|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 12, 2014 12:20:21 GMT -5
First, define "torture". What was enumerated in that "report" comes no where near "torture". It's Liberals, again, defining things down to the point they have no meaning, just to win political points. Wonder why not a single operative, or even manager from the CIA was even spoken to in imagining this "report"? Sure. If I don't want it done to me because it's painful or humiliating, it's torture. I doubt the CIA would have much to add to this report. They lie for a living. They're certainly never going to tell the truth when doing so would cast them in a bad light.
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Dec 12, 2014 12:37:56 GMT -5
Shut down the CIA, right now. It is corrupt. So is the entire Federal government. At least the CIA produces useful and actionable results. I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 12, 2014 12:38:41 GMT -5
First, define "torture". What was enumerated in that "report" comes no where near "torture". It's Liberals, again, defining things down to the point they have no meaning, just to win political points. Wonder why not a single operative, or even manager from the CIA was even spoken to in imagining this "report"? Sure. If I don't want it done to me because it's painful or humiliating, it's torture. I doubt the CIA would have much to add to this report. They lie for a living. They're certainly never going to tell the truth when doing so would cast them in a bad light. Senator Feinstein also lies for a living. So who to believe? Probably the right answer is neither. But in this particular case it's safe to assume that since Obama has made it clear he isn't going to do anything in response, and therefore the sole purpose of the report is to embarrass George Bush.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Dec 12, 2014 14:58:52 GMT -5
It strikes me redleg that some of the things in this report indicates we've already lost our morals. I join EY in having little use for those who commit violence in the name of Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism, or...), but this is not how the US wages war. Really? Have you studied WWII? WWI? The Civil War? When your nation's survival is at stake, you often do things that you detest, in the name of saving your country. When you are facing subhuman animals, that are not only willing but anxious to die, as long as they achieve the maximum damage doing it, you do whatever you can to stop them. Morality means saving the innocent, not protecting the sleep, or the "honor" of those that would kill everyone they can. The survival of the nation was hardly at stake with Al Qaeda. These terrorists posed a serious, but hardly an existential threat. If all that you write is true, then what's the difference between us? If we can only maintain our honor, our standard of integrity when it is easy to do so, what good are those values? And yes, I have studied these wars, and others, having spent a full year in residence at the naval war college during my career.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 12, 2014 15:44:37 GMT -5
Senator Feinstein also lies for a living. So who to believe? Probably the right answer is neither. But in this particular case it's safe to assume that since Obama has made it clear he isn't going to do anything in response, and therefore the sole purpose of the report is to embarrass George Bush. He isn't going to do anything because he can't. They're probably still doing this stuff, and he knows it. And he dare not do anything that might set a precedent for what the next president might do to him.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 12, 2014 16:36:13 GMT -5
First, define "torture". What was enumerated in that "report" comes no where near "torture". It's Liberals, again, defining things down to the point they have no meaning, just to win political points. Wonder why not a single operative, or even manager from the CIA was even spoken to in imagining this "report"? Sure. If I don't want it done to me because it's painful or humiliating, it's torture.
I doubt the CIA would have much to add to this report. They lie for a living. They're certainly never going to tell the truth when doing so would cast them in a bad light. So we should outlaw the entire Federal government, since almost nothing they do is painful or humiliating to most of the nation? After all, under your definition, that's torture.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 12, 2014 16:36:39 GMT -5
So is the entire Federal government. At least the CIA produces useful and actionable results. I disagree. With which?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 12, 2014 16:39:32 GMT -5
Really? Have you studied WWII? WWI? The Civil War? When your nation's survival is at stake, you often do things that you detest, in the name of saving your country. When you are facing subhuman animals, that are not only willing but anxious to die, as long as they achieve the maximum damage doing it, you do whatever you can to stop them. Morality means saving the innocent, not protecting the sleep, or the "honor" of those that would kill everyone they can. The survival of the nation was hardly at stake with Al Qaeda. These terrorists posed a serious, but hardly an existential threat. If all that you write is true, then what's the difference between us? If we can only maintain our honor, our standard of integrity when it is easy to do so, what good are those values? And yes, I have studied these wars, and others, having spent a full year in residence at the naval war college during my career. Think of the analogy with the guy that knocks down an elderly woman, smears mud in her face and on her body, and smacks her with his hands and a blanket. Sounds pretty brutal, no? Then realize she was on fire at the time, and he was trying to put the fire out. The difference is that they are trying to destroy us, we are trying to defend ourselves. As I said before, moral relativism doesn't work. A cop that shoots a suspect that's shooting at him is far different from the thug that simply shoots someone, even though the actions and the results are the same.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 12, 2014 17:35:07 GMT -5
Senator Feinstein also lies for a living. So who to believe? Probably the right answer is neither. But in this particular case it's safe to assume that since Obama has made it clear he isn't going to do anything in response, and therefore the sole purpose of the report is to embarrass George Bush. He isn't going to do anything because he can't. They're probably still doing this stuff, and he knows it. And he dare not do anything that might set a precedent for what the next president might do to him. I have to ask... if someone came to you and offered you a choice between being waterboarded, or being hit with a missile from a predator drone, which would you pick? And if you picked getting waterboarded, why are you OK with us using drones on terrorists?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 12, 2014 18:46:07 GMT -5
I have to ask... if someone came to you and offered you a choice between being waterboarded, or being hit with a missile from a predator drone, which would you pick? And if you picked getting waterboarded, why are you OK with us using drones on terrorists? I'm okay with the use of drones on terrorists who are not citizens. Their governments must look after their rights, if they care to. I'm not okay with the government murdering its citizens without due process. This is really a different subject, worthy of its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 12, 2014 19:00:35 GMT -5
I have to ask... if someone came to you and offered you a choice between being waterboarded, or being hit with a missile from a predator drone, which would you pick? And if you picked getting waterboarded, why are you OK with us using drones on terrorists? I'm okay with the use of drones on terrorists who are not citizens. Their governments must look after their rights, if they care to. I'm not okay with the government murdering its citizens without due process. This is really a different subject, worthy of its own thread. So if you're OK with us droning foreign terrorists what, exactly, is your problem with waterboarding people who are not citizens? Is it not preferable to be waterboarded than shot with a hellfire missile?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 12, 2014 20:12:43 GMT -5
So if you're OK with us droning foreign terrorists what, exactly, is your problem with waterboarding people who are not citizens? Is it not preferable to be waterboarded than shot with a hellfire missile? People who don't mind torturing, especially given that it doesn't accomplish much, are missing a key element of their conscience. I do not want such people involved in the government in any capacity. A religious man might such such people are soulless. I just believe their extremely dangerous to those around them because they're not wired right in the head.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 12, 2014 20:25:06 GMT -5
So if you're OK with us droning foreign terrorists what, exactly, is your problem with waterboarding people who are not citizens? Is it not preferable to be waterboarded than shot with a hellfire missile? People who don't mind torturing, especially given that it doesn't accomplish much, are missing a key element of their conscience. I do not want such people involved in the government in any capacity. A religious man might such such people are soulless. I just believe their extremely dangerous to those around them because they're not wired right in the head. Replace torture with 'shooting with a missile' and that statement makes just as much sense - probably more. Again I ask you: if you were offered a choice between getting waterboarded, or shot with a missile, which would you pick? I'm betting you'd rather be waterboareded every day for a week that shot one time with a missile. Or am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 12, 2014 20:37:16 GMT -5
Replace torture with 'shooting with a missile' and that statement makes just as much sense - probably more. Again I ask you: if you were offered a choice between getting waterboarded, or shot with a missile, which would you pick? I'm betting you'd rather be waterboareded every day for a week that shot one time with a missile. Or am I wrong? You really don't see the difference between a soldier fighting for his country and the kind of person who doesn't mind torture? Or are you just defending the practice because it occurred in a Pub administration. Your posting history does suggest you're a hard-wired Pub partisan, so maybe that's it. People who torture, and who tolerate torture, aren't wired right in their heads.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 12, 2014 20:47:28 GMT -5
Replace torture with 'shooting with a missile' and that statement makes just as much sense - probably more. Again I ask you: if you were offered a choice between getting waterboarded, or shot with a missile, which would you pick? I'm betting you'd rather be waterboareded every day for a week that shot one time with a missile. Or am I wrong? You really don't see the difference between a soldier fighting for his country and the kind of person who doesn't mind torture? Or are you just defending the practice because it occurred in a Pub administration. Your posting history does suggest you're a hard-wired Pub partisan, so maybe that's it. People who torture, and who tolerate torture, aren't wired right in their heads. That question I keep asking you makes you uncomfortable as hell, doesn't it? Perhaps because if you get around to admitting you'd rather be waterboarded than killed, then you'll need to make an honest assessment of your thinking here. You know, as opposed to fooling yourself into believing that torture is somehow so beyond the pale it's worse than vaporizing someone (and the completely innocent people who may be standing next to them) with a hellfire missile. Stuff my posting history - that's entirely irrelevant to the question here. Instead of trying to distract yourself with my political views, THINK about why waterboarding is a problem to you, and outright killing people isn't. Because if you'd rather be waterboarded than shot with a missile, that's a pretty good indication that you've twisted yourself in a logic-knot over this.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Dec 13, 2014 7:43:01 GMT -5
You really don't see the difference between a soldier fighting for his country and the kind of person who doesn't mind torture? Or are you just defending the practice because it occurred in a Pub administration. Your posting history does suggest you're a hard-wired Pub partisan, so maybe that's it. People who torture, and who tolerate torture, aren't wired right in their heads. That question I keep asking you makes you uncomfortable as hell, doesn't it? Perhaps because if you get around to admitting you'd rather be waterboarded than killed, then you'll need to make an honest assessment of your thinking here. You know, as opposed to fooling yourself into believing that torture is somehow so beyond the pale it's worse than vaporizing someone (and the completely innocent people who may be standing next to them) with a hellfire missile. Stuff my posting history - that's entirely irrelevant to the question here. Instead of trying to distract yourself with my political views, THINK about why waterboarding is a problem to you, and outright killing people isn't. Because if you'd rather be waterboarded than shot with a missile, that's a pretty good indication that you've twisted yourself in a logic-knot over this. Let's not forget that what is being called torture is used on our special forces in training. The left wants to define any interrogation as torture and think they have the high ground, but they are OK with shooting missiles at unknown groups of people in the hopes that one of them is an enemy combatant. Under Bush we never had a other attack on US soil, and several which were foiled and became public, we don't know how many were foiled and kept secret so our enemies would not learn our methods. Under Obama we have had the Boston bombers, the Ft Hood terrorist, and probably other attacks that I don't know about. I don't classify the "enhanced" interrogation of as torture. If they were doing it to US citizens (true Americans not anchor babies) then there are laws that make that illegal, or the police would be using those techniques. To say that no intelligence was gained by these techniques is clearly a lie.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 13, 2014 8:07:01 GMT -5
There are only two types of people in this world. Those who want to mess with others and those who don't. I presume that the guys who rectally hydrate another human being are well compensated, and consider themselves to be civil servants ("thank you for your service"). Must be good work if you can get it. US tax dollars at work.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Dec 13, 2014 11:22:22 GMT -5
First, define "torture". What was enumerated in that "report" comes no where near "torture". It's Liberals, again, defining things down to the point they have no meaning, just to win political points. Wonder why not a single operative, or even manager from the CIA was even spoken to in imagining this "report"? Sure. If I don't want it done to me because it's painful or humiliating, it's torture. It sounds to me like you and Hillary have something in common: empathize with the enemy, not humiliate them (because that would be torture)...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 13, 2014 11:31:25 GMT -5
There are only two types of people in this world. Those who want to mess with others and those who don't. I presume that the guys who rectally hydrate another human being are well compensated, and consider themselves to be civil servants ("thank you for your service"). Must be good work if you can get it. US tax dollars at work. I'll ask you the same question I asked EY: If you had a choice between being rectally hydrated, or vaporized with a hellfire missile (possibly while surrounded by your family), which would you pick?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 13, 2014 11:57:15 GMT -5
That question I keep asking you makes you uncomfortable as hell, doesn't it? Perhaps because if you get around to admitting you'd rather be waterboarded than killed, But I never said that. You assumed it. Actually... I'd rather be cleanly killed than be in the hands of the kind of mentally damaged person who tortures. You won't believe that, but it's true. Because people who torture, and those who allow it are evil. And no one should want to fall into the hands of evil men.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 13, 2014 11:59:42 GMT -5
There are only two types of people in this world. Those who want to mess with others and those who don't. I presume that the guys who rectally hydrate another human being are well compensated, and consider themselves to be civil servants ("thank you for your service"). Must be good work if you can get it. US tax dollars at work. I'll ask you the same question I asked EY: If you had a choice between being rectally hydrated, or vaporized with a hellfire missile (possibly while surrounded by your family), which would you pick? Question: "What did you do in the war Daddy? Response: "Well gee, I strapped victims to a board and poured water down down their nose. And to break the monotony I would hang a guy upside down and pour liquids into his rectum" Then Daddy goes down to the VFW hall and swaps war stories with all the other intelligence people. What a culture. Some crafts are less useful than others I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 13, 2014 14:13:37 GMT -5
I'll ask you the same question I asked EY: If you had a choice between being rectally hydrated, or vaporized with a hellfire missile (possibly while surrounded by your family), which would you pick? Question: "What did you do in the war Daddy? Response: "Well gee, I strapped victims to a board and poured water down down their nose. And to break the monotony I would hang a guy upside down and pour liquids into his rectum" Then Daddy goes down to the VFW hall and swaps war stories with all the other intelligence people. What a culture. Some crafts are less useful than others I guess. How is that any better than "Well gee, I sat in a room 2000 miles away, and used a drone to blow up a suspected terrorist and all his wives and children?" At least the guy who poured water up someone's nose can also say "I got information out of him that allowed the Navy SEALS to capture Osama Ben Laden."
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 13, 2014 14:16:41 GMT -5
That question I keep asking you makes you uncomfortable as hell, doesn't it? Perhaps because if you get around to admitting you'd rather be waterboarded than killed, But I never said that. You assumed it. Actually... I'd rather be cleanly killed than be in the hands of the kind of mentally damaged person who tortures. You won't believe that, but it's true. Because people who torture, and those who allow it are evil. And no one should want to fall into the hands of evil men. Then why didn't you just say so? If you'd rather be vaporized than waterboarded then I think we can just stop taking you seriously on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 13, 2014 15:51:35 GMT -5
Then why didn't you just say so? If you'd rather be vaporized than waterboarded then I think we can just stop taking you seriously on this subject. I take it you would prefer to fall into the clutches of the kind of evil man who believes in torture, than? Not I.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 13, 2014 17:24:10 GMT -5
Then why didn't you just say so? If you'd rather be vaporized than waterboarded then I think we can just stop taking you seriously on this subject. I take it you would prefer to fall into the clutches of the kind of evil man who believes in torture, than? Not I. I understand you'd rather die than spend some time having something humiliating or painful done to you. Frankly, I find that strange. It's not as though we're talking about ripping out fingernails, or electrocuting genitals, or the rack, or the iron maiden.
|
|