Does anyone think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was coerced into confessing?

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Shivetya
nope, its is more likely that...

a. he wants the fame
b. he wants to protect someone else

Or

c. He confessed under duress, which is usually one of the most reliable forms of testimony and thereby reduces the need for any arguments against it's usage in a court of law.

Why do we need one person to be guilty anyway? Thats what I have been curious about from the start. I don't care which individual in the organization planned it, just get rid of the organization.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Shivetya
nope, its is more likely that...

a. he wants the fame
b. he wants to protect someone else

Or

c. He confessed under duress, which is usually one of the most reliable forms of testimony and thereby reduces the need for any arguments against it's usage in a court of law.

Why do we need one person to be guilty anyway? Thats what I have been curious about from the start. I don't care which individual in the organization planned it, just get rid of the organization.

Personally (and I do realize this is nothing but 'imho') I think we need one person because one person is more tangible for our national attention span than myriad shadow organizations wth anti-western intentions. Times are rough for the administration and the rats stuck on its sinking ship so it throws out worthless (yes, worthless as it can't possibly be considered legitimately credible to it's coercive nature) news morsels to keep the faithful faithful. I'd like to think ANY other administration would take itself more seriously than to laud itself for coercing a confession through duress/torture. Even if the guy was telling the truth, the circumstances surrounding his testimony have rendered his confession useless.

EDIT:

In fact since we have no unfettered access to this guy and his side of the story, who's to say he didn't confess to impaling jesus on the cross or breaking up the backstreet boys? Under the right circumstances (torture?) he could've confessed to every major crime committed in the last 2 centuries and since the powers that be obviously felt "too many" confessions might become questionable they cherry pick a couple. Whos knows. What's fcked up is there are procedures that have been carefully developed over centuries of civilized litigation thatwere designed to preclude speculations like these but since we pissed on all that and did it the "cowboy way" we have no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I wonder if the Iraqis feel that if someone would have tortured Bush before he killed 50,000 of their people if they could have helped somehow?

So at least we know the overriding issue you can't get over. Maybe Kerry and Hillary should be tortured since they voted with Bush? No, that's not it; you're a partisan hack wishing war on Republicans in vengeance for Bush and Congress's decision to take out Saddam.

There is no room for politics with this kind of vitriol. Words do not mend your hatred, action does. From dmcowen674 ?s hanging traitors to you torturing Presidents, and all the liberals have gone anti-American happy proclaiming the lie that we routinely torture everyone, or that Iraq was about oil and killing people. These are violent delusions befitting of the cause of civil war.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dahunan
I wonder if the Iraqis feel that if someone would have tortured Bush before he killed 50,000 of their people if they could have helped somehow?

So at least we know the overriding issue you can't get over.

Maybe Kerry and Hillary should be tortured since they voted with Bush?

No, that's not it; you're a partisan hack wishing war on Republicans in vengeance for Bush (rest of garbage deleted...

There is no room for politics with this kind of vitriol.

Words do not mend your hatred, action does.

From dmcowen674 ?s hanging traitors to you torturing Presidents, and all the liberals have gone anti-American happy proclaiming the lie that we routinely torture everyone, or that Iraq was about oil and killing people. These are violent delusions befitting of the cause of civil war.

You're right.

Real America loving Americans have had enough of the destruction your kind have done to this country.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Why do we need one person to be guilty anyway? Thats what I have been curious about from the start. I don't care which individual in the organization planned it, just get rid of the organization.

Thanks to your heroes Al Qaider and Osama are stronger than ever. Great job :roll:

 

[piasabird]

Maybe Allah told him to confess . . .

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dahunan
^^ HE Believes waterboarding is all we do :laugh: or at least want YOU to believe that
What about all those kidnappings of citizens in other countries and what about those flights to Egypt and other torture loving countries?

Read my sig and then ask Al Gore that question.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is the actual quote about KSM and waterboarding
link

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

There is also a video of a new reporter being water boarded himself.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Dropping two atomic bombs was not the morally 'right' thing to do, but it resulted in the war coming to an end sooner and therefore saving lives in the end.

In 1945 we were at war with nations that attacked us. In 1945, no one had ever dropped a nuclear weapon on civilian populations so there was no historical or sociological precedent to influence the decision to use them.

Yes, doing so probably hastened the end of the war in the Pacific, but with what we know, today, of the long term after-effects of a nuclear blast on both the land and the population, the decision to use them could easily have been different.

In 1945, even when both the Japanese and Germans were ignoring the Geneva Conventions and torturing their prisoners, American forces were under orders to observe them, and any that didn't were disobeying that standing order.

I suggest you read Black Hawk Down, specifically the part about the unarmed female who was going out into the street and pointing out the positions of the American soldiers. At which point the Somali gunmen would open fire at those places. After she did this a couple of times a soldier shot and killed her.

Was it right for him to shot and kill an unarmed person?

The woman in your example was actively engaged and participating in the attacks on those American observation forces.

It would be nice if we didn?t have to engage in tactics such as water boarding, but we are fighting against a group of people who think that flying planes into buildings in order to kill 50,000 people is a ?good tactic.?
It is the job of the President and the CIA to do everything within their power to ensure that something like 9-11 happens again. I would much rather read a story about how a guy like KSM ?tortured? than watch another event like 9-11 unfold.

By law, "everything within their power" does NOT include actions specifically prohibited by law. Your Criminal In Chief, this entire criminal administration and socio-political fscktards like you are a greater menace to the United States of America of our greater hopes and dreams than Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and all of Al Qaeda combined. At least they admit they're out to destroy us, while the Bushwhackos and neocon liars like you pretend they are on our side and try to defend their treachery as "self defense."

I repeat -- You don't defeat evil by becoming the evil you seek to defeat. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Why are you watching the View?
_______________

b/c rosie reminds me everyday why liberals are dangerous. that and i have a crush on elizabeth hassleback.

incidentally, patricia heaton was in talks to take the spot left by merideth viera. but she was too conservative (pro-life), and there can be only one token conservative on that show.

Dumbest thing I've heard all day. You can find ignorant loudmouths on either side to "remind you" why the other side is dangerous.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Read my sig and then ask Al Gore that question.

Once again ProfJohn, you cherry-pick quotes and take things out of context.

You sig quotes are a bogus, misleading and intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of reality.

Al Gore on the legality extraordinary renditions:

"That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

This was indeed an accurate quote which might make people think that Gore was in favor of this type of treatment of prisoners. However, when you take into consideration the context....it changes the intent.

In 1993, when that quote occurred, the conversation was about "grabbing" a suspect that was CONVICTED in absentia and would have been brought to the US from a country that didn't have an extradition treaty with us. Kind of a HUGE difference that you don't want to recognize or you didn't take the time to find out when you saw this incriminating quote on someone's Freeper sig.

Knowing you, you will try to counter with the standard right-wing talking point about Clinton admin extradition to Egypt. But, I'm guessing, you probably won't add that:

In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally?including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. ?What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,? Scheuer said. ?It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.? Technically, U.S. law requires the C.I.A. to seek ?assurances? from foreign governments that rendered suspects won?t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was ?not sure? if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.

.......

Scheuer claimed that ?there was a legal process? undergirding these early renditions. Every suspect who was apprehended, he said, had been convicted in absentia. Before a suspect was captured, a dossier was prepared containing the equivalent of a rap sheet. The C.I.A.?s legal counsel signed off on every proposed operation. Scheuer said that this system prevented innocent people from being subjected to rendition. ?Langley would never let us proceed unless there was substance,? he said. Moreover, Scheuer emphasized, renditions were pursued out of expedience??not out of thinking it was the best policy.?

Now, onto your Clinton quote:

Bill Clinton on torture
"Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that."

It would have been nice if you would have, once again, put this on context. But things like reality seem to get in the way of your sheeple-like agenda to make Clinton the devil and Bush's doppleganger.

Clinton's quote, if you would have taken the time to do any research, was from this NPR interview. Now, just in case you are too lazy to click the link or too afraid that it will squash your "the right is right not matter how wrong they are" philosophy/ideology.....here is that quote in context:

Is it sometimes necessary to coerce or torture people in order to protect national security? to get information that you believe you really need?

Clinton: Well, I think as a policy it's in error. I think the Geneva Conventions are there for a reason. I think that 1) it's consistent with our values, and 2) it's consistent with our interests. There have been repeated examples where a pattern or policy of torture produces... sometimes it'll get you something you don't know is worthwhile but more often than not it just gets people to lie to tell you whatever you want to hear to keep from beating the living daylights beaten out of them. And when you do it, you run the risk that your own people, if captured, will be tortured in return. That's the reason, apart from the humanitarian and moral reasons that the world has moved away from torture. That's the reason Senator McCain and others passed that prohibition. Now, the President says that he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're whacking these people around in these secret prisons. Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that. But I think it's important to remember the reason that the entire military apparatus is opposed to torture.

NPR: But, as you know, some of the President's supporters have said any president needs the option. You never know what might come up. Does the president need the option? speaking as someone who's been there?

Clinton: Look, if the president needs the option, there's all kinds of things they could do. Let's take the best case, okay? You've picked up somebody you know is the number two aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know that they have an operation planned for the US and some European capitol sometime in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. That's a clear example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy either by shooting him full of some drug or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believe that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternative proposal! We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law. You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They could draw a statute much more narrowly which would permit the president to make a finding and that finding to be submitted even afterward to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

NPR: But there would be some responsibility afterward for what was done -- is that what you're saying?

Clinton: Yes. The president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case by case basis and there'd be some review of it.

NPR: Do you think that scenario you laid out is actually a likely scenario at some point?

Clinton: I don't know if it's likely or not. But you don't make laws based on that. You don't sit there and say "in general torture's fine" if there's a terrorist suspect. For one thing, we know we have erred about who is a real suspect. We know there are people who have been deported, people who have been in jail for long periods of time, people who have been put through all this, who weren't terrorists at all, who weren't terrorist sympathizers, who didn't have any terrorist contacts. So you don't want to go around with some blanket law saying it's okay to violate the Geneva Conventions. The President says he doesn't want the CIA who does this hard work to be in the dark. So there's a way to avoid being in the dark. If they really believe when the time comes that the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of somebody or put a drug in their body and talk it out of them, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or some other court on the same circumstances we do with wiretaps: post facto. The only case I can imagine where 100% of the people would agree with me is under the circumstances I've just outlined. I think you'd have a very hard time finding somebody to say, "If you knew this guy was a top aide of Al Qaeda, if you knew that there was going to be an attack in three days, if you knew that that person knew, then I'd like to see the world stand up and say the person who obtained the information from him should be sent to jail!" I don't think you'd have to worry about that! But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Conventions and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're going to be in real trouble.

So, once again, the question begs to be answered......

Do you (and the rest of those that think that this type of practice is a good thing) believe that it is 100% justified and warranted to be administered on Americans that might be captured and/or suspected of whatever some batsh8t-crazy guy in power in another country claims?

It's a simple yes/no question so either say yes and approve of torture as a "noble" practice to be done whenever any leader thinks that it is justified no matter WHO the subject is.....or say no (like the rest of us) and show your hypocrisy/flip-flop/double-standard views to be what they are.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
rosie reminds me everyday why liberals are dangerous[/b]

Yeah she's so dangerous that she's gotten us involved in a war that is such a fsck up that generations in the future will be paying the price for it..no wait that was the Dub and Darth Cheney..Oooppps!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So, once again, the question begs to be answered......

Do you (and the rest of those that think that this type of practice is a good thing) believe that it is 100% justified and warranted to be administered on Americans that might be captured and/or suspected of whatever some batsh8t-crazy guy in power in another country claims?

It's a simple yes/no question so either say yes and approve of torture as a "noble" practice to be done whenever any leader thinks that it is justified no matter WHO the subject is.....or say no (like the rest of us) and show your hypocrisy/flip-flop/double-standard views to be what they are.

I pretty much agree with Clinton on torture.
It should only be used in a few extreme situations.

Now we can debate all day long as to whether water boarding is torture though.
I wouldn't suggest we use it on everyone we capture though, but people like KSM... yes, waterboard the bastard all day long.

This guy is responsible for the deaths of 3000 people through his planning of 9-11. I guess you think we should have just read him his rights and offered him a lawyer?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


This guy is responsible for the deaths of 3000 people through his planning of 9-11. I guess you think we should have just read him his rights and offered him a lawyer?

Well that is suppose to be they way we work, the reason we are better than them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: fornax
A more correct question would be "Does anyone think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was NOT coerced into confessing?" We now know that the US military routinely tortures the detainees.

"Routinely"?! We do? What is the basis for that ridiculous assertion?

Links? facts? proof?

Don't let little things like those get in your way, though.... preach on brutha'!!!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Oh well.. keep approving torture.. as long as you don't get upset when it happens to our boys.. cool?

lol... i'll take a little sleep deprivation, waterboarding, or loud rock music - versus getting beaten, starved, sliced up, beheaded on TV, burned, and dragged through the streets - any day!

but hey, I guess you're right.. we're all just a bunch of torturing hooligans, eh?

KSM? Hang the fvcker and be done with it already.... NEXXXT!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I pretty much agree with Clinton on torture.
It should only be used in a few extreme situations.

I agree with RightIsWrong's post, not pretty much, but completely. He said:

Once again ProfJohn, you cherry-pick quotes and take things out of context.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Now we can debate all day long as to whether water boarding is torture though.

NO, WE CAN'T! The debate is over... unless you take issue with TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C, § 2340 of the U.S. Code:

As used in this chapter?

• (1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
  
  (2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
  • 
    (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
    
    (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
    
    (C) the threat of imminent death; or
    
    (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
  (3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Or perhaps, you'd like to discuss it, one on one, with people like John McCain:

According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "very exquisite torture" and a mock execution, which can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."

I wouldn't suggest we use it on everyone we capture though, but people like KSM... yes, waterboard the bastard all day long.

This guy is responsible for the deaths of 3000 people through his planning of 9-11. I guess you think we should have just read him his rights and offered him a lawyer?

I can only repeat what I said to you in my previous post...

Your Criminal In Chief, this entire criminal administration and socio-political fscktards like you are a greater menace to the United States of America of our greater hopes and dreams than Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and all of Al Qaeda combined. At least they admit they're out to destroy us, while the Bushwhackos and neocon liars like you pretend they are on our side and try to defend their treachery as "self defense."

You don't defeat evil by becoming the evil you seek to defeat. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Read my sig and then ask Al Gore that question.

Once again ProfJohn, you cherry-pick quotes and take things out of context.

You sig quotes are a bogus, misleading and intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of reality.

Al Gore on the legality extraordinary renditions:

"That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

This was indeed an accurate quote which might make people think that Gore was in favor of this type of treatment of prisoners. However, when you take into consideration the context....it changes the intent.

In 1993, when that quote occurred, the conversation was about "grabbing" a suspect that was CONVICTED in absentia and would have been brought to the US from a country that didn't have an extradition treaty with us. Kind of a HUGE difference that you don't want to recognize or you didn't take the time to find out when you saw this incriminating quote on someone's Freeper sig.

Knowing you, you will try to counter with the standard right-wing talking point about Clinton admin extradition to Egypt. But, I'm guessing, you probably won't add that:

In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally?including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. ?What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,? Scheuer said. ?It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.? Technically, U.S. law requires the C.I.A. to seek ?assurances? from foreign governments that rendered suspects won?t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was ?not sure? if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.

.......

Scheuer claimed that ?there was a legal process? undergirding these early renditions. Every suspect who was apprehended, he said, had been convicted in absentia. Before a suspect was captured, a dossier was prepared containing the equivalent of a rap sheet. The C.I.A.?s legal counsel signed off on every proposed operation. Scheuer said that this system prevented innocent people from being subjected to rendition. ?Langley would never let us proceed unless there was substance,? he said. Moreover, Scheuer emphasized, renditions were pursued out of expedience??not out of thinking it was the best policy.?

Now, onto your Clinton quote:

Bill Clinton on torture
"Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that."

It would have been nice if you would have, once again, put this on context. But things like reality seem to get in the way of your sheeple-like agenda to make Clinton the devil and Bush's doppleganger.

Clinton's quote, if you would have taken the time to do any research, was from this NPR interview. Now, just in case you are too lazy to click the link or too afraid that it will squash your "the right is right not matter how wrong they are" philosophy/ideology.....here is that quote in context:

Is it sometimes necessary to coerce or torture people in order to protect national security? to get information that you believe you really need?

Clinton: Well, I think as a policy it's in error. I think the Geneva Conventions are there for a reason. I think that 1) it's consistent with our values, and 2) it's consistent with our interests. There have been repeated examples where a pattern or policy of torture produces... sometimes it'll get you something you don't know is worthwhile but more often than not it just gets people to lie to tell you whatever you want to hear to keep from beating the living daylights beaten out of them. And when you do it, you run the risk that your own people, if captured, will be tortured in return. That's the reason, apart from the humanitarian and moral reasons that the world has moved away from torture. That's the reason Senator McCain and others passed that prohibition. Now, the President says that he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're whacking these people around in these secret prisons. Most Americans would probably think, Well, I'd be happy to have someone beat up if that would keep them from blowing up another bomb, another 9/11. I get that. But I think it's important to remember the reason that the entire military apparatus is opposed to torture.

NPR: But, as you know, some of the President's supporters have said any president needs the option. You never know what might come up. Does the president need the option? speaking as someone who's been there?

Clinton: Look, if the president needs the option, there's all kinds of things they could do. Let's take the best case, okay? You've picked up somebody you know is the number two aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know that they have an operation planned for the US and some European capitol sometime in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. That's a clear example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy either by shooting him full of some drug or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believe that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternative proposal! We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law. You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They could draw a statute much more narrowly which would permit the president to make a finding and that finding to be submitted even afterward to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

NPR: But there would be some responsibility afterward for what was done -- is that what you're saying?

Clinton: Yes. The president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case by case basis and there'd be some review of it.

NPR: Do you think that scenario you laid out is actually a likely scenario at some point?

Clinton: I don't know if it's likely or not. But you don't make laws based on that. You don't sit there and say "in general torture's fine" if there's a terrorist suspect. For one thing, we know we have erred about who is a real suspect. We know there are people who have been deported, people who have been in jail for long periods of time, people who have been put through all this, who weren't terrorists at all, who weren't terrorist sympathizers, who didn't have any terrorist contacts. So you don't want to go around with some blanket law saying it's okay to violate the Geneva Conventions. The President says he doesn't want the CIA who does this hard work to be in the dark. So there's a way to avoid being in the dark. If they really believe when the time comes that the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of somebody or put a drug in their body and talk it out of them, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or some other court on the same circumstances we do with wiretaps: post facto. The only case I can imagine where 100% of the people would agree with me is under the circumstances I've just outlined. I think you'd have a very hard time finding somebody to say, "If you knew this guy was a top aide of Al Qaeda, if you knew that there was going to be an attack in three days, if you knew that that person knew, then I'd like to see the world stand up and say the person who obtained the information from him should be sent to jail!" I don't think you'd have to worry about that! But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Conventions and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're going to be in real trouble.

So, once again, the question begs to be answered......

Do you (and the rest of those that think that this type of practice is a good thing) believe that it is 100% justified and warranted to be administered on Americans that might be captured and/or suspected of whatever some batsh8t-crazy guy in power in another country claims?

It's a simple yes/no question so either say yes and approve of torture as a "noble" practice to be done whenever any leader thinks that it is justified no matter WHO the subject is.....or say no (like the rest of us) and show your hypocrisy/flip-flop/double-standard views to be what they are.

Well, if Prof's defense, that would be a pretty big sig.

Oh, and not convenient to his point of view. But still, an awfully big sig.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dahunan
Oh well.. keep approving torture.. as long as you don't get upset when it happens to our boys.. cool?

lol... i'll take a little sleep deprivation, waterboarding, or loud rock music - versus getting beaten, starved, sliced up, beheaded on TV, burned, and dragged through the streets - any day!

but hey, I guess you're right.. we're all just a bunch of torturing hooligans, eh?

KSM? Hang the fvcker and be done with it already.... NEXXXT!

Gee, ok, that sounds like a good standard. "At least we're not as bad as the terrorists". That could be the new Republican party motto! :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


This guy is responsible for the deaths of 3000 people through his planning of 9-11. I guess you think we should have just read him his rights and offered him a lawyer?

Well that is suppose to be they way we work, the reason we are better than them.

Exactly. And I hate to say it, but exporting American values to the world seems like a pretty hard sell when we're so selective about how WE live by them. Oh yeah, we totally believe in the rule of law and basic human rights...you know, except when we don't.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So, once again, the question begs to be answered......

Do you (and the rest of those that think that this type of practice is a good thing) believe that it is 100% justified and warranted to be administered on Americans that might be captured and/or suspected of whatever some batsh8t-crazy guy in power in another country claims?

It's a simple yes/no question so either say yes and approve of torture as a "noble" practice to be done whenever any leader thinks that it is justified no matter WHO the subject is.....or say no (like the rest of us) and show your hypocrisy/flip-flop/double-standard views to be what they are.

I pretty much agree with Clinton on torture.
It should only be used in a few extreme situations.

Now we can debate all day long as to whether water boarding is torture though.
I wouldn't suggest we use it on everyone we capture though, but people like KSM... yes, waterboard the bastard all day long.

This guy is responsible for the deaths of 3000 people through his planning of 9-11. I guess you think we should have just read him his rights and offered him a lawyer?

Good idea, we should lower ourselves to the standards of our enemy :roll:

One of the best things about our country, one of the things most American's pride themselves in is the fact that we have personal liberties here. If our country is so great (and I believe it is a great country) shouldn't we extend those liberties to others as well? The bastard is guilty, and he will die for it, but let's do it the right way.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dahunan
Oh well.. keep approving torture.. as long as you don't get upset when it happens to our boys.. cool?

lol... i'll take a little sleep deprivation, waterboarding, or loud rock music - versus getting beaten, starved, sliced up, beheaded on TV, burned, and dragged through the streets - any day!

but hey, I guess you're right.. we're all just a bunch of torturing hooligans, eh?

KSM? Hang the fvcker and be done with it already.... NEXXXT!

Gee, ok, that sounds like a good standard. "At least we're not as bad as the terrorists" :roll:

We are better... leaps and bounds even. Sadly, our enemies know this, and they use it against us at every turn.

As for you morons who actually believe that the military uses torture, or "harsh techniques," frequently, I highly suggest you find yourself a clue... The harsher techniques are very rarely used by the military itself, and even the OGA's limit their use to very limited situations involving very high-level known terrorists.

Those techniques are not taught, or even described, to the thousands of standard-issue military interrogators who are operating downrange today. Even the harmless fear-up-harsh technique (yelling and screaming at them), is considered by most to be a last resort.

Most of you people really have no clue what you are talking about. I suggest starting with the FM 2-22.3

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jman19
The bastard is guilty, and he will die for it, but let's do it the right way.

fair enough.. but let's just get it over with sooner rather than later, ok?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Well, if Prof's defense, that would be a pretty big sig.

Oh, and not convenient to his point of view. But still, an awfully big sig.

The point of my sig is two things?
1 Al Gore believes that it is ok to go and get the bad guys, even if the action is illegal, in at least some cases.
2 Bill Clinton understands that there might be a time when the use of harsh interrogation techniques is acceptable.

So no matter how evil and bad Bush is in these two instances it is very likely the any Democrat President would follow a very similar course of action.
It is very easy to stand on a podium and talk about how you would never do such things if elected. It is a very different thing to be sitting in the oval office and having the responsibility of being in charge of preventing things such as 9-11 from happening again.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Well, if Prof's defense, that would be a pretty big sig.

Oh, and not convenient to his point of view. But still, an awfully big sig.

The point of my sig is two things?
1 Al Gore believes that it is ok to go and get the bad guys, even if the action is illegal, in at least some cases.
2 Bill Clinton understands that there might be a time when the use of harsh interrogation techniques is acceptable.

So no matter how evil and bad Bush is in these two instances it is very likely the any Democrat President would follow a very similar course of action.
It is very easy to stand on a podium and talk about how you would never do such things if elected. It is a very different thing to be sitting in the oval office and having the responsibility of being in charge of preventing things such as 9-11 from happening again.

well said.