• 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]

No, I'm not joking about anything. You can give us your personal musings about what's moral and what's icky all day long, and it will say absolutely nothing about the only question that counts in this matter--whether any of the enhanced interrogation techniques violated any laws. In any case, I could just as easily question the morality of risking the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people, just so we wouldn't have to get rough with a few mass-murdering rats to make them tell us what they knew. It's clear you would have been content to let them get killed, while we dawdled and kept asking these bastards nicely to answer our questions.

I think Professor Yoo's legal arguments are very persuasive. By implying he's an unethical liar, rather than presenting arguments to the contrary, you're inviting people to suspect you're just taking the cheap, easy way out because your game is weak. What's keeping you? Let's see what you've got. Using the knowledge of the law about torture you claim to have, please explain, in detail, citing specific cases and statutes, how any of the enhanced interrogation techniques violates any U.S. law against torture.

You can't, because they don't.

We're having a different conversation than you are, apparently. Whether it violates any law is the least of my concerns and is an appropriate discussion for the SCOTUS blog or something. As I said, and which is just obviously true, almost by definition a state sponsored act of evil or moral repugnance is often if not generally legal. I could cite a dozen examples from OUR history and so could you.
 
It's not so much a name as a general characteristic of liberals. You may be a tough guy liberal physically but if you support liberalism in general then you will be thought of as a *****. That's the opinions others will hold and you should just accept that and move on. That slotting happens to non-liberals who are called 'racist', misogynist, etc. as well but you'll probably be silent when that unfairness occurs. That's why the ***** label.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Anyone who says "non-liberals" are racists is a moron. Moreover, guess what that makes someone who thinks all liberals are ******s because they have a conscience and the ability to use reason?

Do you really believe the **** you write? That's some ill-informed nonsense, if so. You might want to take a look at that before you continue exposing your thoughts the world.
 
As I said to your cohort (what's it feel like to be affiliated with a guy like j-mac), if you are so sure liberals are ******s, why not go to a rally full of liberals and yell it out? Head to one of those "I can't breath" rallies, wear a sign that says liberals are all ******s, and then report back to me and let me know how it worked out.

It's easy for you to act tough on the Internet, guy. No one is impressed by you.

You're the one that came in and acted all emotional about it, with your "are you calling me a *****?" crap...I see that as usual that was bluster, and just dishonest crap as usual with you libs...Why don't you go pick daisies, and stroke your cats.
 
I don't really think it is his opinion. Torture is a word - it has a regular definition and a legal definition. By the dictionary definition, "enhanced interrogation" is certainly torture:

Torture - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Under International Law it is clearly torture as well:
APT - A legal definition of torture
The 'legal definition' was submitted by John Yoo who is a professor at Berkeley Law School and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001-03, where his work included reviewing the legality of CIA interrogation methods. Certainly his opinion should carry as much weight as any of the definitions you submitted. John Yoo: A torture report for the dustbin - NY Daily News
 
It's nothing more than your opinion on what is and isn't torture, and it's not shared by many with a lot more real world experience in it.

And I'm really unclear on how and where one draws this imaginary line. The purpose of waterboarding is the same whether you label it torture or use the Orwellian term EIT. Technique is the same, the results are the same, the prisoner suffers the same pain, panic, etc. What you're saying is there is a line somewhere that is determinable about how many times or how long is 'torture' and how many times it's not-torture. Explain that line if you don't mind and how you draw it.

It has to have something to do with the effects on the person, which would vary widely from person to person. But if you say that what was outlined in the legal brief and how it was used in practice is different, seems to me you're saying that if the technique doesn't have the intended effect - KSM was resistant and able to handle it better than expected - in the REAL WORLD, we just did it until it did have the intended effect. So where is the line? And why would I care where it was if we ignored the line when we needed to in order to get the desired effect. The line was just there for people to make themselves feel better about what we did.

I realize that you say you do not know where the line is between torture and acceptable interrogation methods. That is certainly due to your never having earnestly thought about it but also to the fact that there is a continuum between asking questions over cake and coffee and withholding food and drink, while screaming at the captive for 78 hours on end. Just think about it for a while and try to free yourself of prejudice and presumption.
 
I edited it out, because people like you go running off to mommy and daddy over that ****....You saw it though so I accomplished my purpose....

Another ill-informed generalization. I could be wrong, you'd have to ask a mod, but even though people like you hide behind the internet and call me a *****, I don't think I've ever hit the "Report" button.

I don't really give a **** what some hack thinks of me.
 
It's not so much a name as a general characteristic of liberals. You may be a tough guy liberal physically but if you support liberalism in general then you will be thought of as a *****. That's the opinions others will hold and you should just accept that and move on. That slotting happens to non-liberals who are called 'racist', misogynist, etc. as well but you'll probably be silent when that unfairness occurs. That's why the ***** label.

Absolutely! WSS will never get that....He's too busy feeling slighted.
 
Another ill-informed generalization. I could be wrong, you'd have to ask a mod, but even though people like you hide behind the internet and call me a *****, I don't think I've ever hit the "Report" button.

I don't really give a **** what some hack thinks of me.

Good, go away then.
 
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Anyone who says "non-liberals" are racists is a moron. Moreover, guess what that makes someone who thinks all liberals are ******s because they have a conscience and the ability to use reason?

Do you really believe the **** you write? That's some ill-informed nonsense, if so. You might want to take a look at that before you continue exposing your thoughts the world.
You'll not get an emotional response from me with your immature outburst. I'm a man.
 
"You won't mind if I don't believe you will you? I could not read a 6,000 page report in two days and I am pretty fast."
I haven't read the full report as of yet but a good 500 pages in I've seen the CIA have used sleep deprivation, water boarding, refusing to treat injuries like open bullet wounds, rectal rehydration, and other torture methods that brought victims to the point of mental break. Believe me when I say, the report does not shy away from the details.
Okay. Here is the allegation:

Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take "precedence" over his medical care,^ resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture. In at least two other cases, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation techniques despite warnings from CIA medical personnel that the techniques could exacerbate physical injuries.​

Here is some general rebuttal:

5. (U//FOUO) The Study has all the appearances of an authoritative history of CIA's RDI effort. As Chairman Feinstein announced to the press the day it was approved by the Committee, its authors had access to 6 million pages of records-most provided by CIA-and they cite more than 35,000 footnotes. However, although the Study contains an impressive amount of detail, it fails in significant and consequential ways to correctly portray and analyze that detail. Simply put, the Study tells part of the story of CIA's experience with RDI, but there are too many flaws for it to stand as the official record of the program. Those flaws stem from two basic limitations on the authors:
• (U//FOUO) A methodology that relied exclusively on a review of documents with no opportunity to interview participants, owing to the Department of Justice investigation of the program; and
• (U//FOUO) An apparent lack of familiarity with some of the ways the Agency analyzes and uses intelligence.​

The Democrat staffers who wrote this hit piece interviewed none of the participants from the directors, nor the planners, no the interrogators. But they did interview the slip and fall lawyers for the unlawful combatants. The authors knew the anti-American slant they were going for and they got it. They also have no idea how intelligence is created in the real world. They quoted from documents but did not seek to gain any context. Had they been interested in lessons learned they would have done so.

"Yes, whatever is in the report the treason is in releasing it. She intentionally damaged the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency. The damage is enormous and long lasting. She must be held accountable."
That's not grounds to arrest Feinstein for treason, sorry to burst your bubble there, Mr.Republican. If we are to hold anyone accountable, it's the CIA agents who allowed the torture to take place.
I believe it is. She has done more damage to the United States, by isolating the US, by demoralizing our allies, by giving substantial recruiting aid to the terrorists, including a likely increase in American Jihadists, as well as severely damaging the CIA in ways that will last for a few generations.

We will continue to disagree over interrogations being torture.
 
Another ill-informed generalization. I could be wrong, you'd have to ask a mod, but even though people like you hide behind the internet and call me a *****, I don't think I've ever hit the "Report" button.

I don't really give a **** what some hack thinks of me.

And you clearly can't read either....I'll quote it again...."...because people like you.." Now, would you like to return to the discussion, or do you want to continue this nonsense?
 
Absolutely! WSS will never get that....He's too busy feeling slighted.

You think I feel slighted? By two guys hiding behind the Internet calling people they know they'll never meet ******s? I'm laughing at you. You guys are joke. But, hey I can have fun with this. Since we're doing dumb generalizations, let's have fun. All liberals are ******s, while all conservatives are wife-beating, racist, imbread, fat pieces of ****, who too are ******s, because they are too ******s because they are too scared to represent their real views on social issues in public.

Though I don't actually believe my generalization because I have a brain.
 
And you clearly can't read either....I'll quote it again...."...because people like you.." Now, would you like to return to the discussion, or do you want to continue this nonsense?

If the people who are report are "like me", wouldn't that mean I do it too? Or is that logic too far over your head? LOL
 
You'll not get an emotional response from me with your immature outburst. I'm a man.

Yes, real men hide behind their computer and call 40% of the nation ******s. LOL

You're the ****ing definition of a real man. Hahahahahahaha

This is a sad conversation.
 
Good, go away then.

I'm not going anywhere. I'm having far too much fun watching you and Grant try to substantiate your pathetic claim that all liberals are ******s.

It's like watching a bird try to fly through a plate glass window over and over again.
 
I am not sure i know, what you mean. Of course we should "grow up" and learn to live with the fact that the methods approved for interrogation were not torture by a very long shot. That it now seems that in many more cases than thought the allowed limits were overstepped does not change this. Yes, you are absolutely right. We must grow up and stop misusing the language for political reasons.

To clarify indulge a few questions.

Which interrogation methods were not approved? How does releasing detailed information about the methods we use to break an individual's will to resist cooperating with us help to identify cases where interrogators need better guidelines? How does it help for the treasonous Dianne Feinstein, not yet charged, to gravely damage this nation's relationships with allied nation, while giving substantial propaganda aid to terrorist recruiting all while demoralizing the CIA?

The treasonous Feinstein, not yet charged, has done more damage to this nation than the terrorists have.
 
You think I feel slighted? By two guys hiding behind the Internet calling people they know they'll never meet ******s? I'm laughing at you. You guys are joke. But, hey I can have fun with this. Since we're doing dumb generalizations, let's have fun. All liberals are ******s, while all conservatives are wife-beating, racist, imbread, fat pieces of ****, who too are ******s, because they are too ******s because they are too scared to represent their real views on social issues in public.

Though I don't actually believe my generalization because I have a brain.

Eh, you never know do you? After all I only live about an hour and a half from you...But that aside, what makes your generalization any different from what you liberals call conservatives in one fashion or another every day, in every thread? And just for your edification, I don't have any problem what so ever voicing my views in public, and have done so many times...

But see, I do think you believe your generalization, just as much as I believe mine, because you came up with it, so you must think it. In fact it is dishonest to say you don't believe it, and therefore cements my theory that liberals are ******s....What did you say to me? (In a whinny voice)"If you say it you'd better mean it" :roll:

Now you're boring me....
 
Why do you think that the G.W. Bush mis-administration sent detainees to Gitmo?

If you don't know, I'll give you a clue: Because it was outside of the USA and detainees held there wouldn't have the rights that they would have in any U.S. territory.

You really should join the reality-based world.

Are you implying that unlawful combatants should have Constitutional rights?
You really should join the reality-based world.
I think it was to keep them out of the reach of people just like you.
 
To clarify indulge a few questions.

Which interrogation methods were not approved? How does releasing detailed information about the methods we use to break an individual's will to resist cooperating with us help to identify cases where interrogators need better guidelines? How does it help for the treasonous Dianne Feinstein, not yet charged, to gravely damage this nation's relationships with allied nation, while giving substantial propaganda aid to terrorist recruiting all while demoralizing the CIA?

The treasonous Feinstein, not yet charged, has done more damage to this nation than the terrorists have.
National security is being compromised for domestic political gain, and everyone should realize that and rightly condemn it.
 
"I do not trust government. If a politician tells me something or if a bureaucrat tells me something I would not believe it for a moment.

But I do believe a process whose intent is to determine who is dangerous to us and who is not will work reasonably well given that it is our interest to make that determination. If it were not so we would have tens of thousands of prisoners and not just a few. Most were caught, documented, evaluated and released."
You do not trust the government but you believe every word out of Lyin' Dick's mouth? Good heavens you are conflicted. :shock:
It is clear you made it to the very end of the first sentence. But that is about as far as you made it before you were compelled to respond.

I understand. Sometimes reading two paragraphs is just too hard.
 
Eh, you never know do you? After all I only live about an hour and a half from you...But that aside, what makes your generalization any different from what you liberals call conservatives in one fashion or another every day, in every thread? And just for your edification, I don't have any problem what so ever voicing my views in public, and have done so many times...

But see, I do think you believe your generalization, just as much as I believe mine, because you came up with it, so you must think it. In fact it is dishonest to say you don't believe it, and therefore cements my theory that liberals are ******s....What did you say to me? (In a whinny voice)"If you say it you'd better mean it" :roll:

Now you're boring me....

Good thing I know you don't have the mental aptitude to read a map and get here. But hey, congrats for making to the next step of the Internet Tough Guy: threatening to drive to the person (well hinting at it because we all know you won't actually come out and call me a ***** directly or directly threaten me online). You are quickly heading to the Internet Tough Guy Hall of Fame.
 
Are you implying that unlawful combatants should have Constitutional rights?
You really should join the reality-based world.
I think it was to keep them out of the reach of people just like you.



I'm not implying anything, I said what I said and that's the end of it. :roll:
 
Good thing I know you don't have the mental aptitude to read a map and get here. But hey, congrats for making to the next step of the Internet Tough Guy: threatening to drive to the person (well hinting at it because we all know you won't actually come out and call me a ***** directly or directly threaten me online). You are quickly heading to the Internet Tough Guy Hall of Fame.

:lamo what ever....Child.
 
"Uncomfortable." You do realize that sounds ridiculous. When it was done to us, it was torture. Now we've redefined the horrific physical and psychological effects of torture to making people "uncomfortable." Question, though - if it just makes people uncomfortable, why would we need medical personnel on hand when we do it? No one has ever died from being uncomfortable.

Yes. We made them uncomfortable in ways that played upon their worst fears. In addition we made them believe that this was how it would be for the rest of their lives. This technique works.

One can never tell exactly where the limits of discomfort will lead one. We want the information we have. If someone gets excited and has a heart attack we want to keep them alive until they have nothing left to tell us.

In another thread Garner was made briefly uncomfortable. He got excited, had a heart attack and died an hour after his discomfort.

Are you aware that we also have lawyers who advise decision-makers?
 
Back
Top Bottom