• 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!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

scourge99 said:
:doh Each was an example of murder and extra-judicial action. None of it was apparently within the confines of the law consistent with due process and open to public or private scrutiny or oversight which is WHAT I AM ADVOCATING. I have never advocated willy-nilly AIM or any method in which a sleeping bag and electrical cord are used to suffocate a victim by strangulation or shackles are used to impart physical lacerations on a suspect.
Click to expand...

What about dogs used to impart physical lacerations on a alleged suspect?
 
goldendog said:
What about dogs used to impart physical lacerations on a alleged suspect?
Click to expand...

What about using honey to coat a suspected terrorist and letting bears chase him through the woods while his family members look on in disgust and worry?:lol:
 
scourge99 said:
What about using honey to coat a suspected terrorist and letting bears chase him through the woods while his family members look on in disgust and worry?:lol:
Click to expand...

You aren't still under the impression that "all that were tortured were terrorists" are you?
 
Lerxst said:
What part of "once or twice out of 50 or 100" doesn't validate your position that "torture works" isn't clear to you? It only means it very rarely ever works and is almost always ineffective.

There are plenty of experts in the field who have already given weighted, experienced counters to your argument, many more in fact than those who actually attempt to validate your argument. Yet, you don't seem interested in their opinion. Are you simply unaware of them? Have you not done your research? If you have then why have you disregarded them? If not, then why haven't you tried to educate yourself on the issue?
Click to expand...

perhaps I'm still educating myself on the issue so what do you think about this:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnkZuJ0Qrk]YouTube - Terrorist Interrogation Program Works[/ame]
Note: 2 YEARS ago. Quote: "names and addresses.. more than a dozen plots". But keep in mind these are all undisclosed sources.

There was a book I was listening to earlier that mentioned an Israeli interrogation (or maybe somebody else) that proved valuable. I'm going back through them to try to nail it down.

There are 2 substantial problems with interrogation:
1) determining whether they have information. (pre-interrogation)
2) determining whether extracted information is legitimate. (post-interrogation)

You keep flip-flopping between #1 and #2. Pick one you want to discuss and stick with it before moving the goalposts to the other.

I think its pretty well established that EIT has a fair chance at working when used on people who you know have information (assumes #1 is true). I don't know what percentage or the likelihood but its proven valuable on the few occasions where a government dares to disclose that its performed such an act.
 
scourge99 said:
:doh Each was an example of murder and extra-judicial action. None of it was apparently within the confines of the law consistent with due process and open to public or private scrutiny or oversight which is WHAT I AM ADVOCATING. I have never advocated willy-nilly EIM or any method in which a sleeping bag and electrical cord are used to suffocate a victim by strangulation or shackles are used to impart physical lacerations on a suspect.
Click to expand...

You said..."so because these unelaborated examples of torture."

I elaborated.
 
scourge99 said:
perhaps I'm still educating myself on the issue so what do you think about this:YouTube - Terrorist Interrogation Program Works
Note: 2 YEARS ago. Quote: "names and addresses.. more than a dozen plots". But keep in mind these are all undisclosed sources.
Click to expand...
I've already discussed this report (not O'Reilly's interview, but the actual report). The ONLY verified instance of actionable information is KSM's tower plot. That's ONE. I've not said "it never works." In fact I've acknowledged it worked with him. What you have provided is a rehash of points already made, point I'm aware of, points I've discussed. This is actually the basis for my statement of "one or two out of 50 or 100 doesn't mean torture is effective."

There was a book I was listening to earlier that mentioned an Israeli interrogation (or maybe somebody else) that proved valuable. I'm going back through them to try to nail it down.
Click to expand...
Very well, I look forward to your findings.

There are 2 substantial problems with interrogation:
1) determining whether they have information. (pre-interrogation)
2) determining whether extracted information is legitimate. (post-interrogation)

You keep flip-flopping between #1 and #2. Pick one you want to discuss and stick with it before moving the goalposts to the other.
Click to expand...
I can discuss both because both are relevant. I'm not moving the goalposts at all, I'm discussing the entire issue of torture and it's all within the scope of the debate. If you are uncomfortable playing on such a large field then don't play. But nobody has moved any goal posts here, and you can't show evidence of me doing this.
I think its pretty well established that EIT has a fair chance at working when used on people who you know have information (assumes #1 is true). I don't know what percentage or the likelihood but its proven valuable on the few occasions where a government dares to disclose that its performed such an act.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion. The problem is that it's not "well established."
 
Lerxst said:
I've already discussed this report (not O'Reilly's interview, but the actual report). The ONLY verified instance of actionable information is KSM's tower plot. That's ONE. I've not said "it never works." In fact I've acknowledged it worked with him. What you have provided is a rehash of points already made, point I'm aware of, points I've discussed. This is actually the basis for my statement of "one or two out of 50 or 100 doesn't mean torture is effective."
Click to expand...

Worked is an important term to define. Particularly given that the FBI agent assigned to deal with KSM noted that the torture strategies didn't develop any new information that hadn't already been gained by traditional interrogation tactics.

Thus, terror DIDN'T work, per se. Because, if we are going to step into that realm, it better work a whole hellalot better than legal means. It actually is LESS effective, according to the FBI's lead interrogator.

Thus, waterboarding (and other enhanced interrogation methods), were a huge mistake, because not only did they demean our national identity, THEY FAILED TO DELIVER NEW INFORMATION. These tactics failed on TWO levels.

I'm not going to rely on my own claims, but I'll let the FBI's lead interrogator in this area speak for me:

The Agent In Place: Torture Didn't Work - The Atlantic Politics Channel
The Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony from former lead FBI counterterrorism agent Ali Soufan. Soufan calls "enhanced interrogation techniques" "ineffective, slow, unreliable" and therefore harmful, "aside from the important considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our case and reputation." Soufan describes the successful non-coercive interrogation of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Jandal, who "identified many terrorists who we later successfully apprehended." Soufan describes an interrogation method he calls the "Informed Interrogation Approach," which seeks to capitalize on the natural fear that a detainee feels as a result of his custody by adopting a posture of openness and respect.

Soufan presents an interesting challenge to the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. Noting that it took 83 waterboardings to force Khalid Shake Mohammed to cough up information, he describes that technique as "slow" and therefore unreliable when information needs to be obtained quickly. Soufan also provides an unclassified chronology of the joint FBI-CIA efforts to question Abu Zubaydah. He says that his early efforts to coax information out of the Al Qaeda operate were successful, and CIA director George Tenet prepared a congratulatory telegram. As soon as Tenet learned that FBI agents -- not his CIA team -- had taken the lead role in the interrogation, he withdrew the congratulations and sent a team from the CIA's counterterrorism center to the interrogation site. That team was assisted by a contractor who "instructed" the new CIA operatives in tougher interrogation techniques. According to Soufan, the new team began to use the EITs. Zubaydah stopped cooperating. Soon, the FBI was brought back in. Zubaydah opened up like a book.
Click to expand...

So, the term to describe waterboarding someone 83 times when time is of the essence: SLOW. Ineffective. Unreliable.

That isn't "working".
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Way to completely miss the f'ing point. :spin:

This is so bad, so completely horrifying--that if you AREN'T angry, there is something wrong with you.
Click to expand...
There's a good deal wrong with me, of that there is no doubt.

And in fact I am angry.

I am angry at the blubbering drivel being spewed by lunatics who would criminalize government policy--who would, to assuage their guilty consciences, crucify men and women who did their duty as they saw it to be, with authorizations and clarifications emanating from up the chain of command.

I am angry at the mewling and phony outrage that inspires those self-same self-righteous lunatics to engage in a witch hunt looking for crimes that do not exist and have never existed simply because they choose to pathologically hate President George W. Bush.

I am angry that these self-same self-righteous lunatics would offend the Constitution and the rule of law by pretending their indignant persecutions have any basis in law, justice, or even common decency.

I am indeed angry, and so I guess there's a bit less wrong with me than I first surmised....this is a good thing.

So again...thanks for sharing!:2wave:
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
I am angry at the blubbering drivel being spewed by lunatics who would criminalize government policy--who would, to assuage their guilty consciences, crucify men and women who did their duty as they saw it to be, with authorizations and clarifications emanating from up the chain of command.
Click to expand...

Oh, I would never hold the people at the bottom of the chain as culpable as those at the top, who set the policy.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, I would never hold the people at the bottom of the chain as culpable as those at the top, who set the policy.
Click to expand...
In other words, you're angry about all this just because you hate President Bush.

Helpful to know that.

So yet again....thanks for sharing!:2wave:
 
celticlord said:
There's a good deal wrong with me, of that there is no doubt.
Click to expand...

Ok. Keep this thought in mind. ;)

And in fact I am angry.

I am angry at the blubbering drivel being spewed by lunatics who would criminalize government policy
Click to expand...

In other words, you wish to ignore crimes against the American people.

I am angry at the mewling and phony outrage that inspires those self-same self-righteous lunatics to engage in a witch hunt looking for crimes that do not exist and have never existed simply because they choose to pathologically hate President George W. Bush.
Click to expand...

Witch hunt? When those unethical lawyers, who authored those torture memos, get disbarred will you then attack the bar?

I am angry that these self-same self-righteous lunatics would offend the Constitution and the rule of law by pretending their indignant persecutions have any basis in law, justice, or even common decency.
Click to expand...

Bush and his goons raped our Constitution in so many ways it will cement his presidency as one of the worst in US history. He actually put into a version of the Patriot Act, that did not pass, ability to deport US citizens for what he tried to label as "terrorist acts". And these acts did not even have to be proven!

Spare me you bs outrage over "offending" the Constitution. Puh-leeze!

I am indeed angry, and so I guess there's a bit less wrong with me than I first surmised....this is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Me thinks you should stick with your first thought. It was the most accurate of this post.
 
celticlord said:
I am angry at the mewling and phony outrage that inspires those self-same self-righteous lunatics to engage in a witch hunt looking for crimes that do not exist and have never existed simply because they choose to pathologically hate President George W. Bush.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint for you, Bush isn't president anymore. Stop bringing him up remember?
 
ADK_Forever said:
Ok. Keep this thought in mind.
Click to expand...
I am never unmindful of it. I'm only somewhat arrogant.;)

ADK_Forever said:
In other words, you wish to ignore crimes against the American people.
Click to expand...
As there were no crimes committed, there is nothing to ignore. Keep in mind that all any on the lunatic left have been able to bloviate is that there were "crimes"--they are persistently unable to state a case for criminality with any sustainable specificity. Probably why the lunatic left keeps inventing new "crimes"; they hope if they throw enough mud something will someday stick.

And that I do not ignore. I give it the proper scorn, contempt, and derision it and the lunatic left richly deserve.

ADK_Forever said:
Witch hunt? When those unethical lawyers, who authored those torture memos, get disbarred will you then attack the bar?
Click to expand...
Witch hunt. And we've already discussed that point--remember your pontification about "accepting" the enlightened adjudication of the bar?

ADK_Forever said:
Bush and his goons raped our Constitution in so many ways it will cement his presidency as one of the worst in US history. He actually put into a version of the Patriot Act, that did not pass, ability to deport US citizens for what he tried to label as "terrorist acts". And these acts did not even have to be proven!
Click to expand...
President Bush did nothing that President Clinton did not do, and nothing that Dear Leader is not currently doing. If the Anti-Republican Presidents did not "rape" the Constitution, then neither did President Bush.

I know the lunatic left has a strong allergy to reality, but take some Benadryl and deal with the reality: President Bush committed no crimes, nor did his Administration.

ADK_Forever said:
Me thinks you should stick with your first thought. It was the most accurate of this post.
Click to expand...
Methinks a witty rejoinder and some repartee would be most welcome at this juncture. Have you any to offer?
 
TheNextEra said:
Here's a hint for you, Bush isn't president anymore. Stop bringing him up remember?
Click to expand...
So you admit that this whole waterboarding-is-torture nonsense is a foolish canard of the lunatic left, with no substance other than hating on a past President?
 
celticlord said:
In other words, you're angry about all this just because you hate President Bush.

Helpful to know that.
Click to expand...

I voted for him twice.

I don't hate him. However, I'm not particularly partisan, and I don't consider anyone to be above the law, including him. In my mind, he broke the law, and worse, he directed others to do so. This is a relatively new perspective to me, but it's an unmistakeable conclusion based upon the information I've read in the past 6 months. A year ago, I'd have been standing where you are.

But, nice partisan kneejerk! Thanks for playing!
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
So you admit that this whole waterboarding-is-torture nonsense is a foolish canard of the lunatic left, with no substance other than hating on a past President?
Click to expand...

Actually, I consider the entire "enhanced interrogation techniques" discussion, of which waterboarding is only a small part, to be an extremely important discussion to have in terms of setting future direction.

Further, as someone is quite hawkish in nature, and fits the historic definition of a neo-con, this isn't really about trying to engineer the fall of Bush (at least, for me). It's about making sure we don't ever repeat this mistake. It's about setting policy direction for the future. And, it's about completing the Iraq/afghanistan missions---successfully.
 
Last edited:
Also? It's about doing what works:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...se-enhanced-interrogation.html#post1058049805

I like bad criminals to go to jail and stay there for a LONG, LONG time. I don't like it when we allow government agencies to do shoddy work and risk public safety.

But hey, that's just me. I'm kind of a law and order girl. I don't believe anyone, for the record, is above the law. In fact, the greater their power, the harder they should fall if the violate the public trust.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Actually, I consider the entire "enhanced interrogation techniques" discussion, of which waterboarding is only a small part, to be an extremely important discussion to have in terms of setting future direction.
Click to expand...
Fine and dandy. But harping on Bush's non-crimes is looking back not looking ahead.
 
celticlord said:
Fine and dandy. But harping on Bush's non-crimes is looking back not looking ahead.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I would classify Bush's actions in this era as "non-crimes," nor am I sure how this issue should be handled. I'm not much of a fan of a truth commission, nor do I necessarily want to see prosecutions unless we can be assured that they are truly bi-partisan.

But, pretending that Bush couldn't melt butter on his cool little tongue isn't productive, either.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
But, pretending that Bush couldn't melt butter on his cool little tongue isn't productive, either.
Click to expand...
Never said that, claimed that, or hinted at that. I said Bush's and his Administration's actions were not criminal.
 
celticlord said:
Never said that, claimed that, or hinted at that. I said Bush's and his Administration's actions were not criminal.
Click to expand...

I think it's too early to make that assessment.

However, having said that, I am not necessarily a fan of prosecuting them. I think it might be incredibly divisive for the country, and do more harm than good.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I think it's too early to make that assessment.

However, having said that, I am not necessarily a fan of prosecuting them. I think it might be incredibly divisive for the country, and do more harm than good.
Click to expand...
There's no "might" about it.

If folks want to eschew waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques, and Dear Leader wants that to be the policy of his administration, so be it, and pray God no terrorist strikes occur as a result.

If folks want to tar and feather those that set a different policy, that's a problem--and a stance not in keeping with the historically articulated values of this country.

What makes the lunatic left's position so offensive is the sheer hypocrisy the lunatic left applies to the situation: Gitmo is bad, but Bagram Air Base is good; Bush detentions were bad, but Dear Leader detentions are ok; Bush waterboarding is torture, but we reserve the right to do it if we need to, since we realize that it did obtain actionable intelligence.

Make the policy change if that's what is desired. I actually support that. Do not criminalize past policy. That deserves no support.
 
celticlord said:
Methinks a witty rejoinder and some repartee would be most welcome at this juncture. Have you any to offer?
Click to expand...

Your posts supply all the humor we can handle. It seems Catz Part Deux put you in your place quite nicely.

Enjoy your version of the proverbial ostrich hole.
 
celticlord said:
Make the policy change if that's what is desired. I actually support that. Do not criminalize past policy. That deserves no support.
Click to expand...

I'm still torn on the issue, to be honest. There is a huge part of me that would like to lop off Cheney AND Pelosi's heads, in one fell swoop. It would be hugely satisfying.

Then the Mature part of me kicks in and reminds me that, no matter how temporarily satisfying such an act might be, the long term ramifications would likely not be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom