A big, salty sad river. Waterboarding is wrong! Yeah, I think flying planes into buildings full of civilians is a little "extreme" too. And let's not mention cutting off American (and other foreigners) heads and video taping it. I recently read an article about an Army Officer who got in big trouble (pretty much had to resign, career ending trouble) because he fired a pistol near the head of a prisoner to get information about an upcoming ambush.... accurate information that EVEN THE ARMY SAID SAVED AMERICAN LIVES. But the ball-less pricks still tossed him to the wolves. I hope our pandering to political groups that hate us doesn't lead to our demise. We just might pussy our way into non-extistance, because the bad guys aren't afraid to go apeshit. CIA boss: Waterboarding may be illegal By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago WASHINGTON - CIA Director Michael Hayden cast doubt on the legality of waterboarding on Thursday, a day after the White House said the harsh interrogation tactic has saved American lives and could be used in the future. Hayden told the House Intelligence Committee that he officially prohibited CIA operatives from using waterboarding in 2006 in the wake of a Supreme Court decision and new laws on the treatment of U.S. detainees. He said the agency has not used waterboarding for "just a few weeks short" of five years. He officially prohibited it from CIA interrogations in 2006. "It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden said. Though now legally questionable, Hayden said waterboarding was legal in 2002 and 2003, a time period when the technique was used to interrogate Al-Qaida detainees. "All the techniques that we've used have been deemed to be lawful," he said. Hayden's comments came just hours after Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in a separate House hearing, said the Justice Department would not investigate whether U.S. interrogators broke the law when waterboarding accused terrorists following the Sept. 11 attacks.
You'll get no argument out of me. Torture can be an effective means of obtaining information, and sometimes a necessity in war. I don't like it, but I understand the need for its use.
Waterboarding is "torture" like EMO bands are "singing." If Saddam/Hitler were alive they could show you some torture. When the first head came off, all bets were off IMO. If one American life is saved from this "torture" (that leaves no lasting permanent damage) then it's worth it. I wish our government had the balls to come right out and say "Yes, we use waterboarding and will continue to use it. If you're the part of the World that hates us, fuck you. No matter what we do you will hate us, so we willl not jeopardize our people to spare subhumans from discomfort just to appease you."
I'm not going to shed any tears if a terrorist gets tortured, and I support pretty much any method used. They made their choice to wage war, and that's a part of war. Deal with it. Saying that though, the key term there is "terrorist". Torturing an innocent is beyond unforgivable.
Hmmm.....compared to electrodes on the genitals, pulling out fingernails, drilling holes into arms and legs it is a little weak. But we can't all be Saddam/The Mafia/Nazis now can we?
lets not forget chopping off someones head with a not so sharp sword as well. Waterboarding is a hell of a thing to do, but some times its gotta be done.
And their boss? "Torture", though, is another of those words that immediately provokes a negative reaction. You really have to define your terms when discussing it or else you're not really having a debate. On the other hand, though, we must be careful not to go too far. I won't say that suicide bombings justifies whatever we do. It would be easy to become what we fear and hate.
Well, I'm of a mind that if you don't want to be the recepiant of such treatment then don't put yourself in the position of recieving such treatment.
Why screw around with waterboarding? Why not just feed 'em feet first into woodchippers. After all, it's only a matter of degree, right?
Sure, it's not as bad as all that stuff, but it's still torture. I'm not completely opposed to torture in all cases. I just like to call a spade a spade.
Some may say you have to become them to fight them. You just have to have the strength to pull yourself back when you're done.
I don't compare. It's all idiotic barbarism. You and you fellow sociopaths can go ahead and pound your puds to it. Civilization isn't a costume, it's way of thought. If you refuse it, you're no better than the ones in towel head costumes who do, and I oppose you.
It's a simple choice. Do you want terrorism combatted as efficiently as possible, or are you willing to surrender some debatable degree of personal safety to protect people who are somehow connected with terrorism from things like torture?
Even if there's a no doubt, direct link to saving Americans from an IED ambush? Not saying this is always the case, but there are times it can save lives...still not worth it?
Only seen a couple episodes. Played exactly like the parodies made it out to be like. Couldn't stop laughing through my nose and shaking my head.
Yeah, I get it. My point is that there should be no whining about what government/law enforcement/military are doing to protect us from terrorism from the same people who would tie their hands. I don't wanna hear "Waaaaaaahhh! Why wasn't something done to stop this?!?!" from the same mouth as "Waaaaaaahhh! Those poor tortured prisoners! "
False dichotomy. When I want more to be done, I mean things like better border inspections, better handling of overseas cargo containers, and no more fumbling of evidence and warnings like what led up to 9/11.
Oh, and don't use that little catchphrase, it really makes me nauseous. You could apply that to pretty much any fascist behavior, and be technically right.
The abyss can be pretty deep. It takes a lot of strength to keep from starting down the slope but it takes a lot more to get back to where you started.
I guess I'm talking about a more personal "boots on the ground" type situation (sort of like you would encounter in Iraq). You can extract information (from the same dudes YOU SAW trying to kill you yesterday) in the next hour that will likely save your buddies lives.
Oh, I don't deny that other methods exist. But the possibility that torturing information out of the one prisoner who might know something could conceivably be the only way to prevent a big attack also cannot be denied. The likelihood is debatable, but at least in theory, ruling out torture surrenders one possible way of saving ourselves. Can't I apply a "catch phrase" in one context without accepting the association with any other contexts? Yeah, I think I can. And I'm not making moral judgements here. Only pragmatic ones. Marking this as a line you are unwilling to cross also implies a point at which you're willing to sacrifice your life for your principles. No two ways about it. I'm not saying "Torture is good!". I'm speaking to the side of this coin the unconditionally anti-torture crowd likes to pretend doesn't exist, that they surrender some finger-pointing legitimacy with that proclamation.
Sounds kind of like heroin addiction. The guy who was an ass but crawls his way back gets a pat on the back, the guy who didn't get addicted in the first place "boo! Goodie two-shoes! Loosen up! Live a little!".
