CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[2aguy]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

I already support it for known terrorist leadership...and for select terrorist individuals. Wateboarding works, and doesn't harm the terrorist......

An American citizen has Rights under the Constitution so he can't be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.....

 

[2aguy]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

Wrong....that is a lie......you are repeating lies given to you by people who don't know what they are talking about. The CIA doesn't get an answer and then let the guy go...they verify the response, and if the guy lies, he gets waterboarded again....

Waterboarding got terrorists committed to dying for their jihad to give up information..it works.....beating a crimnal is different and doesn't work, waterboarding a terrorist to get information actually works.

 

[jillian]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

 

[2aguy]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

waterboarding isn't torture.....we did it to our military personel....

 

[2aguy]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

Wrong....there is no pain in waterboarding......just discomfort...if you have allergies and you have used a sinus rinse, you know what waterboarding is like.....and the CIA doesn't just accept whatever the terrorist says and then let them go........they verify the information...so lying doesn't help the terrorist.....

you guys are just repeating the last thing an uninformed, left wing activist has said.....try thinking before you post.

 

[2aguy]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

No...terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.....that is in order to reinforce to regular soldiers that as long as they do not target civilians, they are protected by the conventions...by allowing terrorists to be protected, you endanger civilians...

 

[jillian]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

Wrong....there is no pain in waterboarding......just discomfort...if you have allergies and you have used a sinus rinse, you know what waterboarding is like.....and the CIA doesn't just accept whatever the terrorist says and then let them go........they verify the information...so lying doesn't help the terrorist.....

you guys are just repeating the last thing an uninformed, left wing activist has said.....try thinking before you post.

That’s really funny. False. But funny perhaps you would find t less funny if it were you

 

[2aguy]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

Wrong....there is no pain in waterboarding......just discomfort...if you have allergies and you have used a sinus rinse, you know what waterboarding is like.....and the CIA doesn't just accept whatever the terrorist says and then let them go........they verify the information...so lying doesn't help the terrorist.....

you guys are just repeating the last thing an uninformed, left wing activist has said.....try thinking before you post.

That’s really funny. False. But funny perhaps you would find t less funny if it were you

Waterboarding works. It has worked on terrorists who swore to die in the jihad.... I don't want to be waterboarded, but I will take waterboarding over actual torture any day of the week.

 

[jwoodie]

I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.

How would they defend themselves in court if it was explicitly illegal? Sounds to me like Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[2aguy]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

That’s the usual BS example. It hasn’t happened. And torture just makes people lie to make the pain stop.

It also violates international law, not that laws matter to you

Wrong....there is no pain in waterboarding......just discomfort...if you have allergies and you have used a sinus rinse, you know what waterboarding is like.....and the CIA doesn't just accept whatever the terrorist says and then let them go........they verify the information...so lying doesn't help the terrorist.....

you guys are just repeating the last thing an uninformed, left wing activist has said.....try thinking before you post.

That’s really funny. False. But funny perhaps you would find t less funny if it were you

Here are 3 experts on actual torture....3 POWs who were held by the Vietnamese Socialists......

McCain’s fellow POWs support waterboarding

When I was researching my book, “Courting Disaster,” I interviewed many of them, including Col. Bud Day, who received our nation’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor, for his heroic escape from a North Vietnamese prison camp.

When Day was returned to the prison, his right arm was broken in three places and he had been shot in the hand and thigh during his capture. But he continued to resist interrogation and provide false information — suffering such excruciating torture that he became totally physically debilitated and unable to perform even the simplest task for himself. In short, Day is an expert on the subject of torture. Here is what he says about CIA waterboarding:

“I am a supporter of waterboarding. It is not torture. Torture is really hurting someone. Waterboarding is just scaring someone, with no long-term injurious effects. It is a scare tactic that works.”

I asked Day in an e-mail what he would say to the CIA officer who waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if he had the chance to speak with him. Day replied immediately: “YOU DID THE RIGHT THING.”

And the other Congressional of Medal Awardee...also agrees......waterboarding is not torture.....

Like Day, Col. Leo Thorsness was awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War. He experienced excruciating torture during his captivity — his back broken, his body wrenched apart. He says what the CIA did to al-Qaeda terrorists in its custody was not torture:

“To me, waterboarding is intensive interrogation. It is not torture. Torture involves extreme, brutal pain — breaking bones, passing out from pain, beatings so severe that blood spatters the walls . . . when you pop shoulders out of joints.. . . In my mind, there’s a difference, and in most POWs’ minds there’s a difference.. . . I would not hesitate a second to use ‘enhanced interrogation,’ including waterboarding, if it would save the lives of innocent people.”

And the most famous supporter of water boarding......

Another torture victim who supports waterboarding is Adm. Jeremiah Denton — the POW who famously winked the word “T-O-R-T-U-R-E” in Morse code during a North Vietnamese propaganda interview.

It was the first message to the outside world that American prisoners were being tortured. Denton later received the Navy Cross for this courageous and costly act of defiance, for which he paid dearly when his captors figured out what he had done. I asked Denton if he thought waterboarding was torture. He told me:

“No, I think it’s persuasive.. . . The big, monstrous difference here is that the gentlemen we are waterboarding are people who swore to kill Americans. They will wreak any kind of torture just for the hell of it on anybody. When they are captured by the U.S., and we know or have reason to believe that they know of a subsequent event after 9/11, if you don’t interrogate them, more misery will take place.. . . Waterboarding is not an evil. Some of the things they did to us were torture. I passed out a dozen times from torture. We’re not exerting that kind of excruciation.”

 

[jwoodie]

Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?

So you equate interrogating terrorists with the murder of innocents?

P.S. There is a difference between uniformed combatants and terrorist spies.

 

[2aguy]

Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?

So you equate interrogating terrorists with the murder of innocents?

The people who oppose enhanced interrogation are not against torture...since allowing terrorists to complete their attacks, when they could be stopped by enhanced interrogation, causes actual pain and suffering for innocent victims around the world....those people are tortured, emotionally and physically when they survive an attack.....the people who oppose stopping those attacks would rather a terrorist not suffer than stopping the suffering of innocents...

It really is that simple....

 

[Jessica123]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Yes! I'd give all the investigators that saved this country from such an event a medal and a military parade.

 

[2aguy]

People......do you understand what waterboarding is? If you have allergies and use NielMed sinus rinse bottles.....that is what waterboarding is....filling your sinus cavities with water.....against your will....you can still breath you are not in any danger....they just pour water over a cloth and the water drains into your sinsues......When the session is over, you are completely fine....no damage.....

 

[toomuchtime_]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

This continues to be an interesting question on several levels. The argument in favor is based on the principle of the greatest good. Weighing the interests of the terrorist against the interests of all his victims, the interests of his victims have to win. Whether of not he is an American citizen should not be relevant. It is interesting to note that the principle of the greatest good is embraced by liberals/Democrats on most issues, but not on this one.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

Wrong and wrong. Whether of not enhanced interrogation provides reliable information is a matter of opinion. While those who have used it generally think it does, those who claim it doesn't generally have no experience using it. If you wanted advice on having brain surgery who would you ask, a brain surgeon or a dermatologist? The opinions of people who have firs hand knowledge of its efficacy should also carry more weight. Whether is is legal is also a matter of opinion. Those who are opposed to it claim it is illegal while those who believe it is a valuable tool believe it is legal.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

Wrong and wrong. Whether of not enhanced interrogation provides reliable information is a matter of opinion. While those who have used it generally think it does, those who claim it doesn't generally have no experience using it. If you wanted advice on having brain surgery who would you ask, a brain surgeon or a dermatologist? The opinions of people who have firs hand knowledge of its efficacy should also carry more weight. Whether is is legal is also a matter of opinion. Those who are opposed to it claim it is illegal while those who believe it is a valuable tool believe it is legal.

Torture is against the Geneva Conventions (and yes, that includes waterboarding), which makes it illegal for our military to use it.

 

[Faun]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

This must be the latest nonsense bouncing off the walls of the rightwing echo chamber as there are several threads on that very question.

 

[otto105]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Real torture is different than TV versions your conservatives believe in.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

Wrong and wrong. Whether of not enhanced interrogation provides reliable information is a matter of opinion. While those who have used it generally think it does, those who claim it doesn't generally have no experience using it. If you wanted advice on having brain surgery who would you ask, a brain surgeon or a dermatologist? The opinions of people who have firs hand knowledge of its efficacy should also carry more weight. Whether is is legal is also a matter of opinion. Those who are opposed to it claim it is illegal while those who believe it is a valuable tool believe it is legal.

Torture is against the Geneva Conventions (and yes, that includes waterboarding), which makes it illegal for our military to use it.

As you know some lawyers say that's true and some say it's not. The question here is, does a government have to act against the interests of its country because of a treaty it signed or does that government have a continuing obligation to do what it thinks is best for the country regardless of the treaty? In other words, are there situations in which a government can declare an exception to the treaty or does it have to drop out of the treaty to do what it thinks is best for the country? I think scenarios can be constructed that everyone would agree the government should be able to cite an exception.