CIA Waterboarded Mohammed 183X in 1 Month, Zubaydah 83X in 1 month

[BioDefenseGrad]

This reminds me of a book written in 2006 by a gay white man which asked why the civil rights movement had come off the rails. He said that he had made excuses for it for years, but it finally dawned on him that there were a substantial number of black supremacists who were using the cloak of the civil rights movement to pass a narrow agenda.

One of the differences between infighting in the civil rights movement and this situation with waterboarding is that the muslims I'm talking about sympathize and in some cases give material support to people who want to kill us. With the rise of arab-nationalism and pan-islamic state mixed with the modern liberal concept of global south versus global north, even only nominal muslims can devise justification for supporting terrorists.


They remain suspect the way German Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americans (in fact while the mistreatment of Japanese-Americans had no merit, Muslims in the West have done much, much worse) were during World War II. The way Jewish Americans have been since the Pollard,Ben-Ami, Rosen AIPAC scandals.

Is anyone disputing the additions made to the security packets that Jewish Americans are filling out when applying for security clearances? No, because so many Jewish Americans have been caught or investigated for spying for Israel that the government has had to make provisions.

 

[Hot Mega]

[/B]

I'm glad you are aware of "us against them" airheads, because your side is being used by some folks who Do NOT have loyalty to the U.S. at heart. All it takes is getting them out of their proper headspace and timing for their true motivations to come out. Taqfiris won't tell you the truth, it always warms my blackheart when someone slips up and lets everyone know what they are really all about.

Your points are becoming increasing more sieve-like. You might have a point if we hadn't banned water boarding long before we ever had a beef with Muslim extremists.

War while sometimes necessary, is never a good thing for parties involved. There have been tens maybe hundreds of thousand innocent people killed. If it is the case that some of these people have heartburn about Muslims being killed, couldn't they just have a genuine humanitarian gripe with it like some, other non Muslims do?

I dare not question someone's patriotism who refute claims on the simple grounds of their heritage especially when their objections are not only common with a majority of other objections but are in standing with legal and moral precedence.

 

[D-rock]

That would do credit to any 12 year old in Sunday school being encouraged to have an opinion...

Running with the puppies...:rofl:

Do you even have a logical train of though anymore,...seriously? Or do you just now make quasi-veiled insults? You sure don't do your position on this subject any favors. While I disagree with somebody like Georges and don't think he does a good job at it, at least he tries.




The pro-torture people on here make even less sense as time goes on. It's like they go down ever further obscure, convoluted, or irrational arguments to try to justify and rationalize something to themselves that's impossible for them to make true. When one has neither the ethical, moral, or logical high ground, and your trying to support a position that's wrong, further grasping at whatever you can grab a hold of is not going to make your position any more sound. Sometimes I wonder who they are trying to convince, us…or themselves.

I also know this is a loaded question but to turn around something I think MeesterPefect said about protecting your own child (which was also a loaded question), I wonder if you had a child that was in the military, was fighting against people you perceived to be your enemies, or was at the wrong place at the wrong time and your enemies got a hold of him and thought they could save more of their own lives by using torture to get information out of them, and they thought your child was a bad person, is it ok for them to go ahead and do so? I have a hard time thinking that most, or almost any, of the pro-torture people would feel it was alright. Also remember that if you bitching at the rest of us for using morals or ethics in determining that torture is never right you can't rightly, without being incredible hypocrites, use those same factors in determining that this situation is wrong either.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Your points are becoming increasing more sieve-like. You might have a point if we hadn't banned water boarding long before we ever had a beef with Muslim extremists.

War while sometimes necessary, is never a good thing for parties involved. There have been tens maybe hundreds of thousand innocent people killed. If it is the case that some of these people have heartburn about Muslims being killed, couldn't they just have a genuine humanitarian gripe with it like some, other non Muslims do?

I dare not question someone's patriotism who refute claims on the simple grounds of their heritage especially when their objections are not only common with a majority of other objections but are in standing with legal and moral precedence.

From what I've heard, the Obama Administration banned waterboarding (in fact leaving a loophole in case circumstances arise where it may be deemed useful) for it's administration. The Bush administration obviously interpreted the duties of the president to include waterboarding. We would have banned waterboarding of soldiers, but enemy combatants are in legal limbo, almost uncharted waters, WHICH IS WHY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is stuck with having to repeat the SAME tactics of the previous administration.

It's not illegal, there really is no precedent for dealing with "enemy combatants." Take a look at what President Obama has done recently, reauthorizing military tribunals, rethinking the timeline for the closing of Guantanamo, rethinking the release of certain photos the ACLU (the legal team saying soldiers be damned is lead by a Muslim-American btw, going back to my earlier point about motivation) had petitioned for.

Unless the president is just trying to inoculate himself from the potential consequences, it looks like the Obama administration is coming to the same conclusion as the Cheney administration in how to deal with people captured and detained. He's introducing standards of evidence that will make it more difficult to convict these people, but all that may do is lengthen the time these folks are in custody, and he's made HOLDING individuals a separate matter from convicting these people. So some of these folks who we have good reason to believe are terrorists but who were caught under certain circumstances may remain in detention indefinitely.


Would anyone admit that there's a possibility that they could be WRONG?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Your points are becoming increasing more sieve-like. You might have a point if we hadn't banned water boarding long before we ever had a beef with Muslim extremists.

War while sometimes necessary, is never a good thing for parties involved. There have been tens maybe hundreds of thousand innocent people killed. If it is the case that some of these people have heartburn about Muslims being killed, couldn't they just have a genuine humanitarian gripe with it like some, other non Muslims do?

I dare not question someone's patriotism who refute claims on the simple grounds of their heritage especially when their objections are not only common with a majority of other objections but are in standing with legal and moral precedence.

From what I've heard, the Obama Administration banned waterboarding (in fact leaving a loophole in case circumstances arise where it may be deemed useful) for it's administration. The Bush administration obviously interpreted the duties of the president to include waterboarding. We would have banned waterboarding of soldiers, but enemy combatants are in legal limbo, almost uncharted waters, WHICH IS WHY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is stuck with having to repeat the SAME tactics of the previous administration.

It's not illegal, there really is no precedent for dealing with "enemy combatants." Take a look at what President Obama has done recently, reauthorizing military tribunals, rethinking the timeline for the closing of Guantanamo, rethinking the release of certain photos the ACLU (the legal team saying soldiers be damned is lead by a Muslim-American btw, going back to my earlier point about motivation) had petitioned for.

Unless the president is just trying to inoculate himself from the potential consequences, it looks like the Obama administration is coming to the same conclusion as the Cheney administration in how to deal with people captured and detained. He's introducing standards of evidence that will make it more difficult to convict these people, but all that may do is lengthen the time these folks are in custody, and he's made HOLDING individuals a separate matter from convicting these people. So some of these folks who we have good reason to believe are terrorists but who were caught under certain circumstances may remain in detention indefinitely.

Also, it may be common with the majority of those raising objections, but it's not common with the majority of Americans. It's common with a minority of Americans, and within that minority there are people there are also people who want to see Americans/Westerners/the Global North punished for the audacity to defend themselves against the righteous Muslim/Global South. Add in the fact that the dhimmis don't know their place and offend the Dignity of the Ummah, and that means everything is on the table for taqfiris to use the infidel's laws against them. It's part of their deen to use Taqiyya.

Would anyone admit that there's a possibility that they could be WRONG?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Do you even have a logical train of though anymore,...seriously? Or do you just now make quasi-veiled insults? You sure don't do your position on this subject any favors. While I disagree with somebody like Georges and don't think he does a good job at it, at least he tries.




The pro-torture people on here make even less sense as time goes on. It's like they go down ever further obscure, convoluted, or irrational arguments to try to justify and rationalize something to themselves that's impossible for them to make true. When one has neither the ethical, moral, or logical high ground, and your trying to support a position that's wrong, further grasping at whatever you can grab a hold of is not going to make your position any more sound. Sometimes I wonder who they are trying to convince, us…or themselves.

I also know this is a loaded question but to turn around something I think MeesterPefect said about protecting your own child (which was also a loaded question), I wonder if you had a child that was in the military, was fighting against people you perceived to be your enemies, or was at the wrong place at the wrong time and your enemies got a hold of him and thought they could save more of their own lives by using torture to get information out of them, and they thought your child was a bad person, is it ok for them to go ahead and do so?[/B] I have a hard time thinking that most, or almost any, of the pro-torture people would feel it was alright. Also remember that if you bitching at the rest of us for using morals or ethics in determining that torture is never right you can't rightly, without being incredible hypocrites, use those same factors in determining that this situation is wrong either.

They were already doing that years before American operators captured their first terrorist/holy warrior/patriot/nutcase.

If this were happening to Chinese and Russian soldiers, your point would be stronger.

I'll also say that all of the veterans I know are pro-torture, with the exception of one, and his reasoning is closer to Mr. Soufan's technical explanation than anything else. I have heard a few chicks from ROTC going on about how bad it is, but they haven't even gotten their commisions yet, and the majority of them will be administrative officers, far away from the battlefield.

 

[Facetious]

Mobilize The so called Oppressed !
Is what it's really about.
:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

[Facial_King]

They were already doing that years before American operators captured their first terrorist/holy warrior/patriot/nutcase.

If this were happening to Chinese and Russian soldiers, your point would be stronger.

I'll also say that all of the veterans I know are pro-torture, with the exception of one, and his reasoning is closer to Mr. Soufan's technical explanation than anything else. I have heard a few chicks from ROTC going on about how bad it is, but they haven't even gotten their commisions yet, and the majority of them will be administrative officers, far away from the battlefield.

You just made D-Rock's point for him.

As for the specific points you made, in your first paragraph, you seem to be directly endorsing a lowest-common-denominator approach. However low the enemy might go, we must follow suit. Why not have some True American Patriot hijack one of their commercial airliners full of passengers and fly it into some office building in (pick your country with a predominantly Islamic population)?

In your 2nd paragraph you appear to be hinting at the old "They're not uniformed combatants!" canard (it's old, and still lame). Well, they're still the identified enemy in the Global War on Terror (or whatever it's being called these days), as led by the USA, so uniforms or not, they're who gets targeted.

In your last paragraph, my main response is "So?" Well, all of the veterans I know are opposed to the use of torture - including my father. Mr. Soufan's "technical explanation" is the fact-based explanation, and we need a lot more of that sort of explanation these days, rather than the faith-based explanations (aka, B.S.) that we've grown accustomed to since soon after 9/11. It's also really lame the way that you dismiss the viewpoints of the "chicks".

 

[HeartBroker]

These pricks should have had all useful information sucked out of them and then shot

.:2 cents:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Right. We cannot speak our minds about the torture because what.. there's a chance that those muslims imprisoned illegally by the US may one day use guns against US troops? Then why not round up all the able bodied men from across Middle East because any one of them can use arms against US and its allies? And to lecture us about having morals is laughable. Without morals we'd be no better than the enemies we fight against.

Why do you think it's immoral for us to "torture" these folks? I would say it's justified because we need may need to do things that are shocking to protect American troops and civilians. Just like the Navy sometimes has to drop bombs or Naval Gunfire onto buildings, knowing that some members of a terrorists family are in there. Plenty of those women and children have died in agony. We continue with it because we accept that we need to kill or capture Terrorists in order to protect U.S. troops and civilians.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

These pricks should have had all useful information sucked out of them and then shot

.:2 cents:

I've heard an attorney that does work for Human Rights Watch say the same thing.

 

[HeartBroker]

Should I have mentioned "point blank" so as to eliminate the possibility of collateral damage?


I think not!

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

You just made D-Rock's point for him.

As for the specific points you made, in your first paragraph, you seem to be directly endorsing a lowest-common-denominator approach. However low the enemy might go, we must follow suit. Why not have some True American Patriot hijack one of their commercial airliners full of passengers and fly it into some office building in (pick your country with a predominantly Islamic population)?

In your 2nd paragraph you appear to be hinting at the old "They're not uniformed combatants!" canard (it's old, and still lame). Well, they're still the identified enemy in the Global War on Terror (or whatever it's being called these days), as led by the USA, so uniforms or not, they're who gets targeted.

In your last paragraph, my main response is "So?" Well, all of the veterans I know are opposed to the use of torture - including my father. Mr. Soufan's "technical explanation" is the fact-based explanation, and we need a lot more of that sort of explanation these days, rather than the faith-based explanations (aka, B.S.) that we've grown accustomed to since soon after 9/11. It's also really lame the way that you dismiss the viewpoints of the "chicks".

Mr. Soufan's "technical explanation" is the fact-based explanation,
says Mr. Soufan. But interrogators who are actually still working in this field, and who don't have a public reputation to protect, say otherwise. I would also like you to read up on the rest of Mr. Soufan's testimony, when he says that he was removed, along with the rest of his team. He offers one explanation, but there's another out there that is less favorable to him. Like the one saying that his team moved too slow with their rapport building technique, and that Abu Zubaydah wasn't responding to it. He also says that Zubaydah and others would have laughed off the U.S. torture techniques because he was trained to withstand far, far worse. Yet he also said that the rapport technique would work in the end.



Whatever they sink too... I wasn't even considering what someone may sink to. I think that in protecting our interests, we may have to do these things to some people.

As for the airline thing...I would ask you in what way would that be effective? How bad is our present condition? Would the use people demand prosecution for it? Because they don't seem to be very interested, as a whole, in prosecutions for torture. Do you think that would be very different from us using hellfire missile laden UAV's to bomb houses in villages on the Afghan/Pakistan border?

Chicks was deliberately provocative.Did you notice anywhere that I said they were ROTC students who had NO practical experience with the matter? I think experience adds quite a bit of weight. Especially when the folks with actual experience in the matter unanimously say they have no problem with the use of harsh techniques against the type of detainees who are subject to waterboarding.

 

[Facial_King]

Mr. Soufan's "technical explanation" is the fact-based explanation,
says Mr. Soufan. But interrogators who are actually still working in this field, and who don't have a public reputation to protect, say otherwise. I would also like you to read up on the rest of Mr. Soufan's testimony, when he says that he was removed, along with the rest of his team. He offers one explanation, but there's another out there that is less favorable to him. Like the one saying that his team moved too slow with their rapport building technique, and that Abu Zubaydah wasn't responding to it.

...except for providing that actionable intelligence!

He also says that Zubaydah and others would have laughed off the U.S. torture techniques because he was trained to withstand far, far worse. Yet he also said that the rapport technique would work in the end.

If any of them were trained to withstand far, far worse (I doubt it, but whatever), that doesn't mean that if their breaking point was ever met that they would provide accurate or reliable information. Remember how McCain offered up the names of the Green Bay Packers (I think that was the team, but the point stands regardless)?? And doesn't everyone know that these guys are more fiendishly clever (as part of being evil) than McCain? And you're clearly missing Soufan's point. It's not like the "rapport technique" is at the low-end of the types-of-torture spectrum. They're apples and oranges. Rapport is outsmarting the suspect, torture is just using brute force and hoping it all works out (and being a macho sadist along the way).

Whatever they sink too... I wasn't even considering what someone may sink to. I think that in protecting our interests, we may have to do these things to some people.

Of course you do. ...and if the waterboarding doesn't work, then I'm sure you'll be all too happy to ratchet it up (down) to the next level.... and then saying THAT isn't torture, either.

As for the airline thing...I would ask you in what way would that be effective? How bad is our present condition? Would the use people demand prosecution for it? Because they don't seem to be very interested, as a whole, in prosecutions for torture. Do you think that would be very different from us using hellfire missile laden UAV's to bomb houses in villages on the Afghan/Pakistan border?

Christ, bdg, I wasn't making a serious proposal about the hijacking!!

Who are "the use people"?

Regardless of my opposition to killing civilians with missiles (and my skepticism towards the concept of "collateral damage"), there remains a qualitative difference between bombing and torturing. I would guess you get off on both of them, though, as long as they're packaged in an American flag.

Chicks was deliberately provocative.Did you notice anywhere that I said they were ROTC students who had NO practical experience with the matter? I think experience adds quite a bit of weight. Especially when the folks with actual experience in the matter unanimously say they have no problem with the use of harsh techniques against the type of detainees who are subject to waterboarding.

That is total bullshit. Unanimous????!!? Get real. Have you picked up a newspaper recently?

 

[Facial_King]

Here's how that "ticking time bomb scenario" must've played out for Mohammed (183X, at least) and Zubaydah (83X, at least):

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/05/12/tomo/index.html

This is good, too. Pro-Torture = Pro-Cowardice:

http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2009/05/pro-torture-pro-cowardice.html

 

[Boothbabe]

And this is what it all boils down to.

That's what this argument really boils down to -- it's not pro- or anti-torture, it's pro- or anti-cowardice. Are you willing to take the risks inherent in being a free people who respect the rule of law or are you more inclined to be a fair-weather patriot who believes in American values only so long as they're convenient?. Are you willing to accept that bravery is required of a free people or are you going to embrace your inner coward?

 

[Philbert]

Do you even have a logical train of though anymore,...seriously? Or do you just now make quasi-veiled insults? You sure don't do your position on this subject any favors. While I disagree with somebody like Georges and don't think he does a good job at it, at least he tries.




The pro-torture people on here make even less sense as time goes on. It's like they go down ever further obscure, convoluted, or irrational arguments to try to justify and rationalize something to themselves that's impossible for them to make true. When one has neither the ethical, moral, or logical high ground, and your trying to support a position that's wrong, further grasping at whatever you can grab a hold of is not going to make your position any more sound. Sometimes I wonder who they are trying to convince, us…or themselves.

I also know this is a loaded question but to turn around something I think MeesterPefect said about protecting your own child (which was also a loaded question), I wonder if you had a child that was in the military, was fighting against people you perceived to be your enemies, or was at the wrong place at the wrong time and your enemies got a hold of him and thought they could save more of their own lives by using torture to get information out of them, and they thought your child was a bad person, is it ok for them to go ahead and do so? I have a hard time thinking that most, or almost any, of the pro-torture people would feel it was alright. Also remember that if you bitching at the rest of us for using morals or ethics in determining that torture is never right you can't rightly, without being incredible hypocrites, use those same factors in determining that this situation is wrong either.

Are you seriously asking me that question? You string a lot of words together, but there are logical holes in your evaluation of events...yet you can't tell I have a logical train of thought anymore? Show me my disconnect instead of talking dumb...you really think this:

Right. We cannot speak our minds about the torture because what.. there's a chance that those muslims imprisoned illegally by the US may one day use guns against US troops? Then why not round up all the able bodied men from across Middle East because any one of them can use arms against US and its allies? And to lecture us about having morals is laughable. Without morals we'd be no better than the enemies we fight against.

is some kind of adult, logical answer to someones rant about the nitpicking going on about torture vs enhanced interrogation? From a combat vet?
And my comment leaves you puzzled and unable to find any logic in my opinions on this or that?
You need to do a self-evaluation before throwing out any criticism about logical trains of thought.

That was a typical Sunday school little kid train of thought ...you have lost your reading comprehension skills if that escapes you.

 

[Philbert]

And this is what it all boils down to.

That's what this argument really boils down to -- it's not pro- or anti-torture, it's pro- or anti-cowardice. Are you willing to take the risks inherent in being a free people who respect the rule of law or are you more inclined to be a fair-weather patriot who believes in American values only so long as they're convenient?. Are you willing to accept that bravery is required of a free people or are you going to embrace your inner coward?

What you are describing is embracing your "outer idiot" instead of your bravery.
Moral judgments are when you tell a lie (or not), or steal pens from the office (or not).
Allowing harm to come to anything that you are able to protect and should be protecting is not a moral judgment, it's a colossal failure of character.

 

[D-rock]

Are you seriously asking me that question? You string a lot of words together, but there are logical holes in your evaluation of events...yet you can't tell I have a logical train of thought anymore? Show me my disconnect instead of talking dumb...you really think this:

If that's the case show me my so called "logical holes". Prove your reasoning, like pretty much everybody else in this thread is still trying to do, except you. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. You have pretty much just resorted to name calling anymore. I'm semi-surprised you haven't been banned yet because of it to be honest. That and attacking the way a message is delivered instead of it's substance is usually the last resort of people on a loosing side of an argument.

is some kind of adult, logical answer to someones rant about the nitpicking going on about torture vs enhanced interrogation? From a combat vet?
And my comment leaves you puzzled and unable to find any logic in my opinions on this or that?
You need to do a self-evaluation before throwing out any criticism about logical trains of thought.

That was a typical Sunday school little kid train of thought ...you have lost your reading comprehension skills if that escapes you.

Compared to your recent posting it's running circles in the logic. Looking at what he said, he makes a well thought out point if maybe using some hyperbole to make it, if one is actually paying attention and being subjective about what he's saying instead of automatically dismissing it. You can't preemptively consider that any human that might possibly do something in the future, will do it, and use that when you have no evidence what he is going to do or even has done and continue to punish him based on that principle. That pretty much goes against every moral, ethical, and even judicial belief that the world's civilized societies have had for hundreds of years now. True it's always possible somebody might do something, but if we went on that way of thinking we could pretty much have justification to lock up every human on the planet if we wanted to. Remember our country, and pretty much every western civilization now believes it's "innocent until proven guilty", not you have to prove yourself innocent before don't keep you locked up for as long as we want. It's one of our most cherished beliefs about justice.


Allowing harm to come to people when you don't try to stop it is stupid. Of course you conveniently don't even recognize that wasn’t what boothbabe was saying at all. While protecting yourself in the name of self-defense is justifiable, feeling one has the right to do absolutely anything they want to reach that goal isn't. Just because one doesn’t resort to torture doesn't mean they somehow believe they should just roll over and allow themselves to get hurt, or they are soft. Of course people with your position always try to paint them that way. It means they have principles they won't cast aside. Standing up for your principles when they aren't the most convenient options is bravery, and it's not an easy thing to do. It is most certainly not a "failure of character". I can only feel deep pity for you if you actually believe that. I agree with her and think that when people dump their and their country’s most deeply held beliefs as soon as they are not convenient anymore to be a pretty cowardly act. Now that's a colossal failure of character. Even the terrorist we fight against aren't hypocritical like that.

 

[georges]

can't you stop fighting each other? I am getting tired to see exchanges of name calling between some old members and new members.