Libs Claim Pres Bush Confessed To War Crimes

[abso]

Nope, just a simple answer on who determines who is a terrorist or not. Is it the Courts, is it the Government, WHO?

lets say a committee which study the evidence on the accused person and decides if he qualify to be a terrorist or not, or decides if torture should be used on him or not.

[Pagan]

For what it's worth -

U.S. signs UN convention against torture

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
-- RONALD REAGAN

[jimnyc]

No he hasn't, he's implied. I've even tried to clarify with asking if it's Government or the courts but he still will not answer.

So I'm waiting on "Who" determines "who" is a Terrorist or not since that is the core issue. Why is it so difficult eh?

Nope, just a simple answer on who determines who is a terrorist or not. Is it the Courts, is it the Government, WHO?

All of the above - but if it's a KNOWN terrorist, then just proceed directly to torturing without passing GO.

[revelarts]

how can torturing a terrorist who admit that he has info but refuses to give it to you be uncivilized ?

its really diffucult issue, as humans we shouldnt get down to the terrorists level and use torture as a mean to get to our goals.

but also as humans we have to get down to the terrorists level and use the torture to protect other humans.

so what should we choose?

i say that any sacrifice should be done to protect human lifes with the exception of sacrificing humans lifes to save others.

its hard to accept, but we all have to accept that alot of people are alive today because some of us sacrificed their values to protect others.

Abso
Torture is Ungodly and ineffective.

Deuteronomy 25:2

2 Then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a certain number of stripes according to his offense.
3 Forty stripes may be given him but not more, lest, if he should be beaten with many stripes, your brother should [be treated like a beast and] seem low and worthless to you.

Written Statement of FBI interrogator Ali Soufan to the Senate judiciary committee May 2009

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings...42&wit_id=7906


Mr. Chairman, Committee members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I know that each one of you cares deeply about our nation's security. It was always a comfort to me during the most dangerous of situations that I faced, from going undercover as an al Qaeda operative, to unraveling terrorist cells, to tracking down the killers of the 17 U.S. sailors murdered in the USS Cole bombing, that those of us on the frontline had your support and the backing of the American people. So I thank you.

The issue that I am here to discuss today – interrogation methods used to question terrorists – is not, and should not be, a partisan matter. We all share a commitment to using the best interrogation method possible that serves our national security interests and fits squarely within the framework of our nation's principles.

From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the "enhanced interrogation techniques," a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)
My interest in speaking about this issue is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone. People were given misinformation, half-truths, and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities. Examining a past we cannot change is only worthwhile when it helps guide us towards claiming a better future that is yet within our reach.

And my focus is on the future. I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these harmful, slow, ineffective, and unreliable techniques instead of the tried, tested, and successful ones – the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible....
.....
...I personally interrogated many terrorists we have in our custody and elsewhere, and gained confessions, identified terror operatives, their funding, details of potential plots, and information on how al Qaeda operates, along with other actionable intelligence. Because of these successes, I was the government's main witness in both of the trials we have had so far in Guantanamo Bay – the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, and Ali Hamza Al Bahlul, Bin Laden's propagandist. In addition I am currently helping the prosecution prepare for upcoming trials of other detainees held in Guantanamo Bay....

From Congressional Hearing 2007
TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF `ENHANCED' INTERROGATION.



Steven Kleinman, Colonel, USAFR, Intelligence and National Security Specialist, Senior Intelligence Officer/Military Interrogator. .... He was an interrogator and case officer during Operation Just Cause,
as the chief of a joint combined interrogation team during
Operation Desert Storm, and served as a senior adviser on
interrogation to the commander of a special operations task
force during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He currently holds the
rank of colonel, as the reserve senior intelligence officer at
the Air Force Special Operations Command.


Congressman Nadler: "Okay, let me ask you a question, and I need you
to set aside for a minute any moral or legal concerns and also
any other limits that might be imposed by the Army Field
Manual.
If you were in a position where you knew with absolute
certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and
you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent
value, is there anything that you would, could or should do
that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field
Manual?"
Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not. The
wonderful point we are in--and I would like to try to expand on
that, if I may--moral, legal and operational confluence all
ends in one very narrow circle. And that is, what we need to do
to adhere to legal concerns, what we need to do as a Nation
that would be morally correct, and what I would need to do as
an operator all falls in that same circle.
There is not an approach, there is not a strategy, there is
not a treatment that would even come close to violating Geneva
Convention guidelines, or the Constitution of the United
States, and certainly not the field manual on interrogation. We
talk about rapport, but rapport is a very inexact term. There
is a lot more to it.
But, fundamentally, to answer your question directly, I
would not need to do anything that would be prohibited by the
field manual and still be very, very effective."

[jimnyc]

For what it's worth -

U.S. signs UN convention against torture

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
-- RONALD REAGAN

I'm sure 'ol Ronnie sat around trying to get rid of torture so he can protect terrorists. NOT

Reagan, as well as probably every participant of any conventions or treaties, probably made remarks and voted as gentlemen. They were likely trying to preserve some dignity to war, to not kill indiscriminately and not to torture a captured prisoner. I doubt one single person involved signed hoping to salvage the life or rights of a terrorist.

And if court precedence shows it to afford such protections to terrorists, it should be fixed to take away every last right from them.

Treaties/Conventions against torture amongst "civilized" and uniformed armies = probably a damn good idea

Treaties/Conventions against torture protecting cowardly terrorists - a shit idea

[jimnyc]

Abso
Torture is Ungodly and ineffective.

And I can make posts showing it to be an effective tool, the rest is simply your opinion.

Why do you hate saving lives and protecting terrorists?

AGAIN, I would allow the torturing of 400,000 terrorists if one good man/woman was saved as a result.

[abso]

Abso
Torture is Ungodly and ineffective.

Ungodly, i would agree and that is unquestionable claim.

ineffective, thats a questionable claim.

[Pagan]

All of the above - but if it's a KNOWN terrorist, then just proceed directly to torturing without passing GO.

Again "known" Terrorist, you're saying if some Government, Cop, or who ever calls someone a Terrorist they're a Terrorist?

Like this?

Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists'

The New Push to Criminalize Dissent

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) withdrew its controversial report on “Right Wing Extremism” (PDF) as a terrorism threat back in May, but now left-wing media pundits say it’s time to bring back the report that tarred all U.S. military veterans and any political conservative as potential terrorist threats."


Yep as you say in your own words -

"proceed directly to torturing without passing GO"

[abso]

And I can make posts showing it to be an effective tool, the rest is simply your opinion.

Why do you hate saving lives and protecting terrorists?

AGAIN, I would allow the torturing of 400,000 terrorists if one good man/woman was saved as a result.

jim, also i agree with you and i disagree with him, but i would like to bring to your attention that none in here is thinking about protecting terrorists, we are all debating about our values, and our ethics and morality, should we sacrifice them to save lifes or not, we say that we should o it, they say the we shouldnt, thats what we are debating about.

[revelarts]

And I can make posts showing it to be an effective tool, the rest is simply your opinion.

Why do you hate saving lives and protecting terrorists?

AGAIN, I would allow the torturing of 400,000 terrorists if one good man/woman was saved as a result.

Why are you Against using the alternative options that work BETTER?

if you goal is to save lives rather than torture.
It seems to me that you would want he MOST effective method.
AND COMPLETELY GIVE UP THE LEGALLY AND MORALLY QUESTIONABLE.

MY GOD, when did American become land of the free home of the torturers if you piss us off.

George Washington was against it.
It's been ILLEGAL FOR YEARS. AND IS NOT NECESSARY.

[jimnyc]

Again "known" Terrorist, you're saying if some Government, Cop, or who ever calls someone a Terrorist they're a Terrorist?

Like this?

Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists'

The New Push to Criminalize Dissent

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) withdrew its controversial report on “Right Wing Extremism” (PDF) as a terrorism threat back in May, but now left-wing media pundits say it’s time to bring back the report that tarred all U.S. military veterans and any political conservative as potential terrorist threats."


Yep as you say in your own words -

"proceed directly to torturing without passing GO"

This is exactly why I don't answer in the manner you want me to, because you would rather play games with the words than actually discuss the issue. And here you are again with the "You're saying". I guess when you can't win you'll just make up a post and claim it's things I am saying.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread thought I was advocating torture against the "right wing extremists"! That's BS and you know it. You're playing semantics and word games and only looking like the ass you are.

Btw - why did you change YOUR stance? You once wrote that you were fine with them torturing based on RACE, and now you seem to be against it.

[jimnyc]

Why are you Against using the alternative options that work BETTER?

if you goal is to save lives rather than torture.
It seems to me that you would want he MOST effective method.
AND COMPLETELY GIVE UP THE LEGALLY AND MORALLY QUESTIONABLE.

MY GOD, when did American become land of the free home of the torturers if you piss us off.

George Washington was against it.
It's been ILLEGAL FOR YEARS. AND IS NOT NECESSARY.

Then let them start with the "better" options you speak of. If that doesn't work, torture the fuckers. My whole point is that terrorists are NOT deserving of any protections, IMO. If you can do it in an easier and "more humane" way, fine, but if not I couldn't care less if you slice their bellies open to get the info. If they don't fess up, fuck 'em, that's one less terrorist to worry about - before Obama sells him to another country anyway.

[jimnyc]

jim, also i agree with you and i disagree with him, but i would like to bring to your attention that none in here is thinking about protecting terrorists, we are all debating about our values, and our ethics and morality, should we sacrifice them to save lifes or not, we say that we should o it, they say the we shouldnt, thats what we are debating about.

Abso, which side of history would you rather be remembered by:

#1 - While we unfortunately dealt with a lot of casualties and more loss of life than one can possibly fathom, we lived up to our nations morals and integrity.

#2 While we unfortunately had to resort to techniques that were unsavory and against what we generally stand for, we were able to save thousands of lives and countless injuries.

I understand both are made to sound dramatic and are not fully based on facts or an actual situation. But the point is, history has a way of being nice to you when it involves ridding the world of shitty people and saving the lives of good people.

[NightTrain]

This is exactly why I don't answer in the manner you want me to, because you would rather play games with the words than actually discuss the issue. And here you are again with the "You're saying". I guess when you can't win you'll just make up a post and claim it's things I am saying.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread thought I was advocating torture against the "right wing extremists"! That's BS and you know it. You're playing semantics and word games and only looking like the ass you are.

Btw - why did you change YOUR stance? You once wrote that you were fine with them torturing based on RACE, and now you seem to be against it.

I think it was fairly clear to everyone that he wanted to maneuver you and try to nail you with semantics.

It's not worth your time, I already nailed him at his own game with 'mercenary' and despite clear evidence from UN guidelines defining a mercenary he still refused to acknowledge that he was beaten.

When he retreats to his Obtuse end-game, he'll begin responding with :

Really?

This is then followed by more circular arguments as he fumbles and thrashes his way around to try and somehow pull a win out of a good rousing game of semantics.

You're wasting your time, he won't cowboy up.

[jimnyc]

I think it was fairly clear to everyone that he wanted to maneuver you and try to nail you with semantics.

It's not worth your time, I already nailed him at his own game with 'mercenary' and despite clear evidence from UN guidelines defining a mercenary he still refused to acknowledge that he was beaten.

When he retreats to his Obtuse end-game, he'll begin responding with :



This is then followed by more circular arguments as he fumbles and thrashes his way around to try and somehow pull a win out of a good rousing game of semantics.

You're wasting your time, he won't cowboy up.

Yeah, I got the "really" thing several times. Wasn't aware of the thread you speak of but will do so now!