• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag [W:508,759]

You're just saying that if it involves national security, all criticism is off limits. That's ridiculous. It's not 'immoral' to disagree with your government on matters of war. It would be unconscionable to expect citizens to not question decisions with such horrific costs, which we know going in. People of high ethics, fully understanding the issues, WILL disagree, often strongly, and when they do they have an obligation to protest what they feel is wrong.




We could post dueling opinion pieces all day, and yours is from an obviously right wing leaning outlet. But I'll take an early passage - 4th paragraph:



First of all, that no republican signed off in this era is hardly surprising. 20 years ago it would be - not today when votes that break exactly along party lines are the norm. Second, anyone with the slightest interest in the report knows that the committee has been fighting and negotiating with the WH and CIA for a year or so about what can and what cannot be released, at least. So the committee did not 'sit on' the report for two years. That's just misleading to the point of a lie.

Second, the author says several times the report is 'untrue' and 'highly biased' but doesn't provide details. What is biased about the findings? What part of the report, specifically, is untrue. I accept that there WILL BE honest and legitimate differences of opinion about whether it should have been released and what part of it blacked out, but that's just because we're thinking humans. That does not mean those who disagree are biased or that the report is.



The side of the U.S.



You avoided the point - questioning the government is the norm from conservatives on every issue except apparently the CIA on this subject.



Again, not the point. If right wingers can't accept the line from the various people about Benghazi after many hearings, you can't then question my 'morality' when I do the same with the CIA on this issue, especially since on this issue the CIA has a documented history of lies and brazen attempts to hide information - hacking into the committee's computer to remove the Panetta report, which is the most comprehensive internal examination of the program, its successes and failures. If they have been honest, and the program's successes obvious, they should proudly hand over their internal review which supports all their assertions - why hide that from the investigators, then illegally attempt to remove that document? Something to hide, obviously....

It is a partisan hatchet job that has damaged the US. Of course the usual suspects embrace it.
 
The point is that they're fighting and dying for their brothers in arms, their country, and and ideal. And torture is antithetical to all of them.

Here's a thought experiment. Why did the propagandists in WWII try to convince their own troops that the enemy would abuse and torture prisoners; and why did those same propagandists try to convince enemy troops that they would be well treated as prisoners?

It is as if you are not aware that there is a difference between unlawful combatants who have a right to a firing squad and troops of a nation's army who have the right to humane treatment once they can wage war no longer. If you want to become a prisoner of war then wear a uniform, have badges of rank and be integrated into a hierarchical organization.

Once someone has been determined to be an unlawful combatant instead of a detainee all that is owed to them is an execution. We gave them a prayer rug and an enema.
 
I thought it WAS an instant process.
As in... "this guy knows where the nukes are, lets waterboard him"...
Instead, it seems to be a time consuming process.
By the time a KSM gives up any info, it would be obsolete.
Terrorists would adjust their MO's when any of their leaders are captured.

Again with the long process.
What sort of actionable info do you think KSM would have stored in his brain that would be critical in the never-ending "War on Terror"
Do you think he has intricate plots, Osama's phone number, addresses.....what exactly would he give up?

Really? Do you really believe that the names of other people in their inner circle would become obsolete?

Why are you stuck on actionable intelligence? What makes you think anyone believed that was likely? Nearly all information has to be analyzed to be converted into intelligence. This is not a made for prime time TV movie.

Sometimes just the name of a person or place can be important. In the end this is the plot behind the movie that, in the end, kills Bin Laden.
 
The point is that they're fighting and dying for their brothers in arms, their country, and and ideal. And torture is antithetical to all of them.

Here's a thought experiment. Why did the propagandists in WWII try to convince their own troops that the enemy would abuse and torture prisoners; and why did those same propagandists try to convince enemy troops that they would be well treated as prisoners?

There was never any possibility that any US behavior would have the slightest effect on the terrorists' attitudes and/or actions.
 
Wasn't it KSM who provided the information on the compound that enabled the Seals to go in and capture Bin Laden?

In the movie version Bin Laden was killed. The book might be different. You know how it is with movies. They so seldom follow the book.
 
It keeps the fear fresh.

Anti-American propagandists also routinely cite that 180+ figure to mislead. Detailed descriptions of all the enhanced interrogation techniques are available online, and anyone who troubles to read them knows that what was being counted there was every single trial on the subject--each of which usually lasted about 15-20 seconds. Only so many of these could be conducted in any one session, only so many minutes of sessions per day, and so on. And a doctor had to be right there in the room monitoring everything. This coward was subjected to repeated, severe discomfort, and when he'd gotten enough of it, he changed his tune and began to give up his fellow cowards. The only mistake was in not trying and executing him as soon as he'd told all he knew. He continues to draw breath thirteen years after masterminding an attack meant to decapitate the government of the United States, conspiring to murder almost three thousand people in the process. What sort of jellyfish have we become, that we let this son of a bitch live?
 
Now that is an interesting accusation. ISIS had oil fields. Have we retaken them? Have we destroyed the wellheads?

Well they get funding from somewhere - if not the Saudis then who?

The rest makes no sense to me. How can a group like ISIS have oil fields? They might control them temporarily, but they're not yet a country.
 
It is an effective way to address an enemy who seeks martyrdom.

OK, so there are no actual differences, waterboarding is waterboarding no matter who does it, which is of course correct.
 
Somehow I'm not convinced that your ignorance is fully honest.

But I'll play along. Combatants will fight harder if they believe that they will be tortured if they are captured, and will surrender easier if they believe they will be well cared for. Obviously you know this, because it's something a 5 year old could figure out.

Which of course is why someone like John McCain would be against torture. Torture always results in a net negative for the side that does it.

And also, lets stop pretending that anyone cares about the effectiveness or the ethics of torture. This isn't about intelligence, it's about revenge. If there were a painless truth drug that made a suspect give up every shred of information, the same people demanding torture now would still support torture. And what's worse, these same people would support it without being able to actually go through with it themselves. I find it hard to respect that.

Now extend your reasoning to unlawful combatants. What is in it for going easy on them? By their nature they are fanatics already.

We made people uncomfortable. McCain is all about McCain. He needs to leave the stage. He is a troll and he supports traitors. I cannot say if torture was involved. I have not read the report. I tend to doubt it. Either way Feinstein is a traitor and should be charged with treason for her act.

Do you know of a drug that will break down someone's will and have them cooperating with their interrogator?

And why do you believe anyone who supports making our enemies uncomfortable would have to be made uncomfortable themselves. Children believe these things. Adults do not speak this way.
 
This was very funny. Okay, I admit it, I gave had two full glasses of Patti's Red Grapefruit Wine.

And that may have made all the difference. :)
Home made Sangria here.
Only one large glass, lots of ice.
I gotta maintain my sense of decorum as well as my equilibrium.
 
We made people uncomfortable. McCain is all about McCain. He needs to leave the stage. He is a troll and he supports traitors. I cannot say if torture was involved. I have not read the report. I tend to doubt it. Either way Feinstein is a traitor and should be charged with treason for her act.

Citations, mother of god citations please.
 
I have a deep moral objection to their end purpose. Their tactics are a rational expression of their strengths and weaknesses. A moral evaluation of tactics is a useless exercise.

It may be, and you might be an exception, but the other 99.99999% or so of the U.S. has deep moral objections to terrorism, such as that which occurred on 9/11 and didn't bother in the aftermath to really evaluate or give a damn about the 'end purpose' of AQ or ISIS, et al.

But if you believe that, that there are no moral restraints on warfare, then fine. I'm glad your view is a minority one, or at least hope it is - if not then ALL I believe about my country and what is stands for is a sham.
 
Either way I like the concept. Did it break the enemy down so he told us things we wanted to know or confirmed he did not know anything more?

OK, so you're on board with torture. Nice to know you have that in common with the late Saddam! I hope you're proud!
 
They are unlawful combatants. They are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are not prisoners of war in the classic sense as they did not wear uniforms, have badges of rank nor a country. They should be wrung dry of any useful information and then tried, convicted and executed.

Just curious - I suppose that is the system you'd be satisfied with for U.S. detainees? After all, if another country accuses them, then they (the U.S. citizen) is surely guilty and should be summarily tried in a kangaroo court and executed. Right?
 
An American citizen who is doing nothing wrong is not a prisoner of war.

But as far as I can tell, our obligation to determine if someone we hold actually did something wrong approaches zero. Certainly you haven't supported any actual process to determine such a thing that we'd recognize as a trial. So my assumption is if that American is accused, he obviously did something wrong, end of inquiry, or that would be the case if we followed the suggestions of the right wingers on this thread.
 
I recently came across this article of Samir Naji's 13 year incarceration at Gitmo. Obviously, this is a pretty convienent time for him to tell the tales of his cruel and unusual punishment. Which made me think; isn't that exactly what's being clamed here? Cruel and unusual punishment on United States territory. I've heard from my professor that an obvious consequence of closing Gitmo would be that if we brought these inmates back to the United States we would have to give them due-process. Well...I may be mistaken, but last time I checked, Guantanamo Bay is United states territory. I found it interesting how this man's story was written. Check it out if you wish to.

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames U.S. flag - CNN.com


regardless of my opinion on torture (which is a mostly negative opinion, but much more positive than my opinion on drone warfare)....I feel no sympathy for him.
 
Why are you stuck on actionable intelligence?
.

I dunno.
I guess because I thought that was the purpose of EIT methods?
Why are you so stuck on bodily functions?

We gave them a prayer rug and an enema.

And you should have that erection looked at by a doctor.

In a similar vein the wannabe traitorous bedwetters' .

I can't help you with all of this, but as a parent, I can offer advice with the bedwetting problem.
No liquids after dinner.
In your case, no grapefruit wine after dinner.
 
Democrat party traitors have said so. And you hug the traitors.

I see, soldiers who put their lives on the line for all of us are traitors, because they disagree with you and believe this country actually stands for important principles, among them basic human rights. Thanks for the explanation.
 
Back
Top Bottom