Waterboarding

#54
#54
BigPapaVol said:
How was it meant? You clearly implied that the CIAs info is untrustworthy. If so, why keep them around?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, even the best intelligence agency misses the ball on some pretty big things.
 
#55
#55
nickknx865 said:
What I'm saying is, even the best intelligence agency misses the ball on some pretty big things.
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you, straight up, the American public is both too stupid and too naive to handle the events of modern times.


Almost all of the time is much better we as a public don't know what is going on. Ignorance is bliss. I'm glad I don't work in that capacity anymore.
 
#56
#56
nickknx865 said:
However, waterboarding, making someone stand, stress positions, placing insects in terrorist's cells that we know are afraid of insects, these are all examples of torture. We're better than that. We don't need to torture people. Another question is, does torture actually work? Do people tell you the truth, or do they just tell you anything you want to hear to get out of it? I think that the jury is still out on that.
Click to expand...

If it was effective, do you think any politician would want to put his name in that hat for supporting it?


That's just not how it works in DC.
 
#57
#57
nickknx865 said:
What I'm saying is, even the best intelligence agency misses the ball on some pretty big things.
Click to expand...

Wow! Really? Do you mean the enemy doesn't invite us over and say "look, here is what we are doing and these are all our evil plans". This is astonishing.
 
#58
#58
nickknx865 said:
Here's what I'm trying to say.

Should we treat our enemies better than our own prisoners. Absolutely not, under any circumstances, should a suspected terrorist have better treatment than an American prisoner. A suspected terrorist should be confined to a small cell for 24 hours a day with nothing but just enough rations to live, but not to feel comfortable. Heck, if an interrogator wants to go all Dark Knight on some suspected terrorist, that's alright too.

However, waterboarding, making someone stand, stress positions, placing insects in terrorist's cells that we know are afraid of insects, these are all examples of torture. We're better than that. We don't need to torture people. Another question is, does torture actually work? Do people tell you the truth, or do they just tell you anything you want to hear to get out of it? I think that the jury is still out on that.
Click to expand...


might i refer you to brooklyn bridge incident.

THREATS AND RESPONSES: TERROR; Suspect in Plot On Bridge Drew Interest Earlier - The New York Times

and as far as the geneva convention,, that applies to uniformed soldiers, not radical people hell bound on destroying innocent people. string em up, the only way to defeat an ideology is to BREAK IT, not to simply march on a capitol, or something like that
 
#59
#59
nickknx865 said:
However, waterboarding, making someone stand, stress positions, placing insects in terrorist's cells that we know are afraid of insects, these are all examples of torture. We're better than that. We don't need to torture people. Another question is, does torture actually work? Do people tell you the truth, or do they just tell you anything you want to hear to get out of it? I think that the jury is still out on that.
Click to expand...

then Obama should do as Cheney suggested and release the docs that show what we gained from the techniques.
 
#60
#60
utvolpj said:
then Obama should do as Cheney suggested and release the docs that show what we gained from the techniques.
Click to expand...

But see... what'll happen is this:


Since the information that we gained was used to thwart an action (that never happened because it was prevented), people would then say it was all BS that the CIA cooked up to defend itself.
 
#61
#61
DC Vol said:
But see... what'll happen is this:


Since the information that we gained was used to thwart an action (that never happened because it was prevented), people would then say it was all BS that the CIA cooked up to defend itself.
Click to expand...

I saw a liberal side commentator already discredit Obama's National Intelligence Director (the guy who said these techniques yielded high value information). He said the man has been "compromised" and is saying this since he's an intel guy and is covering the butt of his buds.

Bottomline, it's political. It is a get Bush - make him pay mentality. This isn't being driven by the "law".
 
#62
#62
DC has it right here. There is a reason that there is a "need to know" with this stuff. While the American public feel like they "need" or "have the right" to know, they simply don't. In most cases, it is in their own best interests of safety that some of this information doesn't get out. And knowing certain classified information isn't a priviledge, its a burden.

Let the CIA do their job. There is a measure of oversight and nothing will ever go to far.
 
#64
#64
nickknx865 said:
However, waterboarding, making someone stand, stress positions, placing insects in terrorist's cells that we know are afraid of insects, these are all examples of torture. We're better than that. We don't need to torture people. Another question is, does torture actually work? Do people tell you the truth, or do they just tell you anything you want to hear to get out of it? I think that the jury is still out on that.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but that is ridiculous. In my opinion, anything that does not leave you physically scarred should be available to interrogators.

Are you saying that if the CIA believes that a caught TERRORIST that wants to KILL innocent CIVILIANS (the terrorist being high up in their organization because we are not doing this to people low in the chain of positions) has valuable information that may prevent thousands from dying, we should not put insects in their cells or make them remain in stressful positions?

What is your alternative? Offer them candy if they tell you which building they are planning to blow up next?
 
#65
#65
vols4sure said:
I am sorry but that is ridiculous. In my opinion, anything that does not leave you physically scarred should be available to interrogators.

Are you saying that if the CIA believes that a caught TERRORIST that wants to KILL innocent CIVILIANS (the terrorist being high up in their organization because we are not doing this to people low in the chain of positions) has valuable information that may prevent thousands from dying, we should not put insects in their cells or make them remain in stressful positions?

What is your alternative? Offer them candy if they tell you which building they are planning to blow up next?
Click to expand...


ahh yes the old candy trick, then they will say we are making the terrorists diabetics and therefore torturing them
 
#67
#67
volinbham said:
I saw a liberal side commentator already discredit Obama's National Intelligence Director (the guy who said these techniques yielded high value information). He said the man has been "compromised" and is saying this since he's an intel guy and is covering the butt of his buds.

Bottomline, it's political. It is a get Bush - make him pay mentality. This isn't being driven by the "law".
Click to expand...

Yep. And in order to do so the Obama Administration is wantonly releasing SCI documents which are classified at that level for a reason.
 
#68
#68
I certainly don't agree with what the administration is doing releasing this sensitive information. However, I had read somewhere...maybe the Washington Post...that the Bush administration had classified and de-classified more information than all the other presidents combined before him. If true, one really has to wonder how much of that was done for political reasons, and how much of it was for legitimate security concerns.
 
#69
#69
rjd970 said:
I certainly don't agree with what the administration is doing releasing this sensitive information. However, I had read somewhere...maybe the Washington Post...that the Bush administration had classified and de-classified more information than all the other presidents combined before him. If true, one really has to wonder how much of that was done for political reasons, and how much of it was for legitimate security concerns.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the Bush Admin operated on the edge in many areas. I have no doubt they did shady things and classified them for political reasons.
 
#70
#70
Telegraph said:
He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Quote from a recent article by a Brit (Gerald Warner). Take it for what it's worth.

Here's the full read:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
 
#71
#71
"President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?"

:)
 
#72
#72
2k0d364df035.jpg
 
#73
#73
I don't like what Obama is doing here. Waterboarding is a walk in the park compared to the torture tactics used by the enemy.
 
#74
#74
Vol Mania 21 said:
go to this page and read the comments. there are a couple of military guys supporting waterboarding and other torture tactics, and then you have this guy named Daniel who has the "if we are friends, we have no enemies" motto going for him.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that anyone thinks that we can reason with these people. I lived with them and they just don't think the way we do. I served as an advisor to the Iraqi military for a year. While it was a mostly positive experience, reasoning with them was frustrating. I did gain an appreciation for their culture though.

I've interrogated terrorists (nothing I would call torture) and I've sat in on negotiations with sheiks. They think we are stupid and they think we are weak. When I stopped an Iraqi Captain from beating a detainee, he frankly told me that America does not have the stomach to do what it takes to win this war.

When we detained people shortly after the invasion they would piss their pants when you put the flexcuffs and hoods on them because they were so scared. After a couple of years of a Westernized legal system the terrorists have zero fear of being detained. They know they will have better living conditions than their used to and will be released in a relatively short time frame. For example, when some Iraqi policemen tried to blow up my Humvee and my crew, we caught them red handed. They spent a total of three days in jail. The burden of proof in Iraq is even more than it is in the states.

And to make matters worse it's hard to kill the terrorists on the battlefield. A JAG lawyer told me that if a terrorist shot my buddy next to me and then immediatelly put down his weapon we would be prosecuted for murder if we returned fire. The terrorists know this and use it as a tactic. When I first got in country for my second tour, I asked the commander of the unit we took over for where we got all the great pictures of the people on the high value target list. His answer was "from the last time we captured them". I swear it was like a catch and release program.

Sorry for the rant, it's a sore subject with me. Thankfully it looks like it's getting better over there now.
 
Last edited:
#75
#75
red butler said:
A JAG lawyer told me that if a terrorist shot my buddy next to me and then immediatelly put down his weapon we would be prosecuted for murder if we returned fire. The terrorists know this and use it as a tactic.
Click to expand...

That is a ludicrous rule. Would somebody really prosecute the soldier for killing an insurgent right after he killed his buddy and put his weapon down? Surely, rule or not, common sense would take over here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top