• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Military Agency Referred to 'Torture,' Questioned Its Effectiveness In 2002

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
The Bush administration was told in 2002, that torture does not work to obtain reliable intelligence information.

They were warned that "the unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel."

They called it "TORTURE!" :shocked:

Story in the Washington Post.

Note: The link in the article goes to a pdf of the actual report.

Document: Military Agency Referred to 'Torture,' Questioned Its Effectiveness

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 24, 2009; 5:22 PM

The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
.
.
In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information." The word "extreme" is underlined.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
How do I comment beyond the shock level of the obvious implications? Hold onto your chairs. This isn't going away. It will only grow until we have the truth we so sorely need.

< edit >

Link updated. Full story is now on a freely accessible page.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
Jebus, Harvey. Pick a subject of substance, please.

If you had read an essay regarding the treatment of prisoners in accordance with the rule of law that I had written in 2003 for an English course, you subject it to the most vile and venemous diatribe. And quite frankly, I've had e-fucking-nuff of reading your sanctamonious, party-centric crap.

Could you kindly put forth efforts doing real deeds instead of typing this vitriol? Join the frickin Peace Corps. Do something of substance and then post some pics.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: keird
Jebus, Harvey. Pick a subject of substance, please.

If you had read an essay regarding the treatment of prisoners in accordance with the rule of law that I had written in 2003 for an English course, you subject it to the most vile and venemous diatribe. And quite frankly, I've had e-fucking-nuff of reading your sanctamonious, party-centric crap.

Could you kindly put forth efforts doing real deeds instead of typing this vitriol? Join the frickin Peace Corps. Do something of substance and then post some pics.
It's not torture if the balls don't touch.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: keird

Jebus, Harvey. Pick a subject of substance, please.

If you had read an essay regarding the treatment of prisoners in accordance with the rule of law that I had written in 2003 for an English course, you subject it to the most vile and diatribe.
< edit >

Balt's post made me re-read your sentence. If you wrote that poorly for an English course, you obviously failed. Funny, you don't look gibberish. :p

< /edit >

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a formerly classified report from the military agency tasked to advise the CIA about the merits and problems with the "enhanced techniques" they were contemplating (or already using) were ineffective and called them (watch out for the dreaded "T" word)... TORTURE.

How is that a "vile" or a "diatribe?" :confused:

And quite frankly, I've had e-fucking-nuff of reading your sanctamonious, party-centric crap.
Well, quite frankly, you can :lips: my (_!_).

Could you kindly put forth efforts doing real deeds instead of typing this vitriol? Join the frickin Peace Corps. Do something of substance and then post some pics.
Were you too link challenged to go to the pages from the actual report? :roll:

HINT: It's a graphic pdf. That IS a pic. :camera: :cool:

Originally posted by: fallout man

It's not torture if the balls don't touch.
At least, that was the rule for the Republican teabagging parties. :laugh:
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: keird
Jebus, Harvey. Pick a subject of substance, please.

If you had read an essay regarding the treatment of prisoners in accordance with the rule of law that I had written in 2003 for an English course, you subject it to the most vile and venemous diatribe. And quite frankly, I've had e-fucking-nuff of reading your sanctamonious, party-centric crap.

Could you kindly put forth efforts doing real deeds instead of typing this vitriol? Join the frickin Peace Corps. Do something of substance and then post some pics.
Huh? :confused:
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, that was the rule for the Republican teabagging parties. :laugh:
Watch out, you're offending the Democrats who were also there...

...all except for your buddies in the White House and on CNN who are still trying to feed us the bullshit that our taxes are being lowered and stimulus monies is free monies.


Originally posted by: Harvey
Well, quite frankly, you can :lips: my (_!_).
I think we have an understanding here :D


C'mon, you know as well as I do, that all we need is change the name from waterboarding to underwater contingency operations, to soften the impact of the language, then liberals would be in full support of it ;)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...7/0524072torture1.html

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...7/0524072torture1.html

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.

Harvey is part of Obama's "Blame America First" crowd. He would rather apologize for this country than admit we do a lot of good. I may actually agree that torture doesn't work much of the time. That doesn't mean I don't want it on the table for the time it IS needed.

Of course, there are a dozen other threads about torture.. of course, zero of them about the terrible things that happen to our own citizens. That tells me a lot about the agenda of people like Harvey.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: Harvey
At least, that was the rule for the Republican teabagging parties. :laugh:
Watch out, you're offending the Democrats who were also there...

...all except for your buddies in the White House and on CNN who are still trying to feed us the bullshit that our taxes are being lowered and stimulus monies is free monies.


Originally posted by: Harvey
Well, quite frankly, you can :lips: my (_!_).
I think we have an understanding here :D


C'mon, you know as well as I do, that all we need is change the name from waterboarding to underwater contingency operations, to soften the impact of the language, then liberals would be in full support of it ;)
I haven't heard *anyone* say that the stimulus bill is "free money". I did hear that the Iraq War was going to pay for itself, though. I think you're confusing Presidents.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Your title and sub-title are contradictory.

They could have not questioned its effectiveness AND told him it does work at the same time. The two statements are contradictory, either you question the effectiveness of something or you claim it does not work, but you don't do both.

And perhaps you should have read the actual document: link
(U) CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical andlor psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
They called it "TORTURE!" :shocked:
The memo has no mention of the term waterboarding.

And, as always, the argument comes down to whether waterboarding is or is not torture, and that depends on personal opinion.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,659
23,811
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The memo has no mention of the term waterboarding.

And, as always, the argument comes down to whether waterboarding is or is not torture, and that depends on personal opinion.
It really doesn't. Everything in the world technically comes down to personal opinion as to what it is defined by humanity as, but that's not how words and concepts are generally used.

Waterboarding is recognized as torture by the vast majority of the planet, and has been recognized as this for quite a long time. For a brief period of time the US government rescinded its designation of waterboarding as torture despite our history of condemning it as such, but that 6 or so year abberation has now ended.

 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
4
81
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...7/0524072torture1.html

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.

Harvey is part of Obama's "Blame America First" crowd. He would rather apologize for this country than admit we do a lot of good. I may actually agree that torture doesn't work much of the time. That doesn't mean I don't want it on the table for the time it IS needed.

Of course, there are a dozen other threads about torture.. of course, zero of them about the terrible things that happen to our own citizens. That tells me a lot about the agenda of people like Harvey.
Fear No Evil is part of the Republican "Everything Democrats do is wrong" crowd. He would rather slash and burn everything including allies, than admit that a democrat could do good. He maintains a very juvenile idea that America is the strongest nation in the world and the only remaining superpower, and that means that we can do whatever the fuck we want. He is all for keeping things like spying on american citizens and torturing for a time when a Republican is back in power.

Of course, he is a perfect example of why people like me, who are against the bailout and don't like gun control will never look at the Republican party as a viable option. It makes me wonder about the agenda of people like Fear No Evil?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
I didn't post full quotes earlier because the story was very new and only available to subscribers. I updated the link in the OP to go directly to the article on the Washinton Post To clarify the source for this report, the information is from the U.S. Airforce's S.E.R.E. - (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) program.

This is a small specialized career field in the US Air Force comprised of approximately 325 enlisted personnel. Air Force SERE Specialists train aircrew members and high risk of capture personnel from all branches of the military. The students are trained in skills which allow them to survive in all climatic conditions as well as how to survive while being held captive.
Per their name, the purpose of S.E.R.E. is to train our troops who may be captured to survive possible torture by, and to resist giving any helpful information to, our enemies. Their mission is specifically NOT to describe or define methods to be used by our own intelligence agencies to interrogate possible enemies captured by U.S. forces.

Cliffs for brain dead Bushwhacko apologists, including TLC, Fear No Evil and ProfJohn:

S.E.R.E is the specific military group tasked to understand and teach our troops to resist torture.

S.E.R.E is NOT tasked to develop means and methods of torturing those we capture.

Rumsfeld's attorney, William Haynes, requests info from S.E.R.E regarding administration's intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

S.E.R.E's report to Haynes explicitly:
  1. labels "enhanced interrogation" techniques TORTURE.
  2. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques DO NOT WORK.
  3. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques could have "potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries."
The complete report from S.E.R.E. to Haynes. Note the classification stamp, moved to the bottom of the report.

OPERATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE of PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLIGCAL [sic] COERCION [sic] IN INTERROGATION
An Overview

(U) INTRODUCTION: Throughout history, interrogation has frequently involved the application of various physical anellor psychological means of inducing duress. The objective of this application was to elicit information, compel the prisoner to produce propaganda, submit to political conversion, and or as a vehicle for intimidation. Throughout most of recorded history, the rights of prisoners were limited at best. The concept of international law that governs the treatment of prisoners is a modem phenomenon that remains the topic of continuing debate. This discussion is not intended to address the myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications of torture; rather, this document will seeks to describe the key operational considerations relative to the use of physical and psychological pressures.

(U) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE of INTERROGATION: The primary objective of interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption. (NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)

(U) OPERATIONAL CONCERNS:

(U) As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.

(U) For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.

(U) The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.
  1. (U) In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance, the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the interrogation process is to assess the prisoner's knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access should drive the questioning process.)
(U) Another important aspect of the debate over the use of torture is the consideration of its potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries. The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel. While this would have little impact on those regimes or organizations that already employ torture as a standard means of operating, it could serve as the critical impetus for those that are currently weighing the potential gains and risks associated with the torture of U.S. persons to accept torture as an acceptable option.

(U) CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.

HQ JPRA·CC/25 Jut 02JOSN 654-2509
CLASSIFIED BY: MULTIPLE SOURCES
REASON: EO 12958 (A, C)
DECLASSIFY: Xi or X4
Key sentences and phrases:
  • The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective.
  • The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
  • The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.
  • Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.
  • For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliteratesuch nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.
  • ... a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.
  • The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.
You continue to demand evidence that "torture" per se is illegal under U.S. law and that waterboarding constitues torture. Yet, you continue to deny the authority and expertise of Attorney General Holder, former under secretary of state, William Armitage, and former POW and torture survivor, Sen. John McCain stating exactly what you continue to deny.

Now, you have the express statement from S.E.R.E., THE authority on the subject, that labels the "enhanced interrogation" techniques defined and specified in Haynes' request, including waterboarding, as TORTURE.

I'm sure you'll deny that, as well. :thumbsdown: :|
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical andlor psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.
Our laws already address extreme or severe applications of torture. It's against the law. That's why the interrogation techniques had specific limitations placed on them, to avoid running afoul of the law. Unfortunately you don't seem to have the capacity to comprehend the nuances of all that.

I hope to see this go to court so it can be decided there because I'm confident that, legally, we operated within the law and I'd love nothing more than to see a legal opinion that would shut your loud mouth.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
4
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical andlor psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.
Our laws already address extreme or severe applications of torture. It's against the law. That's why the interrogation techniques had specific limitations placed on them, to avoid running afoul of the law. Unfortunately you don't seem to have the capacity to comprehend the nuances of all that.

I hope to see this go to court so it can be decided there because I'm confident that, legally, we operated within the law and I'd love nothing more than to see a legal opinion that would shut your loud mouth.
I don't understand you.

We tortured; torture is illegal; therefore, what we did was illegal.

Where are you confused?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:
No, Chicken. YOU are the joke, a very sick joke. We won't defeat evil by becoming the evil we seek to defeat.

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.
No. Your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang and YOU, as an individual, are WORSE! :|

You are the same evil monsters as Al Qaeda, willing to commit the same horrendous, inhuman acts of torture on others as they are. The difference is, you walk amongst us, pretending to be one of us, pretending to defend what we represent ourselves to be, but all the while spreading your toxic venomous lies as if they were truth.

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Harvey is part of Obama's "Blame America First" crowd. He would rather apologize for this country than admit we do a lot of good. I may actually agree that torture doesn't work much of the time. That doesn't mean I don't want it on the table for the time it IS needed.
Fear No Evil is a spineless, chickenshit little coward who has no faith in the United States of America, our Constitution, our laws, or our proud history and democratic tradition. He's evil enough to be willing to commit acts of torture on another human being, regardless of the fact that he has NO evidence, whatsoever, that torture has worked, even once, to gain useful, actionable information that has actually stopped ANY terrorist attacks anywhere, at any time. He's stupid enough to think that name calling will convince anyone that he's right.

I suspect he may have been waterboarded at birth, depriving him of any "intelligence" he may have had.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

They called it "TORTURE!" :shocked:
The memo has no mention of the term waterboarding.
Aww.... PJ of the three, I thought you were the one with any brain power, whatsoever. My mistake. :p

As I posted, above, the entire report was in response to William Haynes, request to S.E.R.E regarding their intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques. You're right. They don't mention the term, "waterboarding." However, the first sentence of the conclusion says:

The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information.
Are you now going to tell us that waterboarding doesn't constitute "extreme physical and/or psychological duress?" :confused:

And, as always, the argument comes down to whether waterboarding is or is not torture, and that depends on personal opinion.
What a choice -- Your lame ass bullshit, lies, diversions, distortions and distractions or the authority and expertise of Attorney General Holder, former under secretary of state, William Armitage, and former POW and torture survivor, Sen. John McCain stating exactly what you continue to deny.

Decisions... decisions... decisions. :roll:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I hope to see this go to court so it can be decided there because I'm confident that, legally, we operated within the law and I'd love nothing more than to see a legal opinion that would shut your loud mouth.
WTF??? We finally agree on something. :shocked:

I also want to see this go to court. I want to see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the Bushwhacko henchmen brought to a fair trial with full disclosure of what they did and conviction with maximum penalties for every crime the courts find are constituted by their actions.

And you're right. That would shut my loud mouth... for a little while, but only after a long period of boistrous partying and celebration of our newly regained respect for our nation's Constitution and laws.
.
.
But first, I'd have to sing a little song. :thumbsup: :music: :laugh:
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...7/0524072torture1.html

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.
You're correct, they don't care.

But we do.

I can honestly tell you that if one of my men had waterborded anyone i would have had him tried by the Afghans and i would have watched him hang without a word in protest.

We're here to do good, not to act like "hey, at least we are not as horrible and retarded as the Talibans", if that was the best we could do then why even bother?
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...7/0524072torture1.html

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.
You're correct, they don't care.

But we do.

I can honestly tell you that if one of my men had waterborded anyone i would have had him tried by the Afghans and i would have watched him hang without a word in protest.

We're here to do good, not to act like "hey, at least we are not as horrible and retarded as the Talibans", if that was the best we could do then why even bother?
What if one of those men waterboarded to save your life? Even if you felt like it was wrong - That you would have preferred to have been tortured and killed yourself - Would you still say to hang him?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This statement is a joke:

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
So the thought is that AQ is not going to torture US prisoners so long as we don't torture theirs? Maybe nobody informed the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, but AQ doesn't care about US law, international law, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the sort. We are talking about people that cut off heads, dismember bodies and drag them through the streets, and inflict all kinds of unimaginable horors on those they've captured. Want to see real torture? Here, read the AQ field manual:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...7/0524072torture1.html

Now tell me that we are "just as bad as them." I dare you.
You're correct, they don't care.

But we do.

I can honestly tell you that if one of my men had waterborded anyone i would have had him tried by the Afghans and i would have watched him hang without a word in protest.

We're here to do good, not to act like "hey, at least we are not as horrible and retarded as the Talibans", if that was the best we could do then why even bother?
What if one of those men waterboarded to save your life? Even if you felt like it was wrong - That you would have preferred to have been tortured and killed yourself - Would you still say to hang him?
If my life would depend on my men waterboarding someone i would rather perish.

THIS is a black and white issue with me, no greyscales, if i thought there were i would lay down my G3 and go home, the ONLY thing that drives me and those like me is that we know that we are right and they are wrong.

What is right doesn't change and neither does wrong, it's a choice to make and live with regardless of the consequenses and i can guarantee you that EVERY man i've ever had the pleasure to serve with feels exactly the same way.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

What if one of those men waterboarded to save your life? Even if you felt like it was wrong - That you would have preferred to have been tortured and killed yourself - Would you still say to hang him?
You're postulating the impossible as an alternative to being a human being. Guess you didn't read my previous reply to you so here it is, again.

Fear No Evil is a spineless, chickenshit little coward who has no faith in the United States of America, our Constitution, our laws, or our proud history and democratic tradition. He's evil enough to be willing to commit acts of torture on another human being, regardless of the fact that he has NO evidence, whatsoever, that torture has worked, even once, to gain useful, actionable information that has actually stopped ANY terrorist attacks anywhere, at any time.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: Balt
I haven't heard *anyone* say that the stimulus bill is "free money". I did hear that the Iraq War was going to pay for itself, though. I think you're confusing Presidents.
Nope, not confusing Presidents.

While the White House & liberal media don't specifically call it "free money", they do walk around with a thick smug attitude that us pheasants should be grateful Obama is handing out large sums of money, while just conveniently omitting the side of the discussion where we do have to repay this money with interest.




Back on the subject of torture, this whole thing is comical. Harvey here wants us to believe his is righteous in his anti-torture crusade, yet has no problem laughing at "teabagging". And how many times did so-called caring progressive liberals poke fun at John McCain's limited use of his arms, during the campaign? Okay, this was largely limited to idiot radio personalities, but it does show that they can openly mock a Republican on this subject with no fear of retribution. It's a double standard. So I mean, with Harvey openly mocking those who disagree with Obama teabaggers, one can only take his anti-torture campaign as a partisan anti-Republican / pro-Democrat crusade.





And to get down to the nitty gritty of this thread, I don't give a flying f--- about what anyone thinks about torture. Show me a memo specifically discussing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of waterboarding, and I'll read it. Short of that, this is about as non-news worthy as it comes.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: Balt
I haven't heard *anyone* say that the stimulus bill is "free money". I did hear that the Iraq War was going to pay for itself, though. I think you're confusing Presidents.
Nope, not confusing Presidents.

While the White House & liberal media don't specifically call it "free money", they do walk around with a thick smug attitude that us pheasants should be grateful Obama is handing out large sums of money, while just conveniently omitting the side of the discussion where we do have to repay this money with interest.




Back on the subject of torture, this whole thing is comical. Harvey here wants us to believe his is righteous in his anti-torture crusade, yet has no problem laughing at "teabagging". And how many times did so-called caring progressive liberals poke fun at John McCain's limited use of his arms, during the campaign? Okay, this was largely limited to idiot radio personalities, but it does show that they can openly mock a Republican on this subject with no fear of retribution. It's a double standard. So I mean, with Harvey openly mocking those who disagree with Obama teabaggers, one can only take his anti-torture campaign as a partisan anti-Republican / pro-Democrat crusade.





And to get down to the nitty gritty of this thread, I don't give a flying f--- about what anyone thinks about torture. Show me a memo specifically discussing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of waterboarding, and I'll read it. Short of that, this is about as non-news worthy as it comes.
You shouldn't fucking have to go on some anti torture crusade, that SHOULD be a given for any thinking human being that we don't torture people PERIOD.

It doesn't even fucking matter if it WAS effective (which it isn't) it's about right and wrong and if we're wrong then what the fuck are we fighting for? To be a tad less wrong than others? Not me, not ever.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,659
23,811
136
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: Balt
I haven't heard *anyone* say that the stimulus bill is "free money". I did hear that the Iraq War was going to pay for itself, though. I think you're confusing Presidents.
Nope, not confusing Presidents.

While the White House & liberal media don't specifically call it "free money", they do walk around with a thick smug attitude that us pheasants should be grateful Obama is handing out large sums of money, while just conveniently omitting the side of the discussion where we do have to repay this money with interest.

Back on the subject of torture, this whole thing is comical. Harvey here wants us to believe his is righteous in his anti-torture crusade, yet has no problem laughing at "teabagging". And how many times did so-called caring progressive liberals poke fun at John McCain's limited use of his arms, during the campaign? Okay, this was largely limited to idiot radio personalities, but it does show that they can openly mock a Republican on this subject with no fear of retribution. It's a double standard. So I mean, with Harvey openly mocking those who disagree with Obama teabaggers, one can only take his anti-torture campaign as a partisan anti-Republican / pro-Democrat crusade.

And to get down to the nitty gritty of this thread, I don't give a flying f--- about what anyone thinks about torture. Show me a memo specifically discussing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of waterboarding, and I'll read it. Short of that, this is about as non-news worthy as it comes.
Your post exists almost entirely within the realm of your own paranoia. The 'librul media' does not exist, and if you spent any time watching the actual media you would be sick to death of the endless discussions that EXACTLY involve where we are going to have to repay this money or face inflation. I can't possibly understand how anyone who has spent any time watching TV or reading newspaper articles about this subject has not heard the other side of this story repeatedly. This hasn't just been discussed once or twice, but at a minimum dozens, and probably hundreds of times. This is the problem with the 'librul media' myth. It's simply cried out over and over and over again even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and when it's wrong you ignore it and pretend it never happened, only to trot it out again.

As for your problems with Harvey, what the hell does making fun of those retarded tea parties have to do with being against torture? So what if some retarded radio personality made fun of John McCain? Making fun of John McCain would make you an ass, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not torture was right or wrong. (for the record I am unaware of anyone mocking McCain's war injuries, do you have a link?)
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: cubby1223

Back on the subject of torture, this whole thing is comical. Harvey here wants us to believe his is righteous in his anti-torture crusade, yet has no problem laughing at "teabagging".
You're just pissed because, the last time you went teabagging, your boyfriend bit you. :laugh:

You don't deserve anything better than that for trying to equate the word play around the colloquial meaning of "teabagging" with the sheer evil of torture.

And to get down to the nitty gritty of this thread, I don't give a flying f--- about what anyone thinks about torture. Show me a memo specifically discussing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of waterboarding, and I'll read it. Short of that, this is about as non-news worthy as it comes.
I already posted the Cliffs of the S.E.R.E report for brain dead Bushwhacko apologists like you, but in case you're mouse challenged or your scroll keys don't work, here they are, again:

S.E.R.E is the specific military group tasked to understand and teach our troops to resist torture.

S.E.R.E is NOT tasked to develop means and methods of torturing those we capture.

Rumsfeld's attorney, William Haynes, requests info from S.E.R.E regarding administration's intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

S.E.R.E's report to Haynes explicitly:
  1. labels "enhanced interrogation" techniques TORTURE.
  2. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques DO NOT WORK.
  3. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques could have "potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries."
The S.E.R.E report is exactly what you asked for. It specifically discusses the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the techniques listed in Haynes request that your EX-Traitor in Chief and his criminal gang intended to use, including waterboarding.

And to get down to the nitty gritty of this thread, I don't give a flying f--- if you continue to deny the facts. If you want to prove conclusively that waterboarding is NOT torture, you should volunteer as a crash test dummy. Short of that, your lame ass denials are about as unworthy of consideration as it comes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY