I saw it last night on Olbermann. Some intelligence officer hired people to demonstrate on him. He had his hands shackled in front of him. They had him bent over backwards over a trough. His head was covered with some sort of tight-fitting shroud, with only his mouth exposed. One guy held his head down and just kept pouring water down his mouth and around his chin. Another guy holding him down was also pouring water all over this body. Between the two guys, he couldn't move at all.
He probably went through it during special forces training, as it is a requirement in order to pass SERE school. These terror suspects should feel honored to have something in common with navy seals and green berets.
Wow! You guys are SOOOOOO macho. I'm getting excited just thinking about all you tough guys being held down while someone poured water down your throat. You're all such manly men . . . posting messages on a Pearl Jam message board.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Wow! You guys are SOOOOOO macho. I'm getting excited just thinking about all you tough guys being held down while someone poured water down your throat. You're all such manly men . . . posting messages on a Pearl Jam message board.
huh?
I dont think any of these "tough guys" are terror suspects. You should drop the hope from your name, and just stick with anger. Or maybe "Angry&Bitter". Anyways, how do any of you "anti-waterboarding" people propose getting information from those who have it and arent exactly open to sharing it? Ask them nicely?
I dont think any of these "tough guys" are terror suspects. You should drop the hope from your name, and just stick with anger. Or maybe "Angry&Bitter". Anyways, how do any of you "anti-waterboarding" people propose getting information from those who have it and arent exactly open to sharing it? Ask them nicely?
Yeah, don't bother reading the previous posts of all the manly men saying that it doesn't seem so bad to them.
And you want to know how to get information from these guys who may or may not be terrorists -- read up on FBI agent, Ali Soufan, one of 8 Arab-speaking FBI agents in the country on 9/11, and the only one in NY on that day:
Q:In your article, you describe Soufan’s interrogation techniques. He engaged the suspects; he won their respect; he debated them on theological issues. In interrogations he carried out just after 9/11, these techniques worked very well; he got crucial information about the hijackers and their connections. His methods were very different from the “extreme measures” that we’ve been hearing about—waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation—and that are being justified on the grounds that they’re the only way to get this kind of information. Have we been given a false choice between abusing prisoners or letting something terrible happen?
Lawrence Wright: Ali Soufan has shown that intelligent and careful interrogation can achieve real results. And it helps immensely, obviously, to have the language and cultural skills that he does. There are very few people in the American intelligence community that have his set of talents. The U.S. is known to have used these sorts of tactics. You mention the C.I.A.’s impulse has been to deliver Al Qaeda suspects to foreign intelligence agencies that could torture them and extract information the C.I.A. thought it couldn’t otherwise obtain. However, what this abuse has yielded from the top Al Qaeda lieutenants is questionable. And I think that’s because it’s untrustworthy information obtained under torture.
Q:So the problem with torture isn’t just that it’s torture— that it compromises America ethically, morally—but that torture doesn’t always work.
Lawrence Wright: It doesn’t work. It often is misleading, as in the case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, an Al Qaeda lieutenant who was tortured into saying that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction. That was the information that the U.S. was trying to get out of him, and he gave it to the interrogators under torture, and that became part of the rationale for the U.S. going to war with Iraq—a disastrous consequence of choosing an unethical approach to gaining information.
Q: You mentioned that Soufan was the only Arabic-speaking F.B.I. agent in New York, and one of only eight in the country. Why was that? This is a country of immigrants—there must be a large pool of native speakers to draw on.
Lawrence Wright: There is a large pool, but, unfortunately, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. are very narrow cultures. The F.B.I., especially in the hierarchy, is made up largely of Irish and Italian men. You go to the seventh floor of the F.B.I. and you feel like you’ve walked back in time. It’s like being in a Cagney movie. And it was a real failure on their part not to have expanded to incorporate more American faces.
I saw Ali Soufan speak a few weeks back. He Mirandized men who helped plan 9/11, and he got them to confess and provide information leading to further arrests. But I guess you're a lot smarter than he is, what with your obvious wealth of experience interrogating Al-Qaeda members.
Oh, and thanks so very much for your advice about my name. "Angry&Bitter" might be a good alternative, but only when I engage with people like you on this board. But I think I'll keep it just as it is -- as I dream about a Democratic House and Henry Waxman with subpoena power.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Yeah, don't bother reading the previous posts of all the manly men saying that it doesn't seem so bad to them.
And you want to know how to get information from these guys who may or may not be terrorists -- read up on FBI agent, Ali Soufan, one of 8 Arab-speaking FBI agents in the country on 9/11, and the only one in NY on that day:
I saw Ali Soufan speak a few weeks back. He Mirandized men who helped plan 9/11, and he got them to confess and provide information leading to further arrests. But I guess you're a lot smarter than he is, what with your obvious wealth of experience interrogating Al-Qaeda members.
Oh, and thanks so very much for your advice about my name. "Angry&Bitter" might be a good alternative, but only when I engage with people like you on this board. But I think I'll keep it just as it is -- as I dream about a Democratic House and Henry Waxman with subpoena power.
Those kind techniques are all fine and good, if you have days to build a rapport with them. When information is known to be had, and is needed quickly, with no time for "niceties", how do you aquire it then?
And dont give me the "if we torture them, they'll torture us" crap either, because 1) they'd torture our soldiers either way given the chance, and 2) they'd be far less humane no matter how "nicely" we treated our POW's we capture. Period.
And for the record Angry&Bitter, I find it hilarious that you use my lack of having run interogations as proof that Im not qualified to have an opinion on it. What's your expertise on it that YOUR opinion matters and mine doesnt? Are you CIA? FBI? CTU? ARMY? MARINE? Or just another guy/gal like me voicing his/her thoughts? I thought so. Thank you! Come again!
And as far as a democratic house and your other "dreams", at least you're not delusional to call it anything other than a dream.
Those kind techniques are all fine and good, if you have days to build a rapport with them. When information is known to be had, and is needed quickly, with no time for "niceties", how do you aquire it then?
right, keep on torturing and then believe everything they say... michael jackson would declare that he likes pamela anderson, under torture...
Those kind techniques are all fine and good, if you have days to build a rapport with them. When information is known to be had, and is needed quickly, with no time for "niceties", how do you aquire it then?
Well, if you want a serious answer to this question -- which I doubt you do because all you do is spout talking points that you seem to have learned from right wing talk shows -- I'd say that those are very unusual situations and that we shouldn't design all of our interrogation policies around them. I tended to agree with McCain on this -- if such situations come up, then I expect such tactics to be used sparingly and then, I expect the people who decided to use such tactics -- up to and including the Secretary of Defense and the President -- to take responsibility for it.
Second, you've ignored part of that excerpt, which observes that torture isn't entirely reliable. Like torturing an Al Qaeda member into saying that Al Qaeda had meaningful operational connections to Sadaam Hussein, which turned out to be . . . what's the word I'm looking for . . . oh yeah, WRONG!! There's no reason to think that torturing a suspect when the time bomb is ticking is going to produce more accurate results.
Third, there seems to be only one example of this ticking time bomb scenario -- in Germany, involving a kidnapping of a child, not a terrorism case at all. Indeed, it worked in that case, but there are reasons to believe that terrorist would be better at resisting such tactics -- either by shutting up or by having plausible sounding lies ready to tell. Other than this German case, we haven't really heard of any case where torture led to saving masses of people -- and given all the grandstanding with the terror alerts, you'd think the Administration would be crowing about such an example.
Finally, ticking time bomb enthusiasts -- repeat after me. "24 is just a TV show. Jack Bauer is just a character." Just because you like to watch Jack shoot people to get them to talk doesn't necessarily mean that's good policy.
And dont give me the "if we torture them, they'll torture us" crap either, because 1) they'd torture our soldiers either way given the chance, and 2) they'd be far less humane no matter how "nicely" we treated our POW's we capture. Period.
Okay, how's this argument? If you're engaging in the same tactics as "they" are, what makes you better than "them"? How do you claim the moral high ground? You don't, that's how.
But I'd love to hear why descending into the debasement of torture makes us a superior moral force in the world. Do tell.
And for the record Angry&Bitter, I find it hilarious that you use my lack of having run interogations as proof that Im not qualified to have an opinion on it. What's your expertise on it that YOUR opinion matters and mine doesnt? Are you CIA? FBI? CTU? ARMY? MARINE? Or just another guy/gal like me voicing his/her thoughts? I thought so. Thank you! Come again!
Hmm, let's compare credentials. I've read the US Army Interrogation Manual, the Geneva Conventions, several articles about the Geneva Conventions. I've read the memos from the Bush Administration justifying the use of torture -- including all of John Yoo's memos, as well as his op ed pieces and his law review articles about torture. Then, I've read one book where a group of people exchanged views about torture, both pro and con. And I've read a series of articles about the effectiveness of torture. I've also attended panel discussions about the use of torture, with both Administration officials who drafted the policies and interrogators, like Ali Soufan.
Oh, and since you mention it, one of my very best friends was a pretty important guy in the Army's military police. He traveled to most of the prisons maintained by the Army -- including Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. He's pretty familiar with interrogation practices and Army training (which has never ever condoned water boarding). And just for the record, he'd agree with everything I wrote.
And I've got some buddies who used to work for the FBI who were pretty proud of the agency's decision to withdraw from Guantanamo because of what was going on there.
But tell me how you got your information about torture? Limbaugh? Hannity? Maybe Anne Coulter?
By the way, you DO know that CTU doesn't exist, right? It's just a fictional agency. Please tell me you know that.
And as far as a democratic house and your other "dreams", at least you're not delusional to call it anything other than a dream.
I'm not delusional -- I just know that the Republicans are going to steal elections in key districts. Because while they have no idea how to conduct a war, they're damn good at stealing elections.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Well, if you want a serious answer to this question -- which I doubt you do because all you do is spout talking points that you seem to have learned from right wing talk shows -- I'd say that those are very unusual situations and that we shouldn't design all of our interrogation policies around them. I tended to agree with McCain on this -- if such situations come up, then I expect such tactics to be used sparingly and then, I expect the people who decided to use such tactics -- up to and including the Secretary of Defense and the President -- to take responsibility for it.
Second, you've ignored part of that excerpt, which observes that torture isn't entirely reliable. Like torturing an Al Qaeda member into saying that Al Qaeda had meaningful operational connections to Sadaam Hussein, which turned out to be . . . what's the word I'm looking for . . . oh yeah, WRONG!! There's no reason to think that torturing a suspect when the time bomb is ticking is going to produce more accurate results.
Third, there seems to be only one example of this ticking time bomb scenario -- in Germany, involving a kidnapping of a child, not a terrorism case at all. Indeed, it worked in that case, but there are reasons to believe that terrorist would be better at resisting such tactics -- either by shutting up or by having plausible sounding lies ready to tell. Other than this German case, we haven't really heard of any case where torture led to saving masses of people -- and given all the grandstanding with the terror alerts, you'd think the Administration would be crowing about such an example.
Finally, ticking time bomb enthusiasts -- repeat after me. "24 is just a TV show. Jack Bauer is just a character." Just because you like to watch Jack shoot people to get them to talk doesn't necessarily mean that's good policy.
Okay, how's this argument? If you're engaging in the same tactics as "they" are, what makes you better than "them"? How do you claim the moral high ground? You don't, that's how.
But I'd love to hear why descending into the debasement of torture makes us a superior moral force in the world. Do tell.
Hmm, let's compare credentials. I've read the US Army Interrogation Manual, the Geneva Conventions, several articles about the Geneva Conventions. I've read the memos from the Bush Administration justifying the use of torture -- including all of John Yoo's memos, as well as his op ed pieces and his law review articles about torture. Then, I've read one book where a group of people exchanged views about torture, both pro and con. And I've read a series of articles about the effectiveness of torture. I've also attended panel discussions about the use of torture, with both Administration officials who drafted the policies and interrogators, like Ali Soufan.
Oh, and since you mention it, one of my very best friends was a pretty important guy in the Army's military police. He traveled to most of the prisons maintained by the Army -- including Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. He's pretty familiar with interrogation practices and Army training (which has never ever condoned water boarding). And just for the record, he'd agree with everything I wrote.
And I've got some buddies who used to work for the FBI who were pretty proud of the agency's decision to withdraw from Guantanamo because of what was going on there.
But tell me how you got your information about torture? Limbaugh? Hannity? Maybe Anne Coulter?
By the way, you DO know that CTU doesn't exist, right? It's just a fictional agency. Please tell me you know that.
I'm not delusional -- I just know that the Republicans are going to steal elections in key districts. Because while they have no idea how to conduct a war, they're damn good at stealing elections.
Im a member of CTU. And we're watching you.
You read too much. And believe to much of what you read. Reading doesnt make you more knowledgeable, nor smarter. It just means you have too much free time.
And you seem to be under the impression that EVERY suspect is "tortured". Im pretty sure they only use extreme measures under extreme circumstances. BUt whatever fits YOUR talking points and agenda, right?
And you seem to be under the impression that EVERY suspect is "tortured". Im pretty sure they only use extreme measures under extreme circumstances. BUt whatever fits YOUR talking points and agenda, right?
I never said that. Never even hinted at it. But really, don't look up from the 24 re-runs to go back through my posts. (What's Jack doing right now? I'll bet it's really cool.)
You read too much. And believe to much of what you read.
Yeah, I'm reading all those biased sources. Like the John Yoo torture memos and subsequent justifications for torturing people. And the Army Interrogation Manual. That John Yoo -- he's a wild-eyed, terrorist-coddling Commie.
Reading doesnt make you more knowledgeable, nor smarter. It just means you have too much free time.
Truly, a remarkable statement. Let's all let that sink in -- "reading doesn't make you more knowledgeable or smarter."
Thank you, PaperPlates, thank you. You've finally articulated the profound anti-intellectualism that I associate with people like you -- so well-represented on this board -- who aggressively and angrily shout their opinions about issues they know nothing about. You dismiss liberal arguments without ever actually having read or thought about any of them, and you feel completely comfortable doing that. I mean, why would anyone gather information from different sources with opposing viewpoints and try to come to their own conclusions? Who needs READING when Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly will tell you what to think?
People like you give conservatives a bad name.
Maybe a new name for me?? Angry&Incredulous? (Look it up.)
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
I never said that. Never even hinted at it. But really, don't look up from the 24 re-runs to go back through my posts. (What's Jack doing right now? I'll bet it's really cool.)
Yeah, I'm reading all those biased sources. Like the John Yoo torture memos and subsequent justifications for torturing people. And the Army Interrogation Manual. That John Yoo -- he's a wild-eyed, terrorist-coddling Commie.
Thank you, PaperPlates, thank you. You've finally revealed the profound anti-intellectualism that I associate with people like you -- so well-represented on this board -- who aggressively and angrily shout their opinions about issues they know nothing about. You dismiss liberal arguments without ever actually having read or thought about any of them, and you feel completely comfortable doing that. I mean, why would anyone gather information from different sources with opposing viewpoints and try to come to their own conclusions? Who needs READING when Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly will tell you what to think?
People like you give conservatives a bad name.
get off your high horse already. people are allowed to have opinions that arent the same as yours even though you praise, your opinions, as fact. this is a message board. dont come on here claiming to be some genius becuase you read some manuals.
and what I dont understand is why is it bad for conservatives to listen to oreilly or limbaugh? but people like olberman or al franken are considered gods from some of you here. its a joke.
get off your high horse already. people are allowed to have opinions that arent the same as yours even though you praise, your opinions, as fact. this is a message board. dont come on here claiming to be some genius becuase you read some manuals.
and what I dont understand is why is it bad for conservatives to listen to oreilly or limbaugh? but people like olberman or al franken are considered gods from some of you here. its a joke.
Yes, you're right. Ill-informed, ignorant people are perfectly entitled to have opinions. But I don't have to give a shit about what they think.
And I'm not a genius. I'm a concerned American who reads books and magazines and newspapers (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal) and thinks about what's happening. Are you actually giving me shit because I try to find out the competing arguments behind these issues? I guess you prefer people who just shoot from the hip, just spitting back talking points. Oh wait -- of course you do because you do it all the time. You never get into substance -- you always jump ship when asked for evidence of your arguments, except when you're refuting conspiracy theories.
You didn't hear me condone people on the left who swallow talkiing points -- whether from Olbermann or Franken. (But Franken has a ton of policy wonks on his show, which makes it unbearably boring.) And I read plenty of work by conservatives. I READ EVERYTHING JOHN YOO WRITES, FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! (This gets me no credit with the conservatives who post here.)
I hate the tone of political debate in this country because, in the end, it's just dumbed down and makes all of us stupid. It's so bitter and partisan because it completely lacks SUBSTANCE. It's perfectly easy to say "waterboarding's not so bad" and "who gives a shit if we torture terrorists" when you haven't thought about what torture is, how it works, whether it works, what the consequences are. And it's so much easier to demonize the other side when you haven't heard it -- and I don't count the charicature of liberals that get trotted out on Fox.
And finally, I try to post substantively here. And it does nothing but piss people like you and PaperPlates off, which frankly, I really, really enjoy. You could try getting out of the gutter and onto a high horse of your own, but that might require that you actually read something you don't agree with. And we couldn't have that, could we?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Yes, you're right. Ill-informed, ignorant people are perfectly entitled to have opinions. But I don't have to give a shit about what they think.
And I'm not a genius. I'm a concerned American who reads books and magazines and newspapers (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal) and thinks about what's happening. Are you actually giving me shit because I try to find out the competing arguments behind these issues? I guess you prefer people who just shoot from the hip, just spitting back talking points. Oh wait -- of course you do because you do it all the time. You never get into substance -- you always jump ship when asked for evidence of your arguments, except when you're refuting conspiracy theories.
You didn't hear me condone people on the left who swallow talkiing points -- whether from Olbermann or Franken. (But Franken has a ton of policy wonks on his show, which makes it unbearably boring.) And I read plenty of work by conservatives. I READ EVERYTHING JOHN YOO WRITES, FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! (This gets me no credit with the conservatives who post here.)
I hate the tone of political debate in this country because, in the end, it's just dumbed down and makes all of us stupid. It's so bitter and partisan because it completely lacks SUBSTANCE. It's perfectly easy to say "waterboarding's not so bad" and "who gives a shit if we torture terrorists" when you haven't thought about what torture is, how it works, whether it works, what the consequences are. And it's so much easier to demonize the other side when you haven't heard it -- and I don't count the charicature of liberals that get trotted out on Fox.
And finally, I try to post substantively here. And it does nothing but piss people like you and PaperPlates off, which frankly, I really, really enjoy. You could try getting out of the gutter and onto a high horse of your own, but that might require that you actually read something you don't agree with. And we couldn't have that, could we?
dont flatter yourself. you do not piss me off. I promise you that. you shouldnt be such a concerned american. things arent so bad. I think oreilly told me that. maybe it was ann coulter I dont know.
were talking about people who want to kill you and I..stop being such a fucking pussy!!
vodka drinker, non-hunter from B-Lo. War the ban on Oran in Denver, and war jeff in vegas knowing where the line is, and blatently making it fuzzy.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
dont flatter yourself. you do not piss me off. I promise you that.
Great, it's just that you seem so . . . so . . . so bitchy when you respond. Not just to me -- to everyone you disagree with. I believe others have noted this bitchiness. But I'm glad to hear that you're bitchy for some reason than your being pissed off.
you shouldnt be such a concerned american. things arent so bad.
Yeah, I know. You've got a great job and a great girlfriend and a great life lived in a great city, and you go to great restaurants and great bars and great clubs where you've seen great bands, and then you come back to your great apartment and watch great football games on your great flat-screened TV paid for by your great job.
Your self-centeredness is breathtaking.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Great, it's just that you seem so . . . so . . . so bitchy when you respond. Not just to me -- to everyone you disagree with. I believe others have noted this bitchiness. But I'm glad to hear that you're bitchy for some reason than your being pissed off.
bitchy? thats funny. this place, more so you lately, really make me laugh.
Yeah, I know. You've got a great job and a great girlfriend and a great life lived in a great city, and you go to great restaurants and great bars and great clubs where you've seen great bands, and then you come back to your great apartment and watch great football games on your great flat-screened TV paid for by your great job.
there are alot of us. you should try it, its not so bad. I said it before, i'll say it again. I really dont give a fuck about politics. I come here just to fuck with people like you, becuase I can. excuse me while I get back to the hot naked chick in my bed and sunday night football on my 60 inch flat screen.
Lets say for a monent, your loved one, daughter, son, grandma, whatever in the fuck were being held against their will. Would you be so opposed to these methods in order to save your own? Yeah I thought not..shut the fuck up!
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity but they've always worked for me." Gonzo
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
were talking about people who want to kill you and I..stop being such a fucking pussy!!
Jlew, I take it all back. I'm an idiot to keep reading the Wall Street Journal and John Yoo and NRO, trying to understand what responsible conservatives have to say about the torture question, when I can come here and read these sophisticated and nuanced arguments.
excuse me while I get back to the hot naked chick in my bed and sunday night football on my 60 inch flat screen.
If by "hot naked chick" you mean your hand and a jar of vaseline, don't let me keep you.
By the way, Carolina is up by a touchdown!
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
If by "hot naked chick" you mean your hand and a jar of vaseline, don't let me keep you.
By the way, Carolina is up by a touchdown!
jar of vaseline? thats the best you got? showing your age with a comment like that. I havent heard such a stupid comment since the summer of 89.
just for the record, we are on the same page with this toture stuff. even you, the raging liberal left wing bomb thrower that you are, believe toture is ok in certain situations granted the people involved take responsibility.
jar of vaseline? thats the best you got? showing your age with a comment like that. I havent heard such a stupid comment since the summer of 89.
I was limited by your "hot naked chick" remark. That was somewhere around Porky's DCXXXII.
You really can dish it out, but completely fall flat in the taking it department.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
I can always respect another person's opinion as long as its that person's opinion. But, when that person starts to drop names like it's the only way to justify what should or shouldn't be believed, then I just have a hard time believing that person really knows what is what.
It's not like we need some kind of torture expert on this to really understand what is going on. Water-boarding is a form of torture that simulates the process of being drowned. It's pretty simple. You either are or you aren't against it.
If a person wants to think it's unjust to induce talk through physical punishment, then that's that person's position. To try to back it up through an appeal to authory (ie the mentioning of such and such authorities on the matter) only goes to prove that the aforementioned person is incapable of formulating his/her own opinion.
I can always respect another person's opinion as long as its that person's opinion. But, when that person starts to drop names like it's the only way to justify what should or shouldn't be believed, then I just have a hard time believing that person really knows what is what.
It's not like we need some kind of torture expert on this to really understand what is going on. Water-boarding is a form of torture that simulates the process of being drowned. It's pretty simple. You either are or you aren't against it.
If a person wants to think it's unjust to induce talk through physical punishment, then that's that person's position. To try to back it up through an appeal to authory (ie the mentioning of such and such authorities on the matter) only goes to prove that the aforementioned person is incapable of formulating his/her own opinion.
So what do you suggest we base our opinions on? Our impressions of what waterboarding is? It's been clear from the posts on this thread that people don't know what waterboarding consists of.
And you may be satisfied with "either you're for it or you're against it." Great, that will do for you. Moral philosophers seem content to follow their intuitions about things like this. But I want to know WHY you're for it or WHY you're against it. And to be able to offer an explanation, people ought to argue about things like the effects of torture, whether it works, what the long term consequences are, etc. And I don't know how one answers those questions without doing some research.
I have been open about the sources I have consulted in thinking about the torture question. If someone wants to tell me that I've looked at the wrong things or that I should read something else, that's fine. But please don't condemn me for having actually read what experts have had to say about this question. Honestly, are we trying to stay in the dark?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
So what do you suggest we base our opinions on? Our impressions of what waterboarding is? It's been clear from the posts on this thread that people don't know what waterboarding consists of.
And you may be satisfied with "either you're for it or you're against it." Great, that will do for you. Moral philosophers seem content to follow their intuitions about things like this. But I want to know WHY you're for it or WHY you're against it. And to be able to offer an explanation, people ought to argue about things like the effects of torture, whether it works, what the long term consequences are, etc. And I don't know how one answers those questions without doing some research.
I have been open about the sources I have consulted in thinking about the torture question. If someone wants to tell me that I've looked at the wrong things or that I should read something else, that's fine. But please don't condemn me for having actually read what experts have had to say about this question. Honestly, are we trying to stay in the dark?
the experts you mention must be in disagreement..those experts who have demonstrated to me what this is all about has to do with a 20oz bottle of water and a rag of linen...any more than that is not authorized in the ACC.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity but they've always worked for me." Gonzo
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
Comments
In the middle age, people were also doing it.
He probably went through it during special forces training, as it is a requirement in order to pass SERE school. These terror suspects should feel honored to have something in common with navy seals and green berets.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yeah, but you can die from eating bagged spinach, too. How often is waterboarding fatal?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
huh?
I dont think any of these "tough guys" are terror suspects. You should drop the hope from your name, and just stick with anger. Or maybe "Angry&Bitter". Anyways, how do any of you "anti-waterboarding" people propose getting information from those who have it and arent exactly open to sharing it? Ask them nicely?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
And you want to know how to get information from these guys who may or may not be terrorists -- read up on FBI agent, Ali Soufan, one of 8 Arab-speaking FBI agents in the country on 9/11, and the only one in NY on that day:
I saw Ali Soufan speak a few weeks back. He Mirandized men who helped plan 9/11, and he got them to confess and provide information leading to further arrests. But I guess you're a lot smarter than he is, what with your obvious wealth of experience interrogating Al-Qaeda members.
Oh, and thanks so very much for your advice about my name. "Angry&Bitter" might be a good alternative, but only when I engage with people like you on this board. But I think I'll keep it just as it is -- as I dream about a Democratic House and Henry Waxman with subpoena power.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Those kind techniques are all fine and good, if you have days to build a rapport with them. When information is known to be had, and is needed quickly, with no time for "niceties", how do you aquire it then?
And dont give me the "if we torture them, they'll torture us" crap either, because 1) they'd torture our soldiers either way given the chance, and 2) they'd be far less humane no matter how "nicely" we treated our POW's we capture. Period.
And for the record Angry&Bitter, I find it hilarious that you use my lack of having run interogations as proof that Im not qualified to have an opinion on it. What's your expertise on it that YOUR opinion matters and mine doesnt? Are you CIA? FBI? CTU? ARMY? MARINE? Or just another guy/gal like me voicing his/her thoughts? I thought so. Thank you! Come again!
And as far as a democratic house and your other "dreams", at least you're not delusional to call it anything other than a dream.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
Second, you've ignored part of that excerpt, which observes that torture isn't entirely reliable. Like torturing an Al Qaeda member into saying that Al Qaeda had meaningful operational connections to Sadaam Hussein, which turned out to be . . . what's the word I'm looking for . . . oh yeah, WRONG!! There's no reason to think that torturing a suspect when the time bomb is ticking is going to produce more accurate results.
Third, there seems to be only one example of this ticking time bomb scenario -- in Germany, involving a kidnapping of a child, not a terrorism case at all. Indeed, it worked in that case, but there are reasons to believe that terrorist would be better at resisting such tactics -- either by shutting up or by having plausible sounding lies ready to tell. Other than this German case, we haven't really heard of any case where torture led to saving masses of people -- and given all the grandstanding with the terror alerts, you'd think the Administration would be crowing about such an example.
Finally, ticking time bomb enthusiasts -- repeat after me. "24 is just a TV show. Jack Bauer is just a character." Just because you like to watch Jack shoot people to get them to talk doesn't necessarily mean that's good policy.
Okay, how's this argument? If you're engaging in the same tactics as "they" are, what makes you better than "them"? How do you claim the moral high ground? You don't, that's how.
But I'd love to hear why descending into the debasement of torture makes us a superior moral force in the world. Do tell.
Hmm, let's compare credentials. I've read the US Army Interrogation Manual, the Geneva Conventions, several articles about the Geneva Conventions. I've read the memos from the Bush Administration justifying the use of torture -- including all of John Yoo's memos, as well as his op ed pieces and his law review articles about torture. Then, I've read one book where a group of people exchanged views about torture, both pro and con. And I've read a series of articles about the effectiveness of torture. I've also attended panel discussions about the use of torture, with both Administration officials who drafted the policies and interrogators, like Ali Soufan.
Oh, and since you mention it, one of my very best friends was a pretty important guy in the Army's military police. He traveled to most of the prisons maintained by the Army -- including Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. He's pretty familiar with interrogation practices and Army training (which has never ever condoned water boarding). And just for the record, he'd agree with everything I wrote.
And I've got some buddies who used to work for the FBI who were pretty proud of the agency's decision to withdraw from Guantanamo because of what was going on there.
But tell me how you got your information about torture? Limbaugh? Hannity? Maybe Anne Coulter?
By the way, you DO know that CTU doesn't exist, right? It's just a fictional agency. Please tell me you know that.
I'm not delusional -- I just know that the Republicans are going to steal elections in key districts. Because while they have no idea how to conduct a war, they're damn good at stealing elections.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Im a member of CTU. And we're watching you.
You read too much. And believe to much of what you read. Reading doesnt make you more knowledgeable, nor smarter. It just means you have too much free time.
And you seem to be under the impression that EVERY suspect is "tortured". Im pretty sure they only use extreme measures under extreme circumstances. BUt whatever fits YOUR talking points and agenda, right?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Yeah, I'm reading all those biased sources. Like the John Yoo torture memos and subsequent justifications for torturing people. And the Army Interrogation Manual. That John Yoo -- he's a wild-eyed, terrorist-coddling Commie.
Truly, a remarkable statement. Let's all let that sink in -- "reading doesn't make you more knowledgeable or smarter."
Thank you, PaperPlates, thank you. You've finally articulated the profound anti-intellectualism that I associate with people like you -- so well-represented on this board -- who aggressively and angrily shout their opinions about issues they know nothing about. You dismiss liberal arguments without ever actually having read or thought about any of them, and you feel completely comfortable doing that. I mean, why would anyone gather information from different sources with opposing viewpoints and try to come to their own conclusions? Who needs READING when Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly will tell you what to think?
People like you give conservatives a bad name.
Maybe a new name for me?? Angry&Incredulous? (Look it up.)
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
get off your high horse already. people are allowed to have opinions that arent the same as yours even though you praise, your opinions, as fact. this is a message board. dont come on here claiming to be some genius becuase you read some manuals.
and what I dont understand is why is it bad for conservatives to listen to oreilly or limbaugh? but people like olberman or al franken are considered gods from some of you here. its a joke.
And I'm not a genius. I'm a concerned American who reads books and magazines and newspapers (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal) and thinks about what's happening. Are you actually giving me shit because I try to find out the competing arguments behind these issues? I guess you prefer people who just shoot from the hip, just spitting back talking points. Oh wait -- of course you do because you do it all the time. You never get into substance -- you always jump ship when asked for evidence of your arguments, except when you're refuting conspiracy theories.
You didn't hear me condone people on the left who swallow talkiing points -- whether from Olbermann or Franken. (But Franken has a ton of policy wonks on his show, which makes it unbearably boring.) And I read plenty of work by conservatives. I READ EVERYTHING JOHN YOO WRITES, FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! (This gets me no credit with the conservatives who post here.)
I hate the tone of political debate in this country because, in the end, it's just dumbed down and makes all of us stupid. It's so bitter and partisan because it completely lacks SUBSTANCE. It's perfectly easy to say "waterboarding's not so bad" and "who gives a shit if we torture terrorists" when you haven't thought about what torture is, how it works, whether it works, what the consequences are. And it's so much easier to demonize the other side when you haven't heard it -- and I don't count the charicature of liberals that get trotted out on Fox.
And finally, I try to post substantively here. And it does nothing but piss people like you and PaperPlates off, which frankly, I really, really enjoy. You could try getting out of the gutter and onto a high horse of your own, but that might require that you actually read something you don't agree with. And we couldn't have that, could we?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
dont flatter yourself. you do not piss me off. I promise you that. you shouldnt be such a concerned american. things arent so bad. I think oreilly told me that. maybe it was ann coulter I dont know.
were talking about people who want to kill you and I..stop being such a fucking pussy!!
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
Whisky Drinker, Non-Hunter from Denver.
vodka drinker, non-hunter from B-Lo. War the ban on Oran in Denver, and war jeff in vegas knowing where the line is, and blatently making it fuzzy.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Absolutely not. I'm sorry you were unable to grasp the point. Perhaps it is language, perhaps something else.
Yeah, I know. You've got a great job and a great girlfriend and a great life lived in a great city, and you go to great restaurants and great bars and great clubs where you've seen great bands, and then you come back to your great apartment and watch great football games on your great flat-screened TV paid for by your great job.
Your self-centeredness is breathtaking.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
bitchy? thats funny. this place, more so you lately, really make me laugh.
there are alot of us. you should try it, its not so bad. I said it before, i'll say it again. I really dont give a fuck about politics. I come here just to fuck with people like you, becuase I can. excuse me while I get back to the hot naked chick in my bed and sunday night football on my 60 inch flat screen.
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
Whisky Drinker, Non-Hunter from Denver.
Yeah, this is much better than being informed.
If by "hot naked chick" you mean your hand and a jar of vaseline, don't let me keep you.
By the way, Carolina is up by a touchdown!
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
learn to spell orien douche
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
Whisky Drinker, Non-Hunter from Denver.
jar of vaseline? thats the best you got? showing your age with a comment like that. I havent heard such a stupid comment since the summer of 89.
just for the record, we are on the same page with this toture stuff. even you, the raging liberal left wing bomb thrower that you are, believe toture is ok in certain situations granted the people involved take responsibility.
You really can dish it out, but completely fall flat in the taking it department.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
It's not like we need some kind of torture expert on this to really understand what is going on. Water-boarding is a form of torture that simulates the process of being drowned. It's pretty simple. You either are or you aren't against it.
If a person wants to think it's unjust to induce talk through physical punishment, then that's that person's position. To try to back it up through an appeal to authory (ie the mentioning of such and such authorities on the matter) only goes to prove that the aforementioned person is incapable of formulating his/her own opinion.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
And you may be satisfied with "either you're for it or you're against it." Great, that will do for you. Moral philosophers seem content to follow their intuitions about things like this. But I want to know WHY you're for it or WHY you're against it. And to be able to offer an explanation, people ought to argue about things like the effects of torture, whether it works, what the long term consequences are, etc. And I don't know how one answers those questions without doing some research.
I have been open about the sources I have consulted in thinking about the torture question. If someone wants to tell me that I've looked at the wrong things or that I should read something else, that's fine. But please don't condemn me for having actually read what experts have had to say about this question. Honestly, are we trying to stay in the dark?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
Whisky Drinker, Non-Hunter from Denver.
'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude
Whisky Drinker, Non-Hunter from Denver.