Cheney defends Gitmo and Water Boarding

[Chris]

...perfect summation of the appeasement philosophy

you don't know the answer, so you'll let someone else come up with one

problem is there are facts, plenty of them, that show torture is an effective way to get information from prisoners, in an ideal world I'd be with you - we wouldn't have to do it, but when that happens you can buy me a lollipop house on gumdrop lane

Wrong. Torture doesn't work.

All it does is give AQ propaganda for recruiting.

Plus, it is wrong. It is against everything America used to stand for.

 

[Chris]

well, let's just say I feel better knowing Cheney's got my back.. I don't feel that way about the obamalama, here's hoping he's got more survival instinct than you do. pansy.

Cheney's got your back alright.

He's screwing you with a Haliburton cattle prod.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

What nonsense, Europe has been jealous of America for years. They've been copying our pop culture and complaining about our power since the 50s.

Always wonder how you appeasers ever make friends, because no one wants to hang around a kiss ass.

Wow, that might be the biggest full of shit response I've ever read on this board and that says something. Europe hasn't been jealous of us at all, copying our pop culture? First off, who starts pop culture here in the first place? Secondly, have you ever been to Europe? They aren't anything like us.

Kiss ass? Oh, yep, France is truly a kiss ass to America

 

[Red Dawn]

Try looking up what violation of cease-fire means.. and reading ALL of the resolution, and not just the parts you wish to see

Still trying to defend Bush?

The 1992 cease fire was between the UN and Iraq. Not between the United States and Iraq. Legally, only the UN had the authority to decide if military intervention was required to enforce provisions of the cease fire. The United States did not have unilateral authority to do that.

But, is spite of that little error on your part, how do you feel about the new republican assertion, that we invaded Iraq, because we wanted to create a war zone far away from our shores, to draw al qaeda away from our shores and have them kill other people instead of us?

How do you think Iraqis would feel, if they learned that Bush and republicans conciously chose to invade a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a country where al qaeda wasn't even really present before the invasion -- and use that country to create a bloody war zone to distract al qaeda away from our shores?

Personally, I think if that was the goal of Republicans, then I would not be surprised at all if we just earned the eternal hatred of 25 million Iraqis, and we spawned a breeding ground for terrorists for the next hundred years. I would fully expect Iraqis by the millions to want to seek revenge because we wanted to turn their country into a war zone. And making it worse, we (according to republicans) lied about wanting to give them a peaceful democracy and save them from Saddam.

What would you feel like, if India invaded an occupied the United States, as a way of making a war zone to fight anti-Indian terrorists far away from their shores? I don't know about you, but I'd probably want to kill some Indian soldiers.

 

[oreo]

lol....low and weak...wow....what a pathetic old prune you are...thankfully you are not representative of the majority of the American public.

Cheney DOES represent the majority of the American public who does approve of "water boarding" in certain instances. In fact, torture has yet to be defined in this country. Water boarding is an extremely EFFECTIVE tool of getting information out of reluctant prisoners. Now you're going to come back & say well the prisoner "will just tell you anything you want to hear & it's not effective." A prisoner gets water boarded, they do not want to go through that again, they most likely tell the truth the first time around. You also heard Chenney describe the wealth of information that they got out of the mastermind--that WAS TRUE. Other arrests were made, & more than likely innocent lives were saved by water boarding.

Here we have the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks! We know that he has extreme knowledge of other attacks that may be in the planning stages, names of other high level Al Queda operatives. And you liberals believe this guy is going to give up this information with a hot cup of coffee & a donut & some "sweet talk". That's B.S.

In fact, if Barack Obama finds a high level operative in Al Queda, he would be crucified by the American public, if he did not aggressively obtain information & innocent lives were slaughtered because of his reluctance to water board, or use any other measure he had too.

I want you liberals to think about something: If you had a family member, a member that you loved more than your own life, that was held captive by a terrorist. They captured a terrorist that knew exactly where your loved one was--& you KNOW that your loved one only had hours to live, & this terrorist wasn't talking. You would be on your hands & knees begging for an interogator to do anything they had to, to get information out of this guy. "If you deny it, you're a bold faced liar".

 

[Tech_Esq]

Cheney DOES represent the majority of the American public who does approve of "water boarding" in certain instances. In fact, torture has yet to be defined in this country. Water boarding is an extremely EFFECTIVE tool of getting information out of reluctant prisoners. Now you're going to come back & say well the prisoner "will just tell you anything you want to hear & it's not effective." A prisoner gets water boarded, they do not want to go through that again, they most likely tell the truth the first time around. You also heard Chenney describe the wealth of information that they got out of the mastermind--that WAS TRUE. Other arrests were made, & more than likely innocent lives were saved by water boarding.

Here we have the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks! We know that he has extreme knowledge of other attacks that may be in the planning stages, names of other high level Al Queda operatives. And you liberals believe this guy is going to give up this information with a hot cup of coffee & a donut & some "sweet talk". That's B.S.

In fact, if Barack Obama finds a high level operative in Al Queda, he would be crucified by the American public, if he did not aggressively obtain information & innocent lives were slaughtered because of his reluctance to water board, or use any other measure he had too.

I want you liberals to think about something: If you had a family member, a member that you loved more than your own life, that was held captive by a terrorist. They captured a terrorist that knew exactly where your loved one was--& you KNOW that your loved one only had hours to live, & this terrorist wasn't talking. You would be on your hands & knees begging for an interogator to do anything they had to, to get information out of this guy. "If you deny it, you're a bold faced liar".

Oh cool! It's another version of the Dukakis debate question. "If, God forbid, Kitty were raped and murdered, would you support the death penalty for the guy who did it?"

Dukakis picked the wrong answer, did the rest of you libs learn anything or are you dumbasses too?

 

[Chris]

Cheney DOES represent the majority of the American public who does approve of "water boarding" in certain instances. In fact, torture has yet to be defined in this country. Water boarding is an extremely EFFECTIVE tool of getting information out of reluctant prisoners. Now you're going to come back & say well the prisoner "will just tell you anything you want to hear & it's not effective." A prisoner gets water boarded, they do not want to go through that again, they most likely tell the truth the first time around. You also heard Chenney describe the wealth of information that they got out of the mastermind--that WAS TRUE. Other arrests were made, & more than likely innocent lives were saved by water boarding.

Here we have the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks! We know that he has extreme knowledge of other attacks that may be in the planning stages, names of other high level Al Queda operatives. And you liberals believe this guy is going to give up this information with a hot cup of coffee & a donut & some "sweet talk". That's B.S.

In fact, if Barack Obama finds a high level operative in Al Queda, he would be crucified by the American public, if he did not aggressively obtain information & innocent lives were slaughtered because of his reluctance to water board, or use any other measure he had too.

I want you liberals to think about something: If you had a family member, a member that you loved more than your own life, that was held captive by a terrorist. They captured a terrorist that knew exactly where your loved one was--& you KNOW that your loved one only had hours to live, & this terrorist wasn't talking. You would be on your hands & knees begging for an interogator to do anything they had to, to get information out of this guy. "If you deny it, you're a bold faced liar".

Torture is not an effective way of getting information.

Why don't you get that?

 

[WillowTree]

Torture is not an effective way of getting information.

Why don't you get that?

yes it is. That's why it's used by almost every country on the planet.. hello!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Basically, Cheney is saying, "I don't care what the facts are. We were right to invade Iraq."

The audacity of this guy is amazing! Uncle Fester believes he is above the fact that the books were cooked to convince Americans to initially support the war. He wants everyone to forget the "Big Screw" that he and Bush imposed on this country. What a crock...

He is attempting the greatest spin in US history but it ain't gonna work. 75% of US citizens now believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. 4,000 lives, 10 of thousands of Iraq lives, nearly a Trillion dollars and what do we have to show for it. Now a journalist can throw a shoe at Bush without being executed. BRAVO!

He can't go back now and explain what the real reason was for invading. I personally think it was wrong to go for "the easy to sell" argument instead of the the truth of why they wanted to do it. Maybe it's because they had a group of people incapable of communication in the White House. I don't know but it was clearly mishandled.

Cheney is right, Iraq was the right thing to do, but you are correct also, he sounds like an idiot in light of what has publicly transpired since then.

 

[Frolicking Dino]

the US should ratify the Rome statute so that the executive and / or legislative branch of the US government could never again authorize torture or unlawful detainment without legal consequences.

 

[Xenophon]

I wonder if people realize Cheney was Sec def during the gulf war, and probaly believed that the USA left that job undone, so he always wanted to correct that mistake.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Torture is not an effective way of getting information.

Why don't you get that?

I heard your boy on the radio this morning. He's got a book out called [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416573151/bookstorenow99-20"]How to Break a Terrorist[/ame]

He's a smart guy and makes a compelling case. I'll say what I said when this was on the Military thread. It was great that he went against the prevailing winds and developed a more effective method.

I'm fully in favor of using his method first and by preference. If he and you are right, then we never need to visit any other means. Right?

Where I vary with you at least, I didn't hear him say it, is that I would not foreclose the possibility that other means could be used if the case is made that the means advocated by Matthew fails. I would even allow a judicial proceeding to ensure that all other means have been exhausted.

What I'm trying to prevent is a situation where we hit a dead-end and that's the end of it. There is always the exigent circumstances argument, although Matthew claims that his techniques worked in some cases VERY quickly the matter of a few hours. For me, it's about preventing the dead-end mostly.

 

[Tech_Esq]

the US should ratify the Rome statute so that the executive and / or legislative branch of the US government could never again authorize torture or unlawful detainment without legal consequences.

How would you reconcile the commandment of the Rome protocol with the Geneva conventions vis-a-vis detainment?

 

[Frolicking Dino]

How would you reconcile the commandment of the Rome protocol with the Geneva conventions vis-a-vis detainment?

As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) the Rome protocol allows for the detainment of POWs and enemy combatants who meet the rules laid out in the Geneva convention for such classifications. Detaining others (like many at Gitmo) would be illegal and treated as such.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) the Rome protocol allows for the detainment of POWs and enemy combatants who meet the rules laid out in the Geneva convention for such classifications. Detaining others (like many at Gitmo) would be illegal and treated as such.

Your post was the first I've heard of the Rome protocol, but the language you used drew my attention to the apparent conflict. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the detainees at Gitmo have been classified as Enemy Combatants. If that's the case, apparently, Rome wouldn't help them.

I think the issue is the status of asymetrical warriors on the battlefield. When battlefields were mostly the army of one nation vs. the army of another, Geneva made sense. Pretty much, if you catch someone on the battlefield without a uniform fighting, you try him and kill him. Typically, the faster the better.

Now the facts have changed and we don't feel comfortable executing that many people. So, we need come up with a new "acceptable" to the world, method of dealing with terrorists and now, pirates, that we will capture in combat.

I would be happy enough if we kept them for 6 months to obtain any intel they may have then sent them to World Jail for detention. The elements of the crime must be very low though. Seen carrying arms on the battlefield or other like evidence. We can't turn battlefields into crime scenes and we can't spare troops to testify like cops. If that becomes the standard, then we shouldn't take prisoners.

 

[SwingVoter]

Wrong. Torture doesn't work.

All it does is give AQ propaganda for recruiting.

maybe it doesn't work in the your little fantasy world, but in the real one, it does

Al Qaeda members are taught to hate infidels in schools funded by the Paki and Saudi gov't, they can recruit whether we torture their captives or offer them well-prepared three course meals

 

[SwingVoter]

Secondly, have you ever been to Europe? They aren't anything like us.

lived there you moron, during the Clinton years, and watched my neighborhood get plastered with Pizza Huts and Dunkin Donuts, they were outwardly friendly but outrageously jealous of us, largely because we've become so much more powerful than they are

 

[Frolicking Dino]

Your post was the first I've heard of the Rome protocol, but the language you used drew my attention to the apparent conflict. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the detainees at Gitmo have been classified as Enemy Combatants. If that's the case, apparently, Rome wouldn't help them.

GWB has classified them as enemy combatants, but most detained at Gitmo do not meet the requirements given in the Geneva conventions, Article 3 for enemy combatants. This is why most of the world feels the US is holding these men illegally.

 

[Chris]

I heard your boy on the radio this morning. He's got a book out called How to Break a Terrorist

He's a smart guy and makes a compelling case. I'll say what I said when this was on the Military thread. It was great that he went against the prevailing winds and developed a more effective method.

I'm fully in favor of using his method first and by preference. If he and you are right, then we never need to visit any other means. Right?

Where I vary with you at least, I didn't hear him say it, is that I would not foreclose the possibility that other means could be used if the case is made that the means advocated by Matthew fails. I would even allow a judicial proceeding to ensure that all other means have been exhausted.

What I'm trying to prevent is a situation where we hit a dead-end and that's the end of it. There is always the exigent circumstances argument, although Matthew claims that his techniques worked in some cases VERY quickly the matter of a few hours. For me, it's about preventing the dead-end mostly.

Good for you for keeping an open mind.

I saw a special about German prisoners who were housed in the U.S. during WWII. One of the things that caused them to accept the American occupation when they went home was how well they were treated when they were prisoners in America. Treating prisoners fairly pays off in the end. It is also the right thing to do.

 

[oreo]

Torture is not an effective way of getting information.

Why don't you get that?

It is a FACT that water boarding is extremely EFFECTIVE with prisoners who have information to tell. Of course, if you're waterboarding someone who doesn't know anything, it won't work at all.

We have tested water boarding on some of the biggest, toughest, mentally strongest people in our military. They have all stated that it takes about 30 seconds before they are ready to give up any & all information.

You are the author of this thread. YOU heard Dick Chenney state that they received a "wealth" of information from the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks & you deliberately deleted that statement from your brain. So obviously waterboarding DOES WORK with high level targets that actually have information to tell.

Let's go one step further: IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE? Is sleep deprivation torture? My definition of torture, is someone who is physcially beaten, bones broken, electricution, finger nails, teeth etc. In other words physical bodily harm.

Waterboarding & sleep deprivation have never once caused physical bodily harm. Waterboarding gives the "sensation" of drowning, without the risk of drowning. It causes absolutely no physical bodily damage. Therefore to me, it's not what I consider torture, but more a very effective tool in getting information from reluctant-knowledgable-terrorists.

CRISS YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION?--if terrorists captured one of your loved ones. A person you love more than life. The terrorists are going to kill your loved one within hours. One of them is caught & will not disclose where your loved one is. All the sweet-talking, donuts & coffee is not working. The terrorist is just sitting there, with the biggest grin on his face watching the clock tick down. Be honest now: Would you actually tell the interregators to not use any tactics, including waterboarding on this terrorist to save your loved ones life?