Anybody that say's "waterboarding" doesn't give intel...

[GhostTX]

...feel free to run their nose in this:


CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Before they were subjected to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation that included waterboarding, KSM and Zubaydah were not only uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves.

“In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques,” says the Justice Department memo. “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’ Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

[JP135]

Amen!!! No telling how many lives were saved. Need more info? I don't care if they cram a firehose down his worthless throat. Do what it takes to protect the USA. Repeat as neccesary.

[CoorsLightCoupe]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-wtr.gif

[PGreenCobra]

I think we should be able to apply physical and mental stress to acquire information from known terrorists.

lol@ CNSNews.com is an alternative to the liberal media, focusing on stories that are unreported, under-reported, or misreported by the mainstream press.

[Paladin]

I saw Dick Cheney being interviewed by Sean Hannity and Cheney said he has formally asked for the documents about these interrogations also be released by Obama since he chose to release some of the derogatory memos and none of the positive ones. This will get ugly if Obama decides to try and prosecute people who helped us avoid more attacks the last 7 years.

I say every one of them is a hero not a criminal and anyone who tries to prosecute those who protected us are the criminals.

[cannonball996]

you got to do what you got to do. sometimes you have to do the wrong thing to save lives. but dont try and justify wrong actions, its still against the law, it still violates a number of treaties.

[AL P]

you got to do what you got to do. sometimes you have to do the wrong thing to save lives. but dont try and justify wrong actions, its still against the law, it still violates a number of treaties.


What treaties does it violate?

[cannonball996]

What treaties does it violate?

three treaties come to mind:
1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, US ratified in 1955

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, US ratified in 1992

3 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, US ratified in 1994

water boarding also violates several federal laws if committed by a US citizen inside or outside the country.

[bcoop]

What treaties does it violate?

The Bleeding Heart Treaty.



Come on Al, you're an educated man. How'd you forget about that one?

[Paladin]

three treaties come to mind:
1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, US ratified in 1955

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, US ratified in 1992

3 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, US ratified in 1994

water boarding also violates several federal laws if committed by a US citizen inside or outside the country.

Someone from a terrorist group is not a prisoner of war and they do not have civil and political rights since they are not acting in uniform for a country that has also ratified the same treaty. The definition I have seen is a citizen of a country who we have declared war against. So far the Taliban and Al Queada are the only entities we have decided to attack, so no person from those groups qualify IMO.

I also do not think waterboarding is torture even though John McCain, a true American hero, disagrees with me. I think any person who has information that could save lives should be tretaed any way necessary that doesn not actually cause injury or death, and even then some injury is okay IMO.

[exlude]

Just out of curiosity, why don't you think waterboarding is torture?

[AL P]

three treaties come to mind:
1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, US ratified in 1955

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, US ratified in 1992

3 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, US ratified in 1994

water boarding also violates several federal laws if committed by a US citizen inside or outside the country.

Those are interesting to know. I don't follow UN stuff all that much. Although as Paladin pointed out, no terrorist is going to be considered a POW under item #1. Although there is a statement in there about "if there is any doubt about whether someone is classified as a POW, then they must be treated as a POW". The sympathizers love to cling to that statement as meaning it makes the agreement apply to terrorists but it simply doesn't.

[cannonball996]

even if the Geneva Convention does not apply, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, apply to any and all humans.

[exlude]

But what if you don't consider terrorists/pirates "human"? :D

[slow06]

even if the Geneva Convention does not apply, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, apply to any and all humans.
I'm sorry we can't be nice to the terrorists.

[AL P]

even if the Geneva Convention does not apply, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, apply to any and all humans.

I don't consider Al Qaeda members to be humans so in my mind we are good to go.

EDIT: Exlude beat me to it. lol

[z28orshoot]

if interrogating ONE terrorist to save hundreds,thousands, or milliions of lives is the price to pay then make it a 2 for 1 special. do you really think terrorist obey ANY treaty.

like pirates,rapist and several others, the only good terrorist is a dead one.

[Paladin]

Just out of curiosity, why don't you think waterboarding is torture?

