Waterboarding- the real deal
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 01:12
VIEWED: 11112
PAGE 11 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If I were convinced he knew info that would keep our families alive, I'd break whatever bone in his body I needed to to get it, and later, I'd expect to be tried for my actions, which I'd hope would be seen as justifiable under the circumstances...see, cause torturing peeps should be AGAINST THE LAW.
Don't bullshit yourself, Chrisisall, you're smarter than that. It's easy to cling to your high horse while you're sitting, tapping away on the computer, but if thet actually happened, I bet you'd be singing a different tune.
If you were being tried for that, you would regret one of two things: 1) That you tortured a guy, though I find this unlikely, since you said you'd go all out if your family was at stake; or 2) That you were getting in deep shit for defending your family.
When the gloves come off, and you are teetering on the edge of potentially spending decades locked away as someone's bitch for doing what you saw as the right thing for the situation, you'd be surprised how quickly your holier-than-thou principles of the justness of law, and accepting your fate go right out the window.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, really. It's what inevitably happens when human nature comes into conflict with our artificial system of ethics. Just don't lie to yourself, or the rest of us about it.
----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your logic is tortured. Just because a cop shooting an unarmed person might be the salvation for one case, does that mean we should make it legal?
This is how Signym rationalizes her position. On one hand she attacks people who even suggest that such measures should ever be used, then on another she confesses that there are situations in which they should be used. The difference is that Signym wants the law to be broken. It makes her feel more comfortable if we torture people against the law and the President is the one who takes sole responsibility for it. That way she can have her cake and eat it too. She supports the use of torture, while not having to take responsibility for that position. Very brave of you signym.
Of course not.
BTW Finn,, what I had in mind was something other than waterboarding. The only good thing about waterboarding it that it's CHEAP and EASY and anyone can do it. But chemical interrogation (which also meets the definition of torture) or interrogation by specialists (who know how to detect lies with near 100% accuracy) or with equipment (such as fMRI, in absence of those specialists) was what I had in mind.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hand him over to me, Chris, I'd have him spilling his guts in about ten minutes and never lay a finger on him.
I am not gonna go into details about how a proper interrogation works, and so you've really only got the word of a general nobody to go on here, feel free to cross check with anyone you feel professional enough to comment, you might be surprised at their response.
But I will say this.
The minute, the very instant - that you go "hands-on" during an interrogation, YOU FUCKED UP.
You've screwed it, blown it, whatever turn of phrase you feel applies best, you have burned any chance of getting real, useable, dependable humint out of your prospect and reduced things to the maybes and coulda-beens, and might-bes that require all sorts of extra effort to prove true or false, mostly false, and flood your database with useless shit that jams up the works and blinds you when you most need to see, reducing your teams effectiveness and the project as a whole.
And in a proper, professional intel gathering organisation as opposed to the homegrown gangsters WE currently have in operation - you would be cut from the team and blackballed so goddamn fast you wouldn't know what hit you, and if you were LUCKY they might hang on to you in some degrading menial capacity to keep an eye on it, and if you weren't, well... accidents happen.
Yer welcome to dispute that all you like, given lack of sourcing I damn well ain't gonna provide, but go ask someone who you DO feel is qualified to comment, and see what they tell you.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Regardless, this is all a smokescreen. The real issue isn't whether serious action should be taken to counter the terrorist's efforts. Despite your claims, we all agree on that. The issue is that you and others are eager to toss aside fundamental freedoms and protection in favor of fascist, police-state tactics. What you can't seem to understand is that doing that actually caters to the terrorists' goals, and maximizes the effect of their fleeting attacks.
You have it exactly backwards and upside down wrong.
You're ignoring the threat, not I.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And your government sure did a lot to stop it...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That wasn't " Americans" as a whole, Citizen, but Irish - Americans who came here, made $$ and sent some of it back. You make is sound as if there was wide spread, whole sale support for the Irish. I'd say 97% of Americans had no clue what was going on w/ respect to the funding of the IRA or why Catholics and Protestants couldn't get along over there.
And it was widespread enough for nearly all the IRA's funding to be in US $, though the fact that 97% of Americans didn't have a clue about something happening outside of their own doorstep is hardly one that surprises.
You go on about being the only one who understands the threat, but you're not. I've lived with terrorism ALL of my life. You've had it for a couple of years. It's new and scary to you, I get it (it's just a shame you don't), its old hat to me and I know what the threat really amounts to. I know how to live my life as I wish even though people want to kill me, you wish to shit your pants and abandon your life in order to get THEM.
You're the one blowing the threat out of all proportion, not me. I've lived with terrorism all my life, you've lived with it for five minutes, now this is when you arrogantly tell me you know everything about terrorism and the current threat, and I know nothing. Have at it.
"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Never claimed to be " the only one" , kiddo. Not by a longshot. And what's different about this threat and what the IRA did is that these clowns want us all equally dead, or to submit. They're not screaming about getting off their little patch of land on an island, and then they'll play nice. No, these SOBs want everyone to bow to their god, live by their rules, or else.
By your silly attempt to compare this to the domestic issues you've had only shows how little you get the threat.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, son, you just think the only people who get it are the ones that think just like you. Which, for those that need it spelled out to them, is basically the same thing as thinking "the only one".
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Never claimed to be " the only one" , kiddo. Not by a longshot.
Quote:So do you.
No, these SOBs want everyone to bow to their god, live by their rules, or else.
Quote:Actually, that's exactly what most of them want. Your inability to grasp that proves you don't understand the threat.
They're not screaming about getting off their little patch of land on an island
Quote:You're insulting ignorance of anything outside of your own front yard only proves you don't have a clue.
By your silly attempt to compare this to the domestic issues you've had only shows how little you get the threat.
Domestic issues? That just goes to prove how little perspective you have, and how afraid you are. Don't tell other people they don't get the threat, because they live their lives rather than huddling in a corner crying in a puddle of their own piss. Just because I'm not a coward, doesn't mean I don't get the threat. I can live my life even under the threat of terrorism, because you haven't the bravery to do the same doesn't mean you get the threat more than I do.
Don't compare your irrational fear of Muslims under your bed to reality, doing so shows how little you understand the real threat.
"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
EDIT: but please remember that the above example Kirkules posed is a TV-like one, and in all probability would NEVER HAPPEN.
OK? Are we real here?
I conceded earlier that the likelihood of this scenario happening to any individual is near zero. Apparently our government believes that they have had three of these potential scenarios since 911 judging by the three water-boarding incidents, and this seems reasonable to me. The problem with outright outlawing water-boarding and other coercive techniques is that there are instances in real life where they might prove useful. If the CIA gets intelligence that terrorists are coming into the US to bomb a shopping center, and then capture a known terrorist at the border, they know that an event might be imminent. I don't want to have to rely on a Federal Agent that is 6 months from retirement to decide whether they should risk losing their pension because their not sure what interrogation techniques are legal. If the Federal agent thought his family might get bombed, I have no doubt that they would do what is required, but would they react so quickly if your family was the target given how much they have to lose. I just want them to be able to get approval quickly at a high level to use those methods that they determine necessary, without having to worry about their pensions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I just want them to be able to get approval quickly at a high level to use those methods that they determine necessary, without having to worry about their pensions.
Isn't that what the FISA courts are there for? To get things approved quickly and cover the agents' arses? I still don't "get" why adding torture to their repertoire gets things done more quickly.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Never claimed to be " the only one" , kiddo. Not by a longshot. And what's different about this threat and what the IRA did is that these clowns want us all equally dead, or to submit. They're not screaming about getting off their little patch of land on an island, and then they'll play nice. No, these SOBs want everyone to bow to their god, live by their rules, or else.
By your silly attempt to compare this to the domestic issues you've had only shows how little you get the threat.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Bow to their god, live by their rules, or else. Sounds an awful lot like what BushCo is offering the Middle East.
By your silly attempts to blow this out of all proportion, you've only shown how much you've over-hyped the threat. I simply refuse to live my life worrying about things that are less likely to happen than (a) a tornado striking my home, (b) a hurricane wiping out my city, (c) lightning striking me, or (d) being killed in a car wreck. All of these scenarios are FAR, FAR more likely to occur to me on a daily basis than my being killed or targeted by terrorists.
By your kind of reasoning, ANY AND ALL measures that would cut down traffic deaths are not only "okay", but necessary and mandatory. I guess you're a big proponent of traffic cameras, photo radar, et al. After all, it's not Big-Brother-ism, it's just "security", and what could ever possibly be wrong with that? No one in this country has EVER gotten carried away or misused such power, right?
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME