a Candidate For Sensativity Training

Come on you guys. All i hear are crickets. Olivia? PJ? ATL? Tell me why we shouldn't use waterboarding as a crime fighting technique, irrespective of it's supposed effectiveness as a battlefield technique.

Not doing so will leave me with no other choice but to assume that you realize that those reasons translate just as effectively to the battlefield, and being forced to annunciate them will expose your "it's different" argument for the silliness that it is.

Come on you guys. All i hear are crickets. Olivia? PJ? ATL? Tell me why we shouldn't use waterboarding as a crime fighting technique, irrespective of it's supposed effectiveness as a battlefield technique.

Not doing so will leave me with no other choice but to assume that you realize that those reasons translate just as effectively to the battlefield, and being forced to annunciate them will expose your "it's different" argument for the silliness that it is. Originally Posted by Doove

The reason you here crickets is because they are shocked that you ignored my previous post where I answered your question.....WBing is coercive and a violation of a criminals 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.......

It's amazing how comfortable you are in your ignorance.....you are a concrete thinker who only sees things in black or white.....did it ever occur to you that the manner and circumstances of WBing are determinative of the torture question? Are you aware of the procedures and proticols implemented by the CIA? Are you aware of the research that went into those procedures and proticols? Are you aware of the review structure that determines WBing application?........of course you don't know the answer to these questions, but that doesn't matter to you because you hate George Bush and Dick Cheney....Barry disclosed all our enhanced interrogation methods early in his presidency...I'll bet he regrets the diminished value of those tools. Probably the reason he murdered UBL rather than capture and interrogate him....

Q: Who does the Bill of Rights (specifically) and the Constitution
(generally) protect us from?

A: The Government!


The founding fathers knew that government is a danger to WE THE PEOPLE, so they wrote a Constitution to protect us.....of course, pinko-libs disagree with the founding fathers and think we need the government to protect us from ourselves......

One, I think waterboarding is effective. . Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

You think, care to show just why you think that? Like I said you can think there is an Easter Bunny. You offer nothing up but Fox News talking points as the basis for those Easter Bunny thoughts.

In summary, I do not believe your statistics. . Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

What stats? You have offered up no stats. You have offered up some stupid Fox News talking point. You sound like some cult follower. You offer nothing up but a belief.

We have officially waterboarded three people. THREE. If it works so well , how come only three?

Answer this one...if waterboarding works, how come our military works on counter waterboarding training? Don't you think that a waste of training.

You can not answer a single one of those questions.

Here is your and PJ arguement.

1)Waterboarding works.
2)It is not torture.
3)It works so well we have only used it three times.
4)It works so well and is not torture but we will not use it domestically to save lives. Many more live for that matter as more of our citizens are murdered by repeat offenders than terrorist.

And? You actually believe Rumsfeld? Well there you have it then. Proof positive. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Rumsfeld, was head of Defense during the period in question. Yes I believe him. It was his ass on the line.

This waterboarding crap was done in the early stages of this war. Just like we put Jap citizens in camps at the start of WWII. I understand why our leaders do certain things at the time. I do not blame Bush or Rosevelt for doing at the time what seemed necessary.

But with hindsight at least some of us are not so pig headed as to continue to support something that DOES NOT WORK! You know why I know it does not work? Go head ask me.


Because we do no longer do it. Do you and PJ understand that we only did it to three people. Have ya'll lost your minds? If it workede, we would have continued to do it. We would use it on criminals. You two have fallen to Fox News spin. Period.

Four, war is indeed different. It is all out killing. Crime fighting isn't. Period.

. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Really war is different? Do you know how many folks have been killed south of the border in this war on drugs in the last two years? You are naive if you think war is different. War has turned into this asymmetrical fight, much like the drug war going on in Mexico. That is why we are developing this Special Ops like we are. You are in way over your head in this discussion.

WBing is coercive and a violation of a criminals 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.......
........ Originally Posted by Marshall

Coercive??????

All the criminials have to do is take a course from Super duper Marshall on how to counter waterboarding coercive nature.

You will be rich!

PJ and Ms O seem to think wb'ing works. Tell them dear Marshall how you can counter its effects.

Come on you guys. All i hear are crickets. Olivia? PJ? ATL? Tell me why we shouldn't use waterboarding as a crime fighting technique, irrespective of it's supposed effectiveness as a battlefield technique.

Not doing so will leave me with no other choice but to assume that you realize that those reasons translate just as effectively to the battlefield, and being forced to annunciate them will expose your "it's different" argument for the silliness that it is. Originally Posted by Doove

I realize that "its different" is a complex idea for you to get your simple mind around. But lets try.

In law enforcement, the objective is "justice". In this country, we have the presumption of innocence and rights of the accused. Our police are not authorized to kill someone who might have committed a crime unless such individual attacks them. Then in self defense they are allowed to fire back, but even there, the response must be proportionate. Similarly, in investigating a crime, there are limits on what the police may do -- illegal search and seizure, etc. Now, these rules are not absolute. Other cultures all don't have them like we do. They change over time and could in fact get more or less restrictive as approved by our governing bodies (legislature and courts). There is nothing to say that waterboarding per se couldn't be used extract criminal information, if that is what society, through its government, decides. But under current rules it wouldn't pass (hence my earlier comment about being a waste of time).

In the military, the objective is "defending the country". In "war time" this is typically understood to involve "killing the enemy" (or as General Patton so eloquently stated: “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”) The U.S. and other nations do impose limits on what are soldiers are allowed to do in wartime (e.g., Mi Lia), but these too are not absolutes and have changed over time (e.g., the armies of Rome had much different standards). But even within the current conventions of war, the differences with law enforcement are obvious. Soldiers go out looking for the enemy to kill them. Not to arrest them or bring them to justice. There are no warrants on a battlefield. Your boy Obama was widely praised for having the SEAL's execute what was for all practical purposes "a hit" on OBL (yeah, granted the UN is a pit pissed, but who pays attention to those nimrods). Would a mayor have similar latitude to "take out" crack dealers? No, war is different than law enforcement.

WTF? If I use a bigger type face does that make my arguments more compelling?

I realize that "its different" is a complex idea for you to get your simple mind around. But lets try.

In law enforcement, the objective is "justice". In this country, we have the presumption of innocence and rights of the accused. Our police are not authorized to kill someone who might have committed a crime unless such individual attacks them. Then in self defense they are allowed to fire back, but even there, the response must be proportionate. Similarly, in investigating a crime, there are limits on what the police may do -- illegal search and seizure, etc. Now, these rules are not absolute. Other cultures all don't have them like we do. They change over time and could in fact get more or less restrictive as approved by our governing bodies (legislature and courts). There is nothing to say that waterboarding per se couldn't be used extract criminal information, if that is what society, through its government, decides. But under current rules it wouldn't pass (hence my earlier comment about being a waste of time).

In the military, the objective is "defending the country". In "war time" this is typically understood to involve "killing the enemy" (or as General Patton so eloquently stated: “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”) The U.S. and other nations do impose limits on what are soldiers are allowed to do in wartime (e.g., Mi Lia), but these too are not absolutes and have changed over time (e.g., the armies of Rome had much different standards). But even within the current conventions of war, the differences with law enforcement are obvious. Soldiers go out looking for the enemy to kill them. Not to arrest them or bring them to justice. There are no warrants on a battlefield. Your boy Obama was widely praised for having the SEAL's execute what was for all practical purposes "a hit" on OBL (yeah, granted the UN is a pit pissed, but who pays attention to those nimrods). Would a mayor have similar latitude to "take out" crack dealers? No, war is different than law enforcement. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Really war is different? Do you know how many folks have been killed south of the border in this war on drugs in the last two years? You are naive if you think war is different. War has turned into this asymmetrical fight, much like the drug war going on in Mexico. That is why we are developing this Special Ops like we are. You are in way over your head in this discussion. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF? If I use a bigger type face does that make my arguments more compelling? Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, From the logic you are espousing I would suggest you write in Martian and with invisible ink.
When the shit hits the fan, it don't matter if it is war or law enforcement, things get ugly. You think them Mexicans are going to win by playing by the rules? You think we took down the Mob by playing by the rules?

Back on point. Ain't nobody waterboarding nobody down there because it is a waste of time. It is not effective. Killing your enemy is the most effective tool. Thats what it will boil down to hombre!

What stats? See my previous post on the custodian of those statisticsYou have offered up no stats. You have offered up some stupid Fox News talking point. You sound like some cult follower. You offer nothing up but a belief. Ditto.............

We have officially waterboarded three people. THREE. If it works so well , how come only three? Because we couldn't get it out of them any other way.......

Answer this one...if waterboarding works, how come our military works on counter waterboarding training? Don't you think that a waste of training. Military also trains soldiers to shoot and not be shot......something that works 90% of the time is something you don't discard because it doesn't work 100% of the time....it's very successful, but not perfect....typical lib looking for perfection and paradise when they don't exist....did UBL get his 72 virgins?

You can not answer a single one of those questions.

Here is your and PJ arguement.

1)Waterboarding works.
2)It is not torture.
3)It works so well we have only used it three times.
4)It works so well and is not torture but we will not use it domestically to save lives. Many more live for that matter as more of our citizens are murdered by repeat offenders than terrorist. you want to get rid of the 5th Amendment?



Rumsfeld, was head of Defense during the period in question. Yes I believe him. It was his ass on the line. you believed what he said in the 5/4/2011 O'Reilly interview?

This waterboarding crap was done in the early stages of this war. Barry doesn't say WBing is torture anymore....bet he's used it....Just like we put Jap citizens in camps at the start of WWII. I understand why our leaders do certain things at the time. I do not blame Bush or Rosevelt for doing at the time what seemed necessary.typical lib calling something like these examples morally and legally equivalent....Nice to at least know you agree with Michelle Malkin HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! What Bush did was moral AND legal....what FDR did was immoral AND illegal [though he did have SC backing, though the decision is overwhelmingly thought of as illegal today]

But with hindsight at least some of us are not so pig headed as to continue to support something that DOES NOT WORK! Rumsfeld and George Tenet are on record as saying it worked....research shows it worksYou know why I know it does not work? Go head ask me.


Because we do no longer do it. I believe Barry has done it....how do you know he hasn't? There are many things which pinko-libs believe which just aren't so....they believe in Global Warming, Keynesian economics, etc. etc. etc. Liberals are anti-science.....Do you and PJ understand that we only did it to three people. Have ya'll lost your minds? If it workede, we would have continued to do it. Barry is doing it, and probably has "liberalized" the procedures and proticols....what proof do you have that we're not doing it? Because Barry said so?! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Everybody knows that Barry is the most dishonest president in US history..... We would use it on criminals. Terrorists are not protected by 5th Amendment.....this distinction alone proves you don't know what you are talking about....You two have fallen to Fox News spin. Ditto....you have fallen on the MSNBC spin......Period. Exclamation Point!





Really war is different? Yes...the Constitution makes it differentDo you know how many folks have been killed south of the border in this war on drugs in the last two years? Barry has instructed ICE agents not to arrest certain illegals to make the statistics look betterYou are naive if you think war is different.Ditto War has turned into this asymmetrical fight, much like the drug war going on in Mexico. That is why we are developing this Special Ops like we are. You are in way over your head in this discussion.Ditto Originally Posted by WTF

YOU KNOW BARRY BELIEVES WATERBOARDING WORKS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T OUTLAW IT AND HAS MAINTAINED IT AS A TOOL FOR HIS USE....he saw the classified statistics and videos, he knows it works and probably used it more than Bush and Cheney already....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Ain't nobody waterboarding nobody down there because it is a waste of time. It is not effective. Originally Posted by WTF

What WTF really meant: "I have no proof that WBing doesn't work, but if Bush and Cheney did it it can't work. I hate them! They stole the election from Gore! That's what I FEEL about the issue."

Coercive??????

All the criminials have to do is take a course from Super duper Marshall on how to counter waterboarding coercive nature.

You will be rich!

PJ and Ms O seem to think wb'ing works. Tell them dear Marshall how you can counter its effects. Originally Posted by WTF

Hey, even Superman has his kryptonite........

Rumsfeld on the O'Reilly Factor 5/4/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzaw7pXInbk
Originally Posted by Marshall

.

....once the lying stops, so does the WBing.....what was it about my original post on the subject that was so hard to understand? Originally Posted by Marshall

Then how he lied during the water boarding and they still stopped. You are so full of it. If you actually knew the Intel, you would be under serious investigation for talking about it on a hooker board. Quit acting like you know something you don't.

As Ronaldus Maximus said, " Go ahead and water board me, I don't know shit." Originally Posted by Marshall

YOU KNOW BARRY BELIEVES WATERBOARDING WORKS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T OUTLAW IT AND HAS MAINTAINED IT AS A TOOL FOR HIS USE....he saw the classified statistics and videos, he knows it works and probably used it more than Bush and Cheney already....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Originally Posted by Marshall

Marshall, how old are you? You say you have military training? Now folks do you see why I think there is so much waste in the military. All this money spent on Marshall and all we get is a ten year old version of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

.... Probably the reason he murdered UBL rather than capture and interrogate him.... Originally Posted by Marshall

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall.....
I expected better out of you.

The USA does not "murder" in the war on terror. What the left doesn't like to acknowledge is Bush's treating the terrorists as enemy combatants rather than criminals was a masterstroke. It enables us to send in SEAL teams and Predator drone attacks as opposed to sending in FBI agents with warrants. So we don't "murder" we have counterstrikes that result in "casualties."

Also Marshall, I hate to "play" WTF, but you should know the reason why BHO "wasn't sure" that OBL wasn't "at the compound" and why he won't release the photos and why he gave an unpublicized "kill order" and why he "hurriedly threw the body overboard." It has less to do with an enhanced interrogation techniques and more his lawyerin' training.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall.....
I expected better out of you.

The USA does not "murder" in the war on terror. What the left doesn't like to acknowledge is Bush's treating the terrorists as enemy combatants rather than criminals was a masterstroke. It enables us to send in SEAL teams and Predator drone attacks as opposed to sending in FBI agents with warrants. So we don't "murder" we have counterstrikes that result in "casualties."

Also Marshall, I hate to "play" WTF, but you should know the reason why BHO "wasn't sure" that OBL wasn't "at the compound" and why he won't release the photos and why he gave an unpublicized "kill order" and why he "hurriedly threw the body overboard." It has less to do with an enhanced interrogation techniques and more his lawyerin' training. Originally Posted by gnadfly

On this we agree.

In fact I would be for waterboarding if it worked. That is what some of these Bush apologist can't get thur their heads.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7 906

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

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.) .....





....A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example


...The mistake was so costly precisely because the situation was, and remains, too risky to allow someone to experiment with amateurish, Hollywood style interrogation methods- that in reality- taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world. It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda