AtomicCEO Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Dmarc says : We're not just doing it willy nilly here! i think that we do it mainly to get information and they do it to be evil and gruesome Az says: I trust our president! Lets not quibble about some silly nonsense and just ignore what the government may or may not be doing! well, define torture. are we talking testicles hooked up to a car battery, or are we talking panties on the head? the key point for ALL of us is something kid cid said, "psyops specialists and interrogators may know more than me." H8Tank says: It's just Abba and AC! Cold rooms and loud music are torture? McBoog says: We know that physical torture doesn't even work! Maybe once or twice in limited applications! Physical torture does have a better application for specific event and specific perpetrator scenarios. Examples would be, where did you hide the treasure? Where is my kidnapped child, etc. The information that you are trying to extract is very specific and can generally be verified quickly. The trick is to not kill the person so that if they lied under the first or previous rounds, you can continue until they actually do give the correct information. Retro says: I'm guessing we don't do it, but I'm not going to ask questions because Bush rules!!!1!!! Hey, we have ruthless enemies that are out to get us and we need information and I don't really care how we get it. If torture didn't work there wouldn't be a need for it and nobody would use it, go figure. I'm guessing most interrogation by our guys doesn't include torture but I figure some of it's going on anyway. I don't know for sure, but I don't really have a need to know. The Justice Department memo said the simulated drowning technique was used on Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. The Times said some copies of the memos appeared to have the number of waterboardings redacted while others did not. Bush administration officials had claimed such methods were needed to get information but the repeated use of the waterboard on Zubaydah and Mohammed were sure to raise questions about its effectiveness. This must be that targeted and mild torture which we trusted our government to be ethical about, and which you all blindly supported despite evidence in your face. We're the good guys! How could we possibly think that the people put in charge of the torture department might be some kind of sick twisted sociopaths?!? Total surprise!! But hey... tell me again about how terrible Obama is after 2 months. I simply don't trust that guy because he nominated a guy who owed $7K in taxes. He's got to be the worst president ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Have to agree here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 We should just tickle these terrorists until they give us the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 We should just tickle these terrorists until they give us the info. So your argument is the the 183rd time was the charm. He finally reached his threshold then. Interesting concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 So your argument is the the 183rd time was the charm. He finally reached his threshold then. Interesting concept. How did you deduce that? I'm arguing for the tried and tested method of tickling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 What possible good comes from releasing this information regarding torture? It seems as though is is a political move by the administration, and nothing else. I can see no good coming from this, but I can see how it could incite our enemies. It seems as though it is just another stab at the previous administration by the current administration. Can anyone remember when an administration has ever been so publicly critical of the previous administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 What possible good comes from releasing this information regarding torture? It seems as though is is a political move by the administration, and nothing else. I can see no good coming from this, but I can see how it could incite our enemies. It seems as though it is just another stab at the previous administration by the current administration. Can anyone remember when an administration has ever been so publicly critical of the previous administration? Ever remember when the previous administration had so much to hide? I lost a LOT of faith in our government over the last 8 years, and coming clean is doing a lot to restore that. You'd have to be a complete... and I mean, complete total and full moron... to not have believed that the previous administration was doing blatantly illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional stuff behind closed doors. Pretending it didn't happen would be more damaging than not admitting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Ever remember when the previous administration had so much to hide? I lost a LOT of faith in our government over the last 8 years, and coming clean is doing a lot to restore that. You'd have to be a complete... and I mean, complete total and full moron... to not have believed that the previous administration was doing blatantly illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional stuff behind closed doors. Pretending it didn't happen would be more damaging than not admitting it. So how again does it benefit this country by making this info public? I am sure at no time in this thread you will even attempt to answer this question. Cue personal attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Can anyone remember when an administration has ever been so publicly critical of the previous administration? Yes, about 8 years ago... Ever remember when the previous administration had so much to hide? I lost a LOT of faith in our government over the last 8 years, and coming clean is doing a lot to restore that. You'd have to be a complete... and I mean, complete total and full moron... to not have believed that the previous administration was doing blatantly illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional stuff behind closed doors. +1000 WMD....the guy lied, and spent billions of dollars on a war to justify it. IMO, he should be in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I just don't have a problem with waterboarding the two highest level al qaeda operatives we've had in custody. I don't consider it torture, and it just doesn't give me even the slightest moral qualms. sorry. apparently just about everyone in congress felt the same way when it mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Yes, about 8 years ago... +1000 WMD....the guy lied, and spent billions of dollars on a war to justify it. IMO, he should be in jail. I honestly don't remember Bush dogging the Clinton Administration after he was elected. Sure, all politicians do ti during the elections, but not once they've been elected. Can you remember one instance where Bush publicly denounced the previous administration to other leaders? With regard to WMD, the intelligence reports said Saddam had WMDs. Bill, Hillary, John Kerry, and many foreign intelligence agencies said he had them. Congress authorized going to war, based on these intelligence reports. The reports were wrong, but I find it hard to believe that any president would willfully and knowingly lie in order to get us into a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 So how again does it benefit this country by making this info public? Whether you agree or disagree with the tactics, because in a free society we should know what the government is doing in our name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Ever remember when the previous administration had so much to hide? I lost a LOT of faith in our government over the last 8 years, and coming clean is doing a lot to restore that. You'd have to be a complete... and I mean, complete total and full moron... to not have believed that the previous administration was doing blatantly illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional stuff behind closed doors. Pretending it didn't happen would be more damaging than not admitting it. +1 billion Bush liked to claim the moral high ground without earning it. Let's attempt to earn it. That way when we nuke our enemies the world will know there was no other way. Edited April 20, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Whether you agree or disagree with the tactics, because in a free society we should know what the government is doing in our name. yeah, I think the claims that releasing the memos now causes some sort of grave harm are overblown. I have no problem with the adminstration releasing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I honestly don't remember Bush dogging the Clinton Administration after he was elected. That's probably because his MO was to have the cronies do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I've thought about the torture issue for a while now. I will admit that in a ticking timebomb type situation, I say we need to do anything and everything possible (think Jack Bauer) to protect from an imminent terrorist act. Even if illegal. Nothing leads me to believe however that holding these people for months and years and torturing them (yes waterboarding is torture, as is many of the other things that are now public knowledge) is anywhere near that type of situation. I know that's not consistent, but that's what I believe. And I can't tell you where to exactly draw the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I've thought about the torture issue for a while now. I will admit that in a ticking timebomb type situation, I say we need to do anything and everything possible (think Jack Bauer) to protect from an imminent terrorist act. Even if illegal. Nothing leads me to believe however that holding these people for months and years and torturing them (yes waterboarding is torture, as is many of the other things that are now public knowledge) is anywhere near that type of situation. I know that's not consistent, but that's what I believe. And I can't tell you where to exactly draw the line. I feel the same way. I'm all for torture in certain situations. This guy is as bad as they come. So maybe it was necessary. And maybe they got info out of him. We haven't had an attack on American soil since 2001. But I'm sure this guys is way outside the terrorist loop now. It's time to kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I've thought about the torture issue for a while now. I will admit that in a ticking timebomb type situation, I say we need to do anything and everything possible (think Jack Bauer) to protect from an imminent terrorist act. Even if illegal. Nothing leads me to believe however that holding these people for months and years and torturing them (yes waterboarding is torture, as is many of the other things that are now public knowledge) is anywhere near that type of situation. I know that's not consistent, but that's what I believe. And I can't tell you where to exactly draw the line. I tend to agree with you. I would point out like Az's link notes water boarding has not been used since 2003, so I don't think they have been continually tortured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I agree with whatever right wing lunatic said this: I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. . . . It is easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used, but when you are in the foxhole it is a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President is in the foxhole every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 move Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 you don't deserve OUR Rockie Mountains.....Afgan/Pakistan range would love ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Not exactly sure why you used the quote from my post. As I recall, it was pretty much an observation that physical torture is a relatively ineffective method of extracting information. Physical torture is not and will never be considered a primary form of "interrogation" by our country since there are so many other techniques much more effective and reliable. Pain techniques will get just about anybody to admit anything to make the pain stop. Nice of you to "sound byte" me though. Since none of us know exactly what information they were looking for and if it was verifiable or not, would determine if this style of interrogation was appropriate. I too do not feel it is "torture". But my definition of torture would be something from "SAW", you know, fingernails being ripped out, salt in the wounds, the "death of a 1000 cuts". I think this technique scares the crap out of the subject, clearly, but in my mind, is not the same type of torture that we have agreed is barbaric and physically brutal. The subject knows they will not die, but will eventually tell the truth since they do not want the action repeated. It is a technique that often requires multiple "sessions", not to "stop" the pain, but to "avoid" the repetition of the fear. 183 times does seem excessive. Who knows though. There may have been 90 or more topics that were unverified. Two each takes you to 180. These guys were high level after all and it wasn't like they were trying to find out, "where is your platoon hiding right now". I think it really comes down to the mentality of defining a person as an enemy combatant or a criminal. Once we call them criminals, none of this is appropriate. If they are our enemy (as they have and still profess to be), game on! But then, this seems to be a perception as greatly divided by political lines as taxes and abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 And.. as long as the method is executed as such.. (From Wikipedia) The United States' Office of Legal Counsel stated the CIA's definition of waterboarding in a Top Secret 2002 memorandum as follows: In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application." [20] The methods used during the inquisition and by other cited sources where water is poured directly into the nasal passages IS physical pain torture and would be an ineffective technique. The cloth is used to stop the water from entering the airway, but simulate being under water. IF, you can control your breathing under this technique, you can actually breath through the wet cloth. Try it. I have no proof to the otherwise or reason to believe that the above description was varied upon by the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Time magazine has a good article on releasing the torture info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 What possible good comes from releasing this information regarding torture? It seems as though is is a political move by the administration, and nothing else. I can see no good coming from this, but I can see how it could incite our enemies. It seems as though it is just another stab at the previous administration by the current administration. Can anyone remember when an administration has ever been so publicly critical of the previous administration? I think that in ordert to try and regain some of the respect in the International community that we lost in the last 8 1/2 years we NEED to be as transparent as possible so we can move forward. Admit wrongdoing and put it behind us. I say 8 1/2 years, because we were the laughingstock of the international community for impeaching Clinton over the sex in the White House. Simply because it just isnt that big of a deal in other countries. Hell, perch, even the rest of the GOP tried to distance themselves from Bush during the election because of the negative stigmata associated with him. It is almost like the US has to sit down in the international community and treat it like an AA meeting to regain some respect. "Hi, my name is USA and I am torturing illegally held detainees . . ." Then recovery can begin . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts