Waterboarding

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I think our core value of not inflicting excuciating pain to our combatant prisoners is good. Having said that, stress standing positions, exposing prisoners to cold or 100deg heat and sleep deprevation is not ,imo excruciating pain.
Our own Seals and Special Forces go through that as part of their training.

From what I've seen on special forces interrogation training makes it appear to be very intense and realistic, and I'd even bet that many people forget they are being trained.

But even that being said, it's not the same thing. Oh and I might add that our troops have volunteered for the training!

We need a new policy for ununiformed terrorists, whoops sorry-"man-caused disasters", somewhere between the Geneva Rules for uniformed comdbatents and those ununiformed who use terrorist tatctics to kill innocent citizens.

Terrorists are still terrorists, you're reading the talking points wrong

But I'd agree and it's something I argued Bush should have done once we were in Afghanistan. If other countries didn't agree at least you made the effort and can claim more freedom to do what you think is right. Instead, Bush simply claimed that rules no longer applied to the USA while he demanded every other country followed the letter of the law.

Btw, ya didn't answer my question - Does bin Laden argue we have failed the Muslim people or their relegion?

Bin Laden is a master manipulator so I wouldn't put it past him to have argued just about every aspect of this issue. But generally speaking, his ilk say that the current and past systems have failed the people. Some certainly will argue that the systems are not compatible with the religion.

But it's important to note here that not all militant Muslims take to violence for the same reasons. Most of it traditionally has been political in nature. Religious violence is newer and is exacerbated by the political violence. Most importantly though is that it's not a unified threat against the West as portrayed by Bush, who has lumped Iran, al Qaeda and Hamas into the same bucket and pretended there's a one size fits all solution. In reality there are multiple facets to the overall threat and groups derive motivation from many, if not often local, inputs.

In the end we should stay true to our values, carry a big stick and see problems for what they really are. I think the American people are smart enough to comprehend a little nuance.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

[B]Oh and I might add that our troops have volunteered for the training![/B

-spence

__________________________________________________ __________

AND MAY I ADD THAT THE TERRORISTS,OR PC "MAN-MADE DISASTERS", VOLUNTEER FOR TRAINING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE !

You prolly went through as much excruciating pain as a memeber of your college varsity karate team.

I don't use "talking points", wouldn't know where to find them even if i wanted too.
Just use what i see, hear, read and when sorted out, what my common sense tells me.

Your answer to the question is interesting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

AND MAY I ADD THAT THE TERRORISTS,OR PC "MAN-MADE DISASTERS", VOLUNTEER FOR TRAINING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE !

I think you're missing the point.

We're using these interrogation techniques on prisoners whom we simply believe might have information. You're presuming they're guilty or that everyone we've captured is a terrorist. This just isn't the case. There are credible examples of people being detained, shipped to rendition centers, tortured and then dropped on the street because they were found to have no informational value.

There is difference between someone who becomes a Jihadist because they think Islam is under attack, someone who shoots at Americans because we're driving down their street, and someone who's plotting to proactively kill Americans or attack our interests.

You prolly went through as much excruciating pain as a memeber of your college varsity karate team.

That's um, a different kind of pain

I don't use "talking points", wouldn't know where to find them even if i wanted too.
Just use what i see, hear, read and when sorted out, what my common sense tells me.

It was a joke.

Your answer to the question is interesting.

How so?

Rereading my post I'd not that when I say religious violence being newer, I'm speaking in the context of modern Jihad this century rather than historic Jihad's since the Crusades. To some (like Bin Laden) they are the same, but in practical terms they can be thought of quite differently.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the American people are smart enough to comprehend a little nuance.

-spence

Spence, there's a lot that we see eye-to-eye on. However, I don't think you could be more inaccurate with that statement.

In general, the American people are idiots. People in this country lack any sense of foresight or critical thinking skills. There is very much a mentality of "the news said it, so it must be true."

People splinter into their cliques, watch one station for news, don't research issues further and then complain about what's happening right this minute. There is no sense of yesterday or tomorrow, only this minute.

Unfortunately, those of us that occupy this forum are not an accurate representation of the American public in whole. The people that post in here (well most, there are some here that *are* representative of the ignorant American public) are intelligent people, capable of forming their own opinions. While some of what's posted here may sometimes be regurgitation of what was read on the internet or heard on the morning talk-radio show, there is almost always critical thinking behind it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Most importantly though is that it's not a unified threat against the West as portrayed by Bush, who has lumped Iran, al Qaeda and Hamas into the same bucket and pretended there's a one size fits all solution.

-spence

__________________________________________________ ___________

Hmm no, i didn't miss the point, just filling in all the blanks.

In answer to your question,what i found interesting was your quote above..

If my memory serves me right, and it hasn't always at times lately ,
I remember Busch after 9/11 declaring war on terror wherever it was, where terrorists were killing innocents.

It was to be a new kind of war,
taking decades to fight using intelligence, disruption of terror $ and communication, and taking pre-emptive strikes where needed with new as well as old tactics.

Doesn't seem to me like he lumped or used one size fits all tactics in dealing with the three you mentioned.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If my memory serves me right, and it hasn't always at times lately ,
I remember Busch after 9/11 declaring war on terror wherever it was, where terrorists were killing innocents.

It was to be a new kind of war,
taking decades to fight using intelligence, disruption of terror $ and communication, and taking pre-emptive strikes where needed with new as well as old tactics.

Doesn't seem to me like he lumped or used one size fits all tactics in dealing with the three you mentioned.

Bush certainly took the position that the post 9/11 world required a new approach to security. But think about how he decided to apply this new approach. Saddam and Bin Laden were treated as the same regardless of the reality. Iran and Bin Laden were treated as the same regardless of the reality. Political terrorism like in Chechnya or Palestine was mixed with Religious extremism like in Pakistan as if they all had the same root causes.

The only common factor is Islam, yet Bush insists we're not at war with Islam. This is the contradiction that's been exploited to gain sympathy for those who do mean to do us harm. People (on the Right) are always trying to knock this, who cares what they think etc..., but the reality is that without mainstream sympathy the real terror organizations have little leverage.

The big problem with the Bush approach is that he had an opportunity to divide these challenges and deal with them as more fragmented issues. Instead they largely used the rhetoric around terrorism to win domestic elections, and in the process have driven our enemies closer together.

-spence

[scottw]

Obama won...he has apologized for US and we no longer have any enemies...didn't you get the memo..? it's just a matter of time......

[Fishpart]

The rest of the story is that we actually obtained some high value information using these techniques, unfortunately I didn't notice the article on the front page of the Providence Urinal today like the initial article. In fact we thwarted a 9/11 style attack on LA. In the end no one was killed by being waterboarded and no Americans died in a terror attack. Was it worth it, ask your aquaintences who live in LA.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

In fact we thwarted a 9/11 style attack on LA. In the end no one was killed by being waterboarded and no Americans died in a terror attack. Was it worth it, ask your aquaintences who live in LA.

Did we now? And that was as a result of torturing 2 prisoners that didn't give up any useful information, according to a Bush security adviser. It has been brought up more than a few times by past security officials that little, if any, useful information was acquired.

Between the two of them, the prisoners were waterboarded 266 times. Can you somehow explain to me what they could get out of the 266th waterboarding that they couldn't get from the 200th?

While torturing at all is illegal and the appropriate people should be prosecuted, people overlook the excessive use of those actions that took place as well.

One last thing, there is no clear information that any attack on LA was thwarted. Cheney *hinted* that a 9/11 attack on LA *might* have been thwarted. But because the idea was *hinted* at, supporters of the previous administration are spinning the hell out of it and stating it as fact.

After the numerous infringements on the privacy of average American citizens, I refuse to believe the Bush administration would not be extremely public about preventing a 9/11 sized attack. They had lost all credibility and fought an uphill battle for the last 3 years he was in office. This would have given Bush the much needed boost to push through more of the Big Brother policies that he wanted enacted.

[Swimmer]

[quote=JohnnyD;683387]Between the two of them, the prisoners were waterboarded 266 times. Can you somehow explain to me what they could get out of the 266th waterboarding that they couldn't get from the 200th?

Cleaner forehead!


It begged to be said, couldn't resist.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Did we now? And that was as a result of torturing 2 prisoners that didn't give up any useful information, according to a Bush security adviser. It has been brought up more than a few times by past security officials that little, if any, useful information was acquired.

Between the two of them, the prisoners were waterboarded 266 times. Can you somehow explain to me what they could get out of the 266th waterboarding that they couldn't get from the 200th?

While torturing at all is illegal and the appropriate people should be prosecuted, people overlook the excessive use of those actions that took place as well.

One last thing, there is no clear information that any attack on LA was thwarted. Cheney *hinted* that a 9/11 attack on LA *might* have been thwarted. But because the idea was *hinted* at, supporters of the previous administration are spinning the hell out of it and stating it as fact.

After the numerous infringements on the privacy of average American citizens, I refuse to believe the Bush administration would not be extremely public about preventing a 9/11 sized attack. They had lost all credibility and fought an uphill battle for the last 3 years he was in office. This would have given Bush the much needed boost to push through more of the Big Brother policies that he wanted enacted.

you torture people everyday....

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The big problem with the Bush approach is that he had an opportunity to divide these challenges and deal with them as more fragmented issues. Instead they largely used the rhetoric around terrorism to win domestic elections, and in the process have driven our enemies closer together.

-spence

Spence, you made some good points in your reply.
We could go round and round on this forever.

While i didn't agree with Bush on A LOT of his policies, even hindsight on the terrorist attacks forgets
we were flying by the seat of our pants in unknown threats.
Mistakes were made for sure, but we were kept safe for his entire term.

For me and my family living 16 miles from ground zero, my son in law, a pilot flying a 767 that morning non stop to LA from Kennedy leaving at 8 am, not knowing his plane was safe until 11:30, loosing 2 young friends of ours in the towers and knowing what their families still go through, and knowing we are in close proximity to other possible targets,
I for one am very greatful for his keeping us safe.

It's easy to Monday morning 1/4 back, but you have to give him credit, if for nothing else, his policy worked in keeping us safe.
Glad I didn't have to make any of those decisions.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

While i didn't agree with Bush on A LOT of his policies, even hindsight on the terrorist attacks forgets
we were flying by the seat of our pants in unknown threats.

Right after 9/11 I'd agree. And at that time I thought the Administration acted with a pretty cool head. It was after we had a chance to think about our actions that things really went awry. That worries me...

Mistakes were made for sure, but we were kept safe for his entire term.

Did he?

Firstly, I've never heard anything that indicates we've stopped any credible terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Most of the successes touted by Bush have been a bunch of half-wits tricked into guilt by the FBI.

After 9/11, there have been many serious terrorist attacks outside of the US on our allies, London, Madrid etc...

And perhaps most importantly. Since 9/11 we've lost 4273 American service members in Iraq, another 1000 or so contractors and what will be over a trillion in spending. All for what as a result? To overthrow a dictator who wasn't involved in 9/11 and posed little threat to the USA? To free a country that's probably going to be closer to Iran than us when it's all said and done?

It doesn't sound like we've kept Americans all that safe.

For me and my family living 16 miles from ground zero, my son in law, a pilot flying a 767 that morning non stop to LA from Kennedy leaving at 8 am, not knowing his plane was safe until 11:30, loosing 2 young friends of ours in the towers and knowing what their families still go through, and knowing we are in close proximity to other possible targets, I for one am very greatful for his keeping us safe.

It's easy to Monday morning 1/4 back, but you have to give him credit, if for nothing else, his policy worked in keeping us safe.
Glad I didn't have to make any of those decisions.

I don't think any of this has been easy, and I'm not one who believes that Bush or Cheney are evil. I do think they did what they thought was good for the American people.

That being said, I think at times they've (or more importanly those around around them) have conflated US interests with their own interests.

I've said often and I'll say again. Stay a true course and people will forgive your mistakes. But if you're often straying then things are open for scruitny. It seems like Bush strayed and often...

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Did he?

Firstly, I've never heard anything that indicates we've stopped any credible terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

-spence

No sense in speculating on that, none of us will ever know for sure,
unless top secret documents are released at some time, if ever.

We weren't attacked on our own soil after 9/11 and that is ALL we know for sure.

I hope that continues under Obama's watch.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No sense in speculating on that, none of us will ever know for sure,
unless top secret documents are released at some time, if ever.

We weren't attacked on our own soil after 9/11 and that is ALL we know for sure.

I hope that continues under Obama's watch.

My hope is that our interests are not attacked, which might be very difficult to stop.

As bad as 9/11 was, a nuke or like minded attack in the Middle East could prove to be far, far worse.

-spence

[Swimmer]

We will know about what plans may or may not have been foiled if someone gets charged with a crime in relation to the waterboarding uproar. Any defendent will have access through evidence disclosure. We all know secrets wont be divulged, so no one in the end will be charged. So in essense all Obama is doing is using the torture for his own political gain, which is cheap. At least Bush was trying to elicit plans for other 9-11's before they happened. And I'm not saying torture is the way to go, at least all the time. But what is worse, making solid your political career, or trying to save us more torment.