Waterboarding

[Thorne]

I work for the US Government in a security occupation, If I tell you who I work for they will have to kill me! The actions that we take on a daily basis are specifically related to the intel that we are provided. But the public is, and should be for national security reasons, ignorant of most of said intel. Therefore, the public assumes that our security processes are ignorant because of their lack of knowlege about the rationale. I can only assume, based on my specific experiences, that the same applies to our lack of understanding in the water boarding debate and the consequential public outcry.

I can understand the need for keeping secrets in any government. Revealing everything they know could compromise some intelligence assets, both here and abroad. An enemy who knows what we know could figure out how we came to know it. I don't have a problem with keeping those kinds of secrets. Or about strategic assets, such as the stealth program, which was extremely secret at one point, though apparently less so now.

But it's my understanding (and I have no first-hand knowledge of this) that the vast majority of information which has been classified "Secret" by any government, is done so more to protect the reputations and/or dignity of government officials, not to protect the security of the country. It's my opinion that keeping information regarding the activities at Guantanamo Bay secret is, for the most part, one of those kinds of secrets.

[stripedangel]

i just wanted to add a few links to assist here.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...imo_terrorsis/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3042907.stm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...inst_Terrorism

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/index.php?s=torture

and one about Desert Storm...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/

There are some interesting articles here, and some vid clips to watch as well. You can check out other items as too, and most of these sites have more than just the articles that i have linked.

Dangit i said i wasn't gonna debate this issue any farther, and i meant it lol. However, i am interested in the views of others, and wish to assist with the obvious learning trend that has been created in here. So, i'll research and if i find anything of interest (to either side of the argument, as you'll see), i'll post it.

Dunno if i need to start another thread or not (as i'm sure that Alex will let me know in Her sweet way if that's the case, so i'm not worried about it), but wanted to post these links in here because i feel they're pertinent to the discussion.

Let me just add that i would rather not even know about these "fuckers"-terrorists, politicians, etc, and their actions. There is nothing that i can do about it, and nothing's changing, even though we all know now what's been happening. Torture has gone on since the beginning of time, and it's not stopping now, just because we're all unhappy about it...and i'm not proud to hear what my own countrymen and women are doing to other human beings. i would rather just be oblivious, in my little bubble, thinking every person has some level of good in them. There is no way i myself could inflict any harm on any individual and i cannot see how others can-but i understand the basic working of things....and i fucking HATE politics. Every other day there's a story about one that has abused his/her position, using tax dollars for personal gain, and don't even get me started on how my tax dollars may have paid for a high priced call girl so a politician could be unfaithful to the most important vow he ever made.

Master and i spoke about this last night after He posted to this thread, and We dug to the very basic middle of the matter:

If there were no criminals, we would have no need for the law-no attorneys, no judges, no police. Same as if we had no terrorists, there would be no need for the hightened security measures and everyone involved would be out of a job. If the Middle Eastern terrorists kill us all (infadels) like they want to do, there would be no one for their countries to sell their oil to. If there were no war, the bigwig corporations would have no "ground zeros," here and in the Mideast, to rebuild...and couldn't keep fleecing us all for funding. Lobbyists would actually have to lobby for meaningful causes, and they're not good at that unless it's lining their pockets....c'mon, y'all, they need their kickbacks, poor souls. AND if there were no torture, the news folks would have alot less to report- they'd only be working part time, and the terrorists would have no way to prove that we're the meanest country in the world.


The Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." i tend to believe it.

[denuseri]

we keep sucking yu back in stripey,, lol, hugs and kisess,, nice post sweetie, its too true and sad that it is the way the world goes round, i wish it was different too, i really think its all the politicians and big business "fuckers" that have gotten us into this mess with the jiyad "fuckers" at least this last time around,, mabey like in robert hienline's book (please forgive the spelling) starship troopers, the veterans will someday do something about it , the legions sure changed the way rome was ran in a hurry when they got fucked by thier 'fuckers" one to many times

[MMI]

That's a long answer! Do I do it injustice by summarising it as, the government knows that rounding up sleeper cells would prove unpopular, and in election year, it would be foolish to alienate voters?

What a cynical risk for them to take with people's lives, just to avoid political disadvantage. Stripedangel said that we don't know where or when they [the sleepers] will attack. That's presumably the Government line. So, there's a risk that there'll be another WTC, and the authorities know this. Yet they are prepared to gamble on US lives - or if they are lucky, on Spanish, British or Saudi lives instead - so as not to jeopardise McCain's chances of election. From over here, the Democrat vote looks split anyway, and most anti-torture, bed-wetting liberals would tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican, so why worry?

On the other hand, you imply that in any other year, they would be rounded up. What? Has this world-wide cell only just been discovered (assuming it really does exist, and is not just made-up to keep us all on edge)? I don't think so. It's not election year in Britain or France or Spain (so far as I know). Why don't those countries round them up? Answer - they can't. They have no proof of wrong-doing.

Going back to the question of torture, I think, that despite the fact that politicians are a bunch of self-seeking megalomaniacs with no real thought for the well-being of their constituents, other than to keep them voting the way they "should", they do pay more than lip-service to the rule of law. After all, they make the laws and the rules of the dirty game they are playing. Even they have to observe certain rules. It is the politicians who have signed up to treaties and conventions against torture because even they are not prepared to condone it openly.

The USA has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it should not now cavil about it. No torture means no torture: there are no exceptions -

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation.

