What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[PLC1]

Ok then, what country are you interested in persuading?

While you're at it... I asked you in another thread that got off topic to come here and offer your suggestion for how we can obtain information from a 1-A suspect who's been through all 5 levels of interrogation and remains uncooperative... He needs to go to level 6, "enhanced interrogation", so....

What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Just start with ONE technique that accomplishes these 2 goals:

1. Both you and the "civilized world" must find it acceptable.
2. It must achieve timely results.

Now, seeing as you're a self declared pragmatist... I'm surprised you abandon pragmatism and choose ideological grounds where waterboarding is concerned. In pragmatic terms, its very effective and takes only seconds to get results... That's the epitome of pragmatism: works fast and is effective.

In pragmatic terms, torturing prisoners is more likely to elicit whatever the interrogator wants to hear than it is to bring out the truth.

In pragmatic terms, torturing prisoners is a great way to recruit more enemies.

In pragmatic terms, torture causes more problems than it solves.

In purely ideological terms, the great democracies of the world, of which we need to be one, simply don't engage in torturing prisoners.

 

[dahermit]

In pragmatic terms, torturing prisoners is more likely to elicit whatever the interrogator wants to hear than it is to bring out the truth.

In pragmatic terms, torturing prisoners is a great way to recruit more enemies.

In pragmatic terms, torture causes more problems than it solves.

In purely ideological terms, the great democracies of the world, of which we need to be one, simply don't engage in torturing prisoners.

Addendum: In Afghanistan, only 7% of the prisoners held by American forces have been captured by the Americans. The rest are turned in by Afghan Security Forces, often for a reward. Therefore, many are just "suspects" and are not guilty of being enemy personnel. Thus, there have been many instances of torture where the subjects were not likely guilty of anything...just in the wrong place at the wrong time, as was the "Taxi Driver" incident where an innocent man was tortured to death by being repeatedly kneed in the thigh just to hear him scream (as was admitted to by his American jailers). He was never asked any questions...just abused to the point where, if he had lived, he would have had to have both legs amputated.
Has American been made safer from terrorism by such actions?

 

[PLC1]

Addendum: In Afghanistan, only 7% of the prisoners held by American forces have been captured by the Americans. The rest are turned in by Afghan Security Forces, often for a reward. Therefore, many are just "suspects" and are not guilty of being enemy personnel. Thus, there have been many instances of torture where the subjects were not likely guilty of anything...just in the wrong place at the wrong time, as was the "Taxi Driver" incident where an innocent man was tortured to death by being repeatedly kneed in the thigh just to hear him scream (as was admitted to by his American jailers). He was never asked any questions...just abused to the point where, if he had lived, he would have had to have both legs amputated.
Has American been made safer from terrorism by such actions?

Oh, yes. And in pragmatic terms, torturing people when there is less than a 10% chance that the prisoner is actually guilty of anything, and even a smaller chance that he knows something of value, is counterproductive.

In real, emotional and gut level terms:

Great democracies do not engage in torture, not even when they call it something else and circumvent the law by labeling the prisoners with a new term. The US still is one of the world's great democracies, isn't it?

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't care if Jesus himself came down from the heavens, TORTURE is wrong!

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain who's been tortured even freely admits water suffocation (waterboarding) IS TORTURE.

Torture is wrong. Hence the name TORTURE.

tor⋅ture [tawr-cher]

The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

I would agree that torture is wrong. But a country just might decide to do something wrong as the lesser of two evils. You know; like taxation.


Based on your definition waterboarding is not torture since it does not cause excruciating pain. based on the legal definition of torture it is not either. But a lot of people with a lot of common sense would say that it is.

 

[BigRob]

As far as saving lives we don't know that one way or the other. Other non-TORTURE techniques or other intel might have gleaned the exact same information. And a hope to do something is not the same as it actually happening regardless.

That is the line the President has put forth, but this line admits that intelligence was gathered from these techniques. I think arguing about "maybe we could have done this in another way" is not really relevant.

As far as the "if it saved lives" mindset... I totally rebuke it because it's the beginning to the end of civilized military conduct.

We do not do any of this to people who abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Line up prisoners against a wall, start at one end and shoot one at a time until someone further down the wall talks.

Sounds impossible for the United States of America to do that doesn't it? Until Bush/Cheney so was WATER SUFFOCATION.

Not my America my friend.

Not in America? We have firebombed cities, used nuclear weapons, openly targeted civilians, among numerous other things. Perhaps not in your vision of America, but yes, we do these things in America.

Lying to Congress... or in the kindness of terms... submitting misleading circumstances... was a key component to the Bush/Cheney White House. They did the exact same thing to get support to invade Iraq in the first place.

Everything the Bush/Cheney administration did was geared toward get us in so deep we can say we're too committed to change our chosen course.

There is no evidence that the Bush Administration lied to Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques.

Well... it was YOU who said quote, "it was perfectly in line with international standards". I'm saying no it was not. Spain for instance is trying to indite Bush administration officials over it... and that's not even an Islamic country.

"Trying" being the key word. Further, they have no jurisdiction anyway. They can do whatever they want, it is legally irrelevant. And I said it was in line with international standards because the international standard is that we get to decide how we treat them when they do not abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Finding creative ways to circumvent the spirit of the Geneva Convention and that TORTURE IS NOT TO BE DONE TO ANY PRISONER IN A CIVILIZED WORLD does not mean it is "in line with international standards". It only means an American President gamed the system.

It is not all that creative to read the text of the Conventions and clearly see that it states they are not POW's.

I look soon for a very explicit International Regulation to come out so no country can avoid International Law by saying... they can do whatever they want to prisoners held because THEY ALONE decided it was OK.

I would look for those regulations (if they do come out) to be worded in a way that they can be avoided or nations putting in reservations to make these things non self-executing.

Any future adversary can now point at OUR APPROVED TORTURE BY THE BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION and say they themselves should not be held accountable for doing any torture whatsoever just as long as it doesn't cause death (our apparent standard) to our men & women because not only has America approved the precedent, it did so when it was the indisputable world Super Power.

If we abide by the Geneva Conventions (and we do) then they would be violating this Convention, and therefore in the wrong.

It helps put every smaller country & power in a position to say... What else can we do. They are the super sized TORTURING BULLIES. We have no choice. It's much how we once had the rest of the world looking at the former USSR.

We followed the Geneva Conventions. If another country follows it, they will be treated as such.

Believe me if a nuke ever goes off in the states it won't be from some organized military attack. It will be from someone feeling there is no other way to stop a bully that now even TORTURES its prisoners.

Adding "torture" to this statement is laughable. No one is going to "nuke" us because we waterboarded someone.

However you are on another issue on why a world with no nuclear weapons is idiotic. During the Cold War we balanced the superior Soviet conventional power with nuclear weapons, we should expect other nations to do the same to our overwhelming conventional power now.

 

[BigRob]

Addendum: In Afghanistan, only 7% of the prisoners held by American forces have been captured by the Americans. The rest are turned in by Afghan Security Forces, often for a reward. Therefore, many are just "suspects" and are not guilty of being enemy personnel. Thus, there have been many instances of torture where the subjects were not likely guilty of anything...just in the wrong place at the wrong time, as was the "Taxi Driver" incident where an innocent man was tortured to death by being repeatedly kneed in the thigh just to hear him scream (as was admitted to by his American jailers). He was never asked any questions...just abused to the point where, if he had lived, he would have had to have both legs amputated.
Has American been made safer from terrorism by such actions?

What is your source for this?

 

[top gun]

I would agree that torture is wrong. But a country just might decide to do something wrong as the lesser of two evils. You know; like taxation.

That's the old the ends justify the means... as long as it's us doing it defense.

So to be consistent you are encouraging all other forces to torture our troops using your standard. I'm against that.

John McCain himself said it's wrong and everybody that's volunteered to try it says it's definitely torture.

It's simply wrong. Thankfully President Obama has reversed the Bush/Cheney practice.

Based on your definition waterboarding is not torture since it does not cause excruciating pain. based on the legal definition of torture it is not either. But a lot of people with a lot of common sense would say that it is.

Really!!!!!!!!!

OK tell me when to stop by an I'll hold your head under water and water suffocate you. Then we'll discuss the pain in realistic terms.

 

[top gun]

That is the line the President has put forth, but this line admits that intelligence was gathered from these techniques. I think arguing about "maybe we could have done this in another way" is not really relevant.

And again the rub... IT'S TORTURE. America does not TORTURE defenseless prisoners. Bush did... President Obama and the rest of the world correctly thought he was completely off the reservation with this one and the practice was eliminated by President Obama.

We could have just started shooting them until someone spilled the beans too... but that's insane. It's not a matter if any information was gleened... it's that it was immoral and wrong and against international standards that we had agreed to.

And the whole idea that we could ONLY get information this way... or that that information actually stopped anything is pure hyperbole.

We do not do any of this to people who abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Again you are just floundering trying to say TORTURING human beings in prison is good. It is not.

Not in America? We have firebombed cities, used nuclear weapons, openly targeted civilians, among numerous other things. Perhaps not in your vision of America, but yes, we do these things in America.

We are not supposed to EVER target civilians. Saying we have we done things that are wrong in the past hardly exonerates doing other wrong & immoral things under Bush/Cheney.

They had a little of a monster streak in them and they let it show. Thank God it's over now.

There is no evidence that the Bush Administration lied to Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques.

Bush/Cheney was one of the, if not the the lyingest administrations of all times. And on things that really cost lives. They were a discrace to America.

"Trying" being the key word. Further, they have no jurisdiction anyway. They can do whatever they want, it is legally irrelevant. And I said it was in line with international standards because the international standard is that we get to decide how we treat them when they do not abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Although the Geneva Convention is a good international standard that should have been applied to these detainees there are other international standards that have been discussed that cover OUR TORTURING of bound and defenseless prisoners as absolutely wrong and immoral.

If you believe that the international standard is that the United States can TORTURE anybody not in an official military uniform you are incorrect.

It is not all that creative to read the text of the Conventions and clearly see that it states they are not POW's.

Semantics won't keep you guys out of hell for promoting and glorifying the TORTURE of bound and defenseless detainees Rob.

I would look for those regulations (if they do come out) to be worded in a way that they can be avoided or nations putting in reservations to make these things non self-executing.

Now that the world knows what the TORTURE KINGS of America BUSH & CHENEY snuck through... I certainly don't.

If we abide by the Geneva Conventions (and we do) then they would be violating this Convention, and therefore in the wrong.

We followed the Geneva Conventions. If another country follows it, they will be treated as such.

We were criminals. You got away with it this time. It's nothing to gloat about. It's pretty sick.

Adding "torture" to this statement is laughable. No one is going to "nuke" us because we waterboarded someone.

However you are on another issue on why a world with no nuclear weapons is idiotic. During the Cold War we balanced the superior Soviet conventional power with nuclear weapons, we should expect other nations to do the same to our overwhelming conventional power now.

It only takes enough nukes to kill everybody once. America running around black bagging detainees and TORTURING them is not helpful my friend.

I'm just saying you may want to reflect before you get too cocky. Thinking our "Superior power" will always be enough no matter how we medal in other countries affairs to try and expand our global power and TORTURING defenseless prisoners because we said so may come back and bite you in the a$$ in an unbelievable and devastating way.

The Romans did that... how many Romans do you see running things now?

 

[BigRob]

And again the rub... IT'S TORTURE. America does not TORTURE defenseless prisoners. Bush did... President Obama and the rest of the world correctly thought he was completely off the reservation with this one and the practice was eliminated by President Obama.

I don't care if people "think" anything was "off the reservation." I care about what is legal.

We could have just started shooting them until someone spilled the beans too... but that's insane. It's not a matter if any information was gleened... it's that it was immoral and wrong and against international standards that we had agreed to.

International standards that we agreed to? Like what? The Geneva Conventions that clearly state these people are not POW's? That international standard?

International standards are not as cut and dry as "we agreed so we follow." There is a lot more to them than that.

And the whole idea that we could ONLY get information this way... or that that information actually stopped anything is pure hyperbole.

What is it to claim that "maybe" we could have gotten the information another way? It is just a back and forth unprovable statement.

Again you are just floundering trying to say TORTURING human beings in prison is good. It is not.

When did I say it was good? What I did say was that it was needed and legal.

We are not supposed to EVER target civilians. Saying we have we done things that are wrong in the past hardly exonerates doing other wrong & immoral things under Bush/Cheney.

Is FDR a war criminal then? How about Truman? How about Obama? The nuclear posture of Obama is to have nuclear weapons target cities, same as every other President. Who lives in cities? Civilians.

Bush/Cheney was one of the, if not the the lyingest administrations of all times. And on things that really cost lives. They were a discrace to America.

I am not sure how this proves that Congress was lied to about enhanced interrogation.

Although the Geneva Convention is a good international standard that should have been applied to these detainees there are other international standards that have been discussed that cover OUR TORTURING of bound and defenseless prisoners as absolutely wrong and immoral.

In order to abide by the Geneva Convention, we could not call them POW's. It would have been a violation of the Convention to call them such.

What other international standards are you talking about? And further, in this case US domestic policy trumps is what governs these detainees, not some non-binding GA feel good resolution.

If you believe that the international standard is that the United States can TORTURE anybody not in an official military uniform you are incorrect.

Not sure where I ever said that. That said the international standard is that in this case our domestic policy dictates how we treat them. With Congressional approval, we deemed waterboarding was OK.

Semantics won't keep you guys out of hell for promoting and glorifying the TORTURE of bound and defenseless detainees Rob.

It is not arguing semantics to read the text of the Geneva Conventions and easily determine that these people are not entitled to POW protection.

Now, as for other cases of torture, those responsible have already been tried. But in the case of GITMO, we did nothing wrong there.

Now that the world knows what the TORTURE KINGS of America BUSH & CHENEY snuck through... I certainly don't.

Well I just think that shows a naivety in terms of international politics.

We were criminals. You got away with it this time. It's nothing to gloat about. It's pretty sick.

It is not criminal to obey the law.

It only takes enough nukes to kill everybody once. America running around black bagging detainees and TORTURING them is not helpful my friend.

How did waterboarding 3 people get turned into "America running around black bagging detainees and torturing them? And what relevance does this have on nations nuclear posture?

I'm just saying you may want to reflect before you get too cocky. Thinking our "Superior power" will always be enough no matter how we medal in other countries affairs to try and expand our global power and TORTURING defenseless prisoners because we said so may come back and bite you in the a$$ in an unbelievable and devastating way.

Sure there will always be blowback, but predicting blowback is nearly impossible. I have no illusion that our "superior power" is going to protect us from all harm, but it is crazy to think waterboarding will result in a nuclear attack on the United States.

The Romans did that... how many Romans do you see running things now?

America will eventually fall, I give you that. I just think while we are the hegemon we ought to use it to our advantage.

 

[dahermit]

What is your source for this?

"Taxi to the Dark Side", Best Documentary 2008 Oscars. Available from NetFlix on DVD or streaming.

 

[GenSeneca]

In pragmatic terms, torturing prisoners is more likely to elicit whatever the interrogator wants to hear than it is to bring out the truth.

We agree about what torture elicits, what we disagree with is whether or not waterboarding is torture... A distinction people on your side have no inclination of making.

In pragmatic terms, torturing prisoners is a great way to recruit more enemies.

Purely your political opinion and supported by nothing more than the political opinions of others who say the same thing... Anything we do can be construed to "recruit more enemies" to the terrorists. You can't name one thing that couldn't be twisted to make the claim that it produces more terrorists.

In pragmatic terms, torture causes more problems than it solves.

Again, we agree on torture... We disagree on waterboarding being torture. I don't think waterboarding 3 senior AQ members caused more problems than it solved.

In purely ideological terms, the great democracies of the world, of which we need to be one, simply don't engage in torturing prisoners.

We still agree... I'm not for torture either but our opinions of what constitutes torture is certainly different. The biggest problem with you, or top gun, or pocket, or any of the others who are against waterboarding, is that you extrapolate to extremes by taking saying that anyone who disagrees with you on waterboarding is a supporter of any and all forms of torture: I say waterboarding isn't torture, therefore you extrapolate, based on that disagreement over one specific interrogation technique, and make the claim that I think all torture is acceptable, that we should torture people, to death if necessary, and do so for nothing more than sadistic pleasure.... That's simply political posturing, dishonest rhetoric and a repeated use of logical fallacies on your part, all in an effort to demonize me, for simply disagreeing with you on the issue of waterboarding.

----------
Now, please, I asked the following and you keep dodging the question:

Offer your suggestion for how we can obtain information from a 1-A suspect who's been through all 5 levels of interrogation and remains uncooperative... He needs to go to level 6, "enhanced interrogation", so....

What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Just start with ONE specific technique that accomplishes these 2 goals:

1. Both you and the "civilized world" must find it acceptable.
2. It must achieve timely and accurate results.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;97185]I don't care if people "think" anything was "off the reservation." I care about what is legal.

And I think I and others have shown it was not legal by international standards... and it was only "legal" by our standards due to a changing of the understanding of what TORTURE is. Up until we decided to change our minds on it so we could us it on defenseless prisoners waterboarding HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TORTURE.

The off the reservation comment was simply saying Bush/Cheney were people who authorized terrible things, lied like it was their religion and overall deserve to be ostracized and condemned.

International standards that we agreed to? Like what? The Geneva Conventions that clearly state these people are not POW's? That international standard?

Yes just like Republican Presidential candidate and former POW Senator John McCain said... should have been treated as POW's... should not have been waterboarded it's TORTURE! I can play the clip again if you like. But not only that also other international agreements like the Basic Human Rights agreement that's been posted on the other thread.

International standards are not as cut and dry as "we agreed so we follow." There is a lot more to them than that.

Really quite simple in this case. We agreed to abide by certain standards and we did not under the Bush administration policy of let's TORTURE DETAINEES.

What is it to claim that "maybe" we could have gotten the information another way? It is just a back and forth unprovable statement.

Same as saying "we got valuable information" that didn't stop anything because the information was just talking about hopes for other attacks.

When did I say it was good? What I did say was that it was needed and legal.

The word smithing is getting a little tedious. You never said those exact words but you've spent pages glorifying a terrible series of TORTURE events. All you've done is search out loopholes in our laws and say no one has authority to enforce non TORTURE regulations on us.

If you think the Bush TORTURE was bad and we shouldn't have used it then say so. That's the direct question... it's a YES or NO answer only. You may also feel it was legal but that's not the question I'm asking.

Is FDR a war criminal then? How about Truman? How about Obama? The nuclear posture of Obama is to have nuclear weapons target cities, same as every other President. Who lives in cities? Civilians.

I'm saying the intentional targeting of civilians is wrong and against international law. Are you disputing this?

The reason for targeting cities is a response set up to a nuclear attack. It is not... I REPEAT NOT... a first strike scenario.

I am not sure how this proves that Congress was lied to about enhanced interrogation.

Well I could post about 20 different clips documenting Bush/Cheney lies on just about every subject. I think some show a total of 935 separate lies. It doesn't matter... if you believe Bush/Cheney never lied after all that's came out already that's your position.

In order to abide by the Geneva Convention, we could not call them POW's. It would have been a violation of the Convention to call them such.

Are you saying we couldn't have called the Gnomes or Werewolves or something and still treated them under Geneva Convention Standards? Come on Rob! It's not what we called them it's that we TORTURED THEM! And you know that.

What other international standards are you talking about? And further, in this case US domestic policy trumps is what governs these detainees, not some non-binding GA feel good resolution.

There you go again... not able to just say the words... TORTURING BOUND & DEFENSELESS DETAINEES IS WRONG. Instead what are you doing? Encouraging TORTURE through the reason of nonenforceability.

It is not arguing semantics to read the text of the Geneva Conventions and easily determine that these people are not entitled to POW protection.

We could have treated them as POW's just like Senator McCain has said. Instead the Bush/Cheney gang of thugs chose TORTURE.

How did waterboarding 3 people get turned into "America running around black bagging detainees and torturing them? And what relevance does this have on nations nuclear posture?

You don't know everything that we've done. These things usually come out years later as they did in Vietnam. But when you start with the baseline of all the various things that happened at Abu Grabe add to that a procedure for a water suffocation torture the parts we don't fully know about will be chilling when they come out.

As far as the nukes... my point is there are those who think in foolhardy ways. They think us having the ability to destroy the entire planet 350 times over is a stronger position than say Russia that can only DESTROY EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET say 200 times. My wife the ex-Intelligence Officer always gets a kick out of that whole missing of the point thing. Probably because her field was Russian studies.

And if you had a small nuke and you watched as certain Americans praised TORTURE and it was your bother or father was being TORTURED I could see the scenario in their minds for a 9-11 type of retaliation attack by just regular looking people. But this time instead of a plane it's a nuke.

America will eventually fall, I give you that. I just think while we are the hegemon we ought to use it to our advantage.

Well good that's something to agree on. Although I don't think it has to necessarily be inevitable if we always work hard on our image of being just even if it's not expedient or convenient.

I'm just saying torturing bound & defenseless prisoners puts us on a fast track to a downfall that I'd like to slow down.

 

[BigRob]

And I think I and others have shown it was not legal by international standards... and it was only "legal" by our standards due to a changing of the understanding of what TORTURE is. Up until we decided to change our minds on it so we could us it on defenseless prisoners waterboarding HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TORTURE.

But the international standard is that when you do not abide by the Geneva Conventions you are subject to the domestic policies of the nation holding you. Therefore when we, with Congressional oversight, waterboarded a few people, it was consistent with all domestic and international standards.

Yes just like Republican Presidential candidate and former POW Senator John McCain said... should have been treated as POW's... should not have been waterboarded it's TORTURE! I can play the clip again if you like. But not only that also other international agreements like the Basic Human Rights agreement that's been posted on the other thread.

Sure we could have just treated them as POW's if we wanted to, but it was not wrong to not do so.

As for international agreements, you are citing a Convention that has requirements to met in order to fall under it, and a non-binding human rights resolution. The reason it passed as it did is because it was non-binding.

Really quite simple in this case. We agreed to abide by certain standards and we did not under the Bush administration policy of let's TORTURE DETAINEES.

We did abide by all of our legal binding agreements.

The word smithing is getting a little tedious. You never said those exact words but you've spent pages glorifying a terrible series of TORTURE events. All you've done is search out loopholes in our laws and say no one has authority to enforce non TORTURE regulations on us.

You'd think it was my job or something.

If you think the Bush TORTURE was bad and we shouldn't have used it then say so. That's the direct question... it's a YES or NO answer only. You may also feel it was legal but that's not the question I'm asking.

No, I do not feel that waterboarding the known masterminds of terror attacks was bad.

I'm saying the intentional targeting of civilians is wrong and against international law. Are you disputing this?

Actually it is not always illegal, but that is a different issue. But generally, targeting civilians is illegal yes.

The reason for targeting cities is a response set up to a nuclear attack. It is not... I REPEAT NOT... a first strike scenario.

That is interesting seeing as how we drew up plans for first strike scenarios regularly. Why would we do that if we did not at least hold it as an option? However, regardless of reason, according to you targeting civilians is illegal, therefore you are either 1) admitting that targeting civilians is OK, or 2) arguing that circumstances can change manner in which we act.

Well I could post about 20 different clips documenting Bush/Cheney lies on just about every subject. I think some show a total of 935 separate lies. It doesn't matter... if you believe Bush/Cheney never lied after all that's came out already that's your position.

Every President "lies." I believe that they acted on bad information, but I am not yet convinced that they openly lied with the intent to go to war.

Are you saying we couldn't have called the Gnomes or Werewolves or something and still treated them under Geneva Convention Standards?[/B] Come on Rob! It's not what we called them it's that we TORTURED THEM! And you know that.

We could have called them whatever and treated them however sure.

There you go again... not able to just say the words... TORTURING BOUND & DEFENSELESS DETAINEES IS WRONG. Instead what are you doing? Encouraging TORTURE through the reason of nonenforceability.

Torture is generally wrong, but why are you harping on bound and defenseless? Do you believe it is OK if they are not in that state?

We could have treated them as POW's just like Senator McCain has said. Instead the Bush/Cheney gang of thugs chose TORTURE.

Bush/Cheney and a Bi-Partisan Congress chose how we treated them.

You don't know everything that we've done. These things usually come out years later as they did in Vietnam. But when you start with the baseline of all the various things that happened at Abu Grabe add to that a procedure for a water suffocation torture the parts we don't fully know about will be chilling when they come out.

We have tried those who were responsible for unauthorized torture actions.

As far as the nukes... my point is there are those who think in foolhardy ways. They think us having the ability to destroy the entire planet 350 times over is a stronger position than say Russia that can only DESTROY EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET say 200 times. My wife the ex-Intelligence Officer always gets a kick out of that whole missing of the point thing. Probably because her field was Russian studies.

Nuclear parity is not as important as the credibility of our extended deterrence. As it stands, the US is thousands of warheads behind the Russians. We keep taking down the strategic warhead levels, but we never change the theater numbers. We currently have a few hundred of those, the Russians have around 4,000. In terms of extended credibility, numbers like that start to matter. The point is not how many times can you destroy the world, it is how credible is your deterrent and how many survivable weapons do you have?

I'd like to have a conversation with your wife, my field is defense strategy, could make for an interesting conversation.

And if you had a small nuke and you watched as certain Americans praised TORTURE and it was your bother or father was being TORTURED I could see the scenario in their minds for a 9-11 type of retaliation attack by just regular looking people. But this time instead of a plane it's a nuke.

No terrorist group is upset that we waterboarded anyone. Further, none of these groups are going to cite that as their "beef" with the US. All of these groups were already upset about something else we did.

Well good that's something to agree on. Although I don't think it has to necessarily be inevitable if we always work hard on our image of being just even if it's not expedient or convenient.

I'm just saying torturing bound & defenseless prisoners puts us on a fast track to a downfall that I'd like to slow down.

I am not sure image is what is going to maintain our dominance, but image will ebb and flow, we should focus on economics and military.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;97204]But the international standard is that when you do not abide by the Geneva Conventions you are subject to the domestic policies of the nation holding you. Therefore when we, with Congressional oversight, waterboarded a few people, it was consistent with all domestic and international standards.

Rob it was wrong.

You can put wings on a pig but that don't make him an eagle. That's all Bush did. It will be held against us because most think it violates international law... not just Liberals or other countries but your Party's candidate for President of the United States of America Senator John McCain.

Thankfully President Obama was elected to clean up this mess. America no longer TORTURES detainees.

Sure we could have just treated them as POW's if we wanted to, but it was not wrong to not do so.

Oh no it was definately wrong. People get away with stuff every single day that is wrong. It was morally wrong and violated multiple agreements we as a country had made condeming TORTURE.

As for international agreements, you are citing a Convention that has requirements to met in order to fall under it, and a non-binding human rights resolution. The reason it passed as it did is because it was non-binding.

Key word: PASSED... thank you.

No, I do not feel that waterboarding the known masterminds of terror attacks was bad.

OK THEN! You can't get touchy when I say you liked it. That's what I said. You didn't think it was bad... i.e. you liked it.

Actually it is not always illegal, but that is a different issue. But generally, targeting civilians is illegal yes.

Again we agree.

That is interesting seeing as how we drew up plans for first strike scenarios regularly. Why would we do that if we did not at least hold it as an option? However, regardless of reason, according to you targeting civilians is illegal, therefore you are either 1) admitting that targeting civilians is OK, or 2) arguing that circumstances can change manner in which we act.

I never said targeting civilians was illegal. I don't think "targeting" prisoners for water suffocation is illegal. It's doing that breaks the rules & standards, not thinking about it.

And you know while we run every scenario through war games simulators the goal of nukes is to be a deterrent not a first strike weapon.

Every President "lies." I believe that they acted on bad information, but I am not yet convinced that they openly lied with the intent to go to war.

Well let's just say right now you're holding the record.

We could have called them whatever and treated them however sure.

And that's what we should have done... interrogated and imprisoned them them without DROWNING THEM.

Torture is generally wrong, but why are you harping on bound and defenseless? Do you believe it is OK if they are not in that state?

I do it for two reasons. One: To illustrate their true position and Two: It's a different situation if they are actively fighting our men & women or trying to escape. Then you might have to shoot them who knows.

Nuclear parity is not as important as the credibility of our extended deterrence. As it stands, the US is thousands of warheads behind the Russians. We keep taking down the strategic warhead levels, but we never change the theater numbers. We currently have a few hundred of those, the Russians have around 4,000. In terms of extended credibility, numbers like that start to matter. The point is not how many times can you destroy the world, it is how credible is your deterrent and how many survivable weapons do you have?

I'd like to have a conversation with your wife, my field is defense strategy, could make for an interesting conversation.

Ah then you know Russian military thinking. God knows I've heard enough about it... LOL! What do they do differently compared to us in almost every military field?

With the Russians it's quantity over quality. They might have say a lesser tank... but they have 10 or 20 to 1 in numbers. Same all the way up the line. They are numbers driven.

My wife is a reader and a puzzle person not a blogger. She actually thinks I'm crazy for blogging. She no $hit reads 5 or 6 books a week every week and plays games like suduko like Dustin Hoffman gambles in Rain Man.

It's the whole "pattern" thing she's good at & freakin' LOVES! That's what she did in the military. When she was in she had a direct hook up and reported to NSA. She would first break intercepted messages down from Russian into English... then work on breaking down word patterns for code... then string code words together for meaning and give a report.

Eventually the Army took back more control over her section and she decided to leave the service. She liked reporting more directly to NSA much better.

No terrorist group is upset that we waterboarded anyone. Further, none of these groups are going to cite that as their "beef" with the US. All of these groups were already upset about something else we did.

I am not sure image is what is going to maintain our dominance, but image will ebb and flow, we should focus on economics and military.

I think arrogance on the world stage with a sense of entitlement and their belief they had undefeatable power is what the Romans thought they had too.

The Carthaginian General Hannibal as well as the barbarians from Gaul seemed... let's say... less impressed.

Those who fail to recognize history are bound to repeat it. We shouldn't torture.

 

[GenSeneca]

not just Liberals or other countries but your Party's candidate for President of the United States of America Senator John McCain.

John McCain... The same John McCain you said was senile, out of touch, too old, cancer riddled and on the brink of death...

The same John McCain you made fun of for not knowing how many houses he owned, for his mannerisms and inability to use a keyboard due to his injuries from being tortured?

The same John McCain you argued with me about because you didn't think he was a war hero and you said his torture stories were overblown for his own self-aggrandizement?

That John McCain!?!?

You spent 2 solid years smearing John McCain and discrediting everything he said and did... I guess in your world his senility and old age effect everything except his ability to distinguish between what is, and is not, torture... at least so long as he agrees with your position on waterboarding.