Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Mental distress qualifies as torture.

This is when he knows he's safe, and he knows the "administrator" is not going to harm/kill him. Imagine how horrible it would be as a captive... brutal. I don't think I'd have to guts to try this.

just walking into the room would be enough for me to spill all requested beans. no water needed thanks.

i think its time for me to perform a waterboarding experiment.

I will post again once I have attempted it.

I tried to embed this directly from the Playboy site last night, without luck.

Apparently, I read somewhere that one of the Gitmo prisoners lasted something like 3 minutes. The waterboarders ("penis-cheesies" from this point on) were amazed that this person had lasted so long.

Any politician who claims waterboarding isn't torture should volunteer for one minute of this... on video.

It's only one minute... nothing like what we did to people in our custody. Lets see who can take it.

i held out for 12 seconds. very scary though, even in a controlled environment. nothing like i expected.

BS talk before hand, this IS torture. The only context in which this isn't torture is because the guy voluntarily asked for it to be done. Just because some people are into bondage and being whipped doesn't mean it isn't still torture to do it against someone's will.

>> ^deputydog:
just walking into the room would be enough for me to spill all requested beans. no water needed thanks.


And if you have no beans to spill?

That's why torture is scary, and 2/5ths of the reason we shouldn't use it.

Anyone else catch "drownding"?

How on earth can anyone think this isn't torture? Seriously, how?

>> ^robbersdog49:
How on earth can anyone think this isn't torture? Seriously, how?


I can only guess that the people who perform the act, and those that gave the orders, they have all done much, MUCH worse in the name of national security.

To us, this is torture, because it's horrible to behold, worse to endure. To the hooded guy in the video, this is play-school.

"We'll pretend to drown you to get you warmed up. If that doesn't work, then we'll really go to work on you."

Making a prisoner uncomfortable, afraid, freaking them out, or causing them to panic is a form of torture. BUT such methods cause no lasting damage, and it gets at 'the beans'. I don't have a problem with these methods.

Physical pain by inflicting damage to tissue, or causing permenant injury is another matter. That kind of torture I agree should be off limits by American servicemen. It isn't necessary, as this video clearly demonstrates, because you get get what you want from suspects without it.

I stridently disagree with the politically motivated attempt to lump all forms torture into the same bucket. That will embolden enemies, and deprive servicemen & intelligence officers of valuable tools needed to obtain important information.

There's bad people out there who want to do bad things. They know other bad people who also want to do bad things. When our servicemen catch these bad guys they need to have methods of applying pressure. If I was captured by enemy forces and I had vital data, I would expect to be pressured to give it up.

Now, I would much rather be waterboarded, played loud music, and shouted at than have my fingers crushed, my teeth knocked out, or otherwise be ACTUALLY tortured. I'm open to suggestions as to what methods you think would both (A) apply pressure and (B) NOT be considered 'torture'.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
> I don't have a problem with these methods.

so, we were wrong to prosecute a few japanese servicemen, for war crimes during WWII, for having waterboarded some american troops, then.

right, winston?

This was excellent. Ta

It is proven that information gained from coercion cannot be trusted. When someone will tell you anything at all to stop you from drowning them, how can you trust anything they say?

Winston?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Making a prisoner uncomfortable, afraid, freaking them out, or causing them to panic is a form of torture. BUT such methods cause no lasting damage, and it gets at 'the beans'.


I suppose you wouldn't consider PTSD as "lasting damage" either? Ask some war vets if they would trade it for physical pain... I think you'd be surprised at some of the answers.

As far as "the beans", you'll definitely get something out of them. I don' know much about interior decorating, but if I were tortured for information about it then I'm sure I could make something up to get them to stop. It may not be accurate, but it will be something.

You consider severe random panic attacks not to be lasting damage? Frequent night terrors? These are just two of hundreds of after effects of mental torture.

I'd rather have my fingers crushed. They will heal faster than your psyche.

We were wrong to prosecute a few japanese servicemen, for war crimes during WWII, for having waterboarded some american troops, then.

Kind of depends on the details. Waterboarding a random dogface several times a day for weeks on end when it is obvious they don't know jack is one thing. Doing it a few times to a known terrorist to get at information he is bragging about is quite another. All it takes is a little common sense.

It is proven that information gained from coercion cannot be trusted.

This is an unsupported appeal to generic authority, and I reject it. Convince with facts - not fallacies. Coerced intel isn't always reliable. But sometimes it is. Such methods are a tool to use carefully, soberly, and with due consideration by those tasked with protecting the country.

(OPINION ON)
I think this whole torture thing as it stands in today's media is manufactured. I think it only exists because there are some people who badly want to drum up legal action against members of the previous administration. Bush & Cheney greased out. Scooter Libby didn't end up with Cheney in jail. No one could come up with a valid reason for impeachment. The Iraq war was constitutional. But some people ferverently feel Bush/Cheney should be prosecuted for something... Enter 'torture.'

The debate has little to do with any real outrage against so-called 'abuses' to prisoners. Intelligence & military personnel have used these tactics for decades. But in 2005-6 suddenly 'torture' gets politically redefined to include waterboarding? I can smell rotton politics in parts per trillion, and this issue stinks at a 1/1 ratio.

Im not advocating torture, warterboarding, or anything of the sort. I want to point out though that you can not speak in objective terms with stuff like this. Waterboarding works by provoking fear and panic in the captive, which understandably can cause mental problems in the long run for some percentage of captives.

If you think about it though, even in your made-for-tv law shows what happens when they have a suspect? They start talking about them going to jail for life, maybe getting pegged as a snitch even if they're set free, maybe its just a longer jail sentence for not cooperating or confessing. Any one of these things is a possible cause of panic, especially if your innocent but being confronted with 20 years in jail for something you didn't do. Now would you argue that even threatening jail time could not POSSIBLY cause long term mental issues? Can you guarantee that everyone comes out of even routine interrogation without a nightmare/panic attack regarding it for the rest of their life? You might argue "but most people would be ok after such questioning" but what if 1% of people had a lasting nightmare or panic attack because of it, what percentage of people suffering side effects is ok or justifiable? Who decides that percentage and what side effects should be taken into account?

My point isnt that waterboarding is like normal interrogation, anyone with half a brain can see its a much more severe method of getting information out of someone and I personally would not want it to happen to anyone i know. But the point is if you say that you shouldn't use panic or fear to coerce confessions or information, then where do you draw your line? Is that line objectively justifiable to everyone? If its not, how do YOU defend where your line was drawn? Who ultimately should decide where that line lies?

And a very good point was brought up, what methods of getting someone to talk who otherwise doesn't want to talk has no harmful effects? Keep in mind i havent even addressed the topic of effectiveness and reliability of information.

So as with many issues that people argue about forever, you may identify that one thing is a problem (such as waterboarding or cutting limbs off) but what is the ultimate solution to the problem of:

How do I get needed information out of someone in a fair and humane way who otherwise does not want to give said information?

With CAREFUL scrutiny on the words fair and humane, which are both subjective terms (not to say I'm wishy washy on that topic, but id hazard a guess that you couldn't come up with a definition of said words that would be agreeable to every person in the US much less the world).

I spose even "Needed" is subjective, is it needed information when you're trying to find out if a suspected terrorist IS a terrorist? Or if the captive might have info on another person we have reasonable or specific intel stating that they are planning a terrorist attack that may kill 1, 5, 10, 100, 1000 people? Lets not forget the obvious and cliche question of, "would you have waterboarded a person if it meant you could have prevented 9/11?" How many peoples lives would need to hang in the balance before waterboarding is justifiable if at all? What about even worse torture? What would you be willing to do for intel that would prevent the detonation of a dirty bomb or small nuclear device in a major city?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
> It is proven that information gained from coercion cannot be trusted.
This is an unsupported appeal to generic authority, and I reject it. Convince with facts - not fallacies. Coerced intel isn't always reliable. But sometimes it is


Wait, what? Information gained from torture can be trusted because it is sometimes reliable?

If someone sometimes tells the truth, would you say they could be "trusted"?

I wonder if this is something you can be conditioned for and to what extent?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Making a prisoner uncomfortable, afraid, freaking them out, or causing them to panic is a form of torture. BUT such methods cause no lasting damage, and it gets at 'the beans'.

Does it really?

*nsfw lang

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by calvados.

*fear

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by calvados.

If it's just an interrogation technique than why do the "interrogators" hide their faces? Because it's FUCKING TORTURE YOU SHIT HEADS!

Water boarding simulates the sensation of drowning, probably the most horrific way to die.

As someone who has experienced drowning, watching videos like this make my skin crawl. And reading comments from fuck wits that support that shit make me want to scream.

Understanding your enemy's motivations will do more to prevent attacks than torturing people. But understanding might tarnish your bullshit jingoistic impression of how great it is to be an American!

If you are going to run your mouth about it, go lay down on a bench and try it yourself.

Put up or Shut up.

Anyone who wants to advocate that a) this isn't torture, or b) that it's worth it
- should by law have to endure a session of it before they are allowed to speak their ignorance.

Then they should have it done to them 4-5 times each day for months and see if they still stand by that claim.

Again, i havent said anything to support waterboarding or any form of torture. I can definately understand peoples opposition to this method or any in particular.

I do however get annoyed with comments such as those above that have no basis, reason, or contribution to the argument. Last time I checked, solitary confinement, full cavity searches, and many other unpleasent practices are completely accepted, so you can turn that same argument back on yourself, imstellar or raverman.

Do you support solitary confinement? Full cavity searches? how about using food stamps or waiting in line at a welfare office? Well if you havent experienced them first hand than you're too ignorant to have an opinion....seems like pretty dumb reasoning doesnt it?

Most of us havent experienced the unpleasantness of our penal system because we havent committed crimes to warrant it. Many of us haven't experienced many things that people go through on a daily basis that might range from uncomfortable to downright demeaning. Does that mean that we have no basis to form an opinion about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of said things?

I've never experienced having my hand smashed with a hammer, but I can say I completely disagree with its use in interrogation. I also haven't experienced a true "good cop, bad cop" routine, but i have no problem with its use in interrogation.

I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that waterboarding would be a horrible experience, even those who support its use in interrogation can not deny that. So please ease up on the "if u support it then u should have to live through it" cause its very hypocritical unless you dont support any type of negative system in our county that you haven't experienced first hand.

Oh and if anyone is curious, yes i have experienced almost drowning, being held under in a pooly bya cousin playing "Jaws" as a kid and even today I can still remember that it was a horrible experience I'd rather not relive, and I can also say I haven't had any nightmares or long term problems from it. Does that mean my opinion for or against waterboarding carries any more weight? Absolutely not.

Ah yes, the "It's for the best interests of our nation" defense Pennypacker, that's original.

Funny how that defense (along with "just following orders") didn't hold up at the Nuremburg trials.

No matter how many ways you ratonalise it, this is torture. Torture is wrong. There is no way to justify it. The fact that you spout on about justification before denial pretty much means your denial is bunk, you're already admitting you're on board with it.

But hey, here's a test. Video yourself getting water boarded WPP to show just how "non-torture" it is. I'm sure you'll last five minutes and the torture... err, nice guy with the bottle of water will make you tea and scones afterwards...

Terrible argument pennypacker, i'd chip in on the debunk but everyone's doing such a good job..

I'll say this though;
There is no argument about whether this is torture or not. It is. No one can debate or argue their way out of that, this is torture as accepted.

You can sit at a PC and speculate with your crew cut and your reflective sunglasses and a gun slung over your shoulder with a roadkill cooking nicely on the stove, but take a few seconds to take the word of experts. People who have done it, and people who have had it done, people who deal with torturous acts on a regular basis, people who know how to classify human acts:

"It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions."
-- Wikipedia, please visit the site and check the sources yourself.

I think the difference here is flat out ignorance. You have been raised in such a way as to not consider to the fullest extent the impact of your actions on other people (or perhaps certain types of people who you don't class as people). The end result of which is that, whilst i can imagine what it's like, and feel the terror of being tortured on a regular basis for something i don't know, you can't even come close.

"During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[64] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[65]"
-- Wikipedia.

Now go and tell your precious war veterans that you salute to your flag every morning on your crisply cut lawn that they didn't suffer torture of any real kind you cunt.

How the hell does one "invoke blood"? Twat

I would think that I could hold out for exactly as long as I could hold my breath. Plus the added strain of being captive. Maybe 30 seconds? I'll have to get my wife in on this and find out.

upvote for 'had that before'

Funny how that defense (along with "just following orders") didn't hold up at the Nuremburg trials.

Now that you’ve officially Godwin-ed the thread, does it mean the space/time continuum is about to collapse? How about this? Barak Obama yesterday said that he was “not going to hold agents responsible for following orders…” How does it make you feel to know that Obama believes the Nuremburg defense is valid?

No matter how many ways you ratonalise it, this is torture. Torture is wrong. There is no way to justify it.

I already said that waterboarding is torture. If you thought otherwise then you are mistaken. But I disagree with your generic comment that ‘torture is wrong’. You can only make such a statement when you have supplied the EXACT definition of what torture is. If you leave the word vague and fuzzy then it could mean anything. The act of confining someone involuntarily is torture, but I wouldn’t say it was ‘wrong’.

Broad, sweeping generalizations go nowhere. Define what you consider to be an acceptable form of pressure to obtain intel from uncooperative detainees. Explain how your choice is not torture.

There is no argument about whether this is torture or not...blah blah blah...you $%&!

Read what I wrote. I already said WB is torture. Your lack of the ability to comprehend a VERY simple and clear statement is not a sign of my ignorance. Just so you can't miss it, I'll say it again. Waterboarding is torture. As a form of torture it is both effective while at the same time being relatively benign. It is scary, panic inducing, freak-out horrifying – but causes no damage. CIA says waterboarding terrorists helped to prevent attacks in Los Angeles. Hundreds, maybe thousands of lives saved and all we had to do is waterboard a guy like Zubaydah. I call that a pretty good deal.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
I would think that I could hold out for exactly as long as I could hold my breath. Plus the added strain of being captive. Maybe 30 seconds? I'll have to get my wife in on this and find out.


Watch the video and notice that the masked dude explains that holding your breath does no good.

133 times for 20 minutes each. need i say more????

The question that should be asked on "Is it torture" should be: Would it be torture if the Taliban or Al-Qaeda used waterboarding on service members to find out when the next air strike, or military strike would be.

If they did the same thing to US/NATO forces, for the purpose of getting information to save Taliban or Al-Qaeda fighters, is that torture?

Imo, it is torture, and a lot of this debate has to do with perspective.

The only valid question is "What level of torture is acceptable?" A purist says, "NO level!" I think such a broad statement is a dodge to avoid specificity. Anything can be torture when it is deliberately applied to an unwilling subject - even simple confinement.

The reasons why someone is tortured are important when determining what is justified - degree also. 'Unacceptable' torture is done for kicks, spite, cruelty, or revenge and/or causes permenant injury. 'Acceptable' saves lives, protects national interests, and only goes as far as to make the subject uncomfortable, scared, or tired.

That gives me a fair framework to judge different examples. Waterboarding to get intel that saves lives = OK. Beating the crap out of guys who clearly know squat = bad.

What I don't think is logical is to expect all sides of a conflict to plunk prisoners in comfy rooms to wait until the fight is over. Captured personnel have intel that is valuable, and it is not illogical to expect that those prisoners will be questioned. And it is also not unrealistic to expect that UNWILLING subjects will have pressure applied to them to surrender the intel.

^By your standards then, we could torture anyone we wish until they give up all their assets to provide nationalized health care, because it meets all your requirements for "Acceptable" use of torture.

Face it, you and your ilk would rather rationalize torturing, fighting, and killing our "enemies"; than to admit that we created this problem, that we have the tools to fix it, and yet we refuse to be the better people and reach out to end this nonsense. You just cling to the myth that "they hate us for our freedoms." No, they hate us because of people like YOU.

Face it, you and your ilk would rather rationalize torturing, fighting, and killing our "enemies"; than to admit that we created this problem, that we have the tools to fix it, and yet we refuse to be the better people and reach out to end this nonsense. You just cling to the myth that "they hate us for our freedoms." No, they hate us because of people like YOU.

I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.

As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.

So did the guy get paid or what?

Winstonfield_Pennypacker, I can't help but feel you are nothing but a parody trying to come across as serious.

While I appreciate your acceptance of waterboarding being torture, your semantic approach to the definition of torture is cowardice at best, but much more likely just plain foolish. Whether torture achives information cannot justify it. At least not to a civilized nation.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.

^ It's BaraCk.

Oh, and you are putting effort into rationalizing or justifying the use of waterboarding.

Why? Because you're in the CIA and have years of direct experience with the reliability of the practice? Because you're a member of Al Qaeda or Hamas and have been doing this for decades?

Or just because you're awash with propaganda from people who're no better than Al Qaeda or Hamas, and think there's good reason to treat people this way because, well, we're the good guys, and they're not, and that's true no matter how we behave?

This isn't about its practicality, it's not about whether other people do it, it's not about some mythical dichotomy between diplomacy and torture, and it sure as shit isn't about liberal vs. conservative.

This is about the humans vs. inhuman monsters in human-shaped bodies. Way I see it, you and Al Qaeda are on the same level of moral reasoning; torture is okay because it helps you achieve your goals.

Find another cause to fight for.

I used to suck the water out of my washcloth as a small child. I realize that's gross now, but that's what I would do to counteract this attack.

I'm sure Daniel Pearl would've preferred to be waterboarded. Unfortunately he's not available for comment due to muslim savages, whom, "we in the US are no better than."

Give it up, libs. There's been no needle on your moral compass for 40 YEARS.

Torture is listening to liberal talk radio, another event no one can do for 10 seconds.

BONUS QUESTION: Why is the Obamessiah's clever tactic of PEACE THROUGH WEAKNESS having no effect on our enemies?

I think I'm going to try this out.

Gentleman, easiest fallacy in the book this one. It's the slippery slope; if it is OK to waterboard someone if you KNOW he has information, then why stop there ? If it is going to save thousands of lives, why not chop off some fingers?
Elecrocution ? This is physical punishment, in that you're inducing an involuntary reflex. Drawing blood is a RETARDED definition at the line of torture.

Some people are wasting a lot of brain cells and research to prove weirdly obscure points about torture.

Someone needs to link the sift of the CIA interregator who went on record saying in 20 years he's never seen torture get reliable intel, while subtle manipulation through conversation has been by far the most effective.

I always think of this quote whenever people think the 'Jack Bauer' technique is a real thing:

"Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power’s disappearance." - Hannah Arendt

DROWNED-ING

Whether torture achives information cannot justify it. At least not to a civilized nation.

I gave a framework of acceptable pressure. Everyone else mouths platitudes. ANYTHING is torture if you are doing it to an unwilling subject - including puppy lickings, and force-feeding doughnuts. The cop-out of 'no torture wah!' is a dodge to avoid being specific, and I reject it because no alternative is being offered.

DEFINE what you consider to be an acceptable level of pressure to apply to captured subjects who have intel and are non-cooperative. Until one of you can supply an alternative to 'torture' then you have no case. Specifically, and clearly state what you would do. Then explain why your choice ISN'T torture. If you can't do this, then I dismiss your objections as emotive reactionism.

I said "we created 'this' problem",

Your lack antecedents is poor communication, not my lack of comprehension. I was supposed to deduce from one word (this) that you were talking about Afghanistan circa 1980s? :eyeroll:

Regardless, your selective history seems to be little more than talking points from MoveOn.stupid. "Islamofascism" existed long before the 1980s. America's very first venture into international affairs was a result of radical islamic attacks on private citizens. Please detail what foreign policy offenses the United States had committed in the late 1700s which caused our citizens to be the targets of islamofacists in the First Barbary War...

You do not have my depth of historical perspective perhaps, which makes your opinion amusing and quaint. Your assertion that radical Islamic terrorism 'began' as a result of the lack of follow through in Afghanistan is almost cute in its ignorance.

I would put it to you that you have failed in step 1 of developing a proper understanding of a subject. You started with a conclusion (America created terrorism!) and then you opted to cherry-pick isolated historical examples from baised sources which tangentally appear to support your conclusion. This is a common failure of simple, abecedarian thinkers. I am pleased to open the wider world of proper critical thinking to your inexperienced view.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations.

You speak as if we stopped having that power. America remains the single largest charitable donor to 3rd world nations. We improve the quality of life for millions. Don't be so blind to the many good things America does. You don't like 'the Bush war' or other policy mess-ups? Fine. But to say America's power to help people is 'in the past' is a stupid thing to say and shows incredible ignorance or incredible bias (pick one).

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
> It is proven that information gained from coercion cannot be trusted.
This is an unsupported appeal to generic authority, and I reject it. Convince with facts - not fallacies. Coerced intel isn't always reliable. But sometimes it is

Wait, what? Information gained from torture can be trusted because it is sometimes reliable?
If someone sometimes tells the truth, would you say they could be "trusted"?



This deserves repeating

WP and QM can sqwak all they want about how awesome it is to torture (brown) people. But they are in the very very slim minority.

Sure, there are a few dumbfucks in congress and in the punditocracy who just love torturing people. But they are just a few. They are the ones who think of Dick Cheney as heroic, and mentally masturbate over the worst images out of Abu Ghraib.

Remember the videos of those Russian kids who were torturing animals and worked their way up to humans? This is who QM and WPP look up to.


No need to debate the in-human and witless about something like this.

WP and QM can sqwak all they want about how awesome it is to torture (brown) people. But they are in the very very slim minority.

Is anyone still falling for this liberal-commie race card BULLSHIT? Sorry, dawg, "Black" President. No more racism! But for the record, there are not a few Chinese spies I would also love to see strapped to the board...but the chi-comms just don't have the time, they're to busy setting up sweetheart deals for the spouse-owned companies of scum like Diane Feinstink.

I didn't enjoy watching people jump to their deaths off the WTC, and if some piece of excrement whose humanity ended the day he decided killing innocents would futher "THE CAUSE" gets a gallon of water up his nose to disclose the next attack, I'll be the first to crank out the garden hose.

Some "experts" claim torture never works, some say it DOES work. Even as Obamarx further weakens national security in his attempt to revive Bush Derangement Syndrome by releasing classified documents, large sections of text are blacked out. Could it be "torture" actually worked to prevent some further attacks?

Don't look to a lawless cult of personality like Obama for truth, here or anywhere else.

It's the same modus operandi as the global warmist hoaxers: keep the data that supports the pre-made conclusion, throw the rest out.

Pacifism is moral cowardice. Tell your kollij perfessers!

NOW WILL EVERYBODY JUST HOLD ON?

...this was produced by Playboy?

I've been wondering what the hell they've been up to since their readership got the Internet and, gosh, I don't know, got a pension.
I guess making "torture or not torture" videos is their thing now.
Still, w-t-f.

This deserves repeating

So does this...

Information is either (A) accurate or (B) not. An individual piece of intelligence obtained from a suspect is either reliable or unreliable. A specific person can yield MANY pieces of information - any one of which can be either reliable or unreliable. Some data will be accuate. Some will not.

It is simplistic to a deplorable degree to make such absolutist claims about a person's accuracy. Yet that flawed corner is the exact place occupied by persons who take the preposterous position that a person can either be 'trusted' or 'not'...

Such a standard dictates that when any person EVER says something even vaguely inaccurate that they must be categorized as 'untrustworthy'. That includes everyone you know unless you can somehow prove they have never said anything someone else 'couldn't trust'.

But of course, I don't believe those of you making such statements really mean what you're saying. You only want to apply such a preposterous, ludicrous rigor of accuracy to this particular issue (intel acquisition). In other venues you are much more willing to acknowledge that people can give both good and bad information.

The methods used to obtain intel from terrorists gather tons of information. Some of it is good. Some of it isn't. Only a moron-idiot-fool would say that it is ALL accurate or ALL inaccurate.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.