But then you go on to say that your "well-intentioned" government has been ham-strung by people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse (you do that, don't you?) from waterboarding one or two of its unwilling guests - how else do you describe people who have been picked up at gunpoint, deported to a place that is (hopefully) subject only to military (do I mean summary?) justice, kept in cages like animals, subjected to mental torture and deprived of legal representation or POW rights, and then let go without charge or proof of guilt of any kind. Well-intentioned be buggered! I'm sorry, I just can't accept that good intentions justify degrading people for no good and certain purpose. Nor do I accept the supposition that the government is well-intentioned.

Mr Fixit: Surely this type of tactic has been reserved for a specific few that, based on credible intel, have implicated that use of such an extreme tactic would prove beneficial to uncover further life saving credible intel."

It hasn't though, has it? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories.

You say the public should be unaware of most of what your intel says. Why? Because it reveals illegal acts that, if the public knew were taking place, it just would not tolerate it? Or because it's based on a universty student's essay that draws upon information already in the public domain, and the public would be horrified at the government's ineptitude, and the money and lives it was costing?


I cannot answer your question "Based on American history, what do you think would happen if we started rounding up sleeper cells" My knowledge of American history is limited because it played a relatively insignificant role in the British Imperial History course I followed - something about France winning your independence for you, so you could pay higher taxes and have fewer freedoms than when you were subjects of King George I seem to think. But you appear to be guiding my thoughts when you suggest that, despite the most luxurious cages provided and the free trips to foreign countries on the Extreme Rendition Express given to your political prisoners, some lily-livered wimps might still make life uncomfortable for the government.

Wouldn't that be a shame?

Stripedangel. I will look at the links you have provided. Thanks.

I, too, would like the world to be a perfect place, and know that it never will be. But things do get better over time, don't they? I mean, 500 years ago, I'd probably have been advocating that the terrorist be hanged, drawn and quartered, or spit-roasted live. 250 years ago, I'd probably have settled for hanging. 150 years ago, transportation might have been enough.

There's room for optimism.

[stripedangel]

we keep sucking yu back in stripey,, lol, hugs and kisess,, nice post sweetie, its too true and sad that it is the way the world goes round, i wish it was different too, i really think its all the politicians and big business "fuckers" that have gotten us into this mess with the jiyad "fuckers" at least this last time around,, mabey like in robert hienline's book (please forgive the spelling) starship troopers, the veterans will someday do something about it , the legions sure changed the way rome was ran in a hurry when they got fucked by thier 'fuckers" one to many times

Yeah, denu, xxx i hate to argue, but i can't keep my effin mouth shut!!!

MMI, i believe what Master was saying about the election year is that it's the cherry on top of the whole reasoning process for not rounding folks up like they did back then. GWBitch (btw i posted a joke in the Biker Jokes thread about him lol) has some low ratings and has had the same low ratings for years now. He promised to get the terrorists...Osama, in particular...now almost 8 years and nothing. Funny, our Prez can't find Osama, but the guy who did that show, "Supersize Me", says he saw the bastard and has 15 minutes of footage to prove it, to be shown at the Sundance Film Festival...wonder if that's true?

Donald Rumsfeld was the one blamed for the false intelligence according to NPR...and GWBoob just followed along - it supported what he wanted to do anyway. i must state though, that i find it interesting that if Saddam had no WMDs, why did he disallow the UN inspectors and begin trucking everything from his warehouse (for lack of a better term) immediately? They did find remnants of supplies used to build certain WMDs. Sounds to me like a "breach of contract" since Saddam himself agreed that he would no longer *dabble* in this sort of thing, in order to be free from some of the sanctions that had been laid upon him (and his people) for his basically childish way of running his country.

i do believe that if the draft was brought back, and NO exceptions allowed, there would be many more children of these politicians involved in the war...then they might be a bit more sparing with the amount of troops they are willing to risk at war...and how many prisoners get tortured, as well, since the possibility of their own kin being treated the same way.

Thanks for looking at my links, i hope they are all helpful. Some of them i've read and some i just scanned, but i found them all interesting. Here is another, to a site that appears to be quite informative, as far as this issue, and others raised in this thread, are concerned....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

But particularly these...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...guidelines.htm
(you'll need to read the PDFs to see the whole thing)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...1211-voa01.htm

If you use the search function on this site and type in waterboarding, you will find all sorts of interesting things about it. The more i view this particualr site, the more i like it.

i guess i'm not gonna withdraw. LOL. Like i said before, i can't keep my trap shut.

[denuseri]

oooo i would love to so not retort to the so called superior british version of american history lmao, that would require a whole seperate thread, or at least i say i aint weg, but because i am such a naughty lil subbie (and history majior) here goes, and i do mean this as respectfully as possible :
though i can see after loosing two wars against us "colonials" the view would get slanted by those with political swing in england to lessen the lesson so to speak, a similar thing has went on in southern states (formerly known as slave states) over our little civil war and subsequent reconstruction ,,and one can see many other examples of the loosers attempting to re write history , look how bright and shiney athens made itself out to be with hindsight after loosing to sparta in a thirty year war that basically crushed athens hopes of empire permamently (which is exactly what athens was trying to do build an empire)
basically if i want an expert opinion on brittish history do i go to austrailia or america to get it? Likewise one may think it best to go to the horses mouth , for instance if i want to know about the different reason the brittish empire fell to pieces after ww2 or why brittian gave full support to the surrounding arab countries and did everything in thier power to stop the formation of isreal as a state, etc etc.
as for france wining the war for us, oh dear smh, the french (other than the young layfeyette who btw was an aide to washington) didnt really fight all that much here stateside, though a small bit of thier navy did show up to claim some glory when we finally finished the red coats off in the end of the war, but lets not go there really
all its going to do is start another debate and i am certian your scorces are just as credible to you as mine to me,

[MMI]

Oh denuseri, denuseri: it wasn't your nose I was tweaking!

But my sources are American (there's virtually nothing online from British sources). But I would look at them all, not just one side's version, if I could.

There were 2 wars? Oh yes. That other one. It was a stalemate (and of even less interest to Britons than the Rebellion: Bonaparte was much more of a problem). Neither side lost anything or won anything - except we developed Bermuda and organised a great fireworks display in Washington. But, then, your lot had fun in the Battle of New Orleans. Honours even. Canada regards it as a British (Empire) win because they thwarted US expansionist plans.

I don't know much about British involvement in trying to prevent Israel being formed (I had believed we were closely involved in its formation - but apparently I'm wrong. I do remember my father cursing the Israelis for behaving just like terrorists, though - for example, by murdering a captured British soldier, stringing up his body and mining the ground underneath him, to kill whoever tried to cut the poor man down. I hastily add that I bear no such grudge.) What I do know is, Britain had been involved in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottonman Empire, and many of the arab countries were under our protection. Many others were involved with France.

Our experience of dealing with the arab nations and tribes was that they were ruthless fighters. They were also tolerant, independent, proud and noble people with a great sense of right and wrong, and enormous loyalty to their friends and allies. We probably let them down. We certainly laid the foundations for all the problems that exist in the Middle East now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Rebellion by Rudyard Kipling.


1776


BEFORE

TWAS not while England's sword unsheathed
Put half a world to flight,
Nor while their new-built cities breathed
Secure behind her might;
Not while she poured from Pole to Line
Treasure ships and men--
These worshippers at Freedom's shrine
They did not quit her then!

Not till their foes were driven forth
By England o'er the main--
Not till the Frenchman from the North
Had gone with shattered Spain;
Not till the clean-swept oceans showed
No hostile flag unrolled,
Did they remember what they owed
To Freedom--and were bold.

AFTER

The snow lies thick on Valley Forge,
The ice on the Delaware,
But the poor dead soldiers of King George
They neither know nor care.

Nor though the earliest primrose break
On the sunny side of the lane,
And scuffling rookeries awake
Their England's spring again.

They will not stir when the drifts are gone,
Or the ice melts out of the bay:
And the men that served with Washington
Lie as still as they.

They will not stir though the mayflower blows
In the moist dark woods of pine,
And every rock-strewn pasture shows
Mullein and Columbine.

Each for his land, in a fair fight,
Encountered, strove, and died,
And the kindly earth that knows no spite
Covers them side by side.

She is too busy to think of war;
She has all the world to make gay;
And, behold, the yearly flowers are
Where they were in our fathers' day!

Golden-rod by the pasture wall
When the columbine is dead,
And sumach leaves that turn, in fall,
Bright as the blood they shed.

[tessa]

But my sources are American (there's virtually nothing online from British sources). But I would look at them all, not just one side's version, if I could.

Quite an astute perspective to have. Also rare. One might say almost an impossible one to have.

There were 2 wars? Oh yes. That other one. It was a stalemate (and of even less interest to Britons than the Rebellion: Bonaparte was much more of a problem). Neither side lost anything or won anything - except we developed Bermuda and organised a great fireworks display in Washington.

This made me laugh a little. Thanks for that.

We certainly laid the foundations for all the problems that exist in the Middle East now.

"...all the problems" ...wow. Hmm...kind of taking far too much credit here, I'm thinking. Play a part in creating the structural outlay, sure, but to state it as an all-encompassing idea works against your "all sides" philosophy.

the use of water boarding was probably presented by the cia too the military and for reasons of cost and expediency

Respectfully, I have to say "not so". I believe it's used because there are some extremely malignant minds out there in this world of ours who are in the position to infect others with their thinking. It has been and will continue to be. That is why when it comes to whatever form of torture we choose as topic, as Alex said, it will never be outlawed.

Torture exists because there are people who are not only willing to think it up and inflict it, but feel an inner need to do so. They can provide whatever "justifications" they deem suitable, but it's the same as Bush arguing that he can "be victorious" in war- none of the reasoning makes any sense. Really, it boils down to the fact that the tormentor wants to torture. It just isn't possible to outlaw innate bloodlust and because there will always be people who desire to act in barbarous ways, no government anywhere will ever be able to provide legislation to rid us of that evil.

i wish i knew what to do to prevent it all

We should all probably spend more time pondering just that.

[MMI]

Quite an astute perspective to have. Also rare. One might say almost an impossible one to have.

I'd like to say scholarly, but, alas! I'm no scholar.

"...all the problems" ...wow. Hmm...kind of taking far too much credit here, I'm thinking. Play a part in creating the structural outlay, sure, but to state it as an all-encompassing idea works against your "all sides" philosophy.

OK - we're not entirely responsible. I have no trouble conceding that point.

Torture exists because there are people who are not only willing to think it up and inflict it, but feel an inner need to do so. They can provide whatever "justifications" they deem suitable, but it's the same as Bush arguing that he can "be victorious" in war- none of the reasoning makes any sense. Really, it boils down to the fact that the tormentor wants to torture. It just isn't possible to outlaw innate bloodlust and because there will always be people who desire to act in barbarous ways, no government anywhere will ever be able to provide legislation to rid us of that evil.

No argument from me about that.

We should all probably spend more time pondering just that.

Doesn't this thread form part of that contemplation?

[Mr.FixIt]

That's a long answer! Do I do it injustice by summarising it as, the government knows that rounding up sleeper cells would prove unpopular, and in election year, it would be foolish to alienate voters?

Yes, through your summarization, you have definitely done injustice to my answer. The election year is only the cherry on top of the point that I have made. As I explained before, due to the atrocities and injustices incurred by numerous racial, tribal, and religious groups at the hand of the American people and the American government over the last couple-hundred years, we are now in apology mode--an era of political correctness, AKA PC, which has handicapped us from being able to deal appropriately with crimes that have been committed against us. Because of this PC handicap, we are afraid to arrest illegal immigrants unless they have committed a felony crime. And once they have committed a felony crime, we put them into our prison systems that are supported by our tax dollars, which consequently drains our national resources further, rather than deport them to the countries from which they came, which might appear to be paranoia to the media and consequently the public, and that just wouldn't be PC would it?! But isn't illegal immigration in itself a crime? And aren’t the members of these sleeper cells mostly illegal immigrants? Yes, they are! And, yes, they have committed a crime and should be "rounded up". Note: I didn't say torture them because they are illegal immigrants--ha ha, I headed you off at the pass on that one didn't I!

The USA has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it should not now cavil about it. No torture means no torture: there are no exceptions

The destruction of our buildings and death of 3,000 of our innocent U.S. citizens, (non-combatants) was a breach of contract, IMO. The contract is ,IMO, now null and void. Also, wasn't Saddam Hussein a WMD all by himself?

However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation...

...It hasn't though, has it (gained credible intel)? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories.

Your feeling of mutual consensus is ill-founded. Please see the following:

By VOA News
11 December 2007

A former CIA officer said interrogators used a simulated drowning technique on a senior al-Qaida member, and that he believes the method is torture.

Former agent John Kiriakou said in interviews, first on ABC News Monday, the technique known as waterboarding helped break senior al-Qaida suspect Abu Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

In response, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino Tuesday said President Bush approved a lawful program to interrogate "hardened terrorists." She said the program, announced in 2006, is safe, effective and legal. The White House has never confirmed any specific interrogation technique.

Kiriakou said the day after the waterboarding, Zubaydah agreed to cooperate and provided key intelligence that disrupted a number of attacks. Kiriakou was part of the CIA team that interrogated Zubaydah, but said he did not witness the waterboarding being done.

But then you go on to say that your "well-intentioned" government has been ham-strung by people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse (you do that, don't you?) from waterboarding one or two of its unwilling guests - how else do you describe people who have been picked up at gunpoint, deported to a place that is (hopefully) subject only to military (do I mean summary?) justice, kept in cages like animals, subjected to mental torture and deprived of legal representation or POW rights, and then let go without charge or proof of guilt of any kind. Well-intentioned be buggered!

I’ve already responded to this point. I am only quoting you here to explain the following misinterpretation from across the pond:

Buggers=Fuckers=shit heads=assholes=terrorists=politicians

The term “fuckers”, in this context does not refer to “people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse”. I’ll assume for the sake of keeping this a clean debate, that this was an honest regional misinterpretation on your part, and that you are not intentionally mincing words here. But yes, in your interpretation of the word, I am a fucker, and I am quite good at it!

You say the public should be unaware of most of what your intel says. Why? Because it reveals illegal acts that, if the public knew were taking place, it just would not tolerate it? Or because it's based on a universty student's essay that draws upon information already in the public domain, and the public would be horrified at the government's ineptitude, and the money and lives it was costing?

"Loose Lips Sink Ships," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com

Millions volunteered or were drafted for military duty during World War II. The majority of these citizen-soldiers had no idea how to conduct themselves to prevent inadvertent disclosure of important information to the enemy. To remedy this, the government established rules of conduct. The following is excerpted from a document given to each soldier as he entered the battle area.

WRITING HOME
THINK! Where does the enemy get his information -- information that can put you, and has put your comrades, adrift on an open sea: information that has lost battles and can lose more, unless you personally, vigilantly, perform your duty in SAFEGUARDING MILITARY INFORMATION?

THERE ARE TEN PROHIBITED SUBJECTS

1. Don't write military information of Army units -- their location, strength,, materiel, or equipment.

2. Don't write of military installations.

3. Don't write of transportation facilities.

4. Don't write of convoys, their routes, ports (including ports of embarkation and disembarkation), time en route, naval protection, or war incidents occurring en route.

5. Don't disclose movements of ships, naval or merchant, troops, or aircraft.

6. Don't mention plans and forecasts or orders for future operations, whether known or just your guess.

7. Don't write about the effect of enemy operations.

8. Don't tell of any casualty until released by proper authority (The Adjutant General) and then only by using the full name of the casualty.

9. Don't attempt to formulate or use a code system, cipher, or shorthand, or any other means to conceal the true meaning of your letter. Violations of this regulation will result in severe punishment.

10. Don't give your location in any way except as authorized by proper authority. Be sure nothing you write about discloses a more specific location than the one authorized.

TALK
SILENCE MEANS SECURITY -- If violation of protective measures is serious within written communications it is disastrous in conversations. Protect your conversation as you do your letters, and be even more careful. A harmful letter can be nullified by censorship; loose talk is direct delivery to the enemy.

If you come home during war your lips must remain sealed and your written hand must be guided by self-imposed censorship. This takes guts. Have you got them or do you want your buddies and your country to pay the price for your showing off. You've faced the battle front; its little enough to ask you to face this 'home front.'

CAPTURE
Most enemy intelligence comes from prisoners. If captured, you are required to give only three facts: YOUR NAME, YOUR GRADE, YOUR ARMY SERIAL NUMBER. Don't talk, don't try to fake stories and use every effort to destroy all papers. When you are going into an area where capture is possible, carry only essential papers and plan to destroy them prior to capture if possible. Do not carry personal letters on your person; they tell much about you, and the envelope has on it your unit and organization.

[stripedangel]

........And just so there's no mincing about it...


Intel= where Osama is hiding, where Saddam was hiding (wonder who told, and why they told?), Where Saddam was building his WMDs, Where they were/are planning on striking next, where their terrorist camps have moved to, the names of the people who are in their groups, the names of the sleepers in our country, etc. These are things that the public (including the sleepers who are here to spy and gain intel) should not know about before the military has had a chance to deal with it. Intel is NOT confessions of maltreatment at a military base. It should not be twisted up just to suit your purposes. i thought you should know the difference, being the intelligent, articulate person that you are, MMI.

It's not about what we are doing to them, it's what we gain from them with the tactics we use....that is INTEL. If you're playing a game of Chess, you're not about to let your opponent in on your plans for future moves. By the same token, if the public (which includes the illegal immigrants who might be at the ready with a telephone to call Al Quaida, or whatever group is opposing us at the time) hears all of the details such as what i stated in the above examples, they will change their strategy and THEN the poor sap was waterboarded for nothing...and i believe that's even worse than waterboarding in the first place.

The news of waterboarding is no surprise to anyone, is it? Really? Were you actually surprised to hear about it? i was not at all surprised-that's what happens, and has happened all through history. This is not new news.

"It hasn't though, has it? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories." You say...

Well, i say, the WMD "scare stories" are all a part of why we're waterboarding in the first place...Saddam was a WMD who had proven himself to be such by killing MASS amounts of people, including his own countrymen. Four airplanes were used as WMDs. A WMD is anything used to cause.....Mass Destruction . If a person kills 5 or 10 people, he/she is a MASS MURDERER. And as for the gaining of credible intel, see FixIt's post above, where he quotes a page from one of my links, which refers to Abu Zubaydah, who was the suspect waterboarded in that particular link. i think we are capable of doing just that.
From Wikipedia:

On November 20, 2006, Basic Books published Inside the Jihad: My Life with al Qaeda, a Spy's story, an account by Omar Nasiri of certain operations of al Qaeda. According to PR Newswire, "Contrary to popular reports that Zubayda is mentally retarded and delusional, Nasiri's account shows that he was in fact a powerful figure with responsibility for every mujahid entering and exiting the training camps.

In his memoir, former CIA Director George Tenet writes:

"A published report in 2006 contended that Abu Zubaydah was mentally unstable and that the administration had overstated his importance. Baloney. Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qa'ida operations and was in position to - and did - share critical information with his interrogators. Apparently, the source of the rumor that Abu Zubaydah was unbalanced was his personal diary, in which he adopted various personas. From that shaky perch, some junior Freudians leapt to the conclusion that Zubaydah had multiple personalities. In fact, Agency psychiatrists eventually determined that in his diary he was using a sophisticated literary device to express himself. And, boy, did he express himself."

POOR SAP!

I'm sure they don't just put their arms around some guy on the street and say,"C'mon, let's go get you waterboarded, it's your turn, we haven't seen you yet," without some sort of intel. i'm also sure that there are plenty of Lynndie England types out there who abuse their postitions, and consider it entertaining to humiliate and injure the prisoners in their custody.

Now, for the Japanese Americans who were rounded up during WWII--Come on, MMI, are you kidding me? Simply to degrade and humiliate? That really sounds like an argument for the sake of argument, and i find it offensive that you would say it. People were afraid. The attack on Pearl Harbour caused them to believe that all Japanese came to this country to infiltrate its defenses. What would you expect them to think, they'd just lost thousands! It was a mistake (which wasn't repeated here in the US when the WMDs hit our Pentagon and WTC). No one set out to do that! It was the end result, of course, but they were rounded up and placed in camps because our paranoid government
was trying to keep our intel from getting into the wrong hands. It was wrong, absolutely, but it wasn't done simply out of spite, or just to humiliate and degrade.

[denuseri]

lmfao, at Mr Fix It's fucking stormtrooper pic ,omg rof

[denuseri]

honest to gawds ppl, this isnt a american vs brit thing is it,, lol, if i remember the brits are or at lest were right there with us in iraq,, as for torture, ask the brits what they do to the irish? of course they have slightly different laws over on that side of the pond

[Mr.FixIt]

I coincidentally found this elsewhere in the threads here, (Thanks WB), and thought it was quite appropriate:

Political Correctness

The following is the winning entry from an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was Political Correctness.

The winner wrote:
“Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

[denuseri]

omg lmao,, awsome,, dont forget new osha standards state that all turds in excess of six inches must be handd lowered to the surface of the water

[tessa]

Doesn't this thread form part of that contemplation?

Yes, and hopefully, if we contemplate throughly enough, something positive will start to emerge from the mess the world's governments have made.



ps. You may not be a scholar, but you play the role wonderfully.

[MMI]

If what you say is so - about the "sleeper cell" - then my retort is, don't be so bloody stupid. If they've broken the law, they've broken the law. Al Capone wasn't picked up for the Valentine's Day Massacre, was he? Don't tell me that the US "PC Brigade" supports terrorists. I can only assume that there's no evidence that they are illegal immigrants, or your Imigration Department isn't doing its job.


I'm horrified at the thought that the American government (assuming your opinion reflects that of the government, even though you obviously don't represent it here) has reneged on the UN Convention Against Torture, and doesn't have the courage to admit it publicly. What would the rest of America think about that - the People, I mean?

The Convention was not a contract, where value is given by consenting parties, but an undertaking freely given to the world at large.

As for 9/11, your claim that 3,000 American deaths (actually it was less than that, there were non-Americans who died there too) cancelled any obligation the US had assumed. WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!!

I quoted Article 2 in my last post. I refer you to it again. It says NO EXCEPTIONS.

In any case, at the time of writing (0000hours GMT on 31/5/2008) between 84,099 and 91,762 Iraqis have paid with their lives*. Just how many more deaths are needed until American blood-lust is sated?

As for Saddam, no he wasn't a WMD all by himself, or even with his army beside him. His army had the fortitude of a wet paper bag and he carried the threat of a pussy cat. No WMD's could be found, could they? Why? Because they didn't exist. The only threats he posed were to Israel (but he'd never have attacked them), Iran (as proxy for USA), and to his own Kurdish and Shi'ite population. USA has helped him to power and was content to let him massacre his own people for decades before it decided to stop him. Ha! (If that sounded like a hollow laugh, it's because it was.)

In my opinion, Bush jr had a score to settle with him dating back to the previous Gulf War, and that was the primary cause for the second war. The decision was made long long before 11/9/2001, but the attack on the twin towers gave him the excuse, and he fed that lie to the American people and to the rest of the world. SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 OR BIN LADEN, and had Bin Laden sought refuge in Iraq immediately after the attacks, Saddam would surely have handed him over.

Your feeling of mutual consensus is ill-founded.

Then we must continue to disagree. I don't see how the article you quoted helps, other than to demonstrate how far apart we really are.

I’ve already responded to this point. I am only quoting you here to explain the following misinterpretation from across the pond:

Buggers=Fuckers=shit heads=assholes=terrorists=politicians

The term “fuckers”, in this context does not refer to “people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse”. I’ll assume for the sake of keeping this a clean debate, that this was an honest regional misinterpretation on your part, and that you are not intentionally mincing words here. But yes, in your interpretation of the word, I am a fucker, and I am quite good at it!

No - you already dealt with a different point. The point you dealt with was that you can't round up suspected criminals in your own jurisdicition and treat them as if they had no legal rights, because the American people wouldn't stand for it.

My point was that USA had kidnapped innocent Iraqis and foreign nationals in Iraq, and sent them to a concentration camp to languish for years without any of the rights you consider "inalienable". Apart from hacking off a few heads, that kind of behaviour is no different from the terrorists who kidnap and behead Western journalists.

As for your use of the word "fucker," I have already pointed out that you are using it perjoratively. Terrorists are not fuckers: they are terrorists. Illegal imigrants are not fuckers, they are illegal imigrants. Foreign residents in USA are not fuckers, they are foreigners. Stop calling them fuckers! It won't undermine your arguments, will it?

"Loose Lips Sink Ships,"

In Britain, we had the slogan Careless Talk Costs Lives

The document you have quoted was, no doubt, very useful for GI's and prevented many of them from giving away the location of their units.

But we are talking about forcefully extracting significant information about impending attacks on American people from prisoners that we hold, and that is quite another thing.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

Intel= where Osama is hiding - intell: no idea
... where Saddam was hiding - you got that one!
... Where Saddam was building his WMDs - when will you admit the WMD's were either a myth or a lie?

... Where [terrorists] were/are planning on striking next - I don't believe you get much success by torture (despite the VoA report quoted by Mr Fixit: OK - a few, but I'll bet a dollar to a dime that most intel comes from disaffected terrorists themselves in return for protection, and without it, the government would be virtually helpless).

... where their terrorist camps have moved to, the names of the people who are in their groups, the names of the sleepers in our country, etc. - This is not the sort of information that saves American lives, it's just general strategic information.

... These are things that the public (including the sleepers who are here to spy and gain intel) should not know about before the military has had a chance to deal with it. - Hell - you have already said you know about a sleeper cell and the government refuses to do anything about it. Why torture someone to find out that information?


Intel is NOT confessions of maltreatment at a military base. It should not be twisted up just to suit your purposes. i thought you should know the difference, being the intelligent, articulate person that you are, MMI. Sweet of you to say so, but if I have twisted the truth to suit my purposes, I am far being an intelligent person, and if I am articulate too, then that makes things worse!

It's not about what we are doing to them, it's what we gain from them with the tactics we use....that is INTEL.

The ends are never justfied if the means are acts of torture.

Sometimes, when playing chess, your opponent is as aware of your plans as you are. The game is won or lost by his ability to counter that plan in fewer moves than it takes to complete it. But I take your point - if you have useful intelligence, it is utter foolishness to tell the enemy.

But isn't it paranoid to assume that all illegal immigrants are potential terrorists? Pedro from Agua Prieta? Francoise from Quebec?

If you allow torture for supposed terrorists, why not for suspected drug dealers?

Why not for wives of parking ticket dodgers to find out when hubby will be coming home?

The news of waterboarding is no surprise to anyone, is it?

Nope. Not at all. ... Well, let me rephrase that. The news of torture was not "news". Waterboarding was a new method, and the Whitehouse cavils about it being tortue because it doesn't cause actual pain. (The UN Convention describes torture as the infliction of severe pain, whether mental or physical, on a person.)

If waterboarding can cause a committed terrorist to reveal all he knows in 35 seconds flat (Mr Fixit's example) then, if it doesn't cause severe pain, it must do something terrifying (unfortunate word, but never mind) ... make the person feel he is about to die, perhaps? Does that count as mental pain?

Well, i say, the WMD "scare stories" are all a part of why we're waterboarding in the first place...Saddam was a WMD who had proven himself to be such by killing MASS amounts of people, including his own countrymen.

But he was no threat to USA or anyone else. He was certainly not able to mobilise WMD's against the United Kingdom at 45 minutes' notice, as Tony Blair said as he took us to war, with Bush's approval. As I have said, Saddam had no WMD's.

Four airplanes were used as WMDs. A WMD is anything used to cause.....Mass Destruction . If a person kills 5 or 10 people, he/she is a MASS MURDERER.

Conceded.

Now, for the Japanese Americans who were rounded up during WWII--Come on, MMI, are you kidding me? Simply to degrade and humiliate? That really sounds like an argument for the sake of argument, and i find it offensive that you would say it. People were afraid. The attack on Pearl Harbour caused them to believe that all Japanese came to this country to infiltrate its defenses. What would you expect them to think, they'd just lost thousands! It was a mistake (which wasn't repeated here in the US when the WMDs hit our Pentagon and WTC). No one set out to do that! It was the end result, of course, but they were rounded up and placed in camps because our paranoid government
was trying to keep our intel from getting into the wrong hands. It was wrong, absolutely, but it wasn't done simply out of spite, or just to humiliate and degrade.

I didn't say that, or if I did, I didn't mean to. I meant that as torturing the Japs in those camps yielded virtually no useful intelligence, according to Mr Fixit, then the only result of torturing them was to humiliate and degrade them. If you feel that national fear justifies torturing civilian prisoners just in case they know something (which Mr Fixit says, by and large, they didn't), then I'm surprised at you.

__________________________________________________ _______________

honest to gawds ppl, this isnt a american vs brit thing is it,, lol, if i remember the brits are or at lest were right there with us in iraq,, as for torture, ask the brits what they do to the irish? of course they have slightly different laws over on that side of the pond

We went in with you but it is generally accepted that we were taken in on a lie (see above) and it is felt that Blair was nothing more than Bush's British yes-man. The war is deeply unpopular over here, and we have a lot of admiration for France and Germany who stayed out and said why. The Labour Party is in for a kicking at the next Gerneral Election over so many things, but especially over this war.

As for Ireland, yes we tortured people in the H blocks who had not been convicted of acts of terrorism. We have been convicted in the European Court of Human Rights for subjecting prisoners to wall-standing, starvation, sleep deprivation, noise subjection and hooding (not torture but degrading treatment), but we have done far worse. I do not defend that at all. It doesn't make things right for America, however, that we did it first.

“Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I suppose political reality is where a person realises that self-levitation not possible at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ tessa



__________________________________________________ ________________________
* Source Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.org/)

[Wind_Walker25]

You can debate these things all you want, would love to live in a perfict world.
They are people who hate us, not because of our Goverment, but because we do not believe as they do, now we can kiss their ass and give them all they ask for.
But at the end of the Day, THEY HATE US!!!
If I can take a beautiful slave strip her down spank her ass. I have no probs with water boarding, it does not really hurt them ,just scare the hell out of them

[MMI]

Wind-Walker. I wonder if you would like to waterboard your beautiful slave for us and tell us how far that gets you.

BDSM torture is consensual, aimed at fulfilment and carried out with respect. Love and affection are usually involved. Trust is, certainly. It is done subject to limits - if not the slave's, then those of the law.

Torture of the kind we are discussing is non-consensual, aimed at breaking a person and carried out without any respect for the victim at all. Hate and contempt are usually present. Fear is always. It is, per se, outside the limits of the law.


And that is really the nub of this debate. Torture is illegal, like it or not. It's primitive - mediaeval at best. Advocates are backwards-looking and (I dare say) defeatist: if we can't beat them, we'll sink to their level.

[stripedangel]

However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation.

I didn't say that, or if I did, I didn't mean to. I meant that as torturing the Japs in those camps yielded virtually no useful intelligence, according to Mr Fixit, then the only result of torturing them was to humiliate and degrade them. If you feel that national fear justifies torturing civilian prisoners just in case they know something (which Mr Fixit says, by and large, they didn't), then I'm surprised at you.

Ummm, YES you did!

What's surprising is that no matter what is said, you keep going back to the digs on Americans. i am not up for you downing my country and the people in it any longer. You behave as though we all just lined up to be assholes to every other country, and have an utter disregard for the fact that we disagree with most of it.

And you have a problem with FixIt's use of the word "fuckers". Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiitttttttt, man, that's enough. Your country's prince is right there on the front lines too. Your country has been following our lead -- even with the idiot that we have in office.

Here's my FINAL standpoint on this issue...

If we have absolute proof, as in the case of Abu Zubaydah, who was obviously a terrorist, and that person is not being forthcoming with intel that might save lives, and since this form of torture is much less extreme........waterboard the FUCKER! Beat the FUCKER until he caves! Compared to my American son, this FUCKER matters NOT.

And i will not debate with someone who uses so many forms of insult and degradation to prove a point. Funny that you are so high and mighty. Remember that Americans were once from across the pond also. You are correct in saying that your country laid the groundwork for the mess in the middle east, and your country also laid the groundwork for this mess right here, if you really want to get down to brass tacks.

As for sleeper cells, they're in your country too, and attacked your subway systems. You have whole communities of sleeper cells (several were interviewed on international TV, hooded and proud of what they'd done, right there in London!). But you go on and ask them nicely to please o please stop, and they just might.

Y'all have fun, i'm out.

[MMI]

If you're out, there's no point in replying, but you are quite wrong in several respects (not in all, I admit). I am left with the impression that the American government, as portrayed in this thread, does not care for the rule of law, just what is politically expedient.

However, I still say advocates of torture are backwards-looking and defeatist, and I think I will now add "vindictive" to that description.

[MMI]

Double posting

[denuseri]

ok please people lets shake hands , hug whatever, copulate even, we are not each others enemies,, hugs and kissess all of u its been a fantastic debate,

we are on the same side:especially the britts and americans we are allies along with many other countries that see terrorism as a serious threat to modern society

i really dont doubt that all our respective governments have thier good and bad sides,
i also think we have more than established our opinions on the matter of water boarding and torture etc,

respectfully to all:may this lil kajira sugjest .. mabey its high time we choose a new thread or topic for this one lol

[MMI]

I'm sorry if my jibes about America were taken to heart: they were intentionally provocative, to keep the debate lively, but I was not intending to insult the USA or Americans at all. I felt Mr Fixit would stand up to me whatever I said. Her government (past and present) is a different matter.

And I am quite willing to admit that Britain has committed more and worse atrocities than USA has. Our imperial history has been shameful in many respects, and our present government is worse than yours, being its lapdog.

However, the debate/argument about torture is an important one, whatever your point of view (unless you have no viewpoint) and I know that nothing anyone says is likely to change anyone else's viewpoint. But at least, I will understand a bit more about why I believe what I do if I have to state my reasons to someone who disagrees with me, and thereby find out where my opinions are flawed. And maybe others will gain similar insights.

Mr Fixit, stripedangel: if I have been out of line, I apologise. I was enjoying the "disagreement".

[stripedangel]

I'm sorry if my jibes about America were taken to heart: they were intentionally provocative, to keep the debate lively, but I was not intending to insult the USA or Americans at all. I felt Mr Fixit would stand up to me whatever I said. Her government (past and present) is a different matter.

And I am quite willing to admit that Britain has committed more and worse atrocities than USA has. Our imperial history has been shameful in many respects, and our present government is worse than yours, being its lapdog.

However, the debate/argument about torture is an important one, whatever your point of view (unless you have no viewpoint) and I know that nothing anyone says is likely to change anyone else's viewpoint. But at least, I will understand a bit more about why I believe what I do if I have to state my reasons to someone who disagrees with me, and thereby find out where my opinions are flawed. And maybe others will gain similar insights.

Mr Fixit, stripedangel: if I have been out of line, I apologise. I was enjoying the "disagreement".

i must apologise as well, i'm female and my feelings tend to be a bit more tender than Master's...or maybe even other females. Thanks for this post.


xxx stripey

[Mr.FixIt]

MMI, To be honest...

I firmly believe that forceful tactics (i.e. torture, waterboarding, and the like) if applied under appropriate circumstances (a known terrorist has speciffic knowledge about a credible plan to destroy thousands of innocent non-combatants--American, British, or otherwise) should be used. In any religious, political or philosophical debate, you can't expect to change the other party's mind, you can only hope to give the spectating audience thoughts to ponder.

Again, to be honest, my opinion of the matter is still firm, but in retrospect of my original post, when I made the statement, "make it an extreme sport", I was attempting to sort out those who firmly oppose my standpoint to fire up a good debate, and my tactic was quite effective--I fired you up. I didn't know who would respond, but I knew someone would, and I knew that it would be a lively debate! I'm glad that it was you that responded, and now I know where you stand and what you are about, and you have likewise learned a bit about me. I respect your opinion, and I do not fault you for sinking to the same tactic that I initiated.

I must say, you are a formidable opponent, but you would make a much better ally! After all, we both are looking toward the same finish line, but only with different paths to get there.

However, stripey was an unintended casualty of war. I did not intend to have her wrapped up in this one. She has an extremely big heart, and tends to take things more personally--but only because she is personal, she gets eagerly involved and always tries to help, most of the time to her own detriment or heartache. This not a weakness, but a strength that she posesses. And all of this was a good exercise of her strength, and she has benefitted from this as well.

Now that we have beaten this argument to death, let's get back to why we are all here: EXPLORING and ENJOYING the BDSM lifestyle, right?!!!!!!!!!!!

For those of you that have been afraid to speak your mind on this matter, what's holding you back? MMI and I haven't concerned ourselves with others' judgments, and for that I hold MMI in high regard.

Touché, MMI!

[tessa]

MMI and I haven't concerned ourselves with others' judgments...

Good example to provide. None of us should do it. What a waste of grey matter that is.

...I know that nothing anyone says is likely to change anyone else's viewpoint. But at least, I will understand a bit more about why I believe what I do if I have to state my reasons to someone who disagrees with me, and thereby find out where my opinions are flawed. And maybe others will gain similar insights.

Exactly my reason for a debate and/or discussion- not seeking to win or defeat, but just to learn more. And hopefully more.

Spot on there, MMI.

's back

[Virulent]

I think it should be encouraged for submissively-inclined terrorists.

[Kuskovian]

I have finally found this oft spoken of topic in my house. Greetings to all here of interest.
Just how many people in this disscussion have ever been water boarded other than myself?

[MMI]

Not I. But I argue from the point of view that I don't want to be waterboarded, nor should anyone else be waterboarded against their will.

If they want to be waterboarded, I have nothing to say on the matter.