Here's How Arabs INTEROGATE People....

[Iriemon]

If a terrorist is sitting there saying "Soon you shall see," it seems like a no brainer to me.

He knows something. He isn't telling. Do we do something that was deemed legal at the time and possibly save thousands of Americans?

Or do we sit there and cross our fingers and toes and hope he's lying?

This is repetitive at this point. This scenario has been asked and discussed many times.

My answer is that if I were the interrogator, and I really, truly had a strong reason to believe that the suspect in fact had crucial information that would lead to the death of many, and other interrogation methods didn't work, yeah I would personally put the screws to the guy.

But I wouldn't support making it legal.

You support doing it, as a last resort, if it would lead to saving thousands of Americans, but you won't make it, under those same circumstances legal.

That makes no sense at all.

It does, for the same reason I'd rob and steal to save my kid but wouldn't support making that legal either.

There are some thinks that you have rules against even though sometimes the rules are justified in being broken. Torture is one of those things. It's against the law because as a general rule we don't approve of it, we don't condone it, and as Americans we don't do it. Torture is what our enemies do. It's what the IJA, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge did.

Torture is against our principles as a people as those principles are set out in our Constitution, in this case the 8th amendment. It hurts our nation in the eyes of the world and in our effort against anti-American radicalism because it makes us seem no better (or not much better) than the bad guys. Reagan's shining city on the hill doesn't torture. Americans do not torure. We are the good guys.

And I don't buy that BS about water torture is really only "enhance stress interrogation" or whatever ephemism is dreamed up to avoid calling it what it is. And the fact that the bad guys do it worse does not justify us doing it but maybe not quite as bad as them.

But even though it is against the law, it those rare situation where it is really necessary amd justified, it still has always happened and always will.

 

[Burp]

This is repetitive at this point. This scenario has been asked and discussed many times.

My answer is that if I were the interrogator, and I really, truly had a strong reason to believe that the suspect in fact had crucial information that would lead to the death of many, and other interrogation methods didn't work, yeah I would personally put the screws to the guy.

But I wouldn't support making it legal.

You support doing it, as a last resort, if it would lead to saving thousands of Americans, but you won't make it, under those same circumstances legal.

That makes no sense at all.

It does, for the same reason I'd rob and steal to save my kid but wouldn't support making that legal either.

There are some thinks that you have rules against even though sometimes the rules are justified in being broken. Torture is one of those things. It's against the law because as a general rule we don't approve of it, we don't condone it, and as Americans we don't do it. Torture is what our enemies do. It's what the IJA, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge did.

Torture is against our principles as a people as those principles are set out in our Constitution, in this case the 8th amendment. It hurts our nation in the eyes of the world and in our effort against anti-American radicalism because it makes us seem no better (or not much better) than the bad guys. Reagan's shining city on the hill doesn't torture. Americans do not torure. We are the good guys.

And I don't buy that BS about water torture is really only "enhance stress interrogation" or whatever ephemism is dreamed up to avoid calling it what it is. And the fact that the bad guys do it worse does not justify us doing it but maybe not quite as bad as them.

But even though it is against the law, it those rare situation where it is really necessary amd justified, it still has always happened and always will.

Robbing and stealing has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

If it is understood that there are extreme circumstances where torture is really justified and necessary, then make it legal - but only in those circumstances.

Oh wait...that is what the Bush administration did.

And it worked - it saved lives.

 

[Iriemon]

You support doing it, as a last resort, if it would lead to saving thousands of Americans, but you won't make it, under those same circumstances legal.

That makes no sense at all.

It does, for the same reason I'd rob and steal to save my kid but wouldn't support making that legal either.

There are some thinks that you have rules against even though sometimes the rules are justified in being broken. Torture is one of those things. It's against the law because as a general rule we don't approve of it, we don't condone it, and as Americans we don't do it. Torture is what our enemies do. It's what the IJA, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge did.

Torture is against our principles as a people as those principles are set out in our Constitution, in this case the 8th amendment. It hurts our nation in the eyes of the world and in our effort against anti-American radicalism because it makes us seem no better (or not much better) than the bad guys. Reagan's shining city on the hill doesn't torture. Americans do not torure. We are the good guys.

And I don't buy that BS about water torture is really only "enhance stress interrogation" or whatever ephemism is dreamed up to avoid calling it what it is. And the fact that the bad guys do it worse does not justify us doing it but maybe not quite as bad as them.

But even though it is against the law, it those rare situation where it is really necessary amd justified, it still has always happened and always will.

Robbing and stealing has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I just brought them up of examples of things I'd do to save someone, even though I don't think it should be legal.

If it is understood that there are extreme circumstances where torture is really justified and necessary, then make it legal - but only in those circumstances.

Too many negatives, that I spelled out above.

Oh wait...that is what the Bush administration did.

And it worked - it saved lives.

So I have heard claimed.

 

[Burp]

It does, for the same reason I'd rob and steal to save my kid but wouldn't support making that legal either.

There are some thinks that you have rules against even though sometimes the rules are justified in being broken. Torture is one of those things. It's against the law because as a general rule we don't approve of it, we don't condone it, and as Americans we don't do it. Torture is what our enemies do. It's what the IJA, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge did.

Torture is against our principles as a people as those principles are set out in our Constitution, in this case the 8th amendment. It hurts our nation in the eyes of the world and in our effort against anti-American radicalism because it makes us seem no better (or not much better) than the bad guys. Reagan's shining city on the hill doesn't torture. Americans do not torure. We are the good guys.

And I don't buy that BS about water torture is really only "enhance stress interrogation" or whatever ephemism is dreamed up to avoid calling it what it is. And the fact that the bad guys do it worse does not justify us doing it but maybe not quite as bad as them.

But even though it is against the law, it those rare situation where it is really necessary amd justified, it still has always happened and always will.

Robbing and stealing has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I just brought them up of examples of things I'd do to save someone, even though I don't think it should be legal.

If it is understood that there are extreme circumstances where torture is really justified and necessary, then make it legal - but only in those circumstances.

Too many negatives, that I spelled out above.

Oh wait...that is what the Bush administration did.

And it worked - it saved lives.

So I have heard claimed.

The CIA claims it prevented another terrorist attack.

You can't say you believe the CIA when it comes to the number of times KSM was waterboarded and then not believe them when it comes to preventing a terrorist attack.

Too many negatives? If it was legal, under extreme circumstances, do you believe that there is anybody who would do it - following the letter of the law?

 

[Immanuel]

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.


I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

Deemed legal by those who committed the acts. That is like saying that bank robbery is legal because D. B. Cooper said it was legal or murder is legal because Charles Manson said murder was legal.

Immie

 

[Burp]

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.


I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

Deemed legal by those who committed the acts. That is like saying that bank robbery is legal because D. B. Cooper said it was legal or murder is legal because Charles Manson said murder was legal.

Immie

I think it is a stretch to compare D.B. Cooper and Charles Manson to the Department of Justice.

 

[Iriemon]

Robbing and stealing has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I just brought them up of examples of things I'd do to save someone, even though I don't think it should be legal.



Too many negatives, that I spelled out above.

Oh wait...that is what the Bush administration did.

And it worked - it saved lives.

So I have heard claimed.

The CIA claims it prevented another terrorist attack.

You can't say you believe the CIA when it comes to the number of times KSM was waterboarded and then not believe them when it comes to preventing a terrorist attack.

I didn't say I believed anyone one way or another. There is conflicting information.

I don't think there was a CIA memo that talked about preventing an attack? Or was it a DOJ memo. I think the latter. But if as it appears the goal of those memos was to provide a justification for torture, I wouldn't be surprised that they would assert that it saved lives. That after all is the *only* justification for it. There's a lot of questions in my mind about it.

I'm not sure about the number of times either, but I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why they would exagerrate the number of times the guys was waterboarded. It seems that if anything they'd minimize the number of times.

Too many negatives? If it was legal, under extreme circumstances, do you believe that there is anybody who would do it - following the letter of the law?

You mean if it was illegal? I sure would, I expect a number of others would as well.

Torture was illegal in WWII but there were lots of reports of it happening anyway.

 

[ItsFairmont]

The original title of this thread is "Here's How Arabs Interogate People..."


Arabs?


Not all Muslims are Arab and not all Arab are Muslims and not all Muslims are extremists and not all extremists are Muslims.


Get your bigoted head out of your ass, please.

 

[Burp]

I just brought them up of examples of things I'd do to save someone, even though I don't think it should be legal.



Too many negatives, that I spelled out above.



So I have heard claimed.

The CIA claims it prevented another terrorist attack.

You can't say you believe the CIA when it comes to the number of times KSM was waterboarded and then not believe them when it comes to preventing a terrorist attack.

I didn't say I believed anyone one way or another. There is conflicting information.

I don't think there was a CIA memo that talked about preventing an attack? Or was it a DOJ memo. I think the latter. But if as it appears the goal of those memos was to provide a justification for torture, I wouldn't be surprised that they would assert that it saved lives. That after all is the *only* justification for it. There's a lot of questions in my mind about it.

I'm not sure about the number of times either, but I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why they would exagerrate the number of times the guys was waterboarded. It seems that if anything they'd minimize the number of times.

Too many negatives? If it was legal, under extreme circumstances, do you believe that there is anybody who would do it - following the letter of the law?

You mean if it was illegal? I sure would, I expect a number of others would as well.

Torture was illegal in WWII but there were lots of reports of it happening anyway.

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

 

[ItsFairmont]

CNS is fake.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.


I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

Deemed legal by those who committed the acts. That is like saying that bank robbery is legal because D. B. Cooper said it was legal or murder is legal because Charles Manson said murder was legal.

Immie

I think it is a stretch to compare D.B. Cooper and Charles Manson to the Department of Justice.

However, it is not a stretch to show that the idea that for the person who commits an act to declare that act legal is insufficient. If what has been done is deemed to be legal then let the courts deem it to be legal, not those who have actually perpetrated the acts.

Immie

 

[Iriemon]

The CIA claims it prevented another terrorist attack.

You can't say you believe the CIA when it comes to the number of times KSM was waterboarded and then not believe them when it comes to preventing a terrorist attack.

I didn't say I believed anyone one way or another. There is conflicting information.

I don't think there was a CIA memo that talked about preventing an attack? Or was it a DOJ memo. I think the latter. But if as it appears the goal of those memos was to provide a justification for torture, I wouldn't be surprised that they would assert that it saved lives. That after all is the *only* justification for it. There's a lot of questions in my mind about it.

I'm not sure about the number of times either, but I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why they would exagerrate the number of times the guys was waterboarded. It seems that if anything they'd minimize the number of times.

Too many negatives? If it was legal, under extreme circumstances, do you believe that there is anybody who would do it - following the letter of the law?

You mean if it was illegal? I sure would, I expect a number of others would as well.

Torture was illegal in WWII but there were lots of reports of it happening anyway.

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

Well I suppose that expecting something more objective than CNSNews reporting that "a CIA spokesman" confirmed the DOJ report to resolve this point would be expecting too much.

 

[Burp]

CNS is fake.

I know. Everyone lies.

 

[txlonghorn]

I've posted this thought before and it seems to be needed again...

consider the implications ------


Some of you say that it's useless to interrogate anyone because it doesn't work ( which has already been proven that it does ) and makes us look like a mean and ugly nation...that we should be nice and kind and gentle in hopes that our new found moral standards will somehow keep those who have demonstrated hatred for us for decades to not kill us anymore. How am I doing so far?

We should back the leader of the free world who now has positioned us as an even larger target with no ability to fight back. No ability to thwart attacks. No sense of national pride. No moral obligation to it's own people. The only obligation we hold fast to as of now is to the world. US citizens be damned. Because we have been such a horrible nation for so long, we must now lay down our weapons and accept the beating we deserve and take it with dignity. And, from this, we shall rise up years later, a more understanding and less evil nation with only good will for all and from all.

So, here's the logic I see here...( I use the term VERY lightly ) while we're at it, let's take all the guns from the police. No more tazers, no more night sticks, no more pepper spray, no more riot gear...and for GOD'S SAKE!!! NO MORE LOCK UP...Let's open all the jails that house the killers, rapists, robbers and psychos and let's just be nice to them and hope that they will be nice back and stop killing and raping and robbing and taking our children. Sounds like a wonderful utopia to me.

 

[Burp]

From the DOJ memo:

http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

 

[Immanuel]

From the DOJ memo:

http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

There is an awful lot of, "you have informed us" in there, but not a whole hell of a lot of proof.

Immie

 

[Iriemon]

CNS is fake.

I know. Everyone lies.

Well if you believe everything you read, here's an FBI guy who was there and says torture was completely unnecessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1

And here's one from the Daily Kos explaining how KSM torture did not prevent the supposed LA attack.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/23/723640/-The-torture-prevented-a-west-coast-9-11-lie

Same from media matters:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904220032

Issue resolved.

 

[DiveCon]

CNS is fake.

I know. Everyone lies.

Well if you believe everything you read, here's an FBI guy who was there and says torture was completely unnecessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1

And here's one from the Daily Kos explaining how KSM torture did not prevent the supposed LA attack.

Daily Kos: The "torture prevented a west coast 9/11" lie

Same from media matters:

Fox News runs with dubious claim that KSM's interrogation thwarted L.A. plot | Media Matters for America

Issue resolved.

an oped and two partisan liar sites
LOL
FAIL

 

[txlonghorn]

CNS is fake.

I know. Everyone lies.

Well if you believe everything you read, here's an FBI guy who was there and says torture was completely unnecessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1

And here's one from the Daily Kos explaining how KSM torture did not prevent the supposed LA attack.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation


Same from media matters:

Fox News runs with dubious claim that KSM's interrogation thwarted L.A. plot | Media Matters for America

Issue resolved.

Resolved? Really? How? All you did was give a conflicting view. And because it was done in writing, that is suppose to give it credence? The sad fact is, we'll never know the resolution to this and MANY MANY other issues...because we'll only be able to throw conflicting articles back and forth.

The only way to resolve this is within yourself. I can't change your thoughts any more than you can change mine. I believe it does work. Not always...the individual being interrogated is the factor that determines that.

Frustrating isn't it?

 

[garyd]

Given KOS it's bullshit. Given media matters ditto.

Given that your FBI guy speaks only to one individual and not all of them - All three of them - and given the continuing turf and funding battles between the FBI and the CIA I'm unconvinced of his verity.