Do you support torture?

[NATO AIR]

Actually.. one last note I always enjoy considering.

The whole torture debate is another example of "we support the troops but they might as well shut the hell up because we ignore them anyway" deal.

Countless uniformed and retired officers and NCO's have come forward publicly to criticize the use of torture by the USG in any case. Right or wrong, these gents usually are the most experienced of the bunch, besides the others (the FBI & CID/NCIS agents who've been chasing terrorists a lot more effectively than the CIA for the last 20 years anyway) who also came out against it forcefully.

Yet the politicians (besides a few notables like McCain, Graham & Congressman Ron Kirk (Naval Intel Reserve Officer/Republican) tend to ignore that. As do most of the people. Certainly most of the media.

That's a shame. They don't waste their oxygen talking about this issue because it makes them feel better.

But then again, considering how we ignored advice for a surge for more than a year, for adequate COIN tactics for 2-3 years and how we told the military to shut up and let Paul Bremer handle it... why do I always bother to get worked up over ignoring the valid and generally far more informed commentary and advice of the military?

[Mr. P]

Talk to people who've been water boarded @ SERE and other survival schools.

The bullshit from Bush and others had gotten so thick this year that it was the first issue I'd ever seen good junior, mid-grade and senior NCO's & officers up in arms about, willing to risk their career almost to write a letter asking SECDEF Gates to advise the President and the CIA hacks to experience waterboarding themselves and try to claim it wasn't torture then or just plain shut up about it.

Its amateur hour as usual in Washington. Its so bad now that in some Army units the mid-grade and above officers & NCO's have had to repeatedly and explicitly remind the youngn's that contrary to what they saw on 24 or heard some CIA agent say, torture is a no-no and doesn't work anyway.

You know its bad when the Army copped to flying some people to Hollyweird to beg the 24 producer to reduce the torture scenes on the show because of the damage that fantasy crap was causing.

I have been water boarded, Nato. Thus my opinion.

[OCA]

A yes/no question.

In terms of using it as a means to glean or gain something which is unattainable any other way you bet your goofy ass I do!

[emmett]

Talk to people who've been water boarded @ SERE and other survival schools.

The bullshit from Bush and others had gotten so thick this year that it was the first issue I'd ever seen good junior, mid-grade and senior NCO's & officers up in arms about, willing to risk their career almost to write a letter asking SECDEF Gates to advise the President and the CIA hacks to experience waterboarding themselves and try to claim it wasn't torture then or just plain shut up about it.

Its amateur hour as usual in Washington. Its so bad now that in some Army units the mid-grade and above officers & NCO's have had to repeatedly and explicitly remind the youngn's that contrary to what they saw on 24 or heard some CIA agent say, torture is a no-no and doesn't work anyway.

You know its bad when the Army copped to flying some people to Hollyweird to beg the 24 producer to reduce the torture scenes on the show because of the damage that fantasy crap was causing.

Hey! I got an idea. We could just politely ask the insensative terrorist bastards if they would like to surrender some information, then if they didn't we could give them a brand new curan that had not been touched with filthy Christian hands, serve them a good meal cooked in pots that had never contained a pork product, then we could make friends with them huh? That would be special.

Let me ask you this. Where do you draw the line of your standars? Let's draw a scenario. Your child has been abducted, the bastard is caught, he has buried your child in a box that has 8 hours of air left. Would you then feel torture was out of the question as a way to get the bastard to tell where your child was? I think we all know the answer. Why would obtaining information about a plot to kill Americans be any different. Why don't you explain it to my dumb ass so I can understand.

[jimnyc]

Here's my thoughts on torture. And yes, I know some will disagree, and that's cool.

I think if a terrorist is caught either harming our troops or attempting to do so, or it's believed he has information that can help, we do what needs to be done. If that means tying a string around his balls and lifting him over a tree limb until they roll down the road like a few marbles that have gone astray, so be it. Seriously though, I don't care in the slightest bit if I hear that a terrorist has been waterboarded, sleep deprived or has had a gun put to his head with blanks in it. I've seen footage of what they'll do to our soldiers or citizens should they capture them, and what we might do to them is a day at the beach in comparison. Our efforts would be a means of getting information to assist in winning a war or saving lives. Their efforts are outright murder.

[retiredman]

Here's my thoughts on torture. And yes, I know some will disagree, and that's cool.

I think if a terrorist is caught either harming our troops or attempting to do so, or it's believed he has information that can help, we do what needs to be done. If that means tying a string around his balls and lifting him over a tree limb until they roll down the road like a few marbles that have gone astray, so be it. Seriously though, I don't care in the slightest bit if I hear that a terrorist has been waterboarded, sleep deprived or has had a gun put to his head with blanks in it. I've seen footage of what they'll do to our soldiers or citizens should they capture them, and what we might do to them is a day at the beach in comparison. Our efforts would be a means of getting information to assist in winning a war or saving lives. Their efforts are outright murder.

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

[jimnyc]

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

Your cute little analogies are just that, cute. I think I was quite clear in the instances that I would be for torture, but if you would like to draw it further and make it sound more acceptable in other instances to make your point, more power to you.

I have no desire to see a terrorist have ANY rights whatsoever. Their goal is to kill or die, I prefer it's just them who die and they not get to bring others with them.

[Mr. P]

so, because we are not as bad as they are, that means we are good? Again.... if you would torture a terrorist who your were 100% sure had information about a terrorist attack that would kill a million Americans, why not torture a terrorist suspect who you were 50% sure had information about an attack that would kill a thousand Americans... or a possible terrorist suspect that you were 20% sure had information about a possible attack that might kill fifty Americans.... or why not torture that guy who you are pretty sure raped that young girl just to get a confession from his skanky ass and put him away so that he won't harm any other young girls.... or why not bank robbers? they're bad people too.

Goddamned shoplifters! Pull the bitch's fingernails out until she tells us where she hid that eyeshadow our rent-a-cop saw her lift from the makeup counter!

Where do you draw the line and why won't that line just be redrawn the next time we decide to devolve a little more and become more and more like those who are attacking us? It is a slippery slope.

You talk as though this is all brand new. It went on in WWII and VN. Not much said about that. Didn't seem to cross over to the civilian world. The current focus is nothing more than another attempt to 'get Bush'. Nothing seems to stick so lets give this a try. All interrogation techniques are torture, torture is a crime, therefore Bush is a criminal, impeach him and toss him in jail. Exactly what the intent of the "Yes/No" OP is all about IMO. Pitifull.

[Sir Evil]

You talk as though this is all brand new. It went on in WWII and VN. Not much said about that. Didn't seem to cross over to the civilian world. The current focus is nothing more than another attempt to 'get Bush'. Nothing seems to stick so lets give this a try. All interrogation techniques are torture, torture is a crime, therefore Bush is a criminal, impeach him and toss him in jail. Exactly what the intent of the "Yes/No" OP is all about IMO. Pitifull.

Exactly right Mr.P! Dipshits making something out of this make it out like it's something that has never happened before.

[retiredman]

Your cute little analogies are just that, cute. I think I was quite clear in the instances that I would be for torture, but if you would like to draw it further and make it sound more acceptable in other instances to make your point, more power to you.

I have no desire to see a terrorist have ANY rights whatsoever. Their goal is to kill or die, I prefer it's just them who die and they not get to bring others with them.

Where do you draw the line? And if you start down the slope, why can't you make the case each and every time to just move the line a little bit further to save people?

[Dilloduck]

It is a slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments are based on whatever dastardly thing that you are sure is going to happen next. Humans don't KNOW what will happen next and because A happens it doesn't mean that B has to.

[retiredman]

Slippery slope arguments are based on whatever dastardly thing that you are sure is going to happen next. Humans don't KNOW what will happen next and because A happens it doesn't mean that B has to.

are you suggesting that if we started using torture routinely as an interrogation technique, that it would not thereafter, be easier for us to accept using torture under more circumstances?

[Dilloduck]

are you suggesting that if we started using torture routinely as an interrogation technique, that it would not thereafter, be easier for us to accept using torture under more circumstances?

It might be easier for you to accept it but not me.

[NATO AIR]

You talk as though this is all brand new. It went on in WWII and VN. Not much said about that. Didn't seem to cross over to the civilian world. The current focus is nothing more than another attempt to 'get Bush'. Nothing seems to stick so lets give this a try. All interrogation techniques are torture, torture is a crime, therefore Bush is a criminal, impeach him and toss him in jail. Exactly what the intent of the "Yes/No" OP is all about IMO. Pitifull.

Considering that the only people begging for the right to torture is the CIA, which can't be trusted by anybody to be accountable, I don't view this as an attempt to get Bush.

Considering that so many military JAGS have risked their careers to follow the law and the spirit of the military, and not some bunk political hackery, I don't think it is an attempt to "get Bush".

Considering that even military prosecutors (hell, a Marine colonel whose best friend died on 9/11) have refused to bring charges against defendants because there is strong evidence that they were tortured, I don't see this as an attempt to "get Bush".

Its an attempt to do what's right, both by our laws and by our traditions. Beyond anything else, all we have in the military when it comes down to it is our ethos. Shaped in boot camp, the academies and OCS, cultivated in the fleet, in the field and in the firefights and strengthened by the common honor we all strive to share with our predecessors.

That there are a few (including a disgraceful tiny minority within the military itself) who would desire to gut this ethos and our honor because they can't think things through or even pursue the goddamn interrogation manuals they have that have worked for decades (yes, even in the 80's & 90's, how come you think we have turned most of the people we have captured over to our side? it sure wasn't torture) is not any firm evidence of torture's efficacy.

It is the sign that we have far too many simpletons in positions of power instead of men and women of honor and intelligence.

A last note; consider that some people in positions of power over the past six years have arrogantly ignored the objections of those who are most experienced in chasing and capturing terrorists. The CIA lost damn near its entire Middle East/North Africa brain trust in Lebanon in '83, and the FBI/CID/DIA/NCIS took up the fight and did an admirable job capturing and interrogating countless terrorists over the 18 years between then and 9/11. They didn't once have to torture. They turned most of the people into informants and snitches. We learned more about terrorism and its supporters and its intricacies then from skillful, intelligent interrogation procedures than anything else.

This success has been replicated on countless occasions since 9/11, most recently in the killing of that beast in Iraq Zawqawri. Our Army and contractor interrogators outsmarted the terrorists and terrorist supporters they captured and got the intel and cooperation they needed to put a JDAM on the bastard's hiding spot.

No need for torture. Not now, not then, not ever.

[Dilloduck]

Considering that the only people begging for the right to torture is the CIA, which can't be trusted by anybody to be accountable, I don't view this as an attempt to get Bush.

Considering that so many military JAGS have risked their careers to follow the law and the spirit of the military, and not some bunk political hackery, I don't think it is an attempt to "get Bush".

Considering that even military prosecutors (hell, a Marine colonel whose best friend died on 9/11) have refused to bring charges against defendants because there is strong evidence that they were tortured, I don't see this as an attempt to "get Bush".

Its an attempt to do what's right, both by our laws and by our traditions. Beyond anything else, all we have in the military when it comes down to it is our ethos. Shaped in boot camp, the academies and OCS, cultivated in the fleet, in the field and in the firefights and strengthened by the common honor we all strive to share with our predecessors.

That there are a few (including a disgraceful tiny minority within the military itself) who would desire to gut this ethos and our honor because they can't think things through or even pursue the goddamn interrogation manuals they have that have worked for decades (yes, even in the 80's & 90's, how come you think we have turned most of the people we have captured over to our side? it sure wasn't torture) is not any firm evidence of torture's efficacy.

It is the sign that we have far too many simpletons in positions of power instead of men and women of honor and intelligence.

A last note; consider that some people in positions of power over the past six years have arrogantly ignored the objections of those who are most experienced in chasing and capturing terrorists. The CIA lost damn near its entire Middle East/North Africa brain trust in Lebanon in '83, and the FBI/CID/DIA/NCIS took up the fight and did an admirable job capturing and interrogating countless terrorists over the 18 years between then and 9/11. They didn't once have to torture. They turned most of the people into informants and snitches. We learned more about terrorism and its supporters and its intricacies then from skillful, intelligent interrogation procedures than anything else.

This success has been replicated on countless occasions since 9/11, most recently in the killing of that beast in Iraq Zawqawri. Our Army and contractor interrogators outsmarted the terrorists and terrorist supporters they captured and got the intel and cooperation they needed to put a JDAM on the bastard's hiding spot.

No need for torture. Not now, not then, not ever.

You're going to have to explain to me how killing is good and torture is bad.