While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

There's never a convenient time to excise rot. There's only a correct time: right f*cking now.

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

So now we can't deal with this because of the economy?

TFNewspaper: The Ledger-Enquirer



/It's Ledger, e(i)nquiring.
//LAUGH, IT'S FUNNY!

If you want your argument for investigations into our Nation's darkest hours, here it is.

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

Excellent troll. However, I wish the current admin would really step up and put the screws to all the bad guys/weaklings and teach the Americans what being American is, as I was raised to understand it.

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

I assume the last sentence can be replaced with anything, right?

A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of [insert event here].

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

Of course our judges would also have accepted "You a Commie or somethin'?"

He cuts to the core of politics; you get nowhere by defeating the enemies you grandstanded against in politics because you need them next election term. They have a green light for the next campaign if they keep the issue alive.

Yawn.

Old news and this board will fill up with all of the usual irrelevant chatter.

This still boils down to a question of semantics. Like it or not a large group of this countries citizens (including some of everybody's friends and families) do not consider what happened as torture. Torture is a very subjective term and even the GC definition contains subjective terms.

The actions taken were legal and we need to move on. If people want to use their time productively then they need to spend some time defining torture. Good luck with that one. That will rank right up there with when does life begin, what is racial profiling, etc...

Flame on farkparrots and basement dwellers.

It's ok to have to re-read a headline to get the joke, it's a whole other thing to re-read the headline 3-4 times to contextually understand it.

/swore it was a 'V for Vendetta' joke that I was missing...

Sorry, rambling. This headline is torture. I'm calling my senator.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Like it or not a large group of this countries citizens (including some of everybody's friends and families) do not consider what happened as torture.

In that case large groups of this country's citizens (including some of everybody's friends and families) are wrong.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Torture is a very subjective term

No, it isn't.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: The actions taken were legal and we need to move on.

How about NO? Does NO work for you?

Let me get this straight.

We've been told that we need to sacrifice some of our rights because it's war time and we need to be secure.
Now we're being told that we shouldn't prosecute criminals because our economy is in bad shape and prosecutions would be a distraction from the President's difficult agenda?

Hell, why have laws at all? There never seems to be a good time for them.

I agree with him completely. Heads need to roll on this issue, or else we're never going to accomplish anything in this "war on terror." We became terrorists to fight the terrorists. While we can never undo that, we owe it to ourselves and the people we have wronged to have it all out in the open and send some people to do some hard time for it.

...because like it or not, it's the American Way, damn it.

/or at least it should be.

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.


9/10

Flame on farkparrots and basement dwellers.


I fully concur. It's like what came first, the chicken or the rooster?

address it now or someone else will later.
/amd it won't be us.

IHateHipHop: While I sympathize and largely agree with this man, priorities need to be set. A lengthy investigation that rattles the ranks of our intelligence community is really not a disruption that we need during this period of economic distress.

wow. that is sublime. i bow to you, sir.
10/10

Damn straight.

vudukungfu: address it now or someone else will later.

Dear Torture,

Hello, how are you? I am good.

Sincerely,

WBiaST

Ok, where do I address it? To the White House, or to Bush's Crawford Ranch?

I say waterboard all the folks who helped define it as legal and NOT torture. They'll quickly change their tune...and their motive which was??? Oh yeah, Fear. The American way. EVERYBODY PANIC!

IamKaiserSoze!!!: ...defining torture. Good luck with that one.

Simple: I'll waterboard you, then ask you if it's torture.

I've got a pretty good guess that you'll agree - it is.

Anyone who's ever experienced it agrees is it is. Case law precedent states that it is. SERE instructors agree that it is. How about this - I dare you to find me ONE reputable source that claims to the contrary.

It's always so easy to say "Oh bother, it can't possibly be all that bad, can it! Stop whining!" from your comfy little chair in comfy safe America. I think the matter is completely closed. It's obvious what transpired, and people need to be punished for it.

FTFA: Spare me your e-mails about how waterboarding isn't torture; even John McCain, who knows more about torture than you do, agrees it is.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: ...defining torture. Good luck with that one.

Torture: according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Even if it was torture? What then?

Trying to maim and kill young men on the battlefield and glass parking lots of cities work for the right.

Starvation embargoes and crashing planes into buildings full of civilians is acceptable to a portion of the left.

But torture, not for pleasure but for potential insight on the enemy's goals is off limits? Is torturing someone that knowingly affiliated with those plotting lethal acts that much worse than bombing dozens of peasants drafted into combat against the US?

Sorry 'bout hogging space, but I forgot to mention this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16012903

/Rule #1: Never argue on teh interwebs. You can't win.
//Rule #1 again: Never argue on teh interwebs. You can't win.

Whatever happened to Hannity and the torture bit? I ran away for a while and everyone's all mum about it.

beoswulf: Even if it was torture? What then?

Trying to maim and kill young men on the battlefield and glass parking lots of cities work for the right.

Starvation embargoes and crashing planes into buildings full of civilians is acceptable to a portion of the left.

But torture, not for pleasure but for potential insight on the enemy's goals is off limits? Is torturing someone that knowingly affiliated with those plotting lethal acts that much worse than bombing dozens of peasants drafted into combat against the US?

The definition of torture should not change depending on who the victim is.

singlemode: IamKaiserSoze!!!: ...defining torture. Good luck with that one.

Simple: I'll waterboard you, then ask you if it's torture.

If I was one of the three men who were subjected to this I might agree. On the other hand if I were one of these three who were of a mindset to kill as many innocents as possible in the most vile manner possible, I would probably deserve it. They could have spilled their guts early on (or before) and avoided it like the thousands of others who were not subjevted. It is well documented (and undisputed) that many efforts were made to extract this information in a less aggressive manner.
I've got a pretty good guess that you'll agree - it is.

Anyone who's ever experienced it agrees is it is. Case law precedent states that it is. SERE instructors agree that it is. How about this - I dare you to find me ONE reputable source that claims to the contrary.

Agrees that it is what? Is a grueling police interogation torture? Is a month of solitary for an unruly prisoner? What about the death penalty? They killed more than three thousand, yet only got a wet towel on the face.
It's always so easy to say "Oh bother, it can't possibly be all that bad, can it! Stop whining!" from your comfy little chair in comfy safe America. I think the matter is completely closed. It's obvious what transpired, and people need to be punished for it.

Had I done something to subject myself to the possibility of waterboarding, I would probably confess the information and avoid it. But that's just me

So, Bush and Co tortures, Obama releases the memos, tells the CIA agents they won't be prosecuted by him for telling the truth - a pretty typical tactic to get the truth out there - a Senator is gearing up to investigate with or without the Republicans, everyone knows torture happened and it's just a matter of time until the hearings start and convictions roll in ... It's not Obama's job to investigate torture, it is the Congress's job to look at that stuff, which it sounds like they are going to shortly. So, what's this guys beef? That we aren't shooting people or rounding them up for kangaroo courts?

I'd rather a bipartisan commission gather evidence to offset any ideas of impropriety, get all the evidence, and stick the people at the top in jail instead of a slip-shod rush job that lets someone like Scooter Libby take the fall and everyone else gets off scot-free.

I keep wondering...why are people so focused on what was (allegedly) done TO the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, rather than what was done BY them?

jamestrouten: IamKaiserSoze!!!: ...defining torture. Good luck with that one.

Torture: according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

That last part... is there a way we can make this shiat legal? Haha, just kidding, I know there's no way you.... oh you did? Awesome!

Sun Tzu admonished the wise general to treat his prisoners well in Art of War written over 2,500 years ago.

This isn't a new concept. Torture does not produce reliable intelligence. It does produce more enemies.

FTFA: Even if you believe the end justifies the means and ignore the numerous factual flaws in this ex post facto defense, it doesn't address the question of how many of the 4,954 American troops who've been killed to date in Afghanistan and Iraq were killed by Islamic jihadists who were recruited in part by the revelations we were torturing helpless Muslims. How much safer did those orders to torture make our young men and women?

spmkk: I keep wondering...why are people so focused on what was (allegedly) done TO the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, rather than what was done BY them?

Evil acts against the evil are not just.

spmkk: I keep wondering...why are people so focused on what was (allegedly) done TO the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, rather than what was done BY them?

Quite right. It would be interesting to know if they had done anything.

on a completely unrelated note:

He's not a Bronze Star winner. It wasn't a farking contest.

/sorry. pet peeve.

beoswulf: But torture, not for pleasure but for potential insight on the enemy's goals is off limits?


YES!

If you disagree with that sentence, then you support the U.S. withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions. That's what they're all about.

There are dozens of reasons torturing people is bad, including but not limited to:

- It leads to false confessions, or to a mix of truth and lies so that you don't know what to believe.

- There are no ticking time bomb scenarios.

- You don't always know a person is "worth torturing" until you've already tortured them.

- You give the greenlight to your enemies, and to any other despot on the planet, to torture at-will -- he can just point at America and say "But they do it!", and he'll be right.

- WE'RE BETTER THAN THAT!


It amazes me that people even want to debate this. Torture is indefensible. This was sorted out a farking CENTURY AGO, bolstered later by the Geneva Conventions, and then backed up again by the Republican Messiah himself in the 80's - RONALD REAGAN.

But for partisan political reasons a bunch of scared rednecks want to hash it out again. Not happening. It's wrong and it isn't open for debate.

jamestrouten: IamKaiserSoze!!!: ...defining torture. Good luck with that one.

Torture: according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Nice try, but define severe. That is the point I referenced in my earlier post. I read that same definition and it is lacking. I also have a problem taking a GC document written when nobody ever conceived of terrorist's motivations and treachery and applying it to these scum.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: jamestrouten: IamKaiserSoze!!!: ...defining torture. Good luck with that one.

Torture: according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Nice try, but define severe. That is the point I referenced in my earlier post. I read that same definition and it is lacking. I also have a problem taking a GC document written when nobody ever conceived of terrorist's motivations and treachery and applying it to these scum.

If you think terrorism is history's greatest evil, you lack the historical context to be making decisions on things like torture.

Since we have decided that waterboarding IS indeed torture, now I suppose we have to convince the ignorant members of the Fark community why it is bad.

It's bad because we (The United States of America) should be a proud example for the rest of the world--not shamed. We shouldn't torture because it is immoral. The ends don't justify the means in this case. You're entitled to your opinion, but thank god your opinion isn't the LAW.

/just broke Rule #1.

beoswulf: But torture, not for pleasure but for potential insight on the enemy's goals is off limits? Is torturing someone that knowingly affiliated with those plotting lethal acts that much worse than bombing dozens of peasants drafted into combat against the US?

Being the good guy is difficult. Welcome to a world with laws, savage.

Most prisoners were innocent and have already been released.

They were arrested by local warlords collecting bounties and turned over to the US, or named by other tortured prisoners telling the CIA what everyone thought they wanted to hear.

I don't think we should be looking back. We should look forward to the next time the Republicans are in power. If there are no sanctions to all their present lawlessness then they will feel free to torture and do what ever they want in the future.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: On the other hand if I were one of these three who were of a mindset to kill as many innocents as possible in the most vile manner possible, I would probably deserve it. They could have spilled their guts early on (or before) and avoided it like the thousands of others who were not subjevted. It is well documented (and undisputed) that many efforts were made to extract this information in a less aggressive manner.

Prove the information was useful and helped anyone.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Agrees that it is what? Is a grueling police interogation torture? Is a month of solitary for an unruly prisoner? What? What about the death penalty? What about it? They killed more than three thousand, yet only got a wet towel on the face.

This isn't washing their mouth out you stupid farker, this is causing their body to feel like they are drowning, can't catch their breath, lungs straining, losing oxygen, CO2 building up in their systems, causing pain in the chest, extremities, and head, as well as mental anguish because they think they are dying, which, if done incorrectly, they could. It's real easy to spout off from the comfort of your recliner watching Iron Man on DVD.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Yawn.

Old news and this board will fill up with all of the usual irrelevant chatter.

This still boils down to a question of semantics. Like it or not a large group of this countries citizens (including some of everybody's friends and families) do not consider what happened as torture. Torture is a very subjective term and even the GC definition contains subjective terms.

The actions taken were legal and we need to move on. If people want to use their time productively then they need to spend some time defining torture. Good luck with that one. That will rank right up there with when does life begin, what is racial profiling, etc...

Flame on farkparrots and basement dwellers.

Cool! I get to do anything I want as long as I re-define what the crime is!

HairBolus: I don't think we should be looking back. We should look forward to the next time the Republicans are in power. If there are no sanctions to all their present lawlessness then they will feel free to torture and do what ever they want in the future.

This is absolutely the correct stance to have. Taking retribution won't do anything but make us feel better. The important thing to do is prevent it from happening again.

spmkk: I keep wondering...why are people so focused on what was (allegedly) done TO the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, rather than what was done BY them?

We don't even know the latter, if anything.

Lynndie England goes to jail.

Dick Cheney doesn't.

Rank makes right?