>> ^imstellar28:
soldiers who commit war crimes are just "following orders" you'd have to be a "jackass" to confront them about it, you don't have any business complaining to anyone except the president.

Actually, in this case it's more like going to the local IRS branch and "confronting" the clerks there, and accusing them of being guilty for what was done in Guantanamo by people who aren't them, and who aren't answerable to them.

Logic fail.

This is a bit like calling up the GE home appliance support line to accuse the guy who answers of being a murderer because he works for GE, and GE built the engines that are used on the aircraft that bring supplies to Guantanamo, so therefore he may as well have waterboarded detainees to death with his own two hands.

This isn't a case of accepting the Nuremberg defense, the "I'm only following orders" defense. This is the "I didn't do anything illegal or immoral, directly or indirectly, now get out of the way, please, I have other customers waiting" defense.

You want the law changed, and for taxes to end? Great, best of luck on that. How is harassing people in the county clerk's office going to accomplish that?

Thanks buddy!

In reply to this comment by lavoll:
water treatment. what else can we call it. wetted the prisoners. watered them. gave them water. i think i will have to go
"we used water to rinse out the dirty inforomation from the terrorists".

and *promote orwellianisms

>> ^quantumushroom: Sorry. I respectfully disagree. Can't hide a proposed moral stance behind secrets of national security.

So you are arguing that all scientific studies about truth telling under duress, and false confessions have been cooked by the Democrats?

Science is no longer apolitical, if it ever was. Lies about secondhand smoke killing 50,000 people per year and gloBULL warming scares have proved this well enough.

Obama can solidify your hypothesis about torture never providing valuable information by releasing all pertinent Gitmo waterboarding data. He hasn't. WHY? He only has a 1 in 3 chance of being proven wrong.

I don't really care if the CIA thinks that torture is effective ( they seem to be taking the opposite position, but that is equally irrelevant ). I am asking for evidence that torture, studied under scientific controls, as a system of extracting usable information, works on humans. The evidence I have seen strongly suggests it does not.

Well, as I've said many times, and probably will again, these captured folks are not enemy soldiers and therefore deserve no military/legal protection, possibly with the exception of those not caught outright fighting against US troops on the battlefield. I'd rather the ones still out there not be reassured that they won't be tortured if captured.

If you seriously believe torture "doesn't work" then you might find yourself agreeable to the idea that we not go through the trouble of bringing these clowns to "jail" for 3 hots and a cot, and instead simply kill the bastards where we find them, as brutally as possible. That might deter a few of the next "martyrs".

It's easy to understand why the "liberals" feel the way they do about torture when you take the number of innocent people that were tortured and you put yourself in their situation. You're minding your own business and you get picked up, without habeas corpus being extended to you, and are interrogated ruthlessly for information that you do not have. Not only is this wrong and archaic, it may "make" enemies that were indifferent before. If you were picked up by a bunch of Muslim extremists, would you not be willing to do whatever it took to get back at that group? Now imagine if your only education told you that every Muslim extremist represents the ideals of a certain country. You'd wanna want to be a part in hurting that country.

You (and Holder) forgot one small detail: only three of the Gitmo captives were waterboarded. If we were waterboarding for "our pleasure" in inflicting torture, we would've done it to every last one of them.

I accept the risk of picking up innocents in the pursuit of potentially saving the lives of millions. The recidivism rate of Gitmo scum who were scum before being captured and after is far higher than that of supposed innocents turned into extremists.

For those that think there will never be a suitcase nuke scenario: computers once took up the size of whole rooms, now they fit in a palm. It may take 80 years or more, but creation of a nuke even the size of tackle box is certainly viable. It's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.


I challenge you to provide ANY evidence to the contrary. Lots of psychological studies have been done on false confessions and truth telling under duress, please give us a reference that even suggests that your entire premise is not a load of bullshit.

Sorry. I respectfully disagree. Can't hide a proposed moral stance behind secrets of national security. I could be wrong, but when the communocrats threatened to release sensitive info on Gitmo "torture", Cheney urged them on, possibly because there is evidence waterboarding works. When Obamarx was threatened with having to tell the whole story, he dropped the issue.

How do you figure it would not help? Building rapport often takes months.

We don't have months. That argument doesn't fly. Your options are to use "enhanced interrogation" to get the information out of him or say goodbye to your family. Waterboarding him isn't a guaranty, but it'll give you a chance at saving your family.

>> ^gwiz665:
I would still not torture, because it would not help. I would have someone who is not me, because I'm emotionally invested, to get him to talk by "friendly" means. Getting a rapport, so he would want to tell the truth.
When people say, "well we've tried everything else, next on the list is torture" then they have failed. If they have tried all else, then torture will not get them anything useful. They failed.

>> ^quantumushroom:
AG Eric Holder tried and failed to prosecute waterboarding as torture. It goes something like this: Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training, with the goals of building resistance and familiarity with enemy forces that might do it. Navy SEALS were not waterboarded with the goal of inflicting permanent damage. The Sheikh subjected to waterboarding was ALSO not being injured with a goal of inflicting permanent damage; his waterboarding was done to gain valuable intelligence.
Is there a liberal with the nerve to tell the survivors and families of victims of a terrorist attack, "Sorry, since we don't torture captives, we had no way of knowing about the imminent attack."? Because that's the true result to which s/he should be held accountable.
Liberalism thrives on justifying anti-common sense from the darker edges of morally gray areas. It's preposterous to me that on this one issue (torture), the liberal movement, as it were, claims to be rocksteady, while at the same time unlawfully bestowing legal protections reserved for legitimate soldiers on savages fighting under no country's flag, who violate all the rules of warfare.
Despite what moral relativists claim, it is entirely possible for a human being to commit savage acts which forfeit all his rights to humane treatment, the protection of laws, and life itself.

It's easy to understand why the "liberals" feel the way they do about torture when you take the number of innocent people that were tortured and you put yourself in their situation. You're minding your own business and you get picked up, without habeas corpus being extended to you, and are interrogated ruthlessly for information that you do not have. Not only is this wrong and archaic, it may "make" enemies that were indifferent before. If you were picked up by a bunch of Muslim extremists, would you not be willing to do whatever it took to get back at that group? Now imagine if your only education told you that every Muslim extremist represents the ideals of a certain country. You'd wanna want to be a part in hurting that country.

AG Eric Holder tried and failed to prosecute waterboarding as torture. It goes something like this: Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training, with the goals of building resistance and familiarity with enemy forces that might do it. Navy SEALS were not waterboarded with the goal of inflicting permanent damage. The Sheikh subjected to waterboarding was ALSO not being injured with a goal of inflicting permanent damage; his waterboarding was done to gain valuable intelligence.

Is there a liberal with the nerve to tell the survivors and families of victims of a terrorist attack, "Sorry, since we don't torture captives, we had no way of knowing about the imminent attack."? Because that's the true result to which s/he should be held accountable.

Liberalism thrives on justifying anti-common sense from the darker edges of morally gray areas. It's preposterous to me that on this one issue (torture), the liberal movement, as it were, claims to be rocksteady, while at the same time unlawfully bestowing legal protections reserved for legitimate soldiers on savages fighting under no country's flag, who violate all the rules of warfare.

Despite what moral relativists claim, it is entirely possible for a human being to commit savage acts which forfeit all his rights to humane treatment, the protection of laws, and life itself.

>> ^blankfist:
Waterboarding carried out by the government is wrong in any circumstance, because they're representing all of us when they do it. To me it's an easy issue.
The arguments that say 'what if it can be used to stop a massive attack on the US' are a fallacy, because you don't know if those techniques would prevent an attack unless you use them. What if you do use them and you weren't able to stop an attack? What then?



<Devil's Advocate> Well, some would say that you were morally justified under the circumstances. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that there is a 'ticking time-bomb' justifies the use of torture.

What if we were talking about executing somebody to save lives? If you could order the death of Osama Bin Laden knowing that it would thwart countless terrorist attacks in the future, would you do it? Most would say 'yes.' Now, what if you could save those same lives by torturing Bin Laden? </Devil's Advocate>

I don't think that torture is moral, but I don't think it's as black and white as some people believe it is.

Waterboarding carried out by the government is wrong in any circumstance, because they're representing all of us when they do it. To me it's an easy issue.

The arguments that say 'what if it can be used to stop a massive attack on the US' are a fallacy, because you don't know if those techniques would prevent an attack unless you use them. What if you do use them and you weren't able to stop an attack? What then?

It's like listening to someone waterboard logic.

If the conservative movement wants to know why they will lost (hardcore I might add), in 2012....watch this video. These are your 'intelligent' and 'wise' supporters. Maybe we should add this one to the long list of republican/conservative idiots to waterboard.

She's against a national health care system on the grounds that someone isn't profitting on her good/bad health. Individuals like this girl, will learn in life, what a foolish idea it is not to have a national health care system. Mr. Obama's system looks like, if an individual wishs private health care provider, that's fine. His system is a sort of 'safety net', or dare I say it....a bench mark or standard by which other health care providers would have to meet. I guess she doesnt want quality health care for herself the next time she's a 'guest' at the emergency room....

>> ^demon_ix:
I can't believe that after his shameful conduct with Olbermann's waterboarding challenge, he still has a TV show...


Hannity gets lots of viewers, so until that changes he isn't going anywhere.

He certainly isn't stupid though. In fact, I'd say he's quite intelligent. I'm not convinced he believes everything he says, but he is very skilled at directing conversation to where he wants it to take place.

I don't particularly like the job he does, but I must admit he does it fairly well (attracting viewers).

well, this should tell you, that the IQ level of the average conservative/republican is that of pond scum. To retarded to know how to use that lump, three feet above their behind. But, these are the same people, that have lots of guns.

The upper 1% of the republican party, plays the other 99% for a pack of fools. But the 99% will not listen to the liberals or moderates. After all, what do we know about truth and lies?

Hannity should be waterboarded on principle alone. And done so, long after he's thrashing around like an animal. And we we stop, we ask if its torture. When he says 'no', we just waterboard him again and again.

I can't believe that after his shameful conduct with Olbermann's waterboarding challenge, he still has a TV show...

Maybe if he keeps repeating himself a few more times, it'll be true.

Well, AG Eric 'Peanut Head' Holder tried to make waterboarding = torture and failed spectacularly.

You don't know this because the drive-by media liars would never dare report it.

Liz FTW.