLC were doing this... You're operating from a general concept, not a concrete understanding of the specifics regarding the terminology. I'm not attacking either of you for this, just pointing it out and asking that you step out of the realm of vague generalities and deal with the specifics using concrete definitions.

You want them treated like POW's in some ways, but treated like common criminals in others... That isn't how things work on the battlefield and if your side wins out and we attempt to prosecute this war (or overseas contingency operation) in such a manner... Then we should just pack it up and bring them all home because such a "battle plan" would be entirely counter productive and even put Americans in more danger than any incidents of torture.

than it is to just declare them as something other than a fighting military force just so that we can torture them

The term "Enemy combatant" didn't come into existence in order for us to have an excuse to "torture" and you know it... you're just playing political games again. We had to call them "enemy combatants" because they didn't fit in any of the other established categories.

If you want to treat them as POW's in some ways and common criminals in others, you're going to have to do what you've been complaining that others have done... You will have to create a brand new term to identify these individuals, You will have to create a whole new category... In fact, right here, right now, I would like to coin the term POCO, Prisoner of Overseas Contingency Operation.

Hopefully we can be hard nosed and still abide by the Geneva Convention.

When we fought the Nazi's and Japanese, we intentionally and unapologetically targeted civilians, firebombed their cities, slaughtered millions and we weren't being hamstrung by handwringers crying about the moral high ground or carrying on about how we need to fight a "compassionate" war that respects the human rights of our enemy.

We fought to win and we won. I can only imagine the "outrage" that would result from us returning to a strategy of no longer "torturing" but intentionally and effectively targeting and slaughtering civilians.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;95960]Your answer again was: "everything to the point of torture"
I asked for specifics reguarding that statement to which you say its a waste of time. I would like to point out that your "answer", to use your own words; "is such a variable it could be almost anything"

Exactly... you want examples of what is ALMOST torture. And I've broadly outline what the military itself considers going over the line into torture. They have no problem understanding this... I have no problem understanding this.

But OK it makes no sense but since you need a coloring book with pictures here goes...

1) Bending someones arm behind their back so much that it makes them uncomfortable & restrained but not in such excruciating pain that they would confess to being the Queen of England.

2) Putting electrical cables on someones genitals but only turning up the juice enough to make them dance around uncomfortably not scorch them into swearing there alegence to Jesus Christ.

3) Putting a dogs choker chain on a prisoner but only pulling it so tight that it leads him around but not cutting of his air supply until he spits up blood or passes out.

I could go on for days...

If we treat them as POW's, they would be held until the end of hostilities... Period. That's what we do with "POW's"

...We don't put them on trial, they don't get their day in court, we don't prosecute them (unless they are charged with war crimes) and they wouldn't be senetenced or released.

Holding them is not TORTURING THEM. And in this case where George Bush made up a "war" the "war" on terror which includes everything for all time in a NEVER ENDING conflict... I'm thinking there has to be some way to legally try & sentence these detainees. If not then what you are saying is we just go in and pick up any & all fighters and imprison them at our expense FOREVER!

I mean that's weak "STRATEGERY" even for a Bushy.

When we fought the Nazi's and Japanese, we intentionally and unapologetically targeted civilians, firebombed their cities, slaughtered millions and we weren't being hamstrung by handwringers crying about the moral high ground or carrying on about how we need to fight a "compassionate" war that respects the human rights of our enemy.

You sound very proud of that... what a damn shame.

We retaliated in the military theater... we did not torture POW's. We did eventually nuke Japan as a way to bring a quicker end to WW2 and not just drag out the bloodshed but we did not nuke prisoners.

We fought to win and we won. I can only imagine the "outrage" that would result from us returning to a strategy of no longer "torturing" but intentionally and effectively targeting and slaughtering civilians.

You've convinced me that you are in favor of it all. That's you.

 

[GenSeneca]

Exactly... you want examples of what is ALMOST torture. And I've broadly outline what the military itself considers going over the line into torture. They have no problem understanding this... I have no problem understanding this.

