What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[BigRob]

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.

Most "thinking" it violated international law does not mean that it actually did. I would say the PR war was lost, but on the legal issue, the Bush administration was in the right.

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.

We violated no legal binding international agreement that we signed.

Key word: PASSED... thank you.

Yes, but legally that is not relevant and has no bearing.

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.

Well to be clear waterboarding three known masterminds of terror attacks was not bad. Other instances were people have been tried were wrong.

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.

So Truman and FDR are war criminals?

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.

That depends on who you ask. In many scenarios of deterrence, nuclear weapons need to be viewed as first strike option.

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

Which is exactly what we did with almost all of them.

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.

So you agree that circumstances dictate our behavior?

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.

Numbers driven yes, but what is also important is knowing that their nuclear weapons work. In the United States for example, Bush tried to implement the RRW program just to ensure our weapons could work and it was branded as destabilizing and the move of "war-monger." I fail to see how wanting to make sure our weapons work is destabilizing and provoking war.

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.

She didn't want to continue in the field as a civilian?

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.

I do not think that waterboarding three people equates to the end of American empire exactly.

 

[Dr.Who]

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

There are many times when the ends do require the means. They don't justify them since they are still wrong.

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

Sometimes there are times that we would forgo the use of a useful tool for a higher payoff. We do not torture others soldiers nor they ours because we have made an agreement not to mutually so that wars will not be too horrific.

Giving up the useful information that could be gained from torturing soldiers is given up because the ends of a less horrible war justify the means of a geneva convention.

The terrorists have no such agreement with us and we have no expectation that they would abide by one to make a less horrible war so there is no need to give up torture for this reason.

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

I agree it is wrong and I agree that a commonsense definition would say it is torture but legally it is not.

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

Obama has retained the right to order torture. He has given it up as much as Bush did since Bush did not do it since 2005.

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.

Yes, waterboarding is highly aversive and makes one feel like they are drowning but it is not necessarily painful.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needed only to be shown the drowning equipment again before he "broke". "Waterboarding works", the former officer said. "Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It's human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you're waterboarded, you're inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It's not painful, but it scares the **** out of you". This former officer had been waterboarded himself in a training course. "
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...ul"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It is really really scary. But it is not painful and in YOUR definition of torture you said torture was painful. So waterboarding did not meet your definition. The legal definition says that to be torture something has to be painful for more than 20 seconds - coincidentally just how long each event of waterboarding happens.

Remember we waterboard many of our own soldiers in training.

We might as well have taken the terrorists and dropped them off of a short cliff with a bunge cord that we made them believe was broken. It would have been really scary but it would not have been painful and it would not have made them them think anything except that they were going to fall to a painful experience of broken bones (cause it was a short cliff). And like the innate fear of drowning people have an innate fear of falling.

In fact I remember being atop a tall building at Niagara falls and it had a glass floor that made it look like one was going to fall through. we could take terrorists up there and with some theatrics make them think they were going to be thrown through a hole in the floor. then we would actually pick them up and toss them onto the glass. That too would be really scary, might cause them to talk, but would cause no pain or no real threat of death. (it might be torture for other reasons but would not be torture based on it being painful)

 

[top gun]

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!?!?

Whoa whoa whoa... don't get yourself in another direct misquote spot here Gen.

I (me) never said anything in your last paragraph. Others did, I remember that too... but it wasn't me.

And yes to everything else you said. That Senator John Mccain... the one that was the REPUBLICAN PARTY candidate for President.

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.

I spent 2 years discrediting him because I wanted to get the hell away from more Bush Republican policy and I saw President Obama as a far superior potential President.

Put into context though remember your side had no problem calling our new President a Muslim that wasn't even an American and a friend to terrorists.

But on torture I think John McCain has a lot of street cred on that... don't you?

The fact that both these people on opposite sides agree on this is very telling as to how bad us TORTURING bound, defenseless detainees really is IMO.

 

[top gun]

Most "thinking" it violated international law does not mean that it actually did. I would say the PR war was lost, but on the legal issue, the Bush administration was in the right.
We violated no legal binding international agreement that we signed.
Yes, but legally that is not relevant and has no bearing.

I condensed: It was wrong. We promised not to do it in an international agreement of our own free will. Legally binding means nothing on the core issue which was... did we agree not to do it. Yes.

It was wrong both from a moral aspect and from a telling the truth aspect.

Would you not grant me that there are henious & guilty criminals that get out of charges all the time on loopholes & technicalities?

They are still just as wrong and terrible people as the ones who didn't squirm out. That's my position on Bush/Cheney. That's all I can say about that.

Well to be clear waterboarding three known masterminds of terror attacks was not bad. Other instances were people have been tried were wrong.

Doesn't matter you're giving the green light. It's won't be up to you to pick & choose. You are in the group that would let this continue.

Don't take that wrong Rob. I understand your feeling that these were extraordinary circumstances. I just see the slippery slope and can't get on board that ship personally myself. But I'm not saying if you had the power you wouldn't be very selective... I'm sure you would.

She didn't want to continue in the field as a civilian?

She might have but within a year or so after she left she was offered a job as head of Overseas Vendor Compliance for a major fortune 500 corporation... that will remain nameless. She's likes that & has been there I think 20 years.

I do not think that waterboarding three people equates to the end of American empire exactly.

Nope... but it's a start.

 

[top gun]

Obama has retained the right to order torture. He has given it up as much as Bush did since Bush did not do it since 2005.

Presidents seldom "give up" power. The difference is President Obama will not use it. I'm very VERY confident in that.

Yes, waterboarding is highly aversive and makes one feel like they are drowning but it is not necessarily painful.

Trust me... if you get waterboarded a hundred and some odd times... it's excruciatingly painful.

All on has to do is think of a time when you got the wind knocked out of you diving into a swimming pool and started taking in water at the bottom of the pool to know it's very painful.

Times that 20 or 30 fold and say you don't get to choose to surface. Yep it's painful.

 

[BigRob]

I condensed: It was wrong. We promised not to do it in an international agreement of our own free will. Legally binding means nothing on the core issue which was... did we agree not to do it. Yes.

Well, we never really did agree to not waterboard anyone, but that is more of the semantics that I love.

But in all seriousness, I do think the legally binding question is the core issue. If someone comes up to you and says "We should help poor people" you would probably agree. However, if someone comes up to you and says "we should help poor people, so give me all your money, sell your house and I will take it all." You would most likely say No. Right? I imagine so.

So, if those are the options on the table, and you want to come out with some agreement, you can probably all agree that poor people could get some help. If you reach the agreement that we will issue a statement saying poor people should get help knowing that it has no bearing on how you have to act, you will probably go along with it.

I think it would be unfair if someone came back after you did that and said well you agreed that you wanted to help poor people, so I will take all your money now. You never did actually agree to that. You can see the issue, I probably could explain it somewhat better, but I am hungry, so I leave it at that.

Would you not grant me that there are henious & guilty criminals that get out of charges all the time on loopholes & technicalities?

Yes there are, but I think the scenario here is somewhat different.

Doesn't matter you're giving the green light. It's won't be up to you to pick & choose. You are in the group that would let this continue.

Don't take that wrong Rob. I understand your feeling that these were extraordinary circumstances. I just see the slippery slope and can't get on board that ship personally myself. But I'm not saying if you had the power you wouldn't be very selective... I'm sure you would.

Agree to disagree it sounds like. But I do enjoy the back and forth with you.

She might have but within a year or so after she left she was offered a job as head of Overseas Vendor Compliance for a major fortune 500 corporation... that will remain nameless. She's likes that & has been there I think 20 years.

Don't worry, I won't ask you for a job. Sounds like a good set up though.

Nope... but it's a start.

I think other issues are more pressing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Let the "pros" (FBI) decide.

They obviously know what they're doing.........​

 

[BigRob]

Let the "pros" (FBI) decide.

They obviously know what they're doing.........​

The FBI does not handle military interrogations. Nor is the FBI the only branch trained and qualified to conduct interrogations.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The FBI does not handle military interrogations. Nor is the FBI the only branch trained and qualified to conduct interrogations.

.....Even though they seem to be the only folks who got actional-intelligence, huh??

​

 

[top gun]

Well, we never really did agree to not waterboard anyone, but that is more of the semantics that I love.

But in all seriousness, I do think the legally binding question is the core issue. If someone comes up to you and says "We should help poor people" you would probably agree. However, if someone comes up to you and says "we should help poor people, so give me all your money, sell your house and I will take it all." You would most likely say No. Right? I imagine so.

So, if those are the options on the table, and you want to come out with some agreement, you can probably all agree that poor people could get some help. If you reach the agreement that we will issue a statement saying poor people should get help knowing that it has no bearing on how you have to act, you will probably go along with it.

I think it would be unfair if someone came back after you did that and said well you agreed that you wanted to help poor people, so I will take all your money now. You never did actually agree to that. You can see the issue, I probably could explain it somewhat better, but I am hungry, so I leave it at that.

Rob you must kinda realize you went all the way around the world to just say... our word in an official international agreement means nothing... worthless... we do whatever we want no matter what we promise.

You put America right in line with someone like North Korea switching gears at their leisure on nuclear weapons. You guys constantly want to speak up for making the US look like any other rouge nation. Honestly... it really makes me more sad than mad when I think about it.

Here's a scenario for you. A couple in the process of a divorce sit down to an official arbitration hearing before going to trial. The couple makes concessions to each other and they hammer out and officially agree to a reasonable, just & fair agreement.

Then the woman (that's George Bush in this scenario) finds out that her soon to be ex-husband just met someone he kinda likes. So the tantrum starts and all deals are off because she wants to be an irrational, stupid, vindictive b1tch.

Wrong is wrong. My word means something to me.

Yes there are, but I think the scenario here is somewhat different.

Well there's really not much. Bush/Cheney are only getting away with TORTURING bound, defenseless detainees by word smithing, semantics, lying, and breaking our international agreements. We can go back & forth on this for another 50 pages but nothing will change... that's simply just the plain truth of it all.

Agree to disagree it sounds like. But I do enjoy the back and forth with you.

I think it's important to listen to the pro-torture sides reasoning... I want to be fair enough to consider everything... I don't want to miss something I haven't considered.

And you present a straight forward and non-insulting delivery of your understanding and feelings on the matter.

Except for that "helping the poor story" that one needs more work to find that parable my friend!

Don't worry, I won't ask you for a job. Sounds like a good set up though.

Oh I wasn't worried about that. Seems to me you're probably very qualified for about anything you want to do. I'm more worried about her outspoken husband bringing her company into internet neon lights on a political forum.

The founder & CEO who's nationally known... is a Republican!

 

[Dr.Who]

Presidents seldom "give up" power. The difference is President Obama will not use it. I'm very VERY confident in that.



Trust me... if you get waterboarded a hundred and some odd times... it's excruciatingly painful.

All on has to do is think of a time when you got the wind knocked out of you diving into a swimming pool and started taking in water at the bottom of the pool to know it's very painful.

Times that 20 or 30 fold and say you don't get to choose to surface. Yep it's painful.

I would prefer sources.

 

[PLC1]

Presidents seldom "give up" power. The difference is President Obama will not use it. I'm very VERY confident in that.

I think we can be VERY confident that President McCain would never have used it either, had that been the outcome of the last election. From the standpoint of ending torture, the election was a win either way.

From the economic standpoint, however, I don't think we had a winner on either ticket.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think it's important to listen to the pro-torture sides reasoning...

We are not pro-torture... We simply disagree that waterboarding is torture.

And you present a straight forward and non-insulting delivery of your understanding and feelings on the matter.

Too bad you cannot do the same...

Labeling us "Pro-Torture" is itself a red herring and an ad hominem attack on our character, both informal fallacies of logic. The label is further fallacious because you've come to the conclusion based on a formal, Propositional fallacy.

Since you have no idea what any of that means, let me explain:

Rob says Waterboarding is NOT torture
Top Gun says Waterboarding IS torture
Therefore Top Gun has concluded that Rob supports all forms of torture.

We are against torture, We're not pro-torture...

Consider us "Pro-Choice" on the issue of waterboarding.

We just disagree that our use of waterboarding constitutes torture....

Perhaps I should start referring to your position on Abortion as Pro-Infanticide rather than Pro-Choice... Although it would be fallacious of me to do so.

 

[top gun]

I would prefer sources.

This is just a couple examples of the extreme pain and distress 6 seconds causes. Some of our detainees were water suffocated over & over again and couldn't stop the procedure as these people could & did almost immediately. We water suffocated some prisoners over 130 times.

 

[top gun]

We are not pro-torture... We simply disagree that waterboarding is torture.

Too bad you cannot do the same...

Labeling us "Pro-Torture" is itself a red herring and an ad hominem attack on our character, both informal fallacies of logic. The label is further fallacious because you've come to the conclusion based on a formal, Propositional fallacy.

Since you have no idea what any of that means, let me explain:

Rob says Waterboarding is NOT torture
Top Gun says Waterboarding IS torture
Therefore Top Gun has concluded that Rob supports all forms of torture.

We are against torture, We're not pro-torture...

Consider us "Pro-Choice" on the issue of waterboarding.

We just disagree that our use of waterboarding constitutes torture....

Perhaps I should start referring to your position on Abortion as Pro-Infanticide rather than Pro-Choice... Although it would be fallacious of me to do so.

If it looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... IT'S a duck.

And all the quacking that water suffocation (waterboarding) of bound, helpless, prisoners was in your opinions "OK" says you are pro-torture, pro-torturers.

And one doesn't have to support every kind of TORTURE to be a TORTURER... just one.

The fact that you don't want to call yourselves that is irrelevant. Nazis didn't call themselves Jew cookers either... but the very fact that they did put Jews in ovens kinda makes that point on it's own don't ya think? Of course it does.

Almost anybody that does a heinous act rationalizes it into something else. Cannibals themselves often don't think they are doing anything that wrong.

Water suffocation is TORTURE. The United States of America itself has helped prosecute and dole out the death penalty to people in other countries that waterboarded defenseless prisoners. Denying this is futile.