Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[sealybobo]

I have not been following the issue about releasing the documents. I got into this discussion when it was stated that there were no conservatives that were opposed to the torture of prisoners. I am one that was, and still am, opposed to the torture, yes, even waterboarding, of prisoners. I do not agree with the "ends justify the means" argument. ... Immie

This is FASCINATING...

So what you're saying is, that where it is reasonable to believe that someone is known MASS MURDERER, is in possession of information that would prevent an invalid, unjustifiable attack; sure to result in the maiming and killing of massive numbers of innocent people, that you do not support the means which would seek to garner this information and in so doing spare the severe bodily injury and death of innocent people?

Could explain the reasoning which your using to justify this position?

Specifically, is this a result of your position that those individuals reasonably believed to possess such information have human rights and that it's not a valid response to violate their rights, say... by inflicting discomfort and fear upon them, to induce them to be forthcoming with this information? Or perhaps some other reason?

And yes... you're being set up and YES... it's is NOT going to go well for you here, Immie...

As without regard to HOW you answer, your response will be a flat disregard for the DUTIES INTRINSIC IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS FOR YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS... Thus you are, by your very advocacy here, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the very BASIS upon which your own human rights rest.

But please, let's discuss it and see what if anything, we can agree upon...

By all means let's discuss this.

I happen to attempt to stand by my principles. One of those principles is that torturing prisoners is wrong. I do not casually disregard those principles simply because the man I voted for thinks he might save some lives in the process. First and foremost, I don't believe that there is any way to know the torturee is a suspected mass murderer without a trial which our government has so conveniently prevented from happening will provide any valuable information at all.

Second, yes, I believe those individuals have human rights at least until they are proven guilty. Constitutionally we as American Citizens are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, not only before trial but after conviction as well. I will grant you that the people that are being tortured are not U.S. Citizens and have no such guarantee under our constitution. However, I believe our Constitution is based upon human rights and therefore despite the guarantee of the Constitution, I believe these human beings have human rights.

Third, simply because a politician squawks, "look at all the lives I'm saving" or "I'm doing this for your own good", doesn't mean it is the truth.

As for the potential loss of human lives, well again there is no guarantee that torturing anyone will prevent the loss of one life. Had we suspected that the 9/11 plot was underway and gotten lucky and captured some of the planners of the attack, it more than likely would have gone on anyway. If they had failed there, then they would not have failed in their next attempt. They simply would have been more careful with whom they shared the planning.

OBL is not stupid. He would have simply found another avenue for his attack. One that we could not stop and one that might potentially have been more devastating.

Torturing prisoners while it might stop an attack here or there will not stop all attacks. Only a fool would believe that it will.

I believe in the goodness that America once stood for. Only a fool would believe that we had never tortured people in other situations, but I for one do not think we should make a habit of doing so and FOR GOD'S SAKE I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE BRAGGING ABOUT IT!

DUTIES INTRINSIC IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS FOR YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS

And who is my neighbor? Should I only be defending the rights of those who live to the left and right of me and the family across the street? Or should I be defending the human rights of people that only live in America? Should I be defending the rights of only Christians? Should I be defending the rights of only white people? Or should I view the entire world as my neighbor Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist?



Immie

Jose Padilla is an American citizen.

 

[WillowTree]

everybody needs to stop dancing around.. the choice has been made..

now let's be transparent. release the papers all of them and then be honest..


you watched 9-11 happen,, you saw the torture, the jumpers, the deaths, they were picking up bits of tissue and bones for months.. now either you choose that scenario for America or you choose to sympathize with the terrorists. The least you can do for us at this point is to have balls enough to admit that you choose the terrorists over America

 

[Immanuel]

It's a basic choice.. now that we positively know that the CIA and the FBI failed to protect us and the Army Field manuel to which we must now adhere will fail us; you either choose life for Americans or death for Americans..those who chose our death must be honest is saying their empathy lies with the terrorist and not with Americans..

I happen to disagree with this statement.

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks. Nor can they say that doing so will continue to prevent attacks in the future.

Second, we have a fairly capable intelligence network... use it but don't abuse it.

And finally, simply because an American such as myself does not believe that torturing prisoners is what we should be doing, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I want terrorists to be successful in launching another attack.

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

One would hope so. However, more than one criminal mastermind have been brought to justice due to their own arrogance. Maybe he believes what he did was justified, legal and that the American people will back him on it. Then again maybe he will find out that he is wrong when those documents are released. Those who ARE guilty sometimes believe they have done nothing wrong.