What interrogation techniques are acceptable?
"everything to the point of torture"
Which,
"is such a variable it could be almost anything"
So I ask for specifics and get:
"I've broadly outline what the military itself considers going over the line into torture."
Which,
"is such a variable it could be almost anything"

You have no applicable definition of torture, therefore you are incapable of using specifics to pinpoint where, on your scale, interrogation crosses the line and becomes torture.

What you have is a vague concept of what you think torture is, "I know it when I see it!", which conveniently allows you avoid all responsibility for torture when it happens. You left the definition of torture so vague that "it could be almost anything", so if anyone crosses the line, a line you didn't make clear by being specific, you can smugly sit on the sidelines and pretend to hold the "moral" high ground for disapproving of their actions.

But OK it makes no sense but since you need a coloring book with pictures here goes...

Perhaps we can use Shaman's box of crayolas.

Now as to the examples, I do appreciate you offering them but its a shame you feel the need to be so antagonistic, this conversation would be far more productive if you took the topic of interrogation and torture seriously.

1) Bending someones arm behind their back so much that it makes them uncomfortable & restrained but not in such excruciating pain that they would confess to being the Queen of England.

Some people have a higher threshold of pain than others, how would you objectively measure "excruciating" pain? Perhaps you can't answer such questions, which is why you prefer to remain vague and speak in terms of generalities... to avoid the embarrassment of being asked to clarify your position in order for it to be applicable in practical terms.

2) Putting electrical cables on someones genitals but only turning up the juice enough to make them dance around uncomfortably not scorch them into swearing there alegence to Jesus Christ.

Interesting... You consider waterboarding torture, but jumper cables on genitals is acceptable to you... provided the electrical current is kept at a reasonable level.

3) Putting a dogs choker chain on a prisoner but only pulling it so tight that it leads him around but not cutting of his air supply until he spits up blood or passes out.

I'm not sure what value this would have as an interrogation technique... perhaps you can borrow some of Shaman's crayons and draw me another picture that explains how this tactic would be of use to the intelligence community.

I could go on for days...

That's what she said...

Holding them is not TORTURING THEM.

Who has ever suggested that holding them is tantamount to torture?

And in this case where George Bush made up a "war" the "war" on terror which includes everything for all time in a NEVER ENDING conflict...

Like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty"... I agree it shouldn't be a "war on terror", it should be a "war against the ideologies that promote and employ the tactic of terrorism"... but that's not a very catchy title for a war.

Just curious...
When will we declare victory in our "Overseas Contingency Operation"?
Do we have an "exit strategy" for that operation?
Will the funding be "hidden" like it was for our War on Terror?

I'm thinking there has to be some way to legally try & sentence these detainees.

That's what we were doing... Military Tribunals were legal, we tried detainees with the tribunals and many were released while others were sentenced to be held by us or sent to other countries.

Its people like yourself that demanded we give detainees the constitutional rights of American citizens and try them in American civilian courts and toss all concerns about national security and practicality to the wind.

If not then what you are saying is we just go in and pick up any & all fighters and imprison them at our expense FOREVER!

If YOU want them to be designated as POW's, then, according to the Geneva Convention, indefinite imprisonment at our expense will be the result.

I mean that's weak "STRATEGERY" even for a Bushy.

Clearly the "Overseas Contingency Operation" to halt "Man caused catastrophes" and holding civilian trials in American courts for "Prisoners of Overseas Contingency Operations" will net better results.

You sound very proud of that... what a damn shame.

I am very proud we won WW2, what damn shame you think we should have lost... not that I'm surprised.

We retaliated in the military theater... we did not torture POW's.

I agree, we didn't torture POW's (those who qualified under the Geneva Convention). We executed some, without a trial, right there in the field... others lived to see the POW camps, where they remained until the end of the war - still no trials - at our expense.

We did eventually nuke Japan as a way to bring a quicker end to WW2 and not just drag out the bloodshed but we did not nuke prisoners.

We targeted civilian population centers in both Germany and Japan, the goal was to kill as many people as possible and we were exceedingly good at it. Firebombing, Carpet bombing, even the use of the nuke, all were measured in terms of the resultant casualties... Nobody was crying about how we were "just air raiding villages, killing civilians." We didn't distinguish between civilians and military personnel... and we still held the moral high ground.

You've convinced me that you are in favor of it all. That's you.

I'm in favor of defeating those who want to kill you and your family. I don't want them tortured... I don't want them coddled (as you would have us do)... I don't want them to have civilian trials in American courts... I don't even want them detained indefinitely...

Political correctness be damned, I want them dead.

 

[top gun]

What interrogation techniques are acceptable?
"everything to the point of torture"
Which,
"is such a variable it could be almost anything"
So I ask for specifics and get:
"I've broadly outline what the military itself considers going over the line into torture."
Which,
"is such a variable it could be almost anything"

You have no applicable definition of torture, therefore you are incapable of using specifics to pinpoint where, on your scale, interrogation crosses the line and becomes torture.

What you have is a vague concept of what you think torture is, "I know it when I see it!", which conveniently allows you avoid all responsibility for torture when it happens. You left the definition of torture so vague that "it could be almost anything", so if anyone crosses the line, a line you didn't make clear by being specific, you can smugly sit on the sidelines and pretend to hold the "moral" high ground for disapproving of their actions.

You are obviously a very confused and desperate person.

I state the fact the the Geneva Convention & the Army's Military field Manual have no problem defining torture and you say but I have to give an example of "ALMOST" torture... which was a queer request in the first place. But I still get out the coloring book and gave specific examples of what is "ALMOST" torture and you cry... too vague. Hint: ALMOST means vague.

By your standards NOTHING is torture because the person doesn't die until he's dead! But that's what you want. The power to go right up to the killing line on defenseless, restrained, military prisoners.

Interesting... You consider waterboarding torture, but jumper cables on genitals is acceptable to you... provided the electrical current is kept at a reasonable level.

See there you go again. Asking for the stupid "ALMOST" answer and then complaining about the "ALMOST" answer. Weak buddy... very very weak. The reality is THIS IS... THIS ISN'T not well what would you say is iffy. That's exactly why there are specific can and can't does spelled put in the Geneva Convention & the Army's Military Field Manual... to avoid misinterpretations of "ALMOST".

But since I boarded your crazy train I guess I'll ride. Yes... the repeated attempted drowning of a person to coerce a confession or information is beyond humiliating someone and making them uncomfortable.

I'm not sure what value this would have as an interrogation technique... perhaps you can borrow some of Shaman's crayons and draw me another picture that explains how this tactic would be of use to the intelligence community.

You have no standing to talk about anyone else.

Who has ever suggested that holding them is tantamount to torture?

You stated that under the Geneva Convention POW's were held until the end of the conflict (of course you left out prisoner swaps but I digress). And you used that point to show that we should hold prisoners without trial and I said that would be forever because this so called "war on terror" isn't something that is ever completely gone. There will always be some crazy terrorist SOMEWHERE!

And I went on to say even if we did just stockpile them forever the Geneva Convention (which YOU referenced) doesn't allow them to be tortured... which is what we did when we waterboarded.

Like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty"... I agree it shouldn't be a "war on terror", it should be a "war against the ideologies that promote and employ the tactic of terrorism"... but that's not a very catchy title for a war.

None of those things are "WARS". All of those things broad political concepts against a given problem.

That's what we were doing... Military Tribunals were legal, we tried detainees with the tribunals and many were released while others were sentenced to be held by us or sent to other countries.

Its people like yourself that demanded we give detainees the constitutional rights of American citizens and try them in American civilian courts and toss all concerns about national security and practicality to the wind.

If YOU want them to be designated as POW's, then, according to the Geneva Convention, indefinite imprisonment at our expense will be the result.

I'm blocking stuff together because this is rambling on too long.

First... the Supreme Court found some things to be wrong in our system of handling detainees.

Secondly... I don't care in what court they are tried as long as there is evidence presented and a defense provided and an impartial judge.

Third... It appears Bush was holding them forever as well so that's not the answer... That the evil and cumbersome Geneva Convention was going to do it.

I am very proud we won WW2, what damn shame you think we should have lost... not that I'm surprised.

My Uncle Orville was a Captain in the Infantry Division attached to Patton's Armor Division. Not only do I know more than you... I'm glad we won more than you.

The difference between us Gen is simple. You believe we ourselves must become terrorists to defeat terrorists.... and I do not.

We're gonna to have to leave it there...

 

[GenSeneca]

You are obviously a very confused and desperate person.

Ad hominem... Logical fallacies and emotional appeals are not part of a rational argument.

I state the fact the the Geneva Convention & the Army's Military field Manual have no problem defining torture ...

From the GC:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally
performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes
of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a
preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood
to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or
to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or
mental anguish.
The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent
in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the
performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

As I've been saying, its a concept, not a definition. Where in the MANY army field manuals can I find torture "defined"?

and you say but I have to give an example of "ALMOST" torture...

Because you go from one extreme to the other... you cite that which is obviously NOT torture then jump to things that obviously ARE torture while insisting that there is a clear "point" at which interrogation becomes torture. Its not unreasonable to ask for an interrogation tactic that is closer to that "point" than the extreme examples you offer.

which was a queer request in the first place.

It's not very politically correct of you to use such an adjective.

But I still get out the coloring book and gave specific examples of what is "ALMOST" torture and you cry... too vague.

Here's a refresher:
1) Bending someones arm behind their back so much that it makes them uncomfortable & restrained but not in such excruciating pain that they would confess to being the Queen of England.
I didn't complain this was too vague, I asked a reasonable question regarding that proposed tactic: how would you objectively measure "excruciating" pain?
2) Putting electrical cables on someones genitals
I didn't find this suggestion too vague, I found such a practice to be torture no matter what the voltage.
3) Putting a dogs choker chain on a prisoner
Again, I didn't claim this was vague, I asked; how does this qualify as an interrogation technique?

Hint: ALMOST means vague.

Once again showing how definitionally challenged you are:
Almost: very nearly; all but: almost every house; almost the entire symphony; to pay almost nothing for a car; almost twice as many books.
Vague:
1. not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed: vague promises.
2. indefinite or indistinct in nature or character, as ideas or feelings: a vague premonition of disaster.
3. not clear or distinct to the sight or any other sense; perceptible or recognizable only in an indefinite way: vague shapes in the dark; vague murmurs behind a door.
4. not definitely established, determined, confirmed, or known; uncertain: a vague rumor; The date of his birth is vague.
5. (of persons) not clear or definite in thought, understanding, or expression: vague about his motives; a vague person.
6. (of the eyes, expression, etc.) showing lack of clear perception or understanding: a vague stare.

Almost and Vague do not mean the same thing.

By your standards NOTHING is torture because the person doesn't die until he's dead! But that's what you want. The power to go right up to the killing line on defenseless, restrained, military prisoners.

More fallacious statements meant to mischaracterize my position. Please, control your emotional outbursts and at least attempt to approach this discussion with some modicum of rationality.

See there you go again. Asking for the stupid "ALMOST" answer and then complaining about the "ALMOST" answer.

You are not providing almost, you are providing either the vague or the extreme.

Weak buddy... very very weak.

Most of what you say is..

The reality is THIS IS... THIS ISN'T not well what would you say is iffy.

Jumper cables on genitals... You say it isn't, I say it is. Show me where the jumper cable on genitals treatment and/or the dog leash treatment is outlined in the Geneva Convention, or Army field manual, as an approved interrogation technique.

That's exactly why there are specific can and can't does spelled put in the Geneva Convention & the Army's Military Field Manual... to avoid misinterpretations of "ALMOST".

Cite one from each... Just ONE specific interrogation technique that is "spelled out" in each.
Here are the links if you're too lazy:
Intellegence Interrogation Process
Geneva Conventions

But since I boarded your crazy train I guess I'll ride. Yes... the repeated attempted drowning of a person to coerce a confession or information is beyond humiliating someone and making them uncomfortable.

But jumper cables on genitals and dog collars are not?

You have no standing to talk about anyone else.

But you do?

You stated that under the Geneva Convention POW's were held until the end of the conflict

They are, with few exceptions already identified.

(of course you left out prisoner swaps but I digress).

Because I had already discussed prisoner swaps... Also, do you honestly think Al Quaeda will stop killing captured American soldiers, that AQ will suddenly begin recognizing and upholding the GC protocols? Do you think Obama would negotiate the release of terrorists for captured US soldiers?

And you used that point to show that we should hold prisoners without trial and I said that would be forever because this so called "war on terror" isn't something that is ever completely gone. There will always be some crazy terrorist SOMEWHERE!

...Just as there will always be poverty and drugs, which was why I pointed out both of those failed "wars" as well... We can't "win" those "wars" because we are fighting the symptoms, not the disease. Terrorism is an effect, not the cause. We need to fight the cause, Bush didn't do it, Obama is not doing it.

And I went on to say even if we did just stockpile them forever the Geneva Convention (which YOU referenced) doesn't allow them to be tortured... which is what we did when we waterboarded.

3 people out of 30-50 thousands were waterboarded... You're the one who wants them to have dog collars on their necks and jumper cables on their genitals... I couldn't find those techniques in the GC or the AFM.

First... the Supreme Court found some things to be wrong in our system of handling detainees.

The SCOTUS ruling was on GITMO detainees, they found, 5-4, that GITMO detainees deserved constitutional rights... As I said, if that's how we are going to fight this "war", then pack it up and bring them home. Hopefully the next 9/11 will hit only people who agreed with that court ruling.

Secondly... I don't care in what court they are tried as long as there is evidence presented and a defense provided and an impartial judge.

POW's do not get this... yet you continue to insist they be given POW status.

Third... It appears Bush was holding them forever as well so that's not the answer... That the evil and cumbersome Geneva Convention was going to do it.

Fallacy of narrow sample. GITMO detainees were being held indefinitely, all 250-500 of them... The typical detainee held elsewhere was cycled through and released in 50-70 days thanks to the military tribunals.

My Uncle Orville was a Captain in the Infantry Division attached to Patton's Armor Division.

Your uncle was a patriot... Too bad he didn't pass on some of his "blood n guts" to you.

Not only do I know more than you...

ROTLMAO
You know emotional arguments, fallacies and talking points...

I'm glad we won more than you.

Do you hear yourself? Is this what you consider an intellectual argument?

The difference between us Gen is simple. You believe we ourselves must become terrorists to defeat terrorists.... and I do not.

Right... because we can't simply disagree on policy... I have to be a bad person with evil in his heart and hatred for his fellow man...

All you've offered there is another emotional argument, predicated on an ad hominem attack and an appeal to ridicule.

We're gonna to have to leave it there...

Y'all come back now... Y'hear?

 

[top gun]

Because you go from one extreme to the other... you cite that which is obviously NOT torture then jump to things that obviously ARE torture while insisting that there is a clear "point" at which interrogation becomes torture. Its not unreasonable to ask for an interrogation tactic that is closer to that "point" than the extreme examples you offer.

Since I realize all you are really doing here is philabustering... that waterboarding is not torture due to it not specifically enough being spelled out in the Geneva Convention & Army Field Manual I'll just post tape of where we prosecuted other countries for doing it... that's probably the simplest way to show others "including ourselves" had no problem connecting these same dots in the past.

Your uncle was a patriot... Too bad he didn't pass on some of his "blood n guts" to you.

Yes my uncle was a good man. He was decorated a couple times even with a Purple Heart for being wounded in one battle. But he was very honest talking to us as kids about the good and bad things in war... and his stories talked a lot about both sides.

The ones that always stuck out to me were the stories about being involved with General Patton's 6th Armor Division while serving in the 3rd Army Division because Patton was one of the few big names we as kids had ever heard of.

The stories weren't as romantic and gung ho patriotic as you'd probably like to think though. He'd be more likely to say something like... General Patton, old blood & guts... our blood his guts.

He passed away some years ago from throat cancer... but he was very good man and not a torturer.

 

[GenSeneca]

Since I realize all you are really doing here is philabustering...

You previously made a bunch of statements that you now realize you cannot back up with facts or otherwise support... My calling you on them was not a filibuster, it was a triumph of reason and logic over emotion and fallacy.

Besides... my definitionally challenged friend... filibusters take place in terms of military or legislative actions.

that waterboarding is not torture due to it not specifically enough being spelled out in the Geneva Convention & Army Field Manual

You're too hung up on waterboarding... I dont think it was torture in our application of the practice but I can understand that its a technique that's quite close to anyone's "point" of torture. Fact is, it worked and worked fast. Most people cannot last longer than 20 seconds and when time is not on your side, you need quick results.

By all accounts, we took many measures to ensure the safety of the 3 most senior Al Quaeda terrorists we waterboarded. It was determined to be legal at the time, the practice had bi-partisan support in the Congress (despite claims of ignorance) and, like the war itself, eventually became a political bludgeon to hammer the Republicans and Bush administration.

I'll just post tape of where we prosecuted other countries for doing it...

Yes, and don't let anyone tell you that's intellectual laziness... its just expedient and totally irrelevent to the claims you made and now find yourself unable to back up.

that's probably the simplest way to show others "including ourselves" had no problem connecting these same dots in the past.

Too bad you have to leave out some pretty critical differences between how we went about the practice and how that differed significantly from how the people we prosecuted for war crimes went about the practice:

During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.

We waterboarded 3 people, (not every single detainee as you repeatedly try to claim) the 3 most senior leaders of Al Quaeda and we got useful, timely, information from them... relatively humanely too... We didn't beat them with canes or stomp on their stomachs and not a single one died or suffered permanent physical damage (I could care less about the psychological damage done to the people responsible for 9/11 but whether or not there was permanent damage there is disputable).

I have no regrets or moral concerns about the CIA waterboarding those 3 specific Al Quaeda leaders any more than I have regrets or moral concerns about our military dropping two nukes on Japan and firebombing German civilians.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;96139]You previously made a bunch of statements that you now realize you cannot back up with facts or otherwise support... My calling you on them was not a filibuster, it was a triumph of reason and logic over emotion and fallacy.

I simply see no reason to keep making the same winning points over & over again if you only deny the obvious just to stretch things out.

Besides... my definitionally challenged friend... filibusters take place in terms of military or legislative actions.

A filibuster is dragging a position out to try and stymie some action. In this case my win over you. Obviously through the video you see the evidence that WE PROSECUTED other countries for WATERBOARDING. So to say you don't think it's torture because it's not clearly enough defined... only proves you are not as smart as our own prosecuters... which is no front page news I guess.

You're too hung up on waterboarding... I dont think it was torture in our application of the practice but I can understand that its a technique that's quite close to anyone's "point" of torture. Fact is, it worked and worked fast. Most people cannot last longer than 20 seconds and when time is not on your side, you need quick results.

The previous prosecution documentation video proved this point has already been lost by you my friend. The most you can say is "we got away with torture"... move on.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Your "response" (if it can even be called a response), only reinforces my complaint that you sideliners are avoiding actual thought on the topic by refusing to delve into specifics.

Ah, yes....the ol' ("conservative") splitting-hairs option.

I never saw that coming!

​

....and if you read them both in complete context, Washington was referring to the type of treatment detainees recieved at Abu Ghraib and not harsh interrogation techniques like waterbaording.

I'm sure everyone appreciates you "channeling" George Washington, and explaining his preference for waterboarding.

You "conservatives" always have been quite "artful" at coming-up with factoids that others avoid....mostly because everyone else recognizes there's no way to prove/disprove said-factoids. The Dick (Cheney) is quite masterful at such pursuits.

​