Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, you are intentionally misrepresenting the issues at stake here unless you honestly think torture is nothing more than "discomfort".
There is a fine line between security and a free society. Once you start embracing torture as a legitimate tool - where do you draw the line? Where do you stop? And what does it do to you as a country? Is it worth it?
I don't think so.
This was the criteria for waterboarding.
I posted the link already.
This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. The waterboard, which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits, explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent; substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack; and [o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack. The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel
Do you think every system that attempts to legitimize torture starts out thinking - we're going to torture everyone that pisses us off, looks at us funny, or jaywalks? No. They start out trying to carefully limit and define it - but it doesn't tend to stay that way. Once you start to institutionalize the rationale of "the ends justify the means" it's hard to stop there.
Is torture ever justified....certainly, there are cases where it works or has seemed to be necessary, but at what cost and is the cost always worth what you gain? Is it worth it when at the hands of a skilled interrogator, other methods can yield the same results?
Here is an interesting article:
The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argues for legally sanctioning torture in ''ticking bomb'' cases. ''At bottom, my argument is not in favor of torture of any sort,'' he says. ''It is against all forms of torture without accountability.'' His rationale is that in ticking bomb cases the idea that torture in some form will not be used is illusory, and the government should not be able to walk away from responsibility for it. That, in effect, would leave the interrogators with all of the legal and moral blame.
Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor of ethics at the University of Chicago, counters that torture is so extreme that it should remain ''tabooed and forbidden,'' and that any attempt to legitimize torture even in the rarest of cases risks the slippery slope toward normalizing it.
Seeking a middle ground, Miriam Gur-Arye, a criminal law professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argues that in the absence of a concrete terrorist threat, only a specific self-defense argument can justify force in an interrogation: it cannot be justified by the more general and utilitarian -- that is, Machiavellian -- argument of necessity.
And, the same article concludes with:
No matter how wise those drawing up the guidelines are, however, the art of interrogation does not lend itself to micromanagement from above. Interrogators will forever be forced to make split-second decisions with grave life-and-death consequences. The way toward public safety and out of the moral abyss will come less from philosophy than from sturdy bureaucratic reform: correcting, for example, the broken reserve system that contributed directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. An interrogator armed with fluent Arabic and every scrap of intelligence the system can muster, who has mastered the emerging science of eye movements and body signals, who can act threatening as well as empathetic toward a prisoner, should not require the ultimate tool.
America is defined by its values. Once we give those up, we are no better than the terrorists we so openly despise
Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.
America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.
What it boils down to is that the CIA says that they used waterboarding on three people under very controlled circumstances. They say that they gained information that stopped a 9-11 type attack on the west coast.
But there is no independent verification of what they claim. Tapes that would have supported the written record were destroyed.
And the only thing some of you can say is that we shouldn't have done it and screw the thousands who would have died if we hadn't.
That's a hypothetical. It assumes that the information could have been gotten without torture. It assumes that the thread was indeed a credible one (beyond a memo and the word of the CIA - what evidence supports this?).
If you are going to argue hypotheticals, then here is one.
Torture works. It works because eventually you'll hit on that one person who knows something of value assuming you can recognize it, and recognize it as truth and not something said to get out of the torture. In the process you will end up going through a number of people who don't have what you are looking for. So are you justifying the torture of an unknown number of "innocents" in order to get that one person and prevent the death of thousands? The ends justify the means?
Well I would rather the world believed us to water board every damned one of the extremists before I would allow another 9-11 type attack against our citizens.
Now you guys tell me which is more important, the worlds view of the USA or protecting thousands of innocent lives?
I don't give a shit if you can prove it is torture. It worked and saved innocent lives.
Nuff said.
It's not the world's view of the USA. It's the citizen's view, and what we feel the country stands for. Torture is a bit like selling your soul to the devil.
Ollie
We have no expectation for our soldiers to be treated any better than we treat our prisoners. If we openly and proudly torture prisoners because by you own justification "We only did it three times" and "it saved lives" we are in fact, giving permission for our own soldiers to be tortured under those conditions.
Only in your eyes and those who for some strange reason want the USA to be the bad guy. Besides I still contend that it wasn't torture. Certainly doesn't compare with what our troops have endured through the years.
You mean like the JAPANESE WATER BOARDING our troops!!!???
Torture is torture whether it is illegal or not.
and what your definition of torture is differs from what the law states.
Torture is torture whether it is illegal or not.
and what your definition of torture is differs from what the law states.
What is the Federal Law that outlaws waterboarding?
Waterboarding isn't even torture as defined by the Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants (terrorists) aren't covered by the Geneva Convention.
and what your definition of torture is differs from what the law states.
What is the Federal Law that outlaws waterboarding?
Waterboarding isn't even torture as defined by the Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants (terrorists) aren't covered by the Geneva Convention.
how litigious.
This was the criteria for waterboarding.
I posted the link already.
This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’” The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel
Do you think every system that attempts to legitimize torture starts out thinking - we're going to torture everyone that pisses us off, looks at us funny, or jaywalks? No. They start out trying to carefully limit and define it - but it doesn't tend to stay that way. Once you start to institutionalize the rationale of "the ends justify the means" it's hard to stop there.
Is torture ever justified....certainly, there are cases where it works or has seemed to be necessary, but at what cost and is the cost always worth what you gain? Is it worth it when at the hands of a skilled interrogator, other methods can yield the same results?
Here is an interesting article:
And, the same article concludes with:
No matter how wise those drawing up the guidelines are, however, the art of interrogation does not lend itself to micromanagement from above. Interrogators will forever be forced to make split-second decisions with grave life-and-death consequences. The way toward public safety and out of the moral abyss will come less from philosophy than from sturdy bureaucratic reform: correcting, for example, the broken reserve system that contributed directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. An interrogator armed with fluent Arabic and every scrap of intelligence the system can muster, who has mastered the emerging science of eye movements and body signals, who can act threatening as well as empathetic toward a prisoner, should not require the ultimate tool.
The last time we used water boarding was in 2003. I think that means we had already stopped before Mr Obama was even a Senator. So how can you say it doesn't stay that way? Seems to me we set rules and guidelines and followed them very closely. Unless of course you want the USA to be the bad guy and continue to insist that the CIA lied about it.
Do you think every system that attempts to legitimize torture starts out thinking - we're going to torture everyone that pisses us off, looks at us funny, or jaywalks? No. They start out trying to carefully limit and define it - but it doesn't tend to stay that way. Once you start to institutionalize the rationale of "the ends justify the means" it's hard to stop there.
Is torture ever justified....certainly, there are cases where it works or has seemed to be necessary, but at what cost and is the cost always worth what you gain? Is it worth it when at the hands of a skilled interrogator, other methods can yield the same results?
Here is an interesting article:
And, the same article concludes with:
The last time we used water boarding was in 2003. I think that means we had already stopped before Mr Obama was even a Senator. So how can you say it doesn't stay that way? Seems to me we set rules and guidelines and followed them very closely. Unless of course you want the USA to be the bad guy and continue to insist that the CIA lied about it.
HOW THE HELL would you know it STOPPED OLLIE!!!???
Again, you are intentionally misrepresenting the issues at stake here unless you honestly think torture is nothing more than "discomfort".
There is a fine line between security and a free society. Once you start embracing torture as a legitimate tool - where do you draw the line? Where do you stop? And what does it do to you as a country? Is it worth it?
I don't think so.
This was the criteria for waterboarding.
I posted the link already.
This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. The waterboard, which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits, explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent; substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack; and [o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack. The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel
Do you think every system that attempts to legitimize torture starts out thinking - we're going to torture everyone that pisses us off, looks at us funny, or jaywalks? No. They start out trying to carefully limit and define it - but it doesn't tend to stay that way. Once you start to institutionalize the rationale of "the ends justify the means" it's hard to stop there.
Is torture ever justified....certainly, there are cases where it works or has seemed to be necessary, but at what cost and is the cost always worth what you gain? Is it worth it when at the hands of a skilled interrogator, other methods can yield the same results?
The last time we used water boarding was in 2003. I think that means we had already stopped before Mr Obama was even a Senator. So how can you say it doesn't stay that way? Seems to me we set rules and guidelines and followed them very closely. Unless of course you want the USA to be the bad guy and continue to insist that the CIA lied about it.
HOW THE HELL would you know it STOPPED OLLIE!!!???
Because I read the CIA memo and they stated it in there. Obviously since you want them to be lying you didn't bother to even read it.
C
HOW THE HELL would you know it STOPPED OLLIE!!!???
Because I read the CIA memo and they stated it in there. Obviously since you want them to be lying you didn't bother to even read it.
Oh yeah and OBVIOUSLY the CIA never LIED!
Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.
America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.
It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.
Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.
America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.
They are not criminals, they are unlawful combatants. That's another liberal flaw.
Only a con would suggest stooping to the level of our enemies.Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.
America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.
It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.
