CIA and Waterboarding

Saying that you support the presidents actions is admitting, although not so openly, that you support the same ideas. How could it not? If I were a presidential candidate, I wouldn't say that I support the presidents actions, because then that would mean I support torture... If I thought the current president was doing a lousy job running the country, I wouldn't back him up at all, not even to seem respectful. You can't be against torture, then turn around and say that the presidents actions were ok.


"Gorge W. Bush supports it and I support our President. We do it because it saves American lives.’ "

I don't see how something like that could be out of context, but anythings possible. Although, from what was presented in this topic, it seems pretty clear what he meant.

Sure, he states that he's against torture in press meetings, but can it be possible that he may be lying to save face?

 

"Gorge W. Bush supports it and I support our President. We do it because it saves American lives.’ "


Whoever the fuck made that comment, is an asshole, plain and simple.

How can you say, supporting President Bush saves American lives???

If supporting President Bush saved American lives, we wouldn't have 4000 fucking very dead American soldiers now.

 

But he doesn't wish to criminalize the activity?

 

Whether I was in favor of torture or not, if I became president tomorrow I would NOT go on a witch hunt to lock up young American soldiers who served their country. At least not with the type of interrogation technique in question (waterboarding, etc). If someone executed prisoners or sliced ears off of people's heads it would be a different story.

But as far as McCain's anti-torture stance, I think his desire to put a stop to it is enough. You don't need to go lock everyone up that poured water or took pictures of naked dog piles.

 

I definitely think that they should.

How many war crimes were committed simply because the soldiers were "taking orders".

 

Wow! A dog pile walking a dog!

:jester:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/24/080324fa_fact_gourevitch?printable=true

More about those photos.

 

You don't need to go lock everyone up that poured water or took pictures of naked dog piles.

Yeah, because if you bring war criminals to justice, you could mistakenly end up with a modern progressive democracy like Germany. And that's not the goal.

 

Violence will always come back and bite you in the ass.

How could they have served the country when all they did was perpetuate the cycle of violence?

 

So you're putting humiliating photographs and 3 credible reports of waterboarding...


On the same level as NAZI GERMANY which killed almost 6 MILLION Jews in an attempted genocide?



You people just can't resist making the Hitler comparison, can you? You make me sick.

 

Atrocities were committed at Abu Ghraib, atrocities were committed in Nazi Germany, I don't quite see how scale makes something any less disgusting.

 

That's true.
Whether one crushes an ant intentionally or one brutalizes another human being by torture is one and the same.

Both ant and human being want to live and avoid pain.

Therefore, there is no such thing as one action is less evil than another.
Violence, negative actions will only result in violence, negativity coming back to haunt the perpetrator, with greater force.

What goes around, comes around.

 

So you're putting humiliating photographs and 3 credible reports of waterboarding... On the same level as NAZI GERMANY which killed almost 6 MILLION Jews in an attempted genocide?

You're right. Turn all convicted murderers free then. Of course that's sarcasm.

You people just can't resist making the Hitler comparison, can you? You make me sick.

Hitler's actions led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. Bush's actions have so far only led to the deaths of "only" a few hundred thousand. But Bush hasn't left office yet, and we'll be paying in blood for his crimes for many years to come. Given that he has WMDs and the urge to use them, and a Bible telling him he'll be forgiven, he may yet go down in history as the greatest modern mass-murderer.

You people who defend torture and murder make me sick.

 

If each person busted for an indoor grow received anywhere near the attention of each person waterboarded then we would be somewhere. Its a phony issue.

 

Mate, as pro-legalization as I am, you can't possibly equate what'll likely end up as community service with torture. That's a bit narrow minded, it also comes off as a bit racist, seeing as you seem to be saying the basic human rights of a foreigner aren't equivalent to your right to grow some weed.

This is the sort of issue where legalization pales in comparison.

 

I would hardly equate being raped in prison with being waterboarded.


I would not also equate intent to bomb population centers with getting stoned.

 

You're unlikely to either even get prison, or get raped there. Not to mention the fact that you'll probably be quite popular in prison if you've got some supply you can get smuggled in.

The point of this thread is that there are quite a lot of people having this (and worse) done to them who have little to no evidence to suggest they're even conspiring to do any sort of damage at all.

I'd take a few months of prison over torture and no possibility of freedom any day.

 

I think one of the most genius "interrogations" was Ali Soufan's interview of Abu Jandal (one of bin Ladens bodyguard). There was no torture, in fact the opposite. Soufan treated him with respect, he was courtious, and Abu Jandal acknowledhed this. Early in the interrogation Soufan realized that his prisoner had been well trained in counter-interrogation tecqniques. His methods would seem very unorthadox to most, but they were very effective. On the second night of the interrogation Soufan brought sugarless wafers (he had remembered the day before that Abu Jandal had refused pastries because he was diabetic) and he also brought an American history lesson. The prisoner listened to Soufan talk in Arabic about the American Revolution. He was shocked to hear of the passionate struggle against tyranny that was part of the American heritage.

The conversation (that's right, an actual conversation during an interrogation) continued with a deep debate on Islam. Up until this point Abu Jandal had not known the extent of the 9/11 attacks until Soufan slammed a newspaper on the table that had pictures of the planes hitting the towers. He also displayed pictures of victims, the jumpers. "bin Laden did this" Soufan told him. Abu Jandal studied the pictures is awe. "God help us" he proclaimed. Soufan took out a photoalbum and told Abu Jandal to identify the men he knew. The men he knew, from the camps, were several of the hijackers. At one point in the interview Abu Jandal covered his face and said "I think the Sheikh went crazy". He went on to tell Soufan everything he knew.

This is a man who was hardened, trained in the art of resistance and counter-interrogation, doctrinated in militant Islam and one of al Qaida's most inner circle. In hours, an American Muslim FBI agent broke him, never raising his hand. I don't have time to search for a link where you can read about this interrogation in its entire, and honestly do not know if it has been released. It is quite interesting. While this situation is extraordinary, a combination of the right person at the right place at the right time, it shows that physical or extreme mental abuse is not always the most effective way. I know this post may have been choppy and I hope you can read the full story somewhere if you are interesed.

 

Saddam Hussein was "interrogated" much the same way. An FBI agent named George Piro got to know Hussein very well over the course of his face-to-face interviews with him. He called him "Mr. Hussein" and Hussein called him "Mr. George." Soon they started using first names only. Piro said he used a lot of subtle psychological techniques on Hussein, but all told the interviews were quite civil. And Piro supposedly got a lot of info from his new "pal."

An interesting study in what can be accomplished without torture.

Here's the 60 minutes story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

 

Hussein's interogation may have been held reasonably, but his trial was not.