What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Mr. Shaman]

By claiming that some authority on the subject has undertaken all the thought necessary in discussing the topic, Shaman excuses himself from the burdonsome process of thinking. In his case, I can see why.

In-other-words.....you digress.

Good choice.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What designation will you give to those we pick up on the battlefield?

Yeah......that's where they all came-from.....the battlefield.....



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/15/732040/-How-Gitmos-Prisoners-were-Sold,-by-Bounty-Hunters​

 

[GenSeneca]

Yeah......that's where they all came-from.....the battlefield.....



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/15/732040/-How-Gitmos-Prisoners-were-Sold,-by-Bounty-Hunters​

Its not a big shock that you can't answer the question (or any questions) in your own words but for you to post links claiming that our military is both incompetent and corrupt is very Progressive of you.

If your so intellectually lazy that you pirate posts from the Daily Kos and Huffington Post, You might be a Progressive....

If your so intellectually bankrupt that you think opinions posted on extreme-left-wing blog sites are credible sources, You might be a Progressive....

If you post one line responses with colors, smilies and irrelevant links, You might be a Progressive....

Q. What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Shamans idea of an intellectual discussion:

His derisive sarcasm and starter box of crayons has earned him the title of "Intellectual Leader of the Progressives" here on the forum.

 

[top gun]

It would be a redefinition of the term POW to classify people who clearly do not meet the standards spelled out to get this status as POW's.

You seem to be in favor of redefining terms, as long as they fall in line with your own view on the issue.

And those terms would be that the United States of America does not torture. It just amazes me that for the failed hope of lending righteousness to a terrible thing to try and shine up the tarnish of one President (Bush) people really try and rationalize TORTURE as a good thing.

I'm a reasonable person. I understand not bringing fighters captured on the field of battle to a civilian court. I have no problem with a military court. I have no real problem with the logistics of the prison @ Gitmo.

But for Christ sake how defrocked fearmongers like Dick Cheney and his followers seriously believe they can pull the wool over anybodies eyes anymore and glorify TORTURE as a good thing... that's disgusting.

AMERICA NO LONGER TORTURES!!! NO MORE WATER SUFFOCATION!!! Thank you President Obama.

If they do not meet the standards spelled out for POW protection under the Geneva Conventions then they are going to be governed by our domestic policy that we establish. Since our Congress said these practices were fine, it was perfectly in line with both international and domestic standards.

If some other country does not like that, that is their issue, but we broke no laws doing it. I will grant you we lost the PR fight in regards to GITMO, but legally, I think we were on solid ground.

Seriously? So if we decide to put them on the RACK of run bamboo shoots up under their fingernails or hoist them up and hang them by their arms tied behind their backs as the Viet Cong did to John McCain it's all good and proper because we said it was. Seriously you believe that?

And I see a whole lot of other countries saying it absolutely wasn't " "perfectly in line" with international standards.

That's why we hid doing it.

This isn't about did Darth Cheney & Cowboy find a legal loophole so they could feel like tough guys and torture prisoners. I think you've won that one.

But to not see the damage done and not see how wrong those actions were... that's the scary thing to me. When I see Americans going along with TORTURE, TORTURE because it was a President & Vice President they liked that did it.

It just amazes me. And it saddens me. Because we can deny it all we want. But when our men & women get captured from now on in and conflict... it's just tick for tack... TORTURER to TORTURER. And the worlds going to say well... you do things like that yourself America.

It sickens me. My God can we even begin to imagine if the neo-cons had stayed in power what the next medieval torture they'd of pulled out of their hats and said... WE CAN DO ANYTHING?

Anyone doubting why it was so important that the neo-cons got kicked to the curb... there's the proof right there.

 

[PLC1]

It would be a redefinition of the term POW to classify people who clearly do not meet the standards spelled out to get this status as POW's.

You seem to be in favor of redefining terms, as long as they fall in line with your own view on the issue.



If they do not meet the standards spelled out for POW protection under the Geneva Conventions then they are going to be governed by our domestic policy that we establish. Since our Congress said these practices were fine, it was perfectly in line with both international and domestic standards.

If some other country does not like that, that is their issue, but we broke no laws doing it. I will grant you we lost the PR fight in regards to GITMO, but legally, I think we were on solid ground.




Yes, they are human, I am not sure anyone is trying to dispute that. However, everything that was done was in line with all legal regimes at the time.

As for being credible, I think you need to ask "credible with who?" We will maintain credibility with most nations, and the ones we might not have it with the odds are probably good in most cases that we were not going to have it begin with.

On a side note, I am glad that you agree that credibility is such an important issue however, which is why we need missile defense, and upgrades to our nuclear arsenal.

We already have the capability of destroying civilization. If we had the capability of destroying it twice over, would we be more credible then?


If we protest and try to change another nation's practice of abusing human rights, are we more credible if we have more and bigger missiles, or if we ourselves have set an example?

Yes, credibility is important. Others who would attack us need to know that such attack would be devastating to them, so they'll think twice. We already have that, and in great abundance.

Further, we spend far and away more than any other nation on our military, yet can't engage a third rate dictatorship like Iraq without emergency war spending. What's wrong with that picture?

 

[PLC1]

 

[GenSeneca]

That's why we hid doing it.

What secret interrogation techniques are we currently using?

If you cannot answer that, then they must be pretty horrific... otherwise we wouldn't be hiding them.

when our men & women get captured from now on in and conflict...

By whom? Al Qaeda and the Taliban were already torturing our soldiers and civilians... just before they chopped their heads off.

 

[GenSeneca]

Reporting from Washington -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney, delivering a forceful defense of the Bush administration's interrogations of suspected terrorists and stern criticism of the Obama administration, maintained today that the CIA never tortured anyone and kept the United States safe from an attack potentially worse than the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001.

The waterboarding employed in the questioning of a few captured terrorists was essential to gleaning as much information about Al Qaeda's intentions as quickly as possible in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, the former vice president said in a public address today.

"To call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives," he said. "It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness."

"You have heard endlessly about waterboarding. . . . It happened to three terrorists," Cheney said. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country . . . With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made good sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time."

 

[PLC1]

Reporting from Washington -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney, delivering a forceful defense of the Bush administration's interrogations of suspected terrorists and stern criticism of the Obama administration, maintained today that the CIA never tortured anyone and kept the United States safe from an attack potentially worse than the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001.

The waterboarding employed in the questioning of a few captured terrorists was essential to gleaning as much information about Al Qaeda's intentions as quickly as possible in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, the former vice president said in a public address today.

"To call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives," he said. "It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness."

"You have heard endlessly about waterboarding. . . . It happened to three terrorists," Cheney said. "We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country . . . With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made good sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time."

Yes, that's what he said.

How can you tell when Cheney is lying?

His lips are moving. He can't hide that.

 

[top gun]

OH THAT IS JUST TOO FREAKIN' GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darth Cheney was absolutely without doubt the animal that kept in Bush's ear... torture is ok... torture is ok.

And Bush not being the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree said sure.

Darth Cheney has walked away from past VP status and is now no more the a Druggie Limbaugh fear monger of misinformation and misdirection.

I say keep playing to the 19% of their Lunatic Right... they've lost big twice doing it. Keep up the good work for us.

Hopefully and unless we want the RACK & the TORTURE COFFIN to make a medieval come back the ways they TORTURED human beings with WATER SUFFOCATION will keep being a topic on everyone's mind.

Typical Bush/Cheney Oval Office conversation...

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;96885]What secret interrogation techniques are we currently using?

If you cannot answer that, then they must be pretty horrific... otherwise we wouldn't be hiding them.

Well I can assure you of this... it ain't TORTURE!

We got rid of the TORTURE PRESIDENT and elected someone opposed to it... that ended it! Thank God for President Obama. God knows what the next TORTURE the neo-cons would have pulled out of their little black bag would have been.

By whom? Al Qaeda and the Taliban were already torturing our soldiers and civilians... just before they chopped their heads off.

I know how your propensity is to misquote me so I'll say it again in bold upper case...

EVERY FUTURE CONFLICT WITH ANY ENEMY FROM ANY LOCATION IN THE WORLD THAT AMERICA IS EVER ENGAGED IN.

 

[BigRob]

And those terms would be that the United States of America does not torture. It just amazes me that for the failed hope of lending righteousness to a terrible thing to try and shine up the tarnish of one President (Bush) people really try and rationalize TORTURE as a good thing.

If it was legal and it saved lives it was a good thing.

Seriously? So if we decide to put them on the RACK of run bamboo shoots up under their fingernails or hoist them up and hang them by their arms tied behind their backs as the Viet Cong did to John McCain it's all good and proper because we said it was. Seriously you believe that?

If Congress authorized that it would at least be legal. Would I be in favor of doing that? No.

And I see a whole lot of other countries saying it absolutely wasn't " "perfectly in line" with international standards.

Legally that does not matter since our policy dictates how we treat them.

It just amazes me. And it saddens me. Because we can deny it all we want. But when our men & women get captured from now on in and conflict... it's just tick for tack... TORTURER to TORTURER. And the worlds going to say well... you do things like that yourself America.

There is no logic to that. No one who would treat us well will now not due to this.

 

[BigRob]

We already have the capability of destroying civilization. If we had the capability of destroying it twice over, would we be more credible then?

There is a real concern around the world that our nuclear arsenal does not even work. Further, the credibility must come in the fact that we will use it, not just that we have it.

If we protest and try to change another nation's practice of abusing human rights, are we more credible if we have more and bigger missiles, or if we ourselves have set an example?

We still set a great example as it is.

Yes, credibility is important. Others who would attack us need to know that such attack would be devastating to them, so they'll think twice. We already have that, and in great abundance.

Further, we spend far and away more than any other nation on our military, yet can't engage a third rate dictatorship like Iraq without emergency war spending. What's wrong with that picture?

Emergency war spending is the best way to fund a war, it is the most accurate picture.

 

[top gun]

If it was legal and it saved lives it was a good thing.

It was finding a legal loophole. That loophole has now rightly been plugged by president Obama.

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.

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.

Next step... because this time it's probably really, really important possible information we want.

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.

If Congress authorized that it would at least be legal. Would I be in favor of doing that? No.

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.

I understand what you're saying but I know a lot of things that were once legal that are horrible. I look at the whole picture. I'm not interested if some loophole can be found to justify an inhumane act like TORTURING PEOPLE IN CUSTODY. I'm interested in calling wrong wrong and stopping it.

Thank you yet again President Obama!

Legally that does not matter since our policy dictates how we treat them.

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.

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.

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.

There is no logic to that. No one who would treat us well will now not due to this.

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.

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.

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.

I'm encourage by the fact President Obama is so popular on the world stage. But we had better hope that a Democrat stays at the top for awhile so the Bush/Cheney TORTURE taint has at least some time to fade.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well I can assure you of this... it ain't TORTURE!

We got rid of the TORTURE PRESIDENT and elected someone opposed to it... that ended it! Thank God for President Obama. God knows what the next TORTURE the neo-cons would have pulled out of their little black bag would have been.

President Obama has reserved the right to engage in waterboarding should he deem it appropriate.

I imagine he would deem it appropriate if we captured some high level AQ terrorists and they had information about an upcoming attack that could be thwarted on the city of LA.

So far P O is not that much different than P B.