• 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!

Obama Rules Out Charging C.I.A. Agents in Interrogations

I disagree to some degree. I don't think that protecting them from terrorist attacks is worth any price in dishonour or precedent and power given to the state. I balk at such utilitarian calculations.

What dishonor?

The authorities arrest a talking animal of outward human form that's worked to murder babies by using babies to carry the bombs. There's no chance of dishonor in peeling that onion and getting every layer of information out of it before discarding it.

Not the least bit.

Failing to get all the color out of the mine and thereby failing to prevent an attack on some more babies, merely for some pathetic misguided regard for that animal's outward human form? That's as dishonorable as it gets.
 
Re: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

Human rights are not absolute. Simply confining someone in a prison cell is a violation of human rights, yet you find that perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances.

That could be used as a justification for all sorts of human rights abuses, from North Korea to Nazi Germany.
 
What dishonor?

The authorities arrest a talking animal of outward human form that's worked to murder babies by using babies to carry the bombs. There's no chance of dishonor in peeling that onion and getting every layer of information out of it before discarding it.

Not the least bit.

Failing to get all the color out of the mine and thereby failing to prevent an attack on some more babies, merely for some pathetic misguided regard for that animal's outward human form? That's as dishonorable as it gets.

What court has determined that these people are "animals" who "murdered babies by using babies to carry the bombs"? :roll:
 
The other issue that doesn't seem to be getting space is that we're not discussing traditional warfare.

The animals being picked up....aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. They have no patron state willing to acknowledge their existence, and thus they have not recourse to a higher authority. They're criminals committing heinous crimes and they're criminals with knowledge of other criminals seeking to perform similar crimes.

What moral justification is there in according these things "human rights" when by doing so you're permitting them the opportunity to enable other animals to deny the innocent the most basic human right of all, the right to go on living?

There is no justification for that. If those people desire humane treatment, they first assist the authorities in preventing their comrades from committing more murders. If they're not willing to do that, they're not human.
 
What court has determined that these people are "animals" who "murdered babies by using babies to carry the bombs"? :roll:

The court that captured them on a battlefield holding weapons, for one.

I believe that court is called "the army".

Seriously, if they want protection of the law, they have to stop being criminals caught red-handed.

Clearly there are some gray areas. Not many, but one should be careful.

But the Army captain that captures an enemy on the battlefield and interrogates him, and finds it necessary to fire his .45 service automatic next to his ear to loosen his tongue, hasn't tortured anyone. The case in question allowed the captain's unit to capture more animals and avoid the trap they were setting up.

Enhanced interrogation techniques work.

They save the lives of the good guys.

Just in case you're unclear on this, the good guys are not the terrorists using babies to blow up babies or those courageous men that hacked off Nick Berg's head.
 
The court that captured them on a battlefield holding weapons, for one.

There are people being held at Guantanamo Bay who were NOT captured on a battlefield holding weapons. In fact, there have been people held at Guantanamo Bay who were completely innocent.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I believe that court is called "the army".

Interesting. And did the prisoners have a chance to prove their innocence? Did they have a lawyer? Did they have the right to appeal their detention?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Seriously, if they want protection of the law, they have to stop being criminals caught red-handed.

For someone who claims to favor small government, you certainly don't have much of a problem with the government detaining people and doing horrible things to them, without so much as a trial.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Clearly there are some gray areas. Not many, but one should be careful.

How generous of you. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Just in case you're unclear on this, the good guys are not the terrorists using babies to blow up babies or those courageous men that hacked off Nick Berg's head.

Just in case you're unclear on this, the good guys are also not the people who hold innocent people for years on end without giving them a trial, and who torture prisoners who pose no immediate threat to anyone.
 
There are accepted & binding Laws of War that violation of, can (& have) resulted in the death penalty to the violator.

Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia can start you off, but Nuremberg, Geneva Conventions & many others all apply. To say that once conflict begins, all rules disappear is just flat wrong.
 
Except that he owns the baseball stadium now & you don't.;)

Oh that's right, we're all owned by Dear Leader now. Silly me, I forgot.:roll:

That whole bit about "we the people".....we don't need that any more now that Dear Leader has come to save us from ourselves, is that it?

Your servile attitude towards government nauseates.
 
Re: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

None of this means everything is acceptable such as torture. It simply means some rights can be retracted if certain behaviour takes place with the consent of due process.

Ah, I get your point now. You're against warrantless waterboarding. If the CIA gets a court's approval ahead of time, it's all good.
 
Wikipedia can start you off, but Nuremberg, Geneva Conventions & many others all apply. To say that once conflict begins, all rules disappear is just flat wrong.

Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists. To put it in insurance lingo, the terrorists don't have any coverage. And its not as if its too expensive. All they need to do is adopt an identifiable military uniform.
 
Oh that's right, we're all owned by Dear Leader now. Silly me, I forgot.:roll:

That whole bit about "we the people".....we don't need that any more now that Dear Leader has come to save us from ourselves, is that it?

Your servile attitude towards government nauseates.

I was talking about Eric Holder...the new Atty. General who was appointed by the newly ELECTED President, got approval from the U.S. Senate & agreed that waterboarding was indeed torture at his confirmation hearings.
What are YOUR credentials for disagreeing with Holder?
 
I was talking about Eric Holder...the new Atty. General who was appointed by the newly ELECTED President, got approval from the U.S. Senate & agreed that waterboarding was indeed torture at his confirmation hearings.
What are YOUR credentials for disagreeing with Holder?

Easy. I voted against Dear Leader.

That alone makes me more qualified than his yes-man AG.
 


You people and your pretended ethics.

So were they going for one waterboarding per 9/11 victim? At least he'd still be alive afterward, huh? The way I see it, if he was to be waterboarded for every dead American from his day of celebration....he would still continue to breathe. He should be greatful he was imprisoned by America and not some country that would have chopped his head off or hung him from a rope by now.

Come to think about it.....perhaps I'm on to something here. Clearly it's their own governments and strangling culture that has them twisted, oppressed, and brutalized. Yet, they choose to strike at that ole' faithful enemy of God across the ocean. Maybe this is because striking at the great "anti-God," boogeyman makes it easier to create a never ending struggle for God. That and striking at their own governments would see them tortured, brutalized along with their tribes, and slaughtered. It's seems easier to strike at the pansies who seek to fight back with manners and Western rules.


Damn looks like the number of times he was water boarded is a thread killer.


Instead of entertaining your trivial insignificant thrill of your "thread killer," maybe you should appreciate the fact that you seek compassion for an "American killer."
 
Re: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

So hypothetically, would you be willing to undergo waterboarding, since there's no actual physical harm?

Sure. Plenty of U.S. military personnel do it. Waterboarding and prolonged standing is a fact of life for the U.S. military in their training.

With closed fists, knives, battery terminals, electricity, sticks under finger nails, the rack, limb pulling, and other such things the rest of the world used-and uses-as examples of "torture".......the grand heartbreak is a couple techniques that even our own people endure in their training?

This entire thing is more about bowing to the international masses who need America to look exactly like the Germans who burned, gassed, and massacred millions of people or the French government in Algeria that made open and brutal torture of hundreds of thousands of people a matter of state policy for years.

When are people going to get it? All they need is one tiny example where America took off the white glove and stepped off of its high and mighty perch in the sky, to absolve themselves and to drag us down. "Waterboarding" is the tool of the day. President Obama is playing into their hands as is everyone else who seeks to depict wateboarding as some henious act of "torture."

We could have put this garbage up at the Hilton and people would have fell all over themselves to defend their rights just because they smelled bacon in the morning.
 
Last edited:
There are accepted & binding Laws of War that violation of, can (& have) resulted in the death penalty to the violator.


Ha! I always get a kick out of this. Who's "law?" The Western world's law? The Geneva Convention of the West? Because half the players in the war do not hold themselves accountable to our laws, our ethics, our codes, nor our manners. How arrogant are we that we create a bunch of codes and laws in the wake of European civil war and expect the rest of the world to fight as gentlemen and in accordance to what we believe.

You see, half the members of this war do not subscribe to such western "rules" like fighting under a banner or in a uniform. Or that the difference between a civilian and a soldier even makes a difference. In fact, half of this war's membership prefers to destroy civilians because it is easier and it gets a bigger bang for their buck in the media.

So we don't consider them combatants, just international thugs and criminals. YET, they consider themselves fighting a war as soldiers for God against heathens, non-believers, heretics, and enemies of God. Their reasons for war may be twisted, hypocritical, and flat out retarded, but they consider themselves as much a military organization as the U.S. Marine Corps or Army. Do they get to be charged for breaking the rules of war under the Geneva Convention or do we simply pick and choose which Geneva rules allow us to play with manners while seeking ways to ignore the rules they break every damn day? Or do they have their own set of rules that counter the arrogance of the West's who assumes their rules work for all?

Hmmmm. Quite the dillema. Do we hold them as prisoners of war or do we place them in a New York courtroom to be released to kill another day? Perhaps we can assign them lawyers and pretend they are just gang members. They seem to like the idea. They get to kill Americans and then wait for Americans to protest their incarceration while lobbying to send them a fleet of American lawyers to free them. All in the name of being a part of some BS higher moral fiber which amounts to nothing when they lose interest, get bored, and switch the channel.


Wait..wait...wait. Perhaps I misunderstood you. When you stated "Laws of War" I automatically thought of military personnel. It's the CIA being accused and harrassed of using decades old techniques (only under Bush though). Do they wear uniforms? Do they operate under "Rules of War" (ROE) like those in uniform? Or are they something else? With Islamic religious prescriptions being met, square cultural diets every day, and medical aid being provided, I would state that no American prisoner ever had it so good. But a few were waterboarded and the whole world (including weak kneed Americans) behave as if they were thrown in the iron maidens, or in the German ovens, or destroyed in a tower in New York.

There seems to be more confusion than clarity in this matter. I find it pathetic how so many people think they got it figured out.
 
Easy. I voted against Dear Leader.

That alone makes me more qualified than his yes-man AG.

I see....Let me see if I have this right: In your eyes Holder is just a yes-man to his President, so I guess Gonzales was an independent AG?
 
You see, half the members of this war do not subscribe to such western "rules" like fighting under a banner or in a uniform.

Maybe if I clarified my position on this "WAR" it would be helpful:

I don't consider the 9/11 attack, the The Munich Olympics massacre in 1972 or any acts of terrorism....acts of war.
One dictionary definition of WAR is:
A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; declared and open hostilities. (my emphasis) war - Definition of war at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define war)

I accept the above definition of WAR (it can only exists between nations/states) & that the so-called ...WAR on poverty....WAR on cancer....WAR on Drugs & the WAR on terrorism are just marketing tools designed to show serious intent to the public these "Wars" are being sold too.

Terrorist attacks, regardless of how huge & heinous they may be, are simply criminal acts & need to be treated that way. The invocation of Constitutional ....Presidential "War Powers" has gotten us into the mess we now face.

What I think needs to happen, is our Congress has to accept a new reality:
That we now live in a world where we face terrible dangers from groups who do not neatly fit into our outdated rules of war or criminality. These groups fall somewhere between criminals & combatants & we need to face that reality & draft new laws to accept it.
 
Last edited:
Terrorist attacks, regardless of how huge & heinous they may be, are simply criminal acts & need to be treated that way. The invocation of Constitutional ....Presidential "War Powers" has gotten us into the mess we now face.
In other words, terrorists can attack the United States, wage war on the United States, and before we can do anything about it we need to first read them the Miranda warning.:roll:

Terrorists are unlawful enemy combatants, not criminals. At no point should they see the inside of a courtroom. If they are not seeing the inside of an interrogation room they should be seeing the inside of a grave.

Prior administrations' unwillingness to acknowledge this simple truth is what has created the current "mess".
 
In other words, terrorists can attack the United States, wage war on the United States, and before we can do anything about it we need to first read them the Miranda warning.:roll:

Terrorists are unlawful enemy combatants, not criminals. At no point should they see the inside of a courtroom. If they are not seeing the inside of an interrogation room they should be seeing the inside of a grave.

Prior administrations' unwillingness to acknowledge this simple truth is what has created the current "mess".

Were the 2 North Hollywood bank robbers (who tried to rob a bank in LA in 1997) "unlawful enemy combatants"......waging war on the U.S., or criminals? Some criminals want money others have other agendas but they are ALL criminals using unlawful means to achieve their purpose.
Your arrogant stating of your opinion that "Terrorists are unlawful enemy combatants, not criminals" does not make it a fact, no matter how emphatic you get.

My problem with using the concept that we are at war with these criminals is that a state of war, triggers our Constitution"s vast "War Powers" authority upon the President which, if we have an unintelligent or ill-intentioned President (like Bush) can & did lead us to the brink of catastrophe.
 
Last edited:
My problem with using the concept that we are at war with these criminals is that a state of war, triggers our Constitution"s vast "War Powers" authority upon the President which, if we have an unintelligent or ill-intentioned President (like Bush) can & did lead us to the brink of catastrophe.
Or, lacking the backbone to declare that terrorists are combatants and not mere criminals, failing to use those war powers results in an unintelligent and ill-intentioned President (Dear Leader) leading us back to the brink of 9/11.

Terrorists are NOT criminals. Comparisons between terrorists and bank robbers is beyond absurd. Bank robbers don't go around blowing up buildings. Bank robbers don't fly planes into buildings. Bank robbers generally hope to live to enjoy the fruits of their ill-purposed labors.

Terrorists are combatants who choose to set aside the normal rules by which civilized nations seek to constrain war. Choosing unconstrained war, it would be most impolitic and most impolite not to grant them their desire, and return to them the unconstrained war they offer up to the world.
 
What are you talking about? Except of course appealing to your usual insults and rudeness.

The definition includes this.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

That seems to include waterboarding to me. It simulates drowning and is extremely distressing.

I see you have difficulty distinguishing what is meant by "severe pain or suffering." It has been suggested that ONE prisoner was subjected to waterboarding over 183 times.

If he was subjected to "severe pain and suffering," common sense would suggest that this would have killed them.

Let me help you out here; breaking someone's legs would be "severe pain." Not re-setting them would be severe suffering. Slapping them in the face or pouring water over their heads hardly constitutes "severe" by any stretch.

:2wave:
 
I see you have difficulty distinguishing what is meant by "severe pain or suffering." It has been suggested that ONE prisoner was subjected to waterboarding over 183 times.

If he was subjected to "severe pain and suffering," common sense would suggest that this would have killed them.

Let me help you out here; breaking someone's legs would be "severe pain." Not re-setting them would be severe suffering. Slapping them in the face or pouring water over their heads hardly constitutes "severe" by any stretch.

:2wave:

You are talking about crap that is variable. The amount of water poured on a person can be controlled. It could be poured at an irritating rate or a murdering rate... Has anyone died at all from "enhanced interrogation? If so it is obviously torture.

Let me just try to get this straight... It is illegal to hold a man's head underwater. But if you get the sink and put it above his head then it is ok? o_O

I thinkin we are seeing a huge false confession facility that has happened to get a few good pieces of info to cover their asses. I am THE pessimist though.
 
Last edited:
You are talking about crap that is variable. The amount of water poured on a person can be controlled. It could be poured at an irritating rate or a murdering rate... Has anyone died at all from "enhanced interrogation? If so it is obviously torture.

To my knowledge, no one has ever died from being trained in these processes or having them used on them. If you had read all the data and memos, there was extensive and thoughtful deliberation regarding the legality and lethality of what methods were to be approved; facts that have no bearing on the desperate Liberal partisan political rhetoric we're seeing about the need for national "morality," something that is ironically missing in most other Liberal arguments.

Let me just try to get this straight... It is illegal to hold a man's head underwater. But if you get the sink and put it above his head then it is ok? o_O

Holding a man's head underwater is drowning them and has led to deaths using such methods. Pouring water over their heads in a controlled fashion which does not place the person in jeopardy of death is hardly the same; how fascinating that you cannot see the difference. Or perhaps you just choose not to by willingly suspending common sense?

I thinkin we are seeing a huge false confession facility that has happened to get a few good pieces of info to cover their asses. I am THE pessimist though.

This isn't about being pessimistic; this is about swallowing Left wing hyperbole and false rhetoric that the previous adminstration was criminal to support a hyper partisan political agenda.

I am glad to be able to clarify these issues for you. :2wave:
 
To my knowledge, no one has ever died from being trained in these processes or having them used on them. If you had read all the data and memos, there was extensive and thoughtful deliberation regarding the legality and lethality of what methods were to be approved; facts that have no bearing on the desperate Liberal partisan political rhetoric we're seeing about the need for national "morality," something that is ironically missing in most other Liberal arguments.



Holding a man's head underwater is drowning them and has led to deaths using such methods. Pouring water over their heads in a controlled fashion which does not place the person in jeopardy of death is hardly the same; how fascinating that you cannot see the difference. Or perhaps you just choose not to by willingly suspending common sense?



This isn't about being pessimistic; this is about swallowing Left wing hyperbole and false rhetoric that the previous adminstration was criminal to support a hyper partisan political agenda.

I am glad to be able to clarify these issues for you. :2wave:

Ok.. so you can kill someone if you put their head underwater but not if you put that water in their head?

Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding
The Armed Services Committee report says that six months earlier, in December 2001, the Pentagon's legal office already had made inquiries about the use of mock interrogation and detention tactics to a U.S. military training unit that schools armed forces personnel in how to endure harsh treatment.

In July 2002, responding to a follow-up from the Pentagon general counsel's office, officials at the training unit, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, detailed their methods for the Pentagon. The list included waterboarding.

But the training unit warned that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also cautioned about the reliability of information gleaned from the severe methods and warned that the public and political backlash could be "intolerable."

"A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo.

Less than a week later, the Justice Department issued two legal opinions that sanctioned the CIA's harsh interrogation program. The memos appeared to draw deeply on the survival school data provided to the Pentagon to show that the CIA's methods would not cross the line into torture.

The opinion concluded that the harsh interrogation methods would be acceptable for use on terror detainees because the same techniques did not cause severe physical or mental pain to U.S. military students who were tested in the government's carefully controlled training program.

Several people from the survival program objected to the use of their mock interrogations in battlefield settings. In an October 2002 e-mail, a senior Army psychologist told personnel at Guantanamo Bay that the methods were inherently dangerous and students were sometimes injured, even in a controlled setting.

"The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he said.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom