Duped About Torture

[lily]

Meyers speaks out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/21/BL2008042101378.html?nav=hcmodule)

Duped About Torture

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, April 21, 2008; 1:04 PM

Career military men know better than anyone that torture violates American
principles, puts American soldiers at risk and just plain doesn't work. But
when the White House adopted torture as an interrogation tactic, senior
military officials didn't resist.

One reason, of course, is that many who might have objected to Vice
President Cheney's torture cabal were bypassed or moved out of the way.
Others just followed orders.

But a new report suggests that at least one man who couldn't be entirely
bypassed -- and who should have known better -- fell victim to another
tactic: He was duped.

Richard Norton-Taylor writes in the Guardian: "America's most senior general
was 'hoodwinked' by top Bush administration officials determined to push
through aggressive interrogation techniques of terror suspects held at
Guantánamo Bay, leading to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the
cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners, the Guardian reveals today.

"General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001
to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were
protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture. .
. .

"In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at
University College London, reveals that:

"* Senior Bush administration figures pushed through previously outlawed
measures with the aid of inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo.

" * Myers believes he was a victim of 'intrigue' by top lawyers at the
department of justice, the office of vice-president Dick Cheney, and at
Donald Rumsfeld's defence department.

" *The Guantánamo lawyers charged with devising interrogation techniques
were inspired by the exploits of Jack Bauer in the American TV series 24.

"* Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the
army's field manual."

[apdst]

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001
to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were
protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture

And he then found out that the prisoners were being forced to use unscented deorderant.

[micfranklin]

I'm pretty duped about torture myself, but not in a good way.

[lily]

And he then found out that the prisoners were being forced to use unscented deorderant.


Why are you making fun of General Meyers?

[Buck Laser]

Why are you making fun of General Meyers?

I think it's mostly because he doesn't know any better. apdst strikes me as the kind of person who'd bring a whoopee cushion to a funeral.

[Trish]

I'm wondering if anyone else paid attention to the following paragraph in the posted article -

"General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture. ."

With all the debate back and forth about who is and is not covered by what laws, international agreements, and treaties, and with all the talk about the President and other administration officials being traitors, war criminals, etc. this paragraph seems particularly noteworthy.

[apdst]

Why are you making fun of General Meyers?

I'm not, I'm making fun of people's incesent whining about so called torture. I can't keep from laughing when people boo-hoo because of sleep deprivation, or loud music, or barking dogs being torture.

Tell you another hillarious premise that the Liberals--yes the Libearls--keep harping on and that's that it put our soldiers at risk. Where does that come from? The terrorists aren't going to refrain from torturing our troops just because we don't torture theirs. Anyone that thinks so lives in a fantasy land. The enemy is more than likely going to mistreat our troops, either way.

[micfranklin]

Ever been deprived of sleep before apdst, since you mentioned it?

[apdst]

Uh, let's see...yes.

[lily]

I'm not, I'm making fun of people's incesent whining about so called torture. I can't keep from laughing when people boo-hoo because of sleep deprivation, or loud music, or barking dogs being torture.

When you see me complain about those little things.....let me know ok?

Let me help you with a few key words........"torture as an interrogation tactic", "officials determined to push
through aggressive interrogation techniques", "protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture"......that should get you started.

Tell you another hillarious premise that the Liberals--yes the Libearls--keep harping on and that's that it put our soldiers at risk. Where does that come from? The terrorists aren't going to refrain from torturing our troops just because we don't torture theirs. Anyone that thinks so lives in a fantasy land. The enemy is more than likely going to mistreat our troops, either way.

So.......in other words.......the terrorists are assholes.......so Americans aren't any better than Assholes......Well......I happen to think we're better than that.

[4Reaganomics]

Lily, can I quote you on saying that American's are better than the terrorists?

I think this is a crucial moment here, we are beginning to get on the same page

[apdst]

Well......I happen to think we're better than that.

But, there aren't any good sportsmanship awards in this war.

[lily]

Lily, can I quote you on saying that American's are better than the terrorists?

I think this is a crucial moment here, we are beginning to get on the same page

............hey talk to apdst.....he's the one that thinks they are on the same level.........I've always said we were better than they are.

He also seems to think General Meyers is an ass........so discuss with him.

[apdst]

He also seems to think General Meyers is an ass

Speaking of being better than that, don't make shit up, please.

[Phyxius]

But, there aren't any good sportsmanship awards in this war.


Or in any other war, for that matter. But there are very valid reasons the Geneva Conventions were put in place, and equally valid reasons that such actions are forbidden under the Military Code of Conduct. Anyone who would forget that just because our enemies are nasty is as un-patriotic and un-American as the assholes who we're fighting.

So, in the final equation -- NeoCon Chickenhawk = Islamic Terrorist. One is just as self-righteous, self-serving, self-deluded, self-justifying and dangerous to the world in general as the other. :fight:

[apdst]

But there are very valid reasons the Geneva Conventions were put in place, and equally valid reasons that such actions are forbidden under the Military Code of Conduct.

Does that mean that you are willing to discuss the fact that the terrorists are un-uniformed soldiers, thereby illegal and do not fall under the protection of The Geneva Convention?

[Phyxius]

Does that mean that you are willing to discuss the fact that the terrorists are un-uniformed soldiers, thereby illegal and do not fall under the protection of The Geneva Convention?

Actually, they either fall under Article III or Article IV - there is no gap, in spite of the current administration's attempts to create one. The fact that the enemy does not feel obligated to follow the rules of war IN NO WAY absolves US from following them.

Anyone who can't support the Constitution, the law of the land and the treaties we've ratified is completely un-American and no better than the terrorists. In fact, they are destroying this country faster and more thoroughly than the terrorists ever could. **




**Don't you think it's time we turned that un-American and un-patriotic bullsh*t back on 'em? Seriously - isn't it? Who's REALLY being un-American here? :ponder:

[Questerr]

But, there aren't any good sportsmanship awards in this war.

There are punishments for unsportsmanslike conduct though.

[apdst]

There are punishments for unsportsmanslike conduct though.

Only if you lose. See the difference?

[lily]

......hmmmm......it seems now war and torture has turned into a game.

[Elrathin]

......hmmmm......it seems now war and torture has turned into a game.

It's always been to some. They don't really care if we do torture and that is the sad thing. Some I think get off on it.

[apdst]

it seems now war and torture has turned into a game.

It wasn't already?

They don't really care if we do torture and that is the sad thing.

The only thing I care about is winning. There are no points for second place. In this case, the guy that comes in second, gets killed. I would expect you to get it, Elrathin. Is it because you were a REMF?

[MCTHOUSAND]

The type of people that are harshley questioned or "tortured" are not soldiers. They shoot women at sporting events, cut off the heads of infidels like you, and would explode a nuclear bomb in an american city if they could get their hands on one.

On a personal level, what would you be prepared to do to protect your family, or to force someone to give information to save someone you love?

To go one step further, what would you be prepared to do to save thousands of the men, women, and children of your country.

I remember someone asked Michael Dukakas what he would do if someone was attacking his wife. Remember the answer he gave?

[Elrathin]

The only thing I care about is winning. There are no points for second place. In this case, the guy that comes in second, gets killed. I would expect you to get it, Elrathin. Is it because you were a REMF?

So are you saying we have the right to do whatever to any enemy we fight? Torture, kill civilians, rape, pillage? Where do you draw the line since winning no matter what is all that concerns you?

You say yoiu only care about winning, so I guess if raping a few civilians got some people to talk you would be for it right? Your REMF comment is funny btw since it doesn't matter where I was at to know right and wrong. You were taught that as well.

Anyone with honor and integrity does not torture.

[Phyxius]

The only thing I care about is winning. There are no points for second place. In this case, the guy that comes in second, gets killed. I would expect you to get it, Elrathin. Is it because you were a REMF?

I said it before, and I'll say it again...

Anyone who can't support the Constitution, the law of the land and the treaties we've ratified is completely un-American and no better than the terrorists. In fact, they are destroying this country faster and more thoroughly than the terrorists ever could.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ever been deprived of sleep before apdst, since you mentioned it?

isn't that what college is for?........

[Easy90]

The paradox the libs don't like to answer is....If "waterboarding" a terrorist resulted in information that led to the prevention of a terrorist attack on the order of 9-11...or even a smaller one where only their immediate family were say, taken hostage and raped and beheaded, with a video of the event posted on the Internet....would it be justifiable? Or, would they be willing to allow it to happen, to keep from "waterboarding" the terrorist...and thusly, (as the libs claim) being "no better than him?"

[Elrathin]

The paradox the libs don't like to answer is....If "waterboarding" a terrorist resulted in information that led to the prevention of a terrorist attack on the order of 9-11...or even a smaller one where only their immediate family were say, taken hostage and raped and beheaded, with a video of the event posted on the Internet....would it be justifiable? Or, would they be willing to allow it to happen, to keep from "waterboarding" the terrorist...and thusly, (as the libs claim) being "no better than him?"

So you are a the ends justify a means kinda guy then right?

Well if raping an innocent civilian meant getting some terrorist to give up information of an attack that would kill thousands, is it justifiable to rape the innocent civilian?

Where do you draw the line in what is right and what is wrong to gain your goal?

[potter]

So.......in other words.......the terrorists are assholes.......so Americans aren't any better than Assholes......Well......I happen to think we're better than that.


:shame: Think again Lily....there was a time, but now, we're no better than anyone else. It's just a game now to see who can be the biggest asshole.

[Easy90]

So you are a the ends justify a means kinda guy then right?

Well if raping an innocent civilian meant getting some terrorist to give up information of an attack that would kill thousands, is it justifiable to rape the innocent civilian?

Where do you draw the line in what is right and what is wrong to gain your goal?

See how the libs dance around to avoid facing the paradox with an honest answer? They will NEVER give an honest answer to it. LOL! The reason for this is simple. They are all consumed with Bush Derangement Syndrome...and will go so far as to identify with the terrorists who gave us 9-11 if it means opposing an America led by GWB. They will even say it's better their own mother gets raped and beheaded than to use waterboarding on a terrorists to prevent it.

[Elrathin]

See how the libs dance around the paradox? They will NEVER give an honest answer to it. LOL!

I've given my answer before, no the ends do NOT justify the means.

Now, how about you answer mine? If raping an innocent civilian meant saving lives, would that justify rape?

[Questerr]

The paradox the libs don't like to answer is....If "waterboarding" a terrorist resulted in information that led to the prevention of a terrorist attack on the order of 9-11...or even a smaller one where only their immediate family were say, taken hostage and raped and beheaded, with a video of the event posted on the Internet....would it be justifiable? Or, would they be willing to allow it to happen, to keep from "waterboarding" the terrorist...and thusly, (as the libs claim) being "no better than him?"

since your so smug in thinking that you know everything about liberals let me clue you in on something:

Army interrogators (of which my roommate and many of my friends are) are not allowed to waterboard, likely due to the Army believing that waterboarding is torture. Army interrogators are more likely to be in the kind of scenario that nets the prevention of an immediate terrorist attack (the kind of smoking gun scenario you posit above). They are still able to get the job done without "aggressive interrogation techniques" or whatever other euphemism that Bush's people want to come up with this week.

So I ask you, Mr. Arch-Conservative great knower of all that is Liberal, why do we need to waterboard if the guys that have the best chance at stopping attacks don't need it to do their job?

[Easy90]

I've given my answer before, no the ends do NOT justify the means.

Now, how about you answer mine? If raping an innocent civilian meant saving lives, would that justify rape?

Nope. But that's simply a diversion. Waterboarding a guilty "civilian" (AKA, TERRORIST) has resulted in saving lives...(foiling a plot for an attack.)

The ends sometimes do indeed justify the means...and what you're saying is...you would prefer your mother be raped and beheaded rather than someone who knew of the plot to do this be "waterboarded" in order to prevent it. What does that say for how you think of your mother Elrathin? Somehow, I sense you're not being entirely honest.

[Easy90]

since your so smug in thinking that you know everything about liberals let me clue you in on something:

Army interrogators (of which my roommate and many of my friends are) are not allowed to waterboard, likely due to the Army believing that waterboarding is torture. Army interrogators are more likely to be in the kind of scenario that nets the prevention of an immediate terrorist attack (the kind of smoking gun scenario you posit above). They are still able to get the job done without "aggressive interrogation techniques" or whatever other euphemism that Bush's people want to come up with this week.

So I ask you, Mr. Arch-Conservative great knower of all that is Liberal, why do we need to waterboard if the guys that have the best chance at stopping attacks don't need it to do their job?

Well..Mr/Ms Arch-Liberal....I make it a habit of paying attention to people who have roommates who are "Army Interrogators." Mainly, because I don't believe a word they say. If you want to address the question with an answer: (would you agree to waterboarding a terrorist is it meant preventing the horrible torture and deaths of innocent Americans, particularly your own family?) I would be entertained and enlightened. Elrathin already said he would sacrifice his family to torture before agreeing to waterboarding...how say you?

[Wndrtch]

I've given my answer before, no the ends do NOT justify the means.

Now, how about you answer mine? If raping an innocent civilian meant saving lives, would that justify rape?

If it were a hairy, sweaty, nasty, murdering, male terrorist who I know had useful information that would save lives, I wouldn't hesitate to shove a barbed stick up his ass a few times. It would make him appreciate those virgins a bit more, when he gets there in a few hours.

Hey El, why "rape of an inocent civilian" for your example on this? Are you trying to equate our troops with raping civilians now, to justify your hate for G.W.?

Sad. :shame:

[Easy90]

They start spitting and blustering every time you ask if they would not condone waterboarding a terrorist if it prevented an attack... Elrathin is sticking with his guns...he says if it takes waterboarding to prevent my family from being tortured and murdered...he's OK with sacrificing the family. I'm not. Even if it's HIS family...I am for doing what it takes to stop the attack. Getting them a lawyer and giving them three hots and a cot while they know of ongoing plots for mass destruction and terror on Americans isn't my idea of the way you treat terrorists. The Left-Wing position assumes we are just as evil as they are, and that we should "play fair," even if they don't...When we start sawing off heads of innocent people...and blowing up shoppers with suicide bombs strapped to mentally retarded children....I will listen to these Lefties say how evil we are.

Mentally assuming the place of some of those doomed airline passengers as they headed for the towers...or those men about to have their heads sawed off with a butcher knife...I have to say that the position of the Left disgusts me. But their positions on most subjects disgust me..so why should national security be any different?

[Wndrtch]

They start spitting and blustering every time you ask if they would not condone waterboarding a terrorist if it prevented an attack... Elrathin is sticking with his guns...he says if it takes waterboarding to prevent my family from being tortured and murdered...he's OK with sacrificing the family. I'm not. Even if it's HIS family...I am for doing what it takes to stop the attack. Getting them a lawyer and giving them three hots and a cot while they know of ongoing plots for mass destruction and terror on Americans isn't my idea of the way you treat terrorists. The Left-Wing position assumes we are just as evil as they are, and that we should "play fair," even if they don't...When we start sawing off heads of innocent people...and blowing up shoppers with suicide bombs strapped to mentally retarded children....I will listen to these Lefties say how evil we are.

Mentally assuming the place of some of those doomed airline passengers as they headed for the towers...or those men about to have their heads sawed off with a butcher knife...I have to say that the position of the Left disgusts me. But their positions on most subjects disgust me..so why should national security be any different?

Many Liberals have their eyes on the side of the head, not in front. So long as it's not their family getting blown up, they can afford to be as idealistic as they want.

[Questerr]

Well..Mr/Ms Arch-Liberal....I make it a habit of paying attention to people who have roommates who are "Army Interrogators." Mainly, because I don't believe a word they say. If you want to address the question with an answer: (would you agree to waterboarding a terrorist is it meant preventing the horrible torture and deaths of innocent Americans, particularly your own family?) I would be entertained and enlightened. Elrathin already said he would sacrifice his family to torture before agreeing to waterboarding...how say you?

No. Waterboarding is unecessary and completely opposite of US morality. We are able to accomplish everything that we need to in interrogations without using it.

To me, its a lot like warrantless wiretapping. I'm an army signals intel analyst and we had to go through the FISA courts for our mission several times in Iraq. I don't understand how neocons can push so hard for the courts to go away because I have never had nor have I ever heard anyone of having any problems with the court. We were never denied access to a warrant for a mission and we were even allowed to collect for 48 hours without one while we waited for it to go by the judge. Warrantless wiretapping is just an attempt to remove oversight that is incredibly necessary given how easy it is to see information on US citizens.

I ask again, if we can complete the mission without these immoral and unconstitutional measures, why do we need them like you claim?

Oh, an as to you questioning my service and that of my comrade in arms, I'll just let that one slide this once.

[Easy90]

Hey...I don't recall "questioning your service." You never said anything about being IN the service until now. But since you mention it in such a snarky way...I am now. I was in the service a LONG time...and never met anyone who talked like you. What's your MOS? Oh..and you never answered my question...How come?

[brien]

I wish people would get half as worked up about the torture of our own domestic prisoners incarcerated here in the US as they do with regard to foreign prisoners.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

http://www.webspawner.com/users/usprisontorture/

http://www.counterpunch.org/lomax06162005.html

Now, who is really being duped and just how deep is the "dupe' Please quit whining about torture when the "outrage" is merely selective outrage. It is so freeking transparent it makes me puke. If you are going to condemn torture, condemn ALL torture, not just the "torture du jour".

[Questerr]

Hey...I don't recall "questioning your service." You never said anything about being IN the service until now. But since you mention it in such a snarky way...I am now. I was in the service a LONG time...and never met anyone who talked like you. What's your MOS? Oh..and you never answered my question...How come?

A quick look over any of my past posts will show that I am a current soldier in the US army with a combat tour in Baghdad, Diwaniyah, and Al Kut.

I'm a former 98C, now 35N: a Signals Intelligence Analyst. You questioning of my service came in when you flat out refused to believe me without any consideration. If you need proof, I can give that in spades. I've been featured in the Old Ironsides newspaper as has my roommate. He wrote an article on army interrogation that was pretty widely circulated in the MI world.

As for answering your quesiton, yes I did. I said that waterboarding is never justified because we can get the information we need without using it. The only people authorized to use waterboarding are so far removed from the front lines (where people can actually stop terrorist attacks) that the information has become useless by then. Front line interrogators don't use waterboarding and still get the job done.

[Questerr]

I wish people would get half as worked up about the torture of our own domestic prisoners incarcerated here in the US as they do with regard to foreign prisoners.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

http://www.webspawner.com/users/usprisontorture/

http://www.counterpunch.org/lomax06162005.html

Now, who is really being duped and just how deep is the "dupe' Please quit whining about torture when the "outrage" is merely selective outrage. It is so freeking transparent it makes me puke. If you are going to condemn torture, condemn ALL torture, not just the "torture du jour".

Anyone who tortures a prisoner in the US should be in prison themselves. How's that for outrage?

[brien]

Anyone who tortures a prisoner in the US should be in prison themselves. How's that for outrage?

Another lone wolf crying in the wilderness that falls upon deaf ears. We need a collective outrage from the same people who scream at Cheney and Bush about Abu Grab. All I hear are the crickets.. Thanks Questerr..

[Easy90]

A quick look over any of my past posts will show that I am a current soldier in the US army with a combat tour in Baghdad, Diwaniyah, and Al Kut.

I'm a former 98C, now 35N: a Signals Intelligence Analyst. You questioning of my service came in when you flat out refused to believe me without any consideration. If you need proof, I can give that in spades. I've been featured in the Old Ironsides newspaper as has my roommate. He wrote an article on army interrogation that was pretty widely circulated in the MI world.

As for answering your quesiton, yes I did. I said that waterboarding is never justified because we can get the information we need without using it. The only people authorized to use waterboarding are so far removed from the front lines (where people can actually stop terrorist attacks) that the information has become useless by then. Front line interrogators don't use waterboarding and still get the job done.

Are you Regular Army or Reserve? Are you currently on active duty? What's your pay grade? I am not "questioning your service" but rather trying to figure out your level in the service. You speak as though you have authority...yet, absent information from you to the contrary, I doubt that is the case...since your military bearing is so bad. People in authority in the military don't express political issues like you do, and are more respectful of the chain of command. Also, people in authority don't typically "have room mates"...Until you said I was "questioning your service" I was not aware you were "in" any branch of the military. Frankly I never read any of your previous posts.

[Elrathin]

Hey El, why "rape of an inocent civilian" for your example on this? Are you trying to equate our troops with raping civilians now, to justify your hate for G.W.?

Sad. :shame:

Nope I used that example because some conservatives have said they will do ANYTHING to win. Sad that your side is the one saying that.

[lily]

A quick look over any of my past posts will show that I am a current soldier in the US army with a combat tour in Baghdad, Diwaniyah, and Al Kut.

I'm a former 98C, now 35N: a Signals Intelligence Analyst. You questioning of my service came in when you flat out refused to believe me without any consideration. If you need proof, I can give that in spades. I've been featured in the Old Ironsides newspaper as has my roommate. He wrote an article on army interrogation that was pretty widely circulated in the MI world.

As for answering your quesiton, yes I did. I said that waterboarding is never justified because we can get the information we need without using it. The only people authorized to use waterboarding are so far removed from the front lines (where people can actually stop terrorist attacks) that the information has become useless by then. Front line interrogators don't use waterboarding and still get the job done.

Again I want to thank you for your service, Questar. I've been reading your posts since you've been here, and I can verify you are the real deal.

Some of the right wingers here don't seem to believe that information can be got, without torture.......they'd rather think our soldiers are all over there, breaking the law and waterboarding left and right........but then when it comes to defending it we get arm chair quarterbacking and a bunch of what if......as if they actually know what's going on......and secretly I think foaming at the mouth, while searching for the vasoline or hand lotion, just fantacizing about torture.....while our real men and women are over there getting the job done and doing it right.......come on, lie and tell them you're waterboarding, poking eyes out, raping men with barbed wire stick, raping their women and children in front of their eyes.......in other words....LIE and be their secret porn.:shame:

Again, I am sorry if this embarrassed you........I just get so sick and tired of them posting hoooooraaaaahhhh and thinking that a law abiding citizen can't be a soldier and a good one at that.:thumbsup:

[apdst]

Age old question: If you were ambushed, and there was a group of civilians between you and the enemy; would you order your soldiers to open fire, knowing that all the civilians would die? Or, would you hold your fire, knowing that most, or all of your soldiers would die? There are no ifs, ands, buts, what ifs, hypos, or anything else that might alter that exact scenario. You must chose between the two certain outcomes. Which one would you chose?

[apdst]

Some of the right wingers here don't seem to believe that information can be got, without torture

Some of the Leftists here seem to think that loud music, sleep deprivation and barking dogs, is torture. So, by the Liberal definition of what torture is, then yes, information can't be gained, without torture.

I did a poll back in December, asking, "What do you consider torture?"

7 members said that non-climate controlled housing is torture.

6 members said that leaving the lights on 24/7 is torture.

5 members said that barking dogs is torture.

4 members said that sleeping on the floor is torture.

9 members said that loud music is torture.

8 said that no religious articles is torture.

Aince Quester is an intel guy, maybe he can share with us how often the above mentioned activities go on.

[lily]

Age old question: If you were ambushed, and there was a group of civilians between you and the enemy; would you order your soldiers to open fire, knowing that all the civilians would die? Or, would you hold your fire, knowing that most, or all of your soldiers would die? There are no ifs, ands, buts, what ifs, hypos, or anything else that might alter that exact scenario. You must chose between the two certain outcomes. Which one would you chose?
No I would not order my soldiers to fire on civilians under any circumstance.....soldiers know they are going to die in war......civilians are just that civilians........I don't know what this hypothetical has to do with the discussion we're having.........but I hope I answered your question.

[Elrathin]

Age old question: If you were ambushed, and there was a group of civilians between you and the enemy; would you order your soldiers to open fire, knowing that all the civilians would die? Or, would you hold your fire, knowing that most, or all of your soldiers would die? There are no ifs, ands, buts, what ifs, hypos, or anything else that might alter that exact scenario. You must chose between the two certain outcomes. Which one would you chose?

Death and Honor, before Dishonor and Life.

[Buck Laser]

Some of the Leftists here seem to think that loud music, sleep deprivation and barking dogs, is torture. So, by the Liberal definition of what torture is, then yes, information can't be gained, without torture.

I did a poll back in December, asking, "What do you consider torture?"

7 members said that non-climate controlled housing is torture.

6 members said that leaving the lights on 24/7 is torture.

5 members said that barking dogs is torture.

4 members said that sleeping on the floor is torture.

9 members said that loud music is torture.

8 said that no religious articles is torture.

Aince Quester is an intel guy, maybe he can share with us how often the above mentioned activities go on.

Where did you do this alleged poll? I don't fucking believe you.

[Elrathin]

Buck it's right here:

http://www.democracyforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=294

On a side note, given some of the votes, there is no doubt in my mind some people were joking.

[Elrathin]

EL,

Don't be a pussy. Answer the question.

I think I answered your question quite clearly. No I wouldn't open fire on civilians and chances are in such an ambush where civilians are in the middle, they would be killed by the enemy so when the civilians are dead by the enemy, open fire.

[Buck Laser]

Buck it's right here:

http://www.democracyforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=294

On a side note, given some of the votes, there is no doubt in my mind some people were joking.
You're right, but apdst obviously believes every bit of it.

[apdst]

they would be killed by the enemy so when the civilians are dead by the enemy, open fire.

It don't work that way, jack, and you know it.

Pffft. I found it first, look above

Yeah, but you know I had to get my say in.

[Easy90]

Again I want to thank you for your service, Questar. I've been reading your posts since you've been here, and I can verify you are the real deal.

Some of the right wingers here don't seem to believe that information can be got, without torture.......they'd rather think our soldiers are all over there, breaking the law and waterboarding left and right........but then when it comes to defending it we get arm chair quarterbacking and a bunch of what if......as if they actually know what's going on......and secretly I think foaming at the mouth, while searching for the vasoline or hand lotion, just fantacizing about torture.....while our real men and women are over there getting the job done and doing it right.......come on, lie and tell them you're waterboarding, poking eyes out, raping men with barbed wire stick, raping their women and children in front of their eyes.......in other words....LIE and be their secret porn.:shame:

Again, I am sorry if this embarrassed you........I just get so sick and tired of them posting hoooooraaaaahhhh and thinking that a law abiding citizen can't be a soldier and a good one at that.:thumbsup:


Another sick, disgusting little diatribe from a leftist who's never been a soldier. I just get so sick and tired of them posting "Treat the terrorists nicely because it's Bush's fault!"

What little "waterboarding" that ever took place...was done by high-level (FBI) operatives to that character they caught in Pakistan who was one of the prime plotters of the 9-11 attack. First the Leftists howled and moaned when it was leaked that he withstood about 20 seconds of a wet rag on his face before he spilled his guts about his organization, and other plots in progress. This saved countless lives. I don't know of any credible source that contends the military is "waterboarding" routine intelligence subjects.... What I do know is that it's common to make prisoners who are of intel value very uncomfortable, and play games with their heads. We just don't drill fingernails out, rape their family, or cut out tongues like the terrorists do. When I see some lefty on a forum like this say we're "torturing" our prisoners...I am disgusted...The military (particularly in the media age we live in) is pretty well aware of how far they can go with military prisoners. When it comes to insurgents and terrorists who don't ascribe to conventional war, or rules of engagement...traditional methods are sometimes ineffective. If these hard core, high value cases need particular motivation to divulge information....it's not the military that's asked to make that happen, IMHO.

[Wndrtch]

No. Waterboarding is unecessary and completely opposite of US morality. We are able to accomplish everything that we need to in interrogations without using it.

I'll leave THAT up to the professionals responsible for getting at the information, and will trust in THEIR judgment as to what is the best method. I don't assume that the people we hire to do these jobs, are barbarians. They are not, and will do what they can to get the information, and still be able to sleep at night and live with themselves afterwards. War, is a breakdown of civilization anyways, so do what is necessary to win quickly and get that society back up and running.

To me, its a lot like warrantless wiretapping. I'm an army signals intel analyst and we had to go through the FISA courts for our mission several times in Iraq. I don't understand how neocons can push so hard for the courts to go away because I have never had nor have I ever heard anyone of having any problems with the court. We were never denied access to a warrant for a mission and we were even allowed to collect for 48 hours without one while we waited for it to go by the judge. Warrantless wiretapping is just an attempt to remove oversight that is incredibly necessary given how easy it is to see information on US citizens.

I ask again, if we can complete the mission without these immoral and unconstitutional measures, why do we need them like you claim?

First off, God bless, for what it's worth to you.

To answer your question, just because you have been able to complete your missions without incident, doesn't mean that there aren't those out there that have had problems because they need to act NOW, or even just "might' have a problem in the future. Your personal experiences, altho valid for this discussion, are but one small fraction of the entire effort. (I mean no insult, just trying to be "matter-of-fact")

Also, please keep in mind that just because commanders want the authority to act without warrents, doesn't mean that that will happen in every mission. Most likely, they just want to "reserve the right" to act, without worring about lawsuits after the fact. 99% of the time, they will most likely get the proper paperwork in place before going forward, and going warrentless will just be reserved for the most extreme situations.

[Wndrtch]

Some of the right wingers here don't seem to believe that information can be got, without torture.......they'd rather think our soldiers are all over there, breaking the law and waterboarding left and right........but then when it comes to defending it we get arm chair quarterbacking and a bunch of what if......as if they actually know what's going on......and secretly I think foaming at the mouth, while searching for the vasoline or hand lotion, just fantacizing about torture.....while our real men and women are over there getting the job done and doing it right.......come on, lie and tell them you're waterboarding, poking eyes out, raping men with barbed wire stick, raping their women and children in front of their eyes.......in other words....LIE and be their secret porn.:shame:

Uh, lily, what are you talking about here? It wasn't "right-wingers" that suggested our guys & gals are like Pol Pot, it was hack-liberal politicians that started that. It was Liberals that made a huge big deal of Abu-Graibe, and made it sound like "Evil Bush" was sending out masachistic automotons into the battle field, to skin the flesh off Iraqi babies to make lamp-shades! The truth was that there were a few bad-apples at Abu-Graibe, and the military dealt with them. "Righties" trust our soldiers to be professionals, and don't assume that just because they are trained to kill, that they are somehow automaticall blood-thirsty murders.

For all the bitching the Left did about waterboarding, it turned out that it was only used three times, and against key AQ leaders, and only for a few seconds. To my knowledge, those three AQ leaders are still alive and probably reading the Koran right now, being fed three squares a day.

They're probably even allowed to watch Ophra.

[Questerr]

Age old question: If you were ambushed, and there was a group of civilians between you and the enemy; would you order your soldiers to open fire, knowing that all the civilians would die? Or, would you hold your fire, knowing that most, or all of your soldiers would die? There are no ifs, ands, buts, what ifs, hypos, or anything else that might alter that exact scenario. You must chose between the two certain outcomes. Which one would you chose?

There is no question. I am obligated by the law and the treaties signed by the United States to not fire. Any else makes me a war criminal.

[Questerr]

Some of the Leftists here seem to think that loud music, sleep deprivation and barking dogs, is torture. So, by the Liberal definition of what torture is, then yes, information can't be gained, without torture.

I did a poll back in December, asking, "What do you consider torture?"

7 members said that non-climate controlled housing is torture.

6 members said that leaving the lights on 24/7 is torture.

5 members said that barking dogs is torture.

4 members said that sleeping on the floor is torture.

9 members said that loud music is torture.

8 said that no religious articles is torture.

Aince Quester is an intel guy, maybe he can share with us how often the above mentioned activities go on.

I would say that none of these are torture. The no religious articles thing is a violation of the Geneva Convention, so I would say it is wrong, but its still not torture. All of these tactics, except the alst one, are used at differing frequencies but they are used.

[lily]

What little "waterboarding" that ever took place...was done by high-level (FBI) operatives to that character they caught in Pakistan who was one of the prime plotters of the 9-11 attack. First the Leftists howled and moaned when it was leaked that he withstood about 20 seconds of a wet rag on his face before he spilled his guts about his organization, and other plots in progress.

I can't beleive you fell for this.......here we have one of the biggest terrorists alive.......he's confessed to the 1993 bombing, top official of bin-Laden, Septemeber 11, had a hand in Richard Reids's shoe bombing attempt, was responsibble for Daniel Pearl.......and God knows what else.......but yet we can't bring him to trial........why is that? Hell, they couldn't even use him in other people's trials to make their sentences harsher........like I said, those that support Bush and his lies.........must be terrorist supporters, they sure like to keep them alive.

[Easy90]

See....you're confusing legal issues with war. That's your problem... You need to understand that a war isn't decided in courts....it's decided by who gives up in the face of risk of imminent annihilation, or lacking that...who's left standing after the battle. The people who've decided to engage America understand that. You have no idea. Sorry Lily...you're embarrassing yourself...You don't even speak the language.

[Elrathin]

See....you're confusing legal issues with war. That's your problem... You need to understand that a war isn't decided in courts....it's decided by who gives up in the face of imminent annihilation, or lacking that...who's left standing after the battle. The people who've decided to engage America understand that. You have no idea. Sorry Lilly...you're embarrassing yourself...You don't even speak the language.

If that were true and we could do anything we wanted to in war, there would not be such a thing as war crimes.

[Easy90]

If that were true and we could do anything we wanted to in war, there would not be such a thing as war crimes.

Who is, and who isn't a "war criminal" is decided after the war...by the victorious side. You don't speak the language either.

[Elrathin]

Who is, and who isn't a "war criminal" is decided after the war...by the victorious side. You don't speak the language either.

Not true, there are actions our military can take that would be considered a war crime even before the war is over.

[Buck Laser]

If that were true and we could do anything we wanted to in war, there would not be such a thing as war crimes.
I suspect that Easy doesn't believe in "rules." Neither did the German general staff during WW2. They learned their lesson on the gallows.

Something right wingers in general seem to fail to understand is that desirable ends do not justify evil or illegal means to achieve them. I'd put it down to a tendency to go with gut feeling over analysis, much as our execrable president does.

Nor does Easy realize that the fact of his military service doesn't automatically make him an expert on everything.

[Easy90]

The absolute last think a soldier should be thinking about when facing the enemy on the battlefield...is "playing fair!" Death is a very permanent thing. Your comments only further illustrate your ignorance of the reality of warfare.

[Easy90]

What am I confusing? In the case of KSM.......we have his confessions, he is sitting in a jail cell, eating, breathing and taking a dump on a regular basis.....it IS a legal issue.

You're confusing an episode of "Law and Order" with the real world of War.

[Easy90]

I suspect that Easy doesn't believe in "rules." Neither did the German general staff during WW2. They learned their lesson on the gallows.

Something right wingers in general seem to fail to understand is that desirable ends do not justify evil or illegal means to achieve them. I'd put it down to a tendency to go with gut feeling over analysis, much as our execrable president does.

Nor does Easy realize that the fact of his military service doesn't automatically make him an expert on everything.

You're illustrating my point. Had the Nazi's won...American Generals would have learned their "lesson on the gallows."

And true enough...I am far from "an expert on everything." My schooling while spending a career in the military does give me some insight that you might not have...And even at that...reasonable people may disagree... But as far as speaking on military issues...I bet my experience on the subject beats out that of a self-proclaimed "defrocked minister."

[apdst]

Neither did the German general staff during WW2. They learned their lesson on the gallows.

Oh, and if Germany had won the war, the same end result would have occured? I think not.

[Buck Laser]

You're illustrating my point. Had the Nazi's won...American Generals would have learned their "lesson on the gallows."

And true enough...I am far from "an expert on everything." My schooling while spending a career in the military does give me some insight that you might not have...And even at that...reasonable people may disagree... But as far as speaking on military issues...I bet my experience on the subject beats out that of a self-proclaimed "defrocked minister."
This defrocked archdeacon served three years in the military before he ever went to college, Easy. But he was a grunt, not an officer, so I guess you must be de facto smarter, since you've already told us you know more about military matters like the rules of war than I could possibly know.

And don't take the "defrocked" too seriously. I could still excommunicate you.

[Elrathin]

The absolute last think a soldier should be thinking about when facing the enemy on the battlefield...is "playing fair!" Death is a very permanent thing. Your comments only further illustrate your ignorance of the reality of warfare.

Bullshit Easy and you know it. There are rules that are followed on the battlefield. We don't go blowing up ambulances, so that is playing fair. We don't just let out military lose for an orgy free for all of carnage and you know it.

Whether you like it or not, there are rules that have to be followed in war with our soldiers otherwise they can be brought up on charges. Some I agree with some I don't but there are rules.

[Easy90]

This defrocked archdeacon served three years in the military before he ever went to college, Easy. But he was a grunt, not an officer, so I guess you must be de facto smarter, since you've already told us you know more about military matters like the rules of war than I could possibly know.

And don't take the "defrocked" too seriously. I could still excommunicate you.

You could "possibly know" more about the rules of war than me.... But, based on what I've seen...that's not evident. Three years as a grunt is nothing to be ashamed of...and I appreciate your service..,I have more than three years in advanced military schools dedicated to study of the history, art, and rules of warfare. And excommunicate away! According to some here, I am doomed to eternity in Hell anyway!...LOL! Seriously, what's the "defrocked" story about?

[Easy90]

Bullshit Easy and you know it. There are rules that are followed on the battlefield. We don't go blowing up ambulances, so that is playing fair. We don't just let out military lose for an orgy free for all of carnage and you know it.

Whether you like it or not, there are rules that have to be followed in war with our soldiers otherwise they can be brought up on charges. Some I agree with some I don't but there are rules.


You're commenting on things I didn't say. Reading comprehension problem?

[Buck Laser]

Bullshit Easy and you know it. There are rules that are followed on the battlefield. We don't go blowing up ambulances, so that is playing fair. We don't just let out military lose for an orgy free for all of carnage and you know it.

Whether you like it or not, there are rules that have to be followed in war with our soldiers otherwise they can be brought up on charges. Some I agree with some I don't but there are rules.
From the one picture I've seen of Easy, I'm guessing that he flew a tanker aircraft. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my MOS would have put me directly in harm's way if I had had to go to battle.

It's really nothing but a pissing contest that some of the usual suspects like to play about who's more competent to judge in matters regarding military strategery. One has to wonder how much Bush's "military experience" taught him about how to do the C in C job. From what I've seen, not the first damned thing.

[Elrathin]

You're commenting on things I didn't say. Reading comprehension problem?

Not really you were saying the last thing a soldier needs to think about is playing fair, that isn't true. The soldier DOES need to think about it and it shouldn't be the last thing he thinks about.

[Wndrtch]

If that were true and we could do anything we wanted to in war, there would not be such a thing as war crimes.

Oh Lord.

[Easy90]

So...was the crew of the Enola Gay "playing fair" when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? How bout when we firebombed Dresden, killing more than at Hiroshima..was that "playing fair?"

[Buck Laser]

So...was the crew of the Enola Gay "playing fair" when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? How bout when we firebombed Dresden, killing more than at Hiroshima..was that "playing fair?"
I hesitate to judge them, but I have major questions about the decision to use the atomic bomb. I believe it's only by the grace of God that the world hasn't destroyed itself since then.

I've studied a fair amount of political and military history, and the firebombing of Dresden has to be one of the most despicable acts in the history of war. In a course in grad school I studied the development of the idea of total war. I looked on Google for a reference to the book I read all those years back, but couldn't find it. At any rate, here's a link to the Wikipedia article on total war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

The Wiki article suggests that total war may go further back as an idea than I thought, but Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clear examples of total war on a national scale. In smaller arenas, the Little Big Horn and My Lai may also have been examples of total war.

By the way, I'd much prefer to keep the discussion on this level rather than make it a pissing contest.

[Easy90]

Well...I find it interesting that you make a distinction between 'war' and 'total war'...as far as the events of WW II. I suspect to the average Brit or American flyer who participated in the Dresden or other such raids...there wasn't any distinction. To the grunt who finds himself to be "the tip of the spear" (even at Little Big Horn)...any war is "total war."

[Buck Laser]

Well...I find it interesting that you make a distinction between 'war' and 'total war'...as far as the events of WW II. I suspect to the average Brit or American flyer who participated in the Dresden or other such raids...there wasn't any distinction. To the grunt who finds himself to be "the tip of the spear" (even at Little Big Horn)...any war is "total war."
Easy, I'm not the one who makes the distinction. When I started the course on politics and war, I thought every war was total war. I found out different. You should read up on it, too instead of drawing on your vast repertoire of opinion.