Rush Limbaugh thinks McCain's bill is........

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk
Isn't it pathetic how these people [Bush cheerleaders] continually push for the use of torture, even though every bit of information from professional interrogators says you shouldn't because is extremely unreliable (i.e. doesn't work) and there are better ways to interrogate people?

That's interesting, because unless you think Bush goes down and starts sticking knives into people himself, its probably professional interrogators doing the torturing.

Looks like all the liberals here like to tell professional interrogators how to do their job.

its widely known that information obtained through torture has next to no credibility.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
...
As shown by this thread, you, more than anyone else, seem to take it upon yourself to tell them how to do thier job.

As for my response in that thread, if you read (and understood) my posts, you could notice that I'm suggesting they listen to the law of unintended consequences. They are in a much worse position to see that than someone who is detached and looking at the bigger picture. Their job is to interrogate people, but does that involve understanding how extreme methods might be a bad idea in the larger picture?

And in any case, this is the internet, you don't know what I do or who I am, are you so sure I don't know enough to weigh in on the debate?

You don't think professional interrogators understand the larger picture?


As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

I do not think professional interrogators understand the larger picture. Why would they? They aren't foreign policy experts or high level strategic thinkers, they are people who's job it is to get information from the guy sitting in front of them. They don't even have the higher level view the analysts that look at their information have, it's not part of their job.

As for the example of it being useful, while I think the General's motives are suspect, I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt and say that torture techniques might have worked in that instance. But that's one example, how does torture fit into the larger interrogation picture? Does it hurt more often than it helps? As far as I know, there is very little information on that, certainly not enough to support torture as a good idea.

If this was just "beurocratic bull", that would be one thing. But it's not, and you know it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I do not think professional interrogators understand the larger picture. Why would they? They aren't foreign policy experts or high level strategic thinkers, they are people who's job it is to get information from the guy sitting in front of them. They don't even have the higher level view the analysts that look at their information have, it's not part of their job.

So the professionals in our intelligence agencies don't see the larger picture, but you do? The interrogators who have refused to comply with the torture policy don't see the larger picture as well then. Once certainly gets used to liberal elitism on this forum, but I didn't expect it from you.

As for the example of it being useful, while I think the General's motives are suspect, I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt and say that torture techniques might have worked in that instance. But that's one example, how does torture fit into the larger interrogation picture? Does it hurt more often than it helps? As far as I know, there is very little information on that, certainly not enough to support torture as a good idea.

Nobody's supporting torture all the time, rather people support giving our intelligence agencies the ability to use whatever will help in the situation.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Zendari-

"As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs."

"provided insights" into al qaeda's planning for 9/11? Anybody care to explain what that actually means? That's one of the most carefully phrased bits of doublespeak to ever pass the lips of a govt official... What it means is that after being tortured, the guy gave them pointless information...

"tying their hands"? I certainly hope so... What would lead anybody to believe this brand of fascist tyranny will stop at our borders, or with so-called terrorism suspects?

 

[tommywishbone]

"And that Bloated Oxycotined Addled Gas Bags outrage over it just confirms it's a good bill!"


I like this sentence.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I do not think professional interrogators understand the larger picture. Why would they? They aren't foreign policy experts or high level strategic thinkers, they are people who's job it is to get information from the guy sitting in front of them. They don't even have the higher level view the analysts that look at their information have, it's not part of their job.

So the professionals in our intelligence agencies don't see the larger picture, but you do? The interrogators who have refused to comply with the torture policy don't see the larger picture as well then. Once certainly gets used to liberal elitism on this forum, but I didn't expect it from you.

As for the example of it being useful, while I think the General's motives are suspect, I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt and say that torture techniques might have worked in that instance. But that's one example, how does torture fit into the larger interrogation picture? Does it hurt more often than it helps? As far as I know, there is very little information on that, certainly not enough to support torture as a good idea.

Nobody's supporting torture all the time, rather people support giving our intelligence agencies the ability to use whatever will help in the situation.

I don't think I suggest *I* saw the larger picture either, I was just saying that while the guys at the pointy end of the stick certainly have some insights, I think that is only part of the issue. As for the interrogators who refuse to comply with the policy, they again lend some insight to the discussion, but THEY shouldn't be treated as the be-all end-all of the debate either. I for one would be interested to have a broad overview of how the people at our intelligence agencies view the issue, my guess is they aren't exactly united behind a pro-torture policy, but even that shouldn't be the sole basis for our decision. This isn't elitism, it's exactly the opposite. I don't think any one person, or group of people, should be given control over an issue like this, because I don't think that one person or group would have enough of the big picture. And in any case, you might be surprised at the perspective I have on the issue...

As for only using torture sometimes, you are correct, we're not talking about making torture mandatory. But in making it optional, "whenever it will help", we are making an unspoken assumption that it is possible to tell when it will help and when it would be a bad idea. I'm not so sure that's always obvious, even to the professionals. They say interrogation is an art, and it seems like extreme measures might not be a wise move.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As for only using torture sometimes, you are correct, we're not talking about making torture mandatory. But in making it optional, "whenever it will help", we are making an unspoken assumption that it is possible to tell when it will help and when it would be a bad idea. I'm not so sure that's always obvious, even to the professionals. They say interrogation is an art, and it seems like extreme measures might not be a wise move.

I think there is an even more dangerous assumption - we're assuming that the people empowered to use these methods will do it for the right reasons, and to the right people (to the best of their knowledge).

I can tell you with authority that they won't, having lived in the former USSR.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
...
As shown by this thread, you, more than anyone else, seem to take it upon yourself to tell them how to do thier job.

As for my response in that thread, if you read (and understood) my posts, you could notice that I'm suggesting they listen to the law of unintended consequences. They are in a much worse position to see that than someone who is detached and looking at the bigger picture. Their job is to interrogate people, but does that involve understanding how extreme methods might be a bad idea in the larger picture?

And in any case, this is the internet, you don't know what I do or who I am, are you so sure I don't know enough to weigh in on the debate?

You don't think professional interrogators understand the larger picture?


As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

 

[Meuge]

ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari
As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari
As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

Why? I mean, why are you so sure?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

No I mean on yourself smartass.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

No I mean on yourself smartass.

Do you have premarital sex with yourself?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
ZENDARI

I think that we should all try what we advocate. For example, I am for pre-marital sex. I've tried it, and it's good. I am also for privacy. Tried it, it's good. If you want to advocate torture, you should really try it.

I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

even if the "information" you get is more likely to be bullsh!t than truth? When tortured peope tell yu want you want them to tell you, even if its not true.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney
So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

Why? I mean, why are you so sure?

It's their job to know such things.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari
I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

even if the "information" you get is more likely to be bullsh!t than truth? When tortured peope tell yu want you want them to tell you, even if its not true.

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari
I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

even if the "information" you get is more likely to be bullsh!t than truth? When tortured peope tell yu want you want them to tell you, even if its not true.

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

So you'll not only torture them in attempt to get information, which is highly unreliable since there is no guarantee they really know anything, you'll also torture them for punishment?

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe in any of this or you just like screwing with people, because it really makes no sense. But then again, you have people out there spouting this same drivel like Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh, while also claiming the moral highground.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: zendari
I have no issues with torturing someone if he/she has necessary information to vital security if that can serve my country.

even if the "information" you get is more likely to be bullsh!t than truth? When tortured peope tell yu want you want them to tell you, even if its not true.

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

Then they'll lie again, then a terrorist act will occur, then we'll find out the "terrorist" knew nothing and is probably innocent. "If" may be a small word, but it's a huge assumption. How many people need to be erroneously tortured based on the assumption they know something before you see that Torture is unacceptable?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

Then they'll lie again, then a terrorist act will occur, then we'll find out the "terrorist" knew nothing and is probably innocent. "If" may be a small word, but it's a huge assumption. How many people need to be erroneously tortured based on the assumption they know something before you see that Torture is unacceptable?

If alternative interrogation is so bad why did it yield results in the link above?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

Then they'll lie again, then a terrorist act will occur, then we'll find out the "terrorist" knew nothing and is probably innocent. "If" may be a small word, but it's a huge assumption. How many people need to be erroneously tortured based on the assumption they know something before you see that Torture is unacceptable?

If alternative interrogation is so bad why did it yield results in the link above?

Why would it yield the results of Abu Graib if it's so right?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney
So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

Why? I mean, why are you so sure?

It's their job to know such things.

So? For a conservative, or even someone who's paying attention, you have a very high level of trust in people to be good at what they do and to do the right thing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

Then they'll lie again, then a terrorist act will occur, then we'll find out the "terrorist" knew nothing and is probably innocent. "If" may be a small word, but it's a huge assumption. How many people need to be erroneously tortured based on the assumption they know something before you see that Torture is unacceptable?

If alternative interrogation is so bad why did it yield results in the link above?

Why would it yield the results of Abu Graib if it's so right?

It probably wasnt the right technique for the situation. Nothing is 100%.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

Then I suppose they get another round of torture.

Then they'll lie again, then a terrorist act will occur, then we'll find out the "terrorist" knew nothing and is probably innocent. "If" may be a small word, but it's a huge assumption. How many people need to be erroneously tortured based on the assumption they know something before you see that Torture is unacceptable?

If alternative interrogation is so bad why did it yield results in the link above?

Why would it yield the results of Abu Graib if it's so right?

It probably wasnt the right technique for the situation. Nothing is 100%.

No ******.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari
As for the interrogation techniques, from the previous link:
"At congressional hearings last July, Southern Command's Gen. Bantz Craddock testified that as a result of the use of some of these techniques, the formerly defiant al-Qatani had "provided insights" into Al Qaeda's planning for 9/11"

So it looks like they got something. We should stop typing their hands in beurocratic bull and let them properly do their jobs. :thumbsup:

So how do you separate the truths from the lies? It's a useless means of interrogation. When John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese, instead of giving the names of other pilots, he gave them the players of the Green Bay Packers.

These are people who aren't afraid of death... and if they have to lie to stop the pain or torture for a few hours or days, they will.

I am sure intelligence agents have though of that and have a solution for the problem.

Some of our key intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq was obtained under those situations. We all know how great that turned to be.