I heard a LOT of stories from Viet Nam returnees about what was done to Charlie. Zippers, castration, bridge scrapings. Makes waterboarding sound like a summer sport. And the torture the NVA put on our boys was just as bad, if not worse.
That's why I think we are all naive to think that we haven't been using "enhanced interrogation methods" all along.
I could care less if they ran bamboo shoots under their fingernails. It matters NOT which path we take, Civil or insane barbaric, the jihadist will cut our heads off, if given the chance, regardless. It's kind of hard for me to muster any sympathy for these vermin.
Is waterboarding torture? You bet it is. Do I care? Uhhh..... no.
Last edited by Captain America; 05-25-09 at 02:33 PM.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
Secondly, the United Nations own description of torture requires the acts to be severe mental or physical methods.
Again, suggesting that Waterboarding is severe using the Liberals arguments and the New York Liberal Times own story that one detainee was subjected to the technique 187 times suggest anything BUT.
Iraq general swayed Obama on detainee photos | csmonitor.com
Gen. Ray Odierno, along with other top defense officials, argued that releasing the images of alleged detainee abuse would endanger US troops abroad.
In a reversal of his previous position, President Obama will now oppose the release of more than 40 photos allegedly showing detainees being mistreated after deciding that releasing them could put American troops in danger and inflame anti-US sentiments abroad.
The change of heart apparently came after Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, made a personal plea to the White House against releasing the images because they would endanger US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The images are thought to show US troops mistreating detainees overseas in ways reminiscent of the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Do you support the troops TD?
Well this is the MAIN troops saying this and it's not just some "assine liberal assertion" as you lamely claim over and over again.
Why ignore reality?
Then what? What does that change? Not the legal reasoning behind the authorizations for the technique. Not the information gained using the technique.
Your's a fatuous argument, because if you're making the argument that we're bad silly people for waterboarding detainees, we're bad silly people regardless of whether everyone agrees that it is or is not "torture". All you're doing is taking one predicate of the following hypothetical and ignoring the second predicate:
Waterboarding is torture
Torture is immoral
Therefore waterboarding is immoral
Feel free to substitute "wrong" or "illegal" for "immoral" to match up with your precise pontification.
The flaw in your argument, however, is that you've completely ignored the second predicate--the first only matters if the second also holds true, and even Dear Leader himself hedges on that (remember, he's only outraged about Gitmo; he's quite ok with transferring the outrageous activities to Bagram Air Base). Nancy Pelosi, before it was politically convenient to pretend outrage, hedged on either one or both predicates. AG Holder declined to pursue prosecutions over the matter. Everyone wishes to pretend the second predicate is conclusively and absolutely proven when it has not.
You carp about people parroting talking head points when all you're doing is exactly that.
By the way, how do you prove something is moral or not?
It is the same with the equally asinine notion that waterboarding puts us down at their level when considering the REALITY of how their victims are treated.
I submit that it takes an incredible level of willful denial to suggest that this is nothing more than a political witch-hunt to impugn the previous administration for purely political purposes.
Now, back to the REALITY; these methods were briefed to the Congress and they were justified legally and debated with great and thoughtful deliberation before the decision was made to use these "enhanced" methods on a select FEW terrorists who were resisting other methods.
This debate is without any substantive merit in that these actions occurred shortly after the events of 9-11 when our Government was struggling to grapple with unprecedented terrorist attacks and the idea of possible equally or greater devastating attacks.
We've had a century of this Wilsonian nonsense about being "better"; that's more than enough for any nation.