Because within a few seconds of the waterboarding ending, you would probably have little if any ill effects because it was applied. It is similar to a Taser. It hurts like hell while it is happening, but once it ends you are back to normal very quickly.

My idea of torture would be inflicting pain that results in injury, pretty much like what happened to our Vietnam POW's every day. This is just my opinion, not some statement as an expert on torture btw.

[Paladin]

But what if you don't consider terrorists/pirates "human"? :D

Nice!

[AL P]

Because within a few seconds of the waterboarding ending, you would probably have little if any ill effects because it was applied. It is similar to a Taser. It hurts like hell while it is happening, but once it ends you are back to normal very quickly.

My idea of torture would be inflicting pain that results in injury, pretty much like what happened to our Vietnam POW's every day. This is just my opinion, not some statement as an expert on torture btw.

The concern more than anything is that some of these people are innocent. I suppose that is possible. I just don't really care to be honest. I'm sorry it happens but when it comes to the foreign policy arena all bets are off.

[Paladin]

The concern more than anything is that some of these people are innocent. I suppose that is possible. I just don't really care to be honest. I'm sorry it happens but when it comes to the foreign policy arena all bets are off.

I share that concern also. I am still for the death penalty but want it used only on people who are guilty. I doubt the death penalty will continue to be carried out once it is proven that an innocent person has been excecuted. If that happens, I bet the first may come from Dallas County!

[5point0pony]

I doubt the death penalty will continue to be carried out once it is proven that an innocent person has been excecuted. If that happens, I bet the first may come from Dallas County!

You're kidding, right? The US currently makes an oopsie every 33 tries (on average). I cant remember the name of one of the guys, but he was on the electric chair, caught on fire, died, and then someone confessed.

[cannonball996]

if you dont l want to respect the treaties you signed then why stay committed to them, why is no one asking to back out of them so that we can do what is necessary?

[Paladin]

You're kidding, right? The US currently makes an oopsie every 33 tries (on average). I cant remember the name of one of the guys, but he was on the electric chair, caught on fire, died, and then someone confessed.

Nope, I have never heard of a case where someone has been proven to be wrongfully executed. Why have the anti-death penalty people not used the example you give?

BTW, you know a confession is not, in and of itslef, enough to execute someone so it would also not be enough to say the guy who was exceuted was not still guilty, You know this, right?

[Paladin]

if you dont l want to respect the treaties you signed then why stay committed to them, why is no one asking to back out of them so that we can do what is necessary?

I think we are saying that we are not violating the treaties. Did you read the responses?

[Vertnut]

You're kidding, right? The US currently makes an oopsie every 33 tries (on average). I cant remember the name of one of the guys, but he was on the electric chair, caught on fire, died, and then someone confessed.

I've never, ever heard that. Those numbers must come from Obama's treasury secretary...

[Paladin]

I've never, ever heard that. Those numbers must come from Obama's treasury secretary...

Now that I re-read it the wording sounds like he or the person who he got it from is an anti-death penalty idiot liberal. "We make oopsie's".

Nice catch, I missed it.

[Vertnut]

Now that I re-read it the wording sounds like he or the person who he got it from is an anti-death penalty idiot liberal. "We make oopsie's".

Nice catch, I missed it.

You and I both know that if that was proven they would resort to paddling those guys.
Also, along those lines, if DNA free's a man due to proven innocence, then why can't DNA prove certain guilt and let us proceed with the lethal injection just as expediently?

[5point0pony]

Lol at losing credibility because it isn't what you want to hear.

Do you really think our legal system is efficient enough to get it right every time?

[Vertnut]

Lol at losing credibility because it isn't what you want to hear.

Do you really think our legal system is efficient enough to get it right every time?

LOL at you losing credibility by not PROVING it. Please , man, move along with that...

[5point0pony]

LOL at you losing credibility by not PROVING it. Please , man, move along with that...

If I did, would you change your mind? I'm guessing nothing I say could ever change your mind, and vice-versa. I'll gladly look up the stats or criminal journal articles if you really want to know, but I'm not into e-arguing over subjects that people have already made their minds up on.

[fast83]

i think im going to be water boarded at home.i want to see what its like.

[Vertnut]

If I did, would you change your mind? I'm guessing nothing I say could ever change your mind, and vice-versa. I'll gladly look up the stats or criminal journal articles if you really want to know, but I'm not into e-arguing over subjects that people have already made their minds up on.

It can either be proven or not. There's no "gray" here...it's black and white. I need to know the names, dates, and locations of these "oopsies" that we "currently" make. At that point, I don't know how I could deny it.

[Vertnut]

i think im going to be water boarded at home.i want to see what its like.

I've seen some video's of it, and it doesn't look fun. If someone had a fear of drowning, it would be even less fun.:sgrin:

[GT Dan]

You're kidding, right? The US currently makes an oopsie every 33 tries (on average). I cant remember the name of one of the guys, but he was on the electric chair, caught on fire, died, and then someone confessed.

Produce the name of one person that was exonerated after they were executed. I bet you cant... or wont...

As for the terrorists, who gives a shit about their rights. I find it funny how quickly the people in this country have forgotten about September 11, 2001. I used to get up every morning and look at those towers... I had friends that worked and died in those buildings...

Remind me again, how many people died in NYC? the Pentagon? Flight 93? What about Kick Berg and the other people that have been beheaded?

You can not apply law and order to people who have no regard for the law...

[Mustangman_2000]

Here is another good article about this subject. Obama's top intelligence guy acknowledged the value in info obtained under these conditions. It gave them addition insight into their network. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/21/intelligence-director-high-value-information-obtained-harsh-interrogations/


However, with that being said they are considering a commission to prosecute former officials and have banned all forms of harsh interrogation under Obama's watch. I guess they think by changing the language of war and pacifism makes everything sunshine and roses. And this absurd mindset that the U.S. and it's former policies were so deeply flawed, which requires everyone to be an apologist. Send Clinton to Mexico and apologize on the behalf of the U.S. for border violence. Obama shaking hands with Chavez.

The news is replete with this and it's getting harder and harder to read.

[Denny]

Is waterboarding torture?

Let's analyze what the word "torture" is first.

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Now, when was the last time that you heard anyone in pain from waterboarding?
How about extreme anguish?
Severe pain or anguish?

How many people have died from waterboarding?
How many people have come away from waterboarding with their quality of life compromised?

It'll scare the shit out of you, but it's not torture.

[exlude]

It's not pain, persay, but it's definitely severe anguish. Thus why it works.

[Denny]

It's not pain, persay, but it's definitely severe anguish. Thus why it works.

Severe? No, that was like the look on your face when you got your tat. LOL

This "anguish" is momentary.

[Juiceweezl]

Is waterboarding torture?

Hmmm, let's see. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30338039

'Perfect storm of ignorance'
The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.
So you're saying it's not torture but we prosecute it as war crimes? This is a good read. You guys should check it out.

[Juiceweezl]

...feel free to run their nose in this:

My only question is that if it's so effective, why did it take 266 times on two prisoners? That's not a very high success rate to me, and would lead me to question the validity of what is said.

Another quote from the article I posted: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30338039

The "they" referred to are the top officials involved (CIA, White House aides, etc.) in pushing the acceptance of the advanced techniques. SERE would be the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape military training program created to give American pilots and soliders a sample of torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War.

They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation,

Oh, and to whomever said we're not at war, so they're not POW's, is it not a "war against terrorism?" Are we just having a very expensive "conflict" with Al Qaeda?

[Juiceweezl]

...to show that there are many people to blame for this on BOTH sides. Apparently the proposal should have been brought before Congress but only went in front of the Gang of Four. Here are the comments from 3 of them. That joker-faced Pelosi is an idiot with her reply. It sure seems like the earlier article quote was true...it was a perfect storm of ignorance.

One more check
There was one more check on intelligence programs, one designed in the 1970s to make sure independent observers kept an eye on spy agencies: Congress. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees had been created in the mid-1970s to prevent any repeat of the C.I.A. abuses unearthed by the Senate’s Church Committee.

As was common with the most secret programs, the C.I.A. chose not to brief the entire committees about the interrogation methods but only the so-called Gang of Four — the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate and House committees. The rest of the committee members would be fully briefed only in 2006.

The 2002 Gang of Four briefings left a hodgepodge of contradictory recollections that, to some Congressional staff members, reveal a dysfunctional oversight system. Without full staff support, few lawmakers are equipped to make difficult legal and policy judgments about secret programs, critics say.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

"We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing," Mr. Goss said in an interview. "Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough."

Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, who was committee chairman in 2002, said in an interview that he did not recall ever being briefed on the methods, though government officials with access to records say all four committee leaders received multiple briefings.

Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the committee, declined to discuss the briefings.

[AL P]

My only question is that if it's so effective, why did it take 266 times on two prisoners? That's not a very high success rate to me, and would lead me to question the validity of what is said.

Another quote from the article I posted: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30338039

The "they" referred to are the top officials involved (CIA, White House aides, etc.) in pushing the acceptance of the advanced techniques. SERE would be the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape military training program created to give American pilots and soliders a sample of torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War.

They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation,

Oh, and to whomever said we're not at war, so they're not POW's, is it not a "war against terrorism?" Are we just having a very expensive "conflict" with Al Qaeda?

They aren't POWs by the Geneva agreement. You should try reading it.

On the same note, if it is so horrible why would it take 266 times to get some information out of someone?

[GhostTX]

My only question is that if it's so effective, why did it take 266 times on two prisoners? That's not a very high success rate to me, and would lead me to question the validity of what is said.
What do you propose to get it done in 1 time?

[Juiceweezl]

They aren't POWs by the Geneva agreement. You should try reading it.

On the same note, if it is so horrible why would it take 266 times to get some information out of someone?

So you're saying the act itself isn't a crime. It's the fact that you do it against a soldier that makes it a crime??? Go put your hand in your pocket and rob a bank. Then tell the court, "I didn't really have a gun, so it's not a crime." See how that works out. I'm not surprised at this coming from you. The act is torture and criminal period.

I'll cut you some slack and guess that you forgot to delete that last part or are you agreeing with me?

[Juiceweezl]

What do you propose to get it done in 1 time?

See my posts in the other thread. I'm not opposed to torture at all -- IF we publicly say that we will go to all means necessary to ensure the safety of our nation and our people. That being said, once we announce that, we cannot expect any US citizens or soldiers to ever be treated with decency if captured. Currently, we want to say it's okay to water board someone here but condemn other nations that torture our citizens and soldiers. That's hypocritical IMO.

Oh, and like I said earlier, I've always thought .22 LR's to the knee caps would be quite convincing. You can always move around to the elbow, the femur, etc. It would be exceedingly painful yet not deadly.

[AL P]

So you're saying the act itself isn't a crime. It's the fact that you do it against a soldier that makes it a crime??? Go put your hand in your pocket and rob a bank. Then tell the court, "I didn't really have a gun, so it's not a crime." See how that works out. I'm not surprised at this coming from you. The act is torture and criminal period.

I'll cut you some slack and guess that you forgot to delete that last part or are you agreeing with me?

I didn't say anything about crimes or soldiers or any of that shit. All I said was guerilla fighters aren't prisoners of war and if you read the agreements you will see that.

I'm saying it must not be all that bad if some dude can take it 266 times so keep right on doing it! If that is what you are saying then I guess we agree.

[Denny]

Hmmm, let's see. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30338039

'Perfect storm of ignorance'
The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.
So you're saying it's not torture but we prosecute it as war crimes? This is a good read. You guys should check it out.

Different circumstances by different people protected under different laws. It is more of a procedural violation, if anything (in that case).

[Juiceweezl]

I didn't say anything about crimes or soldiers or any of that shit. All I said was guerilla fighters aren't prisoners of war and if you read the agreements you will see that.

I'm saying it must not be all that bad if some dude can take it 266 times so keep right on doing it! If that is what you are saying then I guess we agree.

I said if it took 266 times to get the info, how effective is it? That seems like an excessive number of times when they're pushed for time to get information. Oh, and whether the guys belong to a army or not, the act itself is torturous and viewed as criminal. If you don't think so, go grab someone and waterboard them in public and see what happens. Then claim that he wasn't a solider or in uniform as a defense.

[exlude]

Severe? No, that was like the look on your face when you got your tat. LOL

This "anguish" is momentary.


Hahaha, damn you.

[exlude]

Wait, did he really last through 266 times? I must have missed that, but that's fuckin impressive. I think the average going rate among Feds was only a couple of minutes. Which is under a dozen times.

[AL P]

I said if it took 266 times to get the info, how effective is it? That seems like an excessive number of times when they're pushed for time to get information. Oh, and whether the guys belong to a army or not, the act itself is torturous and viewed as criminal. If you don't think so, go grab someone and waterboard them in public and see what happens. Then claim that he wasn't a solider or in uniform as a defense.

And I was saying if he could endure it 266 times it must not be all that bad.

Is setting off IEDs and suicide bombs also considered torturous and criminal? What about murdering women and children to make a political statement? Criminal to you? Cry me a river over these poor mistreated scumbags. KSM is the kind of guy who would kill a girl for wanting to go to school. But cry me a river. BOO HOO

[5point0pony]

Produce the name of one person that was exonerated after they were executed. I bet you cant... or wont...

I wouldn't put too much weight on the actual exoneration, but if you just want a name Joseph O'Dell. I'm thinking Vertnut will probably want more than that so I'll find some readings for y'all when I get a chance.

[exlude]

I wouldn't put too much weight on the actual exoneration, but if you just want a name Joseph O'Dell. I'm thinking Vertnut will probably want more than that so I'll find some readings for y'all when I get a chance.

Joseph O'Dell's DNA hasn't actually even been compared, has it?

[Denny]

Wait, did he really last through 266 times? I must have missed that, but that's fuckin impressive. I think the average going rate among Feds was only a couple of minutes. Which is under a dozen times.

266 times and no death, huh? Can't be TOO TORTUROUS.

[exlude]

266 times and no death, huh? Can't be TOO TORTUROUS.

It sure as hell won't kill you, but neither will bamboo shoots in your fingers. I dunno on this situation. I would consider it torture, but I'm not wholly against torture either.

[Denny]

It sure as hell won't kill you, but neither will bamboo shoots in your fingers. I dunno on this situation. I would consider it torture, but I'm not wholly against torture either.

Other than being a little shy from taking a shower, there's probably nothing wrong with him.

You described a pain tactic above, BTW.

[exlude]

I'm reading a how stuff works article about torture, it says that CIA members lasted an average of 14 seconds, Navy SEALs always broke which lead to it being taken out of the counter-intelligence part of their training (bad for morale), and that KSM lasted just over 2 minutes.

I dunno, I get the fact that there is no real pain. But there is definetely discomfort/agony on another level. Plus the harsh gagging that takes place must hurt a bit too.

[Denny]

I'm reading a how stuff works article about torture, it says that CIA members lasted an average of 14 seconds, Navy SEALs always broke which lead to it being taken out of the counter-intelligence part of their training (bad for morale), and that KSM lasted just over 2 minutes.

I dunno, I get the fact that there is no real pain. But there is definetely discomfort/agony on another level. Plus the harsh gagging that takes place must hurt a bit too.

But the definition uses adjectives like "extreme," "intense" and "severe" in the definitions.

[exlude]

But the definition uses adjectives like "extreme," "intense" and "severe" in the definitions.

I definetely see your point and stance on it. I'm just out on a limb. I support the use of it, I know that, but thinking about how to refer to it hurts my head. I don't wanna say torture because I know that brings about a purely negative connotation, but I do kinda think it's torture. I wonder how many sentences I can go on rambling like this.

[Denny]

I definetely see your point and stance on it. I'm just out on a limb. I support the use of it, I know that, but thinking about how to refer to it hurts my head. I don't wanna say torture because I know that brings about a purely negative connotation, but I do kinda think it's torture. I wonder how many sentences I can go on rambling like this.

Well, with those words, it's all open to make the whole thing more of a relative term too, I guess.

I'm sure you can make a few more rambling sentences.

[exlude]

It definetely is different. I sure as fuck don't want bamboo shoots under my finger nails, but would kinda like to be waterboarded...just to see how tough I am ;)

[Denny]

It definetely is different. I sure as fuck don't want bamboo shoots under my finger nails, but would kinda like to be waterboarded...just to see how tough I am ;)

Go pay an 8th Street hooker to pee on you... I'm sure that's gotta be close.

[Juiceweezl]

And I was saying if he could endure it 266 times it must not be all that bad.

Is setting off IEDs and suicide bombs also considered torturous and criminal? What about murdering women and children to make a political statement? Criminal to you? Cry me a river over these poor mistreated scumbags. KSM is the kind of guy who would kill a girl for wanting to go to school. But cry me a river. BOO HOO

No one person was submitted 266 times. That was the number for the 2 together. It's still torture anyway you look at it.

As for setting off IED's and suicide bombs, yes, it's torturous and criminal. Why do you think we are prosecuting those we can catch alive affiliated with it. Why else are we at "war" with terrorism?

You're also missing the point (once again) and ignoring the obvious. It's a hypocritical stance for us to demand fair treatment of our citizens and soldiers and call waterboarding torturous and criminal while turning around and doing it ourselves. Again, I'll reiterate my position since you continue to fail to see it. I am for anything it takes to gain information to protect the safety of our nation and our people IF we make a public statement that our policy is just that. Then, we aren't being hypocritical about torturing suspects. Oh, and I sill say that waterboarding isn't as effective as other methods, maybe more humane, but not as effective.

[AL P]

No one person was submitted 266 times. That was the number for the 2 together. It's still torture anyway you look at it.

As for setting off IED's and suicide bombs, yes, it's torturous and criminal. Why do you think we are prosecuting those we can catch alive affiliated with it. Why else are we at "war" with terrorism?

You're also missing the point (once again) and ignoring the obvious. It's a hypocritical stance for us to demand fair treatment of our citizens and soldiers and call waterboarding torturous and criminal while turning around and doing it ourselves. Again, I'll reiterate my position since you continue to fail to see it. I am for anything it takes to gain information to protect the safety of our nation and our people IF we make a public statement that our policy is just that. Then, we aren't being hypocritical about torturing suspects. Oh, and I sill say that waterboarding isn't as effective as other methods, maybe more humane, but not as effective.

Then we pretty much agree, I just don't care about being seen as hypocritical, over a formality, to a world that hates us no matter we do.

[exlude]

Denny took it to a level that made me uncomfortable :(

[bcoop]

Denny took it to a level that made me uncomfortable :(

Bad flashback?

[exlude]

Bad flashback?

You see how much you like it when her pee is creamy.

[GT Dan]

I wouldn't put too much weight on the actual exoneration, but if you just want a name Joseph O'Dell. I'm thinking Vertnut will probably want more than that so I'll find some readings for y'all when I get a chance.

Cool. I'll look it up, I've never heard his name before...

What do you mean you wouldn't put much weight in the exoneration? I know he's dead but did they prove he was innocent?

[Juiceweezl]

Then we pretty much agree, I just don't care about being seen as hypocritical, over a formality, to a world that hates us no matter we do.

See, now for once we can both agree and acknowledge valid points. I'm even fine with dropping the matter publicly and legally as a nation if we'll decide our policy is, "Screw everyone else. They hate us anyway." As for the hypocritical thing, precedence just carries weight with me. We established it, and until we decide to formally ignore it and begin anew, I feel it should be honored. Now if say a certain "suspect" were to somehow escape and fall into the hands of a certain group of citizens that just happened to have battery cables, acid, bamboo shoots, etc. along with a list of questions... I'd see no problem whatsoever. haha

[Paladin]

Joseph O'Dell's DNA hasn't actually even been compared, has it?

I answered him about a confession meaning that it was a wrongful execution and also gave a lengthy response but I guess he ignored it. I bet he wouldn't say a person who confesses should be put in jail for life without independent evidence. By that same token a guy who confesses to a crime someone else has already been executed for does not mean the guy executed was innocent.

Silly liberals and their hypocrisy!

[Paladin]

No one person was submitted 266 times. That was the number for the 2 together. It's still torture anyway you look at it.

As for setting off IED's and suicide bombs, yes, it's torturous and criminal. Why do you think we are prosecuting those we can catch alive affiliated with it. Why else are we at "war" with terrorism?

You're also missing the point (once again) and ignoring the obvious. It's a hypocritical stance for us to demand fair treatment of our citizens and soldiers and call waterboarding torturous and criminal while turning around and doing it ourselves. Again, I'll reiterate my position since you continue to fail to see it. I am for anything it takes to gain information to protect the safety of our nation and our people IF we make a public statement that our policy is just that. Then, we aren't being hypocritical about torturing suspects. Oh, and I sill say that waterboarding isn't as effective as other methods, maybe more humane, but not as effective.

I don't see it as hypocitical unless we tortured soldiers from another country. We don't want our SOLDIERS tortured, so we won't torture yours. Al Quaeda and Taliban are not soldiers from a country. Why do you liberals not understand the difference?

[Vertnut]

Cool. I'll look it up, I've never heard his name before...

What do you mean you wouldn't put much weight in the exoneration? I know he's dead but did they prove he was innocent?

After some research on Odell, I don't see his argument. The vatican and the pope tried to stay the execution, and 90% of the people that wrote to the pope to intervene, were Italian(?). Some other guy confessed to the crime before being put to death, but there was a lot of evidence that nullified that. So...NEXT!:147:

[Sean88gt]

Obama wants us to be weak. I bet that changes when thousands of our countrymen die in an accident that was completely preventable.

[Mr Majestyk]

With the equally weak Congress we have currently, probably not.

[Juiceweezl]

I don't see it as hypocitical unless we tortured soldiers from another country. We don't want our SOLDIERS tortured, so we won't torture yours. Al Quaeda and Taliban are not soldiers from a country. Why do you liberals not understand the difference?

So you're telling me that we aren't at war with terrorists? You're telling me we wouldn't do the same thing with a "soldier" that we thought held information about an attack on America? Seriously???

[Vertnut]

So you're telling me that we aren't at war with terrorists? You're telling me we wouldn't do the same thing with a "soldier" that we thought held information about an attack on America? Seriously???

This is just an assumption you make, based on nothing in the past.

[Paladin]

So you're telling me that we aren't at war with terrorists? You're telling me we wouldn't do the same thing with a "soldier" that we thought held information about an attack on America? Seriously???

I say America is an honorable country and would not torture soldiers who wore the uniform of their country in a declared war. I say Al Quaeda is not a country and neither is the Taliban and that the people we held wewre not soldiers. There was no violation of any treaty and I thank God every day for President Bush and his administration protecting us for the last 7 years.

Do you think shaking hands with dictators (like your hero the Messiah) has done recently has made us more safe or less safe? Are we more safe now than we were under Bush?

[5starstanger]

I thank God that our intelligence agencies and military handled these criminals exactly the way they did. They don't qualify for American or military pow rights. They are threatening our Nation. If waterboarding and nudity was the worst they had to endure, I'm impressed with our results and resolve. Everything was handled legally, and now politicians are wanting to spin this they way they want 100% for political gain. Please, someone argue that Obama or any of his cabinet are doing this out of compassion for the terrorists, or quest for justice. :bsflag:

[5starstanger]

So you're telling me that we aren't at war with terrorists? You're telling me we wouldn't do the same thing with a "soldier" that we thought held information about an attack on America? Seriously???

If the US had treated POW this way, Obama would have released evidence by now to continue his political agenda.

[Juiceweezl]

This is just an assumption you make, based on nothing in the past.

Seriously? Amongst all the controversy with the Bush administration over detention, torture, Abu Ghraib, etc.? There are tons of allegations, some evidence, and some ongoing trials as well where US soldiers and officials are facing serious charges for torture of citizens even. Just a quick search will return numerous examples. The US has been illegally torturing people for a while, but it's just now coming to a real head. It's wrong, and it needs to stop or we need to just come out and say, "The hell with everyone else. We'll do what we want." I'd prefer the latter.

[Juiceweezl]

If the US had treated POW this way, Obama would have released evidence by now to continue his political agenda.

Evidence has been released 1) because a lot of it had already leaked out and 2) to establish that there have been wrongdoings and convince people there needs to be a change. Call it a political agenda if you want, but that's not the primary reason if a reason at all. Now, if you wanted to say a search for WMD's was a politica agenda, then...

[Paladin]

Seriously? Amongst all the controversy with the Bush administration over detention, torture, Abu Ghraib, etc.? There are tons of allegations, some evidence, and some ongoing trials as well where US soldiers and officials are facing serious charges for torture of citizens even. Just a quick search will return numerous examples. The US has been illegally torturing people for a while, but it's just now coming to a real head. It's wrong, and it needs to stop or we need to just come out and say, "The hell with everyone else. We'll do what we want." I'd prefer the latter.

Do you think America is an honorbale country? Do you think America has done more harm than good in the last 100 years?

[forever_frost]

Most of what went on in abu Ghraib was hazing and that's it. Hell, nudity and the like isn't torture.

[Muffrazr]

if you dont l want to respect the treaties you signed then why stay committed to them, why is no one asking to back out of them so that we can do what is necessary?

We just might use that option if there ever was a time that a legitimate leader of another country tried to stand up for a known terrorist of his country in regards to our techniques.

I contend that we are still acting within the limits of our treaties. I honestly think we could take another step, as long as it is a well known terrorist. I'm talking about only the highest priority terrorists.
These are the guys that convinced other people to die for a belief system, that in theory should be so great that an "old timer" could be considered unloyal, in my opinion.
They need to be "stimulated" to tell us what we want to know.


Have these types of techniques been proven to provide bad information? Yes, some people really don't know anything and will say something just for it to stop. On the other hand, some people are evil and will go great distance to try and hurt others.

[ModdinArt]

I freakin looove waterboarding.
It's a rush.

[Juiceweezl]

Do you think America is an honorbale country? Do you think America has done more harm than good in the last 100 years?

Depends on the topic at hand. As a whole, yes, we've done more good than harm, but it has come at a price. Oh, and there's a difference in doing good and doing good honorably.

[5starstanger]

Evidence has been released 1) because a lot of it had already leaked out and 2) to establish that there have been wrongdoings and convince people there needs to be a change. Call it a political agenda if you want, but that's not the primary reason if a reason at all. Now, if you wanted to say a search for WMD's was a politica agenda, then...

I've seen none.

[Paladin]

Depends on the topic at hand. As a whole, yes, we've done more good than harm, but it has come at a price. Oh, and there's a difference in doing good and doing good honorably.

Spoken like a true liberal. It just kills you libs to admit we are a great, decent, and honorable country without qualifying it.

[Vertnut]

Depends on the topic at hand. As a whole, yes, we've done more good than harm, but it has come at a price. Oh, and there's a difference in doing good and doing good honorably.

Bullshit...

[CTs2fast96GT]

I am bored at work and think im going to try this. How do you pull this off exactly? I got saran wrap and water but what exactly is the technique?

[5.0_CJ]

three treaties come to mind:
1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, US ratified in 1955



you should probably read the shit you cite, chief.

[helosailor]

Fwiw...for many years, waterboarding was part of the curriculum at the Navy's S.E.R.E. school. Candidates had it done to them so that they would now what to expect if captured by hostiles. If it was so bad, do you think they would have done it?
Btw, it was stopped after a candidate died afterwards of a heart attack. The story I heard was that he wasn't exactly a kid and was pushing the body fat standards. They had zero evidence it caused the heart attack but stopped it as a precaution. Waterboarding is now covered in great detail in a classroom environment.