Immie

certainly you are free to disagree,me and I with thee.. I think it's indisputable that the CIA and the FBI failed just at the Army field manuel will.. so to put your trust in this is foolhardy.. so it come down to the two choices I outlined.. now I think they should release the papers..I don't feel safe knowing this administration has chosen empathy with the terrorists.. not a bit.

Yes, we can both disagree on this. I respect your opinion as well as that of P.I. I simply disagree with the both of you.

I do not believe that "two wrongs make a right". I do not believe that torturing, maiming or killing an individual (who might just be innocent) justifies the opportunity of finding some information that the individual may or may not have.

I believe that we have some of the best intelligence forces in the world. I do not fault them for the failure that lead to 9/11 nor have I ever. I fully suspect that they will "fail" again with or without torture and I do not condone torture.

No matter how good of an argument you and P.I. lay out, I cannot for the life of me justify sadistically torturing another human being... um, without consent that is.

If it is wrong for Germany and Japan to have done it to U.S. soldiers during WWII, if it was wrong for the Viet Cong to have done it during Nam, then it is wrong for us to do it now. Was it wrong then? Yes. It is still wrong today.

Immie

 

[Iriemon]

It's a basic choice.. now that we positively know that the CIA and the FBI failed to protect us and the Army Field manuel to which we must now adhere will fail us; you either choose life for Americans or death for Americans..those who chose our death must be honest is saying their empathy lies with the terrorist and not with Americans..

I happen to disagree with this statement.

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks.

Well, that is patently false... The heads of the US intelligence services going back to Tenet, have all concluded without exception that, coersive interrogation has done precisely that... your obtuse rejection of that testimony is absurd and stands as fair evidence that your argument is founded in either abject ignorance or abusive deceit...

You means the same folks that were justifying torture claimed it works great?

Those sources Catz posted in the thread that was deleted indicated otherwise.

 

[Immanuel]

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks.

Well, that is patently false... The heads of the US intelligence services going back to Tenet, have all concluded without exception that, coersive interrogation has done precisely that... your obtuse rejection of that testimony is absurd and stands as fair evidence that your argument is founded in either abject ignorance or abusive deceit...



They say precisely that, which they CAN, because such is basic COMMON SENSE.

If those tasked with preventing attacks garner information which provides them the means to preclude those attacks by killing those tasked with carrying them out and destroying the means to do so... it's a flat certainty that coersive interrogation which garnered information which provided those tasked with stopping mass murder, to stop mass murder... that THOSE INTERROGATIONS PREVENTED ATTACKS WHICH WERE PLOTTED AND SCHEDULED IN THE FUTURE...

Oh wow, a bureaucrat said it... that makes it true. So true in fact that no one can dispute it.

That's so pathetically vague, it's useless... Define abuse of intelligence?

Abuse of power.

{ignored the drivel}

What the American people believe is irrelevant with regard to what was Legal... the US Justice Department issued advice that the procedures were legal; the US Commander in Chief and CHeif Executive determined that the processes were legal... that constitutes the INCONTESTABLE FACTUAL CERTAINTY that as a function fo LEGALITY... the processes were LEGAL...

Well, now, we might just have to let the Supreme Court decide that now won't we?

With regard to morality... the processes were a MORAL OBLIGATION born in the DUTY OF ALL FREE MEN TO DEFEND THE SUSTAINABLE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR NEIGHBOR... and where an individual overtly seeks to strip another of their rights, THEY FORFIET THEIR OWN RIGHTS in so doing... and it is an immutable fact that where one INTENTIONALLY, unjustifiably, strips an individual of their LIFE, they have stripped from them of their RIGHTS... thus the techniques in question rest in PERFECTA MORAL JUSTIFICATION and the advocacy against such is anathema to the very principles on which the endowed rights of all humanity rest.

I'm glad you believe your opinions are the final authority on this, but not eveyone agrees with you. For instance, I believe it is my moral obligation to defend the rights of the innocent even those who are accused. Your entire statement assumes that the torturee is guilty, yet they are nothing more than "the accused".

I take it you have never been accused of a crime you did not commit. Believe me, the innocent are accused of crimes and persecuted for crimes they did not commit. In those cases, the authority has all the power and "Innocent until proven guilty" is a fallacy we all live by. I am speaking from personal experience here.

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

I happen to disagree with this statement.

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks.

Well, that is patently false... The heads of the US intelligence services going back to Tenet, have all concluded without exception that, coersive interrogation has done precisely that... your obtuse rejection of that testimony is absurd and stands as fair evidence that your argument is founded in either abject ignorance or abusive deceit...

You means the same folks that were justifying torture claimed it works great?

Those sources Catz posted in the thread that was deleted indicated otherwise.

don't quote me DUmmie remember you are ignoring me..

 

[Iriemon]

Well, that is patently false... The heads of the US intelligence services going back to Tenet, have all concluded without exception that, coersive interrogation has done precisely that... your obtuse rejection of that testimony is absurd and stands as fair evidence that your argument is founded in either abject ignorance or abusive deceit...

You means the same folks that were justifying torture claimed it works great?

Those sources Catz posted in the thread that was deleted indicated otherwise.

don't quote me DUmmie remember you are ignoring me..

Now why would I ingore you? I live for reading inane, trolling blather.

Just your selected posts.

 

[WillowTree]

You means the same folks that were justifying torture claimed it works great?

Those sources Catz posted in the thread that was deleted indicated otherwise.

don't quote me DUmmie remember you are ignoring me..

Now why would I ingore you? I live for reading inane, trolling blather.

Just your selected posts.

oh you still a asshole but you loves me..

 

[Iriemon]

...asshole ...

Ignored

 

[WillowTree]

Now we're back to normal.. I just hate fake people who think they can dictate another person's thoughts

 

[tigerbob]

But would the US marine break and give damaging information under the pressure of torture?

You'd have to ask Gunny or RGS about that. I have no idea how much operational information is generally made available to troops in the field. I guess to a degree it depends on rank as well.

Rank and file troops are not often subject to torture for information. They don't know enough about anything to make it worth the effort. If they are tortured, it's usually for other reasons.

While there are exceptions to the rule, most anyone can be broken given enough duress, whether physical or psychological. That is why after the Korean War the Code of Conduct was established. Prior to that, it was cut and dried-- just as the braindead ones see torture as a black and white only issue -- if you break you're a traitor.

Now, it is "to resist to the best of my ability ....".

I remember being fascinated by Andy McNab's Bravo Two-Zero. I guess it's different for Special Forces.

 

[sealybobo]

everybody needs to stop dancing around.. the choice has been made..

now let's be transparent. release the papers all of them and then be honest..


you watched 9-11 happen,, you saw the torture, the jumpers, the deaths, they were picking up bits of tissue and bones for months.. now either you choose that scenario for America or you choose to sympathize with the terrorists. The least you can do for us at this point is to have balls enough to admit that you choose the terrorists over America

Your party terrorized us for 8 years.

HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I have not been following the issue about releasing the documents. I got into this discussion when it was stated that there were no conservatives that were opposed to the torture of prisoners. I am one that was, and still am, opposed to the torture, yes, even waterboarding, of prisoners. I do not agree with the "ends justify the means" argument. ... Immie

This is FASCINATING...

So what you're saying is, that where it is reasonable to believe that someone is known MASS MURDERER, is in possession of information that would prevent an invalid, unjustifiable attack; sure to result in the maiming and killing of massive numbers of innocent people, that you do not support the means which would seek to garner this information and in so doing spare the severe bodily injury and death of innocent people?

Could explain the reasoning which your using to justify this position?

Specifically, is this a result of your position that those individuals reasonably believed to possess such information have human rights and that it's not a valid response to violate their rights, say... by inflicting discomfort and fear upon them, to induce them to be forthcoming with this information? Or perhaps some other reason?

And yes... you're being set up and YES... it's is NOT going to go well for you here, Immie...

As without regard to HOW you answer, your response will be a flat disregard for the DUTIES INTRINSIC IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS FOR YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS... Thus you are, by your very advocacy here, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the very BASIS upon which your own human rights rest.

But please, let's discuss it and see what if anything, we can agree upon...

By all means let's discuss this.

Super...

I happen to attempt to stand by my principles. One of those principles is that torturing prisoners is wrong. I do not casually disregard those principles simply because the man I voted for thinks he might save some lives in the process.

So saving lives isn't a function of your equation... or the opinion of those you've elected to make such decisions... thus you don't understand the function of a representative republic...

Oh I was afraid of this...

First and foremost, I don't believe that there is any way to know the torturee is a suspected mass murderer without a trial which our government has so conveniently prevented from happening will provide any valuable information at all.

Well there ya go... then you are advocating for the protection of the rights of mass murderers, thus relegating the defense from such, to criminal sanctions... POST MASS MURDER.

Thus there is no means, as you see it, to prosecute anyone for anything, until after the trial...

No doubt you feel strongly that the use of the US military to prosecute a war against them, where it is legal to kill them with prejudice, en mass... is a function served absent sound principle...

Well there ya have it kids... The terrorists have all the rights and we the sheep can't do much about it, until they murder people by the thousands and if they die in the process, well we're just gonna have to recognize that they paid for their crime, in advance; which gives them the discount of no court fees.

Second, yes, I believe those individuals have human rights at least until they are proven guilty.

Ahh... well good. Of course being found guilty doesn't usurp human rights, it only subjects one to the usurpation of the means to fully exercise those rights...


Which proves that you've no actual understanding of what human rights are... which goes a VERY long way in explaining your spurious reasoning. It doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it.

Constitutionally we as American Citizens are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, not only before trial but after conviction as well.

Yeah... that's right, on the presumption that we're innocent... for the purposes of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION... protections which are customarily set aside when one declares war in the US.

I will grant you that the people that are being tortured are not U.S. Citizens and have no such guarantee under our constitution. However, I believe our Constitution is based upon human rights and therefore despite the guarantee of the Constitution, I believe these human beings have human rights.

Well that shows promise... you're at least consistent on your recognition that terrorists are human beings, thus endowed with human rights... ya just seem a tad light in the recognition of the responsibilities intrinsic in those rights to not murder massive numbers of innocent people, because ya have a political beef... and that explains your ignorance that such behavior results in the instantaneous forfeiture of those human rights, upon executing such an irresponsible act; and how when one is at war with another nation, it's not good form to demand, and absurdly foolish to expect that that nation should provide you with the highest thresholds of their civil protections...

Third, simply because a politician squawks, "look at all the lives I'm saving" or "I'm doing this for your own good", doesn't mean it is the truth.

Oh that's true... but that's what Common sense and sound reason are squawking and they're rearely wrong on thise things.

As for the potential loss of human lives, well again there is no guarantee that torturing anyone will prevent the loss of one life.

There's no principle which requires a gaurantee to execute a moral imperative. There's no guarantee that when you got in your car to drive to work or school, that you'd arrive their safely; yet you got on in and fired up the Hyundai... nonetheless.

Had we suspected that the 9/11 plot was underway and gotten lucky and captured some of the planners of the attack, it more than likely would have gone on anyway.

Yeah... If you'd been setting interrogation policy, no doubt that is true... particularly given the pre-9-11 paradigm...

Of course we're no longer living in that paradigm are we? We now fully understand that the ante has been raised to wholly unacceptable levels, which more than justify the coercive interrogation of terrorists...

Now what's more, is that the SAME MINDSET which you're advocating resulted in PRECISELY what you're suggesting... We damn well knew about Mohamad Atta, we knew about his flying -ONLY- lessons; we knew he had a keen interests to PILOT JUMBO JETS, but no interests in LANDING THEM... and 'we' determined that all of that was insufficient to even apply for a warrant, because it's not illegal to just learn to fly jumbo jets and that to apply for a search warrant of his apartment and personal effects could be seen as PROFILING and 'profiling is wrong...' (Thanks Ron White, you hilarious bastard!) and we simply didn't pursue what common sense and sound reason would have told ANYONE that was paying attention and NOT severely infected with the dumbass...

And that's how we got to 9-11...

BUT!... Had we investigated Atta; HAD we served a warrant; HAD we taken him into custody and interrogated him... and HAD he been induced to inform us of his part and his further knowledge of the 9-11 PLOT at that time... The NY skiline would still look like it did on the sunrise of 9-11 and the Pentagon would be in desparate need of paint by this point; and 3000 people who lost their lives in that unjustifiable attack would still be alive; the 4500 US troops who lost their life in the US GWOT would be alive and the 10s of thousands of men wounded in battle would still be whole... not to mention the 10s of thousands of those we've killed in the prosecution of that war... and GITMO would be a name that very few people on earth had ever heard and not a household phrase.


You a John Lennon fan? Just imagine... THAT~ Had sound principle and an unapologetic defense of VALID AND SUSTAINABLE HUMAN RIGHTS BEEN RESPECTED IN THE 1990s... and not the mamby pamby feminized bullshit that you're spewin...

9-11-01 would have been just another glorious fall day... and gone into history filed under... NO BIG DEAL: S2D2...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

everybody needs to stop dancing around.. The choice has been made..

Now let's be transparent. Release the papers all of them and then be honest..


You watched 9-11 happen,, you saw the torture, the jumpers, the deaths, they were picking up bits of tissue and bones for months.. Now either you choose that scenario for america or you choose to sympathize with the terrorists. The least you can do for us at this point is to have balls enough to admit that you choose the terrorists over america

your party terrorized us for 8 years.

stfu!

 

[sealybobo]

everybody needs to stop dancing around.. The choice has been made..

Now let's be transparent. Release the papers all of them and then be honest..


You watched 9-11 happen,, you saw the torture, the jumpers, the deaths, they were picking up bits of tissue and bones for months.. Now either you choose that scenario for america or you choose to sympathize with the terrorists. The least you can do for us at this point is to have balls enough to admit that you choose the terrorists over america

your party terrorized us for 8 years.

stfu!

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources." Watch it.

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 09/ barnesosama.320.240.flv]
Bush's priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive," Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him." Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq -- a country he now admits had "nothing" to do with 9/11.

Capturing bin Laden, as Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, will not necessarily make America safer because it would come five years too late. Yet, capturing or killing the man responsible for 9/11 should remain a high priority.

"I just don't think about him (Bin Laden) anymore." Actual quote

 

[Immanuel]

So saving lives isn't a function of your equation... or the opinion of those you've elected to make such decisions... thus you don't understand the function of a representative republic...

You take what I say out of context. No where did I say saving lives was not important. Nor did I say we should not do everything possible to save American lives.

Well there ya go... then you are advocating for the protection of the rights of mass murderers, thus relegating the defense from such, to criminal sanctions... POST MASS MURDER.

Thus there is no means, as you see it, to prosecute anyone for anything, until after the trial...

No doubt you feel strongly that the use of the US military to prosecute a war against them, where it is legal to kill them with prejudice, en mass... is a function served absent sound principle...

Well there ya have it kids... The terrorists have all the rights and we the sheep can't do much about it, until they murder people by the thousands and if they die in the process, well we're just gonna have to recognize that they paid for their crime, in advance; which gives them the discount of no court fees.

Well, I am thrilled to know that you don't give a Fudge about innocent human lives. All your pandering in the above posts was nothing more than pandering. You don't care about the innocent.

Convicted terrorists have no rights... except maybe three squares and a 6X10 cell and maybe someday a firing squad, but at least they have been tried and convicted rather than tortured without any due process.

Ahh... well good. Of course being found guilty doesn't usurp human rights, it only subjects one to the usurpation of the means to fully exercise those rights...

These people have never been found guilty. Many of them are guilty of nothing more than crossing paths with the U.S. Military or pissing off a neighbor that turned them in for some cold hard cash.

Which proves that you've no actual understanding of what human rights are... which goes a VERY long way in explaining your spurious reasoning. It doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it.

Obviously it is you who does not understand the concept of human rights. You who would torture innocent men women and children so that you can pretend to be protecting others.

Yeah... that's right, on the presumption that we're innocent... for the purposes of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION... protections which are customarily set aside when one declares war in the US.

Many of those who you torture have never declared war on the US. A small fact that you love to ignore.

Well that shows promise... you're at least consistent on your recognition that terrorists are human beings, thus endowed with human rights... ya just seem a tad light in the recognition of the responsibilities intrinsic in those rights to not murder massive numbers of innocent people, because ya have a political beef... and that explains your ignorance that such behavior results in the instantaneous forfeiture of those human rights, upon executing such an irresponsible act; and how when one is at war with another nation, it's not good form to demand, and absurdly foolish to expect that that nation should provide you with the highest thresholds of their civil protections...

Just curious... what part of "innocent until proven guilty" don't you understand? You support the torture of people who have never been tried. You support the torture of people who have never even said, F! You to an American. What part of that can't you comprehend?

Oh that's true... but that's what Common sense and sound reason are squawking and they're rearely wrong on thise things.

Yeah right! A bureaucrat that tells the truth. Now there is a concept for you!

There's no principle which requires a gaurantee to execute a moral imperative. There's no guarantee that when you got in your car to drive to work or school, that you'd arrive their safely; yet you got on in and fired up the Hyundai... nonetheless.

Oh, I see, so that justifies torture. You make absolutely no sense at all.

Yeah... If you'd been setting interrogation policy, no doubt that is true... particularly given the pre-9-11 paradigm...

Of course we're no longer living in that paradigm are we? We now fully understand that the ante has been raised to wholly unacceptable levels, which more than justify the coercive interrogation of terrorists...

Now what's more, is that the SAME MINDSET which you're advocating resulted in PRECISELY what you're suggesting... We damn well knew about Mohamad Atta, we knew about his flying -ONLY- lessons; we knew he had a keen interests to PILOT JUMBO JETS, but no interests in LANDING THEM... and 'we' determined that all of that was insufficient to even apply for a warrant, because it's not illegal to just learn to fly jumbo jets and that to apply for a search warrant of his apartment and personal effects could be seen as PROFILING and 'profiling is wrong...' (Thanks Ron White, you hilarious bastard!) and we simply didn't pursue what common sense and sound reason would have told ANYONE that was paying attention and NOT severely infected with the dumbass...

And that's how we got to 9-11...

BUT!... Had we investigated Atta; HAD we served a warrant; HAD we taken him into custody and interrogated him... and HAD he been induced to inform us of his part and his further knowledge of the 9-11 PLOT at that time... The NY skiline would still look like it did on the sunrise of 9-11 and the Pentagon would be in desparate need of paint by this point; and 3000 people who lost their lives in that unjustifiable attack would still be alive; the 4500 US troops who lost their life in the US GWOT would be alive and the 10s of thousands of men wounded in battle would still be whole... not to mention the 10s of thousands of those we've killed in the prosecution of that war... and GITMO would be a name that very few people on earth had ever heard and not a household phrase.

Oh, I see, now you advocate torture of people who are not even criminals yet! Thought police? Do you advocate torturing the child who's parents own guns in the U.S. and who is a bit distraught because his girlfriend dumped him last night simply because tomorrow he might come to school with a couple of weapons and kill 30 students?

We knew those things about Muhammed Atta and they were probable cause for picking him up, questioning him and very possibly deporting him. We didn't do those things nor would I have had a problem with doing them nor would I have a problem with holding him and trying him on conspiracy charges if they could be proven, but the government... 9 months under George W. Bush's... ignored him and let him continue to live under our roofs without so much as a second thought and somehow, this is my fault!

Yet you advocate going beyond that. You advocate torture of the child in my example. Maybe you don't understand the concept of probable cause?

You a John Lennon fan?

Nope, know very little about him and don't really care to know any more.

Just imagine... THAT~ Had sound principle and an unapologetic defense of VALID AND SUSTAINABLE HUMAN RIGHTS BEEN RESPECTED IN THE 1990s... and not the mamby pamby feminized bullshit that you're spewin...

9-11-01 would have been just another glorious fall day... and gone into history filed under... NO BIG DEAL: S2D2...

Bull shit and you know it.

Prove that last bit of BS.

Immie

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interestingly enough, whenever Infinite Puberty is cornered, he just tells the person to shut up and ignores them.

Personally? I think he's never been in the military. Probably read too many Tom Clancy novels and decided it would be cool to say he was a Marine.

 

[Just A Man]

Immie -- you express yourself very well and of course I respect your opinion. Would you be willing to answer my simple questions?

If Ben Laden had been captured and waterboarding him prevented the 9-11 attacks would you be for waterboarding?

If your answer is "No" then if waterboarding a prisoner prevented the death of your spouse or child would you be for it? If that answer is "No" then you are truly against waterboarding.

If you answered "Yes" to either question, then you are for waterboarding.

Just be truthful to yourself

 

[ABikerSailor]

There are MANY other effective means of interrogation that DOES NOT INCLUDE TORTURE!

Besides.......ask any military person, and the will tell you that the information that comes from torture is notoriously unreliable.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There are MANY other effective means of interrogation that DOES NOT INCLUDE TORTURE!

Besides.......ask any military person, and the will tell you that the information that comes from torture is notoriously unreliable.

Yep, that's exactly how I was trained when taking POWs in the Marine Corps. We were to follow the Geneva Convention, not because it was what was thought of as moral or humane, but because it was practical. Torturing, executing, or mistreating prisoners provided the enemy with a will to fight and the information wasn't credible: the North Vietnamese and Russia (among others) used torture to obtain false confessions from prisoners.