Then stop breaking the law.
You let torture out of the box, a few steps down the road the nice men from the government will be torturing war vets and right-wingers, looking for the "next Timothy McVeigh".

Such tortured arguments.

Bourrie, waterboarding isn't torture.

This is torture.

Never thought I would end up feeling sorry for those publicity hounds.
Obama is slowly but surly with lots of bells & whistles to distract Americans. Taking away their Freedoms, & making the USA into a one Party State. He is quietly suborning every organization that is Government or not. Of course the pretext is the economic problems they themselves helped engineer.
The one thing I do know is that Obama is only the face behind the cabal.
What where watching is the breaking up of the American hegemony by her enemies.
The American Century is over. The weak chose bread & circuses over liberty, as is shown with his 67% approval rating .
Our Southern cousins have abandoned allies, introduced protectionism, & bankrupted the Republic.
Now its head the TOTUS has set his departments to eat one another while he watches them twist.
All the while embracing its enemies while pretending its 1999.
JMO
JMO

Those CIA bastards did everything they could to undermine George W.

Because so many of them are fools they didn't realise that revolutions consume their own.

Fascism is system under which top-level corporate interests are partnered with the government (and protected from competition or failing because of it), where traditional values and methods must be cast aside so that the change to the New Man can occur, and where a charismatic leader is elevated to near godhood (note small "g") by adoring fans within the media.

Obama's past lead many to believe that he's a socialist, but it appears that he's more of a National Socialist than the communistic sort that was feared.

BTW, "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg is a very interesting and enlightening take on the political history of the last century.

Call Obama whatever you like. The rules say America doesn't torture people. The American people don't want their government to torture people. That's what makes America better than a run-of-the-mill police state.

Oh, and before the inevitable complaints about "you can't call him Hitler!", I didn't. Fascism is a political system that was practiced by President Wilson and Mussilini long before Hitler came along and poluted the "brand". There is nothing inherently racist in fascism, just a profound nationalism that, in the case of Germany, lead to a xenophobic response to all others. Part of being an American is the melting-pot nature of the country, whereby many differences are melded to become one society. Modern liberalism just wants what the newly integrated are supposed to become to be slightly changed to fit in better with their view of the world.

1. waterboarding is torment, not torture.

2. hugh hewitt has made note of the reason why this witchhunt is happening - citing none other than the NYT as a source - http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/6584280b-4646-46b6-aa10-dc639321610e

It is important that from this point forward any terrorist acts be considered to have happened solely on BO and the Dems watch (pelosi's claim that she wasn't aware of the CIA's interrogation techniques is nauseating. how she got to be leader in the house is a damning indictment of the dem party's system of leadership promotion.

Mark, the American people don't want their cities vaporized, or poisoned, or diseased either. As none of the Geneva convention protections apply to those who shoot from behind women and children or from on holy ground and who fight for no nation and without uniforms, the proper international terms for these individuals are terrorists or spies. Either can be shot out of hand if they are caught red-handed. The US has, instead, kept them alive and allowed many to return to the battle. The US doesn't need to worry about decending as low as the opponents in this fight. I have yet to see a beheading video filmed by US forces, who then run around screaming with joy holding the severed head. Washing their hair instead (and doubt drowning some of their lice) pales in comparison. True torture one doesn't recover from (check all the recent speeches by John McCain and see how high he can lift his arms). Only in a decadent, possibly failing, society are the two compared like that.

Time to go play with my son. I'm glad there are strong men working in dark places to help keep him safe.

Mark Bourrie is an uninformed cretin.

Americans don't' torture AMERICANS as a rule.

Americans DO torture foreign ENEMIES at war with them. Do you think the French won world war II with their charm?

Now go jerk yourself.

Nancy Pelosi had her chance to stop enhanced interrogation.

She didn't, therefore she is every bit as guilty of any crimes the supporters of her political party claim the other political party is guilty of.

In her position as represenative of the minority party, it was her duty to let the American people know what she thought of the methods.

Impeach Pelosi, the person who had a chance to save the American people but looked the other way.

As the taxpayers' revolt gains momentum, the Congress of 2010 will have the right to charge Obama with crimes against We The People by saddling them with a $6 trillion deficit.

The American people will have the final verdict on this backward-looking administration, no matter how much lip service Obama gives to ‘looking forward, not backwards.;

He has set a historic precedent he and his supporters will come to regret.

So, Mark, are the people who waterboarded Christopher Hitchens and the Leftist, antiwar (U.S. war, that is, they've never given a damn about anyone else fighting a war) protesters who waterboarded other Leftist, antiwar protesters at rallies all to be charged with crimes against humanity too? According to you they must. And how about including any child who has ever thrown a bug onto another child? (BTW, all Western governments' armies do this to their own troops to prepare them for interrogation at the hands of their enemies.)

It's all a distraction; they want to shift the focus away from the economy. Multi-trillion dollar deficits, and we're supposed to be worried that a few bad guys got roughed-up.

I wonder if the "torture", done to TERRORISTS, was any worse that what Chavez or Castro do to their political opponents.

The real story is that Obama doesn't have the backbone, or the will, to stand up to the most extreme members of his party.

What truly baffles me is the simple fact the more journalists have been waterboarded pursuing a story than 'enemy combatants'. Funny how none of these folks has suffered any long term, or short term, for that matter, effects. As someone said earlier, it's torment not torture.

Doug - were you being funny when you stated that the Fwench (!!!) won (whone)(the one?) WWII? It is funny to state that; but the context suggested no laugh; just wondering.

I don't think 250 journalists have been waterboarded.
Anyone who has waterboarded anyone against their will in the US should be charged.
Anyone who has been waterboarded because they want to be is probably a fool, but it's a free country.

Torture – noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

No where do I see sleep deprivation, making someone "uncomfortable", subjecting one to mental duress, etc. Torture is accepted to be definition #1 usually... of course if you are a Liberal (or some other soft "progressive" ((HA)) type) then torture is something that happens that is "bad".

Now waterboarding, from what I have seen, is not nice by any means. But inflicting excruciating pain? I think not.

How much trust will any organization have when politicians start pulling this crap for their own gain or their opponents detriment. I know I would demand full, written orders, signed that I could put away to protect myself.

The Americans did not torture people during the war. In fact, people were hanged for these kinds of war crimes after WWII and earlier wars. I'd direct you to the case of Geerals Homma and Yamashita. I would also direct you to the accounts of the trials of the Conferderates who ran the Andersonville prison.

The Americans did not torture people during the war. In fact, people were hanged for these kinds of war crimes after WWII and earlier wars. I'd direct you to the case of Geerals Homma and Yamashita. I would also direct you to the accounts of the trials of the Confederates who ran the Andersonville prison.

Prediction: Before 2012 (unless the Dems get cremated in the '10 election) the CIA will be dissolved and replaced by an Obama creation, empowered by brand new legislation to spy outside the USA -and- inside it.

The CIA pre-Bush II era were a load of overpaid cretins, and 9/11 is the proof.

The CIA's Obama replacement will not be an improvement. Quite the opposite.

This is my Phantomly prediction du jour.

Interesting how bourrie ignores the point of the column. Torture or not, Goss was talkng about how leading democrats are now pretending they knew nothing (nothing!) about waterboarding, yet it was obvious they were fully aware of it. Those are your heroes, bourrie, defend them. They sanctioned it.

At the Power Line blog—an excellent site, BTW—there’s an excellent video @ “Cheney in 2012!” with Liz Cheney, Dick’s daughter, more than holding her own, on this thread’s issue, against the MSNBC Obama bimbo puppet: some aggressive partisan called Norah.

For what it's worth, I’ve sent this message to MSNBC:

I’m a Canadian who is watching, with dread, the train wreck, which is the Obama administration. B+? I don’t think so. But what would one expect from a propaganda outfit like MSNBC? I watched, with no surprise, and with an increasing lack of respect, your interviewer act as a shill for the Democrats’ and the Obama administration’s shameful partisanship. To abuse the safety and security of the USA—and its allies—to score political points is reprehensible. So is MSNBC’s collusion in that betrayal.

Please let Norah know that our Islamic enemies, who fight as members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, contravene all the Geneva Convention rules of warfare: they do not wear conventional uniforms, they do not fight as a part of the recognized military force of a state (they’re guerrilla fighters), they have neither serial numbers nor rank, they use civilians—women and children—as cover, and they deliberately target civilians for torture and death. What part of this does Norah not understand?

Liz Cheney did a fine job of eviscerating the pomp and propaganda of Norah and MSNBC. Brava, Liz!

And I’d imagine that MSNBC is wondering why the MSM is dying. I can tell you. The MSM’s left-wing propaganda, which is served up day after day, is a complete betrayal of their mandate. Whatever happened to intelligent and fair REPORTING? The MSM used to be able to fool most of the people most of the time. Not any more.

Now that’s GOOD NEWS!

They're not my heroes. I believe they are lying.

A foreign view on Obama and the CIA.
http://tinyurl.com/dgjnmm

Mark your examples suck. Your examples are of people who were charged with keeping prisoners. As many have pointed out the terrorists are not part of a recognized army. As such they can be treated as spies and obliterated without thought or impunity. That we, the civilized West, actually treat them with respect when they are kept imprisoned, well it is better than many beheaded prisoners of the medieval enemy we oppose.

As for the special treatment that some of the high value prisoners, I have no problem with the methods used to try and get information to safe life and property.

"save" vice "safe" of course

Of course they are -lying- Mark. The real problem is the purpose they are lying in support of. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that Obama is selling CIA field operatives out for a nine-day-wonder in the papers, and a little red meat for his followers.

By the first week of May this will have run out of pizazz, and he'll need a brand new "scandal" to keep surfing the wave.

Meanwhile, he just burnt his whole international spy org during a shootin' war. They are all going to quit and go into hiding if they have any brains at all.

How is this in the interests of those Americans you're so concerned about?

As a recent, male poster here sounds like a thorough pantywaist, I consider him to be, along with Norah, an “Obama bimbo puppet”. What part of hoodwinked do these people not understand?

Rhetorical question: what they don’t understand is the facts of the matter and the right to use reasonable force to defend oneself from murderous enemies, who would show no mercy whatsoever if the shoe were on the other foot. The softening of the Western brain is as much our enemy as Islamic jihadists: without it, they’d have been thoroughly routed by now. Instead, they use “lawfare”—an inversion of our rights and freedoms—to worm away inside the gates of Western democracies.

What’s going on in the US right now is a perfect example of lawfare and Obama, the person with the sacred obligation to protect the citizens of the USA, is selling them down the river for a few cheap, political points. Shame on him.

It's one thing for America to say we do not want to be seen on the World stage as a country that mistreats POWs, and to change their MO accordingly. It's entirely another to undermine national security by releasing classified documents.

I don't believe that any of the methods the CIA used can be called torture (nor would I have a problem with them torturing those murderous terrorist f@!-s) but I do think that regardless of how one feels about it the field agents were doing their job in a fashion that had consent from their superiors. The Obama administration should never have entertained the idea of pursuing them criminally.

The success of these enhanced interrogation methods demonstrates the need for them. I wonder, how many more terrorist attacks on US soil will it take for the lefties to realize that this fight against terrorism is necessary?

Oh, you're so brave. What unit are you in?

Think maybe the rulebook was thrown out by the team of hijackers at 9-11? Both sides gotta play by the same rules.

It's only fair :)

Let me add my opinion, as re-opined through an post-SDA commenter..."I'll state my position as plainly as I can - the CIA could waterboard "Mahmoud" once a week,
and western democracies would be nowhere in danger of becoming "no better than the enemy"
or "losing our soul" or other such nonsense...But then again, relativism was never my strong suit. Try as I might, I cannot place "water up the
nose" on the same ethical plane as say, the application of a cordless drill to a prisoner's temple
or forcing him to watch while his children are raped and then slaughtered."
Thank you, Orlin Bowman

Those are ludicrous choices. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the good guys.

Pretty all countries in the world of any consequence have organizations that operate in the shadows and outside the normal confines of legal systems. That is the reality. Those who suggest that the US should operate otherwise and within civilian rules and laws are really just actors who are trying to disarm the US. They are either acting as a deliberate fifth column or they are as naive as little children. They should be put into a military unit that is in action. Probably would have to put Depends on them, but it would wake them up from their little sleep although we could let them sleep in the "jammies" with their little bunny feet if it would make them feel better. The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens.

Mr. Bourrie sir, we're supposed to WIN against these a-holes. To do that we need to know who and where they are so we can go kill them.

I am not an expert on that stuff. If the guys who are experts feel the need for some wearing down of informants by dastardly means, I balance that against 3000 dead on 9/11 and Momar Quadafi's pet nuke that nobody knew he had. How many of those are waiting to be smuggled into a nice container ship?

I guess some people deserve liberty and some don't. If you don't defend liberty and the rule of law, soon you won't have to worry about them. When people are willing to accept the torture of people by the government, the government will be glad to oblige, for so many, many "good" reasons.

Mark, a wise Man once stated, "There is no one good except God".

We set our standards of 'goodness' just as our enemies set their standards of 'goodness'. Therein lies the problem. The two standards of 'goodness' are in conflict and unless we protect ourselves, our standard of 'goodness' shall be their standard of 'goodness'.

Self righteousness will not keep evil at bay.

We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the good guys.

Mark; WWs I and II weren't won with sunshine and lollipops. They were won because our guys ripped the enemy's guts out and used the remains to grease the tracks of our tanks. Now, I don't know what sort of candy-a$$, Mr Rogers fellating, bubble you live in but here, in the real world, hard men have to do hard things to guard our safety and way of life.

Hey ... god sends people to hell to burn for all eternity. That's not torture?

He also lets people into heaven where they can sit around and worship him for all eternity. That's not torture?

The 72 virgin thingy is starting to sound better.

Mark Bourrie, you have converted me. You are right!

Because of COURSE there is no difference between a citizen of Canada and an Al Qaeda terrorist caught on the battlefield, in Afghanistan, by Canadian soldiers, with a gun in his hand. No difference at all.

Its all so clear to me now...

"Self righteousness will not keep evil at bay"
Indeed, Joe. Well said.

Mark, try this hypothesis. Islamic fundamentalists are getting ready to rape, torture, your daughter, your little sister, your mother, and several other members of your family.

You have a prisoner in your custody, and he knows where they are and when they're going to get started.

So now the question is what are you going to do, Mark? The clock is ticking.

If you're not willing to do what's necessary, then I don't want you in a position of responsibility.

If you're willing to stand idly by while your family is slaughtered like sheep, I pity you.

On the CIA issue, I feel like the rest of you.

However, there is an upside. Obama has now made an enemy of the CIA. I expect leaks to be forthcoming putting the Obama administration in a bad light. And of course they have given us an issue.

Bourrie it's torture reading your posts. Naive comes to mind.

BS question, based on a serious of ridiculous premisses, including the idea that if I torture the person I'll get the truth, rather than a piece of long-rehearsed and well-coached disinformation that will waste my time and divert me from getting good intelligence that might actually prevent the scenario from playing out.

As an old VietNam vet, I can tell you that Mark has now rendered himself irrelevant.

Although I don't know of any Americans whose family was directly threatened, in the field this situation does come up. And the safety of another military unit or your fellow combatants is threatened if the prisoner is not made to reveal vital information.

At this juncture we might like Mark and sympathize with his sentiments, but he has completely eliminated himself as a player who is committed to reaching a solution.

Mark has now become one of those people that we have to protect because they are incapable of protecting themselves.

Mark, you are right, torture rarely gets the truth, it gets the answer you want. Using other methods, on the other hand, sleep deprivation, making the prisoner uncomfortable, questions at any and all hours of the day or night, and yes, even repeated waterboarding (not an extremely painful procedure, scary, no doubt but not fatal) may break down the prisoner and allow for slips in questioning. I am pretty sure that the same questions will be asked in many different ways, each answer recorded and analyzed.

If waterboarding is the worst that the west did, then I can live with that. The renditions, well, that is another question. The countries that received these people are not nice countries, by our standards. How they treat their own people, we can protest it, but should we really try and impose our own standards?

Lastly, do you think the detainees in Gitmo were being tortured? If you do, then I refer you way back up to the definition and suggest that your standards are not the dictionary definition standards.

Scenario based questions are always so hard to frame correctly. Let us say that Al'Q stole a nuke from Pakistan. And lets say that they also procured the ability to detonate it at a time of their choosing. You have in custody a terrorist who you believe has information that could help recover this weapon. What do you do? He told you he knows of the weapon, he taunted you with the fact it was on its way and there is nothing you can do to stop it... but is that true?

Let's not say anymore sily scenarios. Let's deal with reality.

Let's not say anymore silly scenarios. Let's deal with reality.

markhas went from proving hisself naive, to proving hisself stupid. Mark, the whole guist of the thread is about denial by memebers of the house who were informed of the "events" before they took place, capice!!!!!!

Hey hey Ho ho

To jail Nancy Pelosi's got to go.

[quote]However, there is an upside. Obama has now made an enemy of the CIA. I expect leaks to be forthcoming putting the Obama administration in a bad light. And of course they have given us an issue. [/quote] Greg in Dallas

Leaks! Leaks!... "plug the leaks Panetta" has his hands full.. Dam, do you think the foreign agencies may have leaks too. All the media & Senators misbehaving in other countries caught on tape.

Please don't feed the naive,leftard,pansy-assed troll!!!He's just playing a game,trying to keep us off the real track,which as many have pointed out,is that the DemocRATS, and The Owe LIED about not knowing anything about the "torture". He is playing the same trick his Zero Hero is doing,deflecting away from the multi-trillion buck debt and the socialism he is pushing on the USA.

Allow me to share my confusing view on this. My father spent most of WW2 in Stalag VIIIB in Poland as a prisoner of war. They weren't tortured (unless you consider a beating or a rifle but in the head torture) and they starved for years. My father was a stick figure when the war was over. He couldn't even eat solid food for weeks after he was liberated or it would have killed him. My dilemma is I think we should hook up the car batteries to these terrorist but at the same time I can't help but think of The Old Man. I really think it's wrong to torture prisoners but I can appreciate why you'd want to.
Plus I'm sure my dad would have thought Guantanamo is a holiday camp.

Weird footnote here. As the war was ending the Germans guards marched all the prisoners west to escape the Russian advance. The Germans (Nazis?) protected the prisoners from the Russians (Communists?) because they knew the Russians would probably kill all the Allied prisoners of war. Who the good guys are and who the bad guys are gets very grey at war time.

I apologize for the long post.

Mark:

Americans did use torture in WW2 (and WW1 and Korea and Vietnam) just as the CDNs did and the other allies with the tacit approval of the higher ups or even more than tacit.

In fact Tarantino is just about to release a movie about one group that apparently did a lot of it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

torture is a necessary evil. What needs to be created is a torture warrant just as we have search warrants - this is not a new idea.

You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Tarantino's releasing a movie, huh? Well, that proves that.
Maybe he should consider studying the war for five years, reading all the censored material keptb out of the papers in this country, and talking to veterans all his life.
Let's see some facts about Canadians torturing prisoners in WWII. Real units, real dates, not "I heard about these guys who captured some Germans" guff.

The tortured soul just cannot escape its misery.

When you are in a war, you are in to win. It is no coincidence that the west really hasn't won a war since WWII. Since then, the fifth column in the west has continually insisted that the west "disarm" itself when engaging in war.

Oh and Mark...it is pretty clear you haven't seen a day of service in your life. Much of what goes on is never reported anywhere. The further from the real world your thinking is, the more difficult it is for you to think logically.

Well, there ya go. The proof is the proof, a great man once said.

Obama is just trying to get some distraction for awhile while he screws over the US economy. Selling out the c CIA . . . no worries, those kids no how to play hardball and what Obama will get his back when it is appropriate.

Meanwhile, in secret, answers will be found out and the bodies will never be found.

gord @7:14 - That footnote is incredibly interesting. I would never have guessed such a thing.

Why doesn't the US just contract out the interrogation part of their wars and then they will get the info without getting their hands dirty. They pretty much do that with everything else don't they. I mean you can't even get an American to run a freaking 7-11.

Obama is the president of what's left of the United States. When the USA was it's former self, a half wit like him would never have had a change and not because of his skin.

His successors will have the job of selling off what's left of the assets to China, then moving to Canada for some free, but not available health care.

The USA is personified in Mohamad Ali. Once the greatest, now just a pitiful mumbling shadow of his former self.

None of these sell outs matter, there is little left to save at this point. There will never be peace in the US society because the Left will never quite and the right will never give up trying to take it back to saner times.

A civil war settle it in the end and that damage will not likely be recovered from. Others will come in to plunder the spoils. Hell, they already are.

Phantom, another prediction, armed forces commanding officers will delay the call to cease fire after engagement in a fire fight and delay the call to look for enemy wounded. Why should an officers stick his neck out to protect enemy combatants with people like Nancy Pelosi watching his back.

Mark

Don't be asking for actual facts from these guys. Come on. The facts are what they say they are. Just "believe" that what they say is the truth. The same way they believed Bush when he implied Iraq was gonna nuke us, when Cheney said it was a certainty that Iraq had WMD.

If you follow their arguments you will always find that the things they ask you to "believe" without providing any factual basis are always things that lead to people engaging in Nazi-like behaviour - whether it's actual torture such as the Nazis engaged in, or "pre-emptively" invading sovereign nations.

Now...I wonder why that would be, do you think?

This whole sorry story, supported be the media, is, to distract from the reckless spending proposed by the current president.
The tea parties showed the president that people mean business when they say that he is out of control. This is his way to control, although it is not in his power to control, the situation.
Of course he is only nominally the president; he is more of a puppet on a string pulled hither and yon by the real control freaks, Soros and company.
If you follow closely what is happening, this president does not have a clue of what he should be actually doing. What he does is proclaim. Proclamations that his followers swallow like manna do not a president make.
ET adequately explained many times, what sort of individual this president is. It is supported by vast amount of evidence for those that want to see. There is large number of people that came to the same conclusion.
As for Bourrie, the chap lives mostly in never, never land of lotus eaters:

“The Americans did not torture people during the war.”

He does not know, nobody knows, only those who know, know and they will not talk, its history, better not spoken about.
War has no rules, however much some warm and fuzzy people would like to have it. Like the general said, you shoot the bastard before he shoots you.
If the bastard has vital information you need, he better talk or you are going to make him.
To say to the bastard: tell me what I need to know or you hurt my feelings will by all sensible accounts not work.

Mark:

the tarantino movie is based on the truth

There were lots of US military-approved videos shot of torture and waterboarding in Vietnam.

CDN troops were very rough on German POWs after the Falaise gap was closed and the SS atrocity revealed. And of course there was the torture and murder of a somali by the paratroopers.

But the documented stuff is clearly just the tip of a huge iceberg - for the likes of you and Pelosi to willfully pretend that it doesn't happen is disgusting and harmful to the security of all free peoples.

bleet:

There are no national socialists here.

That's another utopian totalitarian philosophy that submerges individuals to the will of the state, much like your marxist heroes.

How do I know you're a marxist?

Because only a marxist would consider a national socialist a ‘right winger,' as it appears you are trying to do.

Based on the fact of this particular attempt to re-define the meaning of torture (re-definition being a favourite tactic perfected by Bill Clinton) and based on the fact Nancy Pelosi let the idea of enhanced interrogation pass, then Pelosi should also be thrown in the slammer.

Nobody here is in favour of torture, especially the tortured arguments used by marxist such as yourself.

The fact is that if Nancy Pelosi did not object to what you define as torture, then she should also be jailed for letting down the American public.

Instead of admitting what the US did was not torture, Pelosi is playing cute and now denying what her lying ears heard.

Now, piss off.

Oh, set your free

I didn't accuse anyone here of being a national socialist.

I merely observed that you all are lustily defending - and in some cases, rejoicing in - the exact same torture tactics as were carried out by the Nazis.

You keep bringing up Pelosi, which only highlights what a moral non-entity you are. By all means, if Pelosi approved, throw her in the slammer, right behind Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al.

Because you see, set you free, there are some issues which transcend partisan politics. One of these is the basic values which define Western civilization and define us as opposed to the barbarianism of Islamic terrorists or Nazis. And they have to be non-negotiable.

If Democrats had a part in torture along with the Repubs, sure, lock'em up. Clear the decks.

What's puzzling, though, are the "good Germans" like you and others on this board, who seem to think torture should be a permanent part of Western civilization, to be carried out in perpetuity.

It's not too much of an overstatement to say that it's the "good Germans" who provided cover for, and on whom the Nazis depended, to carry out their atrocities.

"do your worst and we shall do our best'...

...within our moral confines of course...which confines are vastly superior to the enemy's...

so...next question...?

bleet:

Never presume to tell me what I think.

That makes people believe your a class A a**hole.

Just deal with the facts, stick to accepted dictionary definitions of torture and everything will be fine.

This issue has nothing to do with Nazis, Germany or your pitiful attempts to re-define long-understood meanings of words.

Instead of trying to understanding and honestly communicate, your tactic of attempting to re-define words to suit your political purposes has no place in an intelligent, civil debate.

It's unfortunate your lack of intellectual capacity continues expose an inability to discern a technique that was approved by the US Congress and equate it with true tortures that are happening in other parts of the world.

If you'd like to rage about torture, there are plenty of real-life examples happening in the world right now. Stop living in the past and vent your outrage against those who practise real dictionary-defined tortures.

Deal?

Bleet I don't think you even know the basic values of Western Civilization. Western values are based on the Christian ideal of loving your neighbour as yourself. This basic idea does not allow one to stand idly by as others slaughter innocents. If you capture someone conspiring to slaughter innocents and do not do everything you can to prevent that slaughter then you are part of the slaughtering mass not a moral beacon.

Hilarious... nowadays depriving some idiot of cable tv is considered torture.

Mark Bourrie... you asked a poster what unit he was with... sunshine, I'm with a unit that paid for its share of Afghanistan in blood, and little shite like sleep deprivation and other disorienting measures designed to weaken resistance to interrogation is fair game. So take your sanctimonious arm-chair generalship and shove it where the sun don't shine. You either leave your panty-waist sensibilities at home or you throw in the towel. Any interrogation in war has its share of resistance weakening techniques. The comfort of one muhjid isn't worth the life of one of our soldiers, and if making a mujhid so dozy that he doesn't know whether or not he's revealing the location of the latest IED factory is the price to save one of our own, then so be it. Mark Bourrie, how the heck do you think we've only lost 118 troops in A'stan so far? Because we've found the muhj who wanted to increase that figure and got them to tell us where the IED factories were.

Mark, the day you have to face the hard questions in a nasty, nasty world is the day you can be sanctimonious. Until then, you pissant, STFU.

Posted by: bleet at April 25, 2009 8:02 PM
Posted by: bleet | April 25, 2009 9:04 PM

Whew - for a minute there, I thought the thread would go 'round & 'round interminably without somebody invoking Godwin's law. Thanks for stepping up to the plate, bleet; you never fail to disappoint.

As noted above, sleep deprivation, playing loud music, humiliating prisoners isn't "torture". And waterboarding, while extremely unpleasant and certainly tormenting, isn't either; contrast waterboarding and its permanent effects with the sort of treatment saddam's prisoners received, or those captured by the taliban. Even christopher hitchens, who volunteered for waterboarding, is alive, well and healthy after his very brief ordeal.

As for those who still maintain waterboarding doesn't work, I'd suggest talking to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for a first-hand perspective.

It comes down to a simple question: if we believe there is a plot to kill hundreds or thousands and we can prevent same by waterboarding some islamist, would we rather simulate dying (in a non-permanent harmful fashion, yet) in a terrorist or actually witness it in the deaths of innocents?

Bourrie, it might be mean-spirited to suggest that in this case if you're still against waterboarding Achmed or Mohammed, it could be apt for you to find yourself or your loved ones amongst the innocent dead, and I won't say that. But you might ponder it for some other perspective, however.

mhb23re at gmail d0t calm

It would be crazy politics and a breach of national security to rule out pressure tactics in the search for information about future terrorist attacks. In fact, this is the only argument in favour of keeping the higher-ranking captives alive at all, otherwise I would be quite content to see them summarily executed once their identities had been proven.

Note that I call waterboarding a pressure tactic and not torture. No doubt it is quite unpleasant, how else would we induce these determined zealots to reveal any useful information?

Is there any limit to what we should do? This sounds like the ideal question to pose to candidates for a theological degree. I would wait until the day after the next major terrorist strike to pose it, just so there was some context available. This is what is missing here, the gruesome deaths of over three thousand mostly civilian victims on 9-11, another thousand in various other large terrorist attacks of recent years, and the additional thousands spread out over hundreds of smaller actions, none of them conducted by the accepted rules of military engagement, 99% of them not even aimed at plausible military targets.

If Obama wants to start a civil war, he should keep this sort of crazy politics going a few more months. The outrage on a Canadian website is one thing, you need to check out what they're saying on large American forums and blogs.

Already, within the first hundred days, Obama has more or less exposed himself as a radical anti-American with Marxist and Islamist sympathies. The CIA should be waterboarding him for information at this point.

Peter:

A fist-pump just went up in the air after I read your comments.

Piss-ants like bleet are the vocal minority.

It's up to the rest of us to stand up to his marxist propoganda and let our voices be heard.

Also, to equate waterboarding with "Nazi atrocities" tells me that our left-leaning schools are churning out a vast army of useful idiots -- no wonder so many deceptions and lies are being accepted blandly at face value by many of the sheeple in recent years. Your analogy overlooks the fact that Nazi Germany was not attacked by terrorists and forced to improvise a defense against their ruthless choices of how and where to attack.

I have to wonder where the outrage over torture has been hiding for all these years that Cuba and China have been torturing political prisoners. Oh right, I forgot, they weren't socialists or Islamists.

Mark Bourrie By your idea of torture we would have no Special Forces, no SAS, no JTF2, no SEALS etc. These men are run to the edge of physical and mental collapse. Some die in training, some die in the field. I read of a SAS unit dropped into Iraq and captured. One would get an enemy to beat him so he could get a cigarette and grin about it..moral victory. The mice stay home.

we're in WW4...as podhoretz rightly describes it...and in war, as has been expressed long before thesetimes, "all is fair'......having said that i would argue without fear of disputation that WE are far far more decent and honourable than THEM.

what more need be said ?...after all we ARE in a war..in their mind a 'guerra a cuchilla....'

doubtlessly prayers and manumission to a CHRC will pacify them...?

Hey Black Mamba@7:53

The liberation of the POW camps was a pretty interesting part of the war that never really got much coverage. As you might know the POW camps that did get over run by the Russians fared very badly. Most of the prisoners went to forced labour camps in Russia. My Dad told me that one day the German officers gathered the POW's in their section together and told them that they had been ordered to kill all of them and that the Russians were coming. Not only did the Germans disobey orders, which was frowned upon by the Nazi's, but they could also could have just run for it and saved themselves. Instead they marched a rag tag army of sick and hungry prisoners away from the Russians. Saving their lives.

Sometimes good and evil overlap.

Set you free:

Waterboarding is torture according to John McCain - who might know a little more about the subject than you.

Waterboarding is torture according to Bush-fellator Christopher Hitchens, who stated (after being waterboarded) that if "waterboarding is not torture, nothing is torture".

Waterboarding is torture according to the US when they executed Japanese soldiers who carried out waterboarding.

Waterboarding was carried out in the Spanish Inqusition, by the Chinese commmunists, by the Nazis, by the Japanese.

A Pentagon official has admitted that the US tortured.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5514239.ece -

However, the CIA has admitted that no info from torture has actually saved anyone from an attack, contrary to the fever dreams of several on this board and of unAmerican traitor Dick Cheney:
www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html -

Now, I'm not sure how I'm 're-defining words' when so many agree with me - even Republicans.

And I'm sure that the indisputable facts I've presented will, for you, have no place in an 'intelligent, civil debate'.

But the fact is that waterboarding is torture and has always been regarded as torture. the only time when that was even called into question was when it was known the US had engaged in waterboarding.

Far from living in the past, myself and many others are insisting that the US purge itself of barbaric practises which unite them, rather than differentiate them, from the Islamic barbarians who wage war against them. Especially when such practises aren't even effective!

Too bad you're on the other side.

Not sure why you call me a Marxist. I'm a money-grubbing capitalist. Just one who thinks, like McCain and Htichens, it's possible to be capitalist while opposing Nazi-esque practises.

Don't you?

bleet:

Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one.

McCain still thinks the 9/11 guys came across the border from Canada.

Hitchens' stuff is readable, but he obviously lacks any moral compass.

If the dictionary and Nancy Pelosi was OK with enhanced interrogation in 2002, who am I to try and re-define?

Other than being an interesting distraction, it's obvious neither one of us is going to change the other's minds.

Can't be grubbing any money wasting time in revisionist history.

I can't even vote in the US elections for freak's sake. I'll let the US public decide why so much energy is being expended on this pointless witch-hunt (and no, I'm not taking a shot at Pelosi).

Waterboarding is torture according to John McCain - who might know a little more about the subject than you.

Would that be the same John McCain who just the other day, while defending Janet Napalitano, emphatically stated that the 9-11 terrorists entered the US through Canada?

Mark Bourrie, this is what we are fighting against and if this isn't enough to make you shut your yap then you are a real loser and don't deserve anyone's protection.'
Beware, this is a very graphic video of the beheading of two Pakistani soldiers by the Taliban in Swat Pakistan.
Again watch this at your own risk, that is my disclaimer.
http://islamabadobserver.com/2009/04/20/taliban-slaughtering-accused-like-animals/

That's right set you free

I'll stay on the side the US was on in WW2 when they defeated the facsists and executed the perpetrators of waterboarding.

And you defend the other side.

bleet:

Yeah. What you say.

set you free....please go read Kate's rules regarding trolls.You are no better if you give them something to crow about(or think they can crow about),Thought by now you knew better then to argue with letarded socialists and revisionists! Want to argue wuth them,go to rabble or Cat man's place and waste their bandwidth.This place is for adults,not kiddies in Mom's basement.Or in Mark's case,up Turdeau's et.al.s a&&es.

Yeah by the time, the Soviets were overrunning Eastern Europe, the Soviets were already preparing for what became the COLD WAR. As far as the Soviets were concerned, Allied POWs were Western troops easilly bagged and interned.

"War is hell and there is no refinning it."
William Tecumseh Sherman

Although not condoning "mistreatment" of prisoners it is non-the-less an unavoidable feature of war. That said it was less common with US/Commonwealth troops.....a signal distinction. Eg: Free French Troops were noted for vicious treatment of Axis prisoners.

Ian Flemming wrote extensively about British "black ops".....a neccessary feature of national defense. 007 a war-criminal???

I would like to see Pelosi waterboarded , but it would be pointless .

It is meant to extract itelligence after all.

America has given the keys to a car that is the most powerful and sophisticated piece of machinery the world has ever known - to a 16 year old with no driving experience.

The consequences are most predictable.

Doug @ 4:07

I was not aware France won WWII. After capitulating in May 1940 and establishing a puppet Nazi government in 1/3 of France, the next French offensive action action (I don't count the surrender of Vichy forces in North Africa as "an offensive action")was engaging a single armoured division (fully equipped by the Yanks)in the NW Europe campaign.
They did win in the sense France received a permanent seat on the UN Security Council whereas Mackenzie King failed to get Canada anything except the right to pay the UN's bills.

Bourie, reality is what you need to be dealing, not your idiotic kindergarten-like 'liberal' fantasies. You referring to that corrupt, lying sack of s... as a 'great man' shows how pathetic your ideals are. Yeah, lawyers writing deals on the back of napkins...

sasquatch @ 10:59 - oh, it was the relative humanity (God, even heroism, and it gives me the creeps to type it, but there you go) of the Nazis in gord's account that took me by surprise, not the Soviet depravity. The depravity I expect.

That bit about the 911 hijackers coming in from Canada was in the newspapers shortly after it happened. There was a story about the Boston hijackers coming in from Canada to get on the flights. If anybody wants to get to the bottom of it, I would suggest that they look at papers in Sept-Oct of 2001.

The cry babies here and elsewhere think that a world of no unpleasant consequences is more humane and honourable. It's not.

In fact, the lack of commensurate consequences for the most heinous actions has turned the world into a much more dangerous, barbarous place.

As a teacher in the public education system, I have seen student (and adult) behaviour steadily deteriorate over the past four decades. In the "bad old days" (sic: people were eminently more civil and reliable), there were serious consequences for anti-social behaviour, even the strap. Guess what? Almost no one got the strap. How come? The kids understood that the adults were in charge and that they meant business. For the most part, this meant secure, reasonably well behaved, respectful children and adults who could more or less count on the kids to behave responsibly. Win, win.

It’s the addle-brained adults some of these kids turned into, who decided that everyone—especially if they belong to some minority—had to be treated “nicely” all the time, no matter what, that’s turned our society into a meaner place. How come? Bullies take advantage of such a dispensation. They figure out really fast that no matter what they do, nothing too unpleasant will happen to them. Then what? They escalate their anti-social behaviour, making the lives of those around them miserable. Believe me, the lowest common denominator bullies now run the asylum.

Example: the cold blooded killer of Jane Creba. I’ve taught kids like that guy. I’ll bet he was no poster child for civil behaviour at school. I’ll also bet that no one did anything decisive to disabuse him of his bullying attitude and ways. In my experience, minority thugs like him are treated with kid gloves, from the school system all the way up to the justice system: this drug gang murderer might be out on parole in only four years—he’s already served three of his seven: yes, only seven!—year mandatory sentence.

Remember that a guy like this has almost no conscience: a seven year hiatus, from big money making, in a relatively comfortable detention centre is just the price of doing business.

Making the world a safer, more comfortable place for murderous thugs, while putting the rest of us at great risk is madness. Lose, lose.

People who don’t understand this are both intellectually and morally blind.

Meh, Rick, my uncles in the States who fought the Japanese were up against tougher people than Taliban bullies and bomb-planters.
I'm still waiting for one specific instance of Canadian/American/British troops torturing a prisoner.
I have a book on my desk that talks of a Canadian sailor getting 20 days in the brig for spitting on a German POW. The reference is Naftel, William D., Halifax at War. Halifax: Formac Publishing, 2008, p. 91. So let's see some unit names, dates, places, etc. and some written or film proof.
As for the tards who can't spell my name right, well, there's always adult high school.

In 1995 a plot to bomb a dozen American airliners crossing the Pacific was uncovered by torture. I and my coworkers flew across the Pacific multiple times during that period. I assume that you would have felt better had a couple thousand people, including families, children, non combatants of every sort had died during that time as long as nobody was ever tortured. I don't lose a wink of sleep worrying about the poor wannabee mass murderer's suffering might be the only way I and or my friends and family(on round trip) are alive today.

Prove it. I want a book or serious article that says this happened.

And if this is the dubious case of the supposed al Quada agent being tortured by Philipine police to reveal a bomb plot that resulted in no arrests and no other physical evidence, then all it proves is a guy under torture will come up with a damn interesting story to make the torture stop.

Actually, I'm wrong about the '95 bomb plot. It did happen. But is was not stopped by torture. It was exposed by the bad luck of the plotters: a police investigation of a fire at their apartment in Manila where police found plans, explosives, etc.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/world/europe/11manila.html

On CNN's State of the Union this morning, Intelligence Committee hair Diane Feinstein (D-Cal) said she would have preferred to have her bipartisan committee go over the issues first before any documents were released.

She put a timeline of 6-8 months for a thorough examination of the issues, including whether there was an criminal intent in protecting the US from further attacks.

There are several problems, mark bourrie, with your outline. It is based, completely, on false axioms.

The first problem is that your analogies are false. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.

There is no comparison between a POW and an Islamic fascist terrorist. A POW is not, himself, a self-directed agent of criminal violence. A terrorist is. A terrorist has CHOSEN to harm other people.
Kindly do not merge the two. That would be to criminalize the military members of all nations. Is that your agenda?

Second, the tactics used by the CIA are not torture. There is no soft-flesh harm, no permanent harm - heh - even a doctor standing by. Your inattention to the difference is unwarranted; it may help feed your sentimentalism, but facts are facts.

Third, the govt of a nation is obliged, by both moral and legal obligations, to protect its citizens from harm. Do you disagree?

CASE EXAMPLE: If an individual, a terrorist, i.e., not a member of a nation's military unit but an individual with a self-directed agenda of extreme violence against a nation's civilians, is captured, then, the govt has the duty to find out this self-directed agenda. You disagree?

How do you propose to obtain information about this agenda, which this individual, and a small few of his buddies, has all planned out? Remember, they have CHOSEN, themselves, to carry out brutal and vicious attacks against people. What's your response to protecting these people?

Fourth: You may assert that these harsh interrogation practices don't work. The CIA says they do. Who can we believe? You or the CIA?

Fifth: Again - a nation's govt has the moral and legal duty to protect its citizens. In the case of self-directed massive criminal (i.e., not carried out by a military) attacks against these citizens - then, a govt has the right to apprehend and question these criminals.

If force needs to be used to get the answers, then, the results have to be weighed. Remember, this was a CHOICE, made by that individual, to attack thousands of civilians. And you, the govt, have NO CHOICE. You are legally and morally obliged to protect a nation's citizens. OK?

Valiant effort, ET, but facts and logical arguments, as well-organized as yours are, simply bounce off bourrie's armour of impenetrable obstinance. He'll resort to anecdotal tales irrelevant to the argument ("my uncle fought the japanese who were tougher than the taliban", which is certainly debatable) and obfuscate and evade everything else. He still hasn't answered the most basic question: knowing there is an attack planned that could kill thousands, would you simulate drowning on a terrorist with knowledge to prevent the attack (leaving him unharmed), or let innocents die?

And, as noted by many above, a government that would put the life of 1 terrorist above the welfare of any of its citizens does not deserve its authority.

Designer destruction part one. The old nkvd, kgb always had as its first goal was to destroy or neutralize the intelligence community of the enemy. This has been accomplihed;Dems well done

Thanks, ET, for your fine analysis.

(And I know how to spell this guy's name: Smark. I did it all by myself too!)

I keep bringing up the analogous situation of our public education systems because . . . teachers—charged (under the Education Act) to keep order and actually teach the curriculum—who dare to discipline the minor and major thugs in their charge, get hauled before administration to justify THEIR behaviour. “You did what? Raised your voice [to a repeat—and repeat and repeat . . .—offender who’s thrown a desk and told the teacher to “F*** off”]! That's cruel and unusual punishment. Don’t let it happen again.” The thugs? Pandered to, appeased, and let off the hook to offend, usually more egregiously, again and again and . . .

What a travesty—and it seems to be happening at every level. Accountable citizens, who bear the burden of responsibility for preserving safety, good order, and the rule of law, who must, on occasion, use stern to harsh measures, in order to protect their fellow citizens from sociopaths, psychopaths, and plain, old fashioned evil doers, are targeted and accused. Meanwhile, by the multitude of useful idiots out there, the miscreants, criminals, and terrorists are considered poor, innocent victims of unjust actions. (Public school systems are hothouses and active spawning grounds for moronic fifth columnists.)

The intellectual and moral inversion of such sabotage is altogether a scandal. And the appalling indignity of it all, to the responsible professionals involved, is very destructive. The result? The best, heartsick and beaten down, just for doing their jobs responsibly, get out. The boot lickers and opportunists are willing to stay and turn their backs. (Fine professionals, with no choice, also stay, but they keep their heads under the ramparts.)

IMO, Obama is a very dangerous man: altogether an enemy of peace, order, and good government. Like ET and many others here, I’ve never been impressed by this altogether narcissistic snake oil salesman. The above scenario explains to me why so many dupes have fallen for this despicable man’s self-serving and ultimately destructive cart and pony show.

Kyrie eleison.

ET, why are you wasting your eloquent writing on these lefties? As you have stated many, many times lefties run on emotion, no amount of facts will convince them otherwise. Whatever you present means nothing as their minds are fully closed.

Lookout, lucky this murderer of Jane Creba has been in jail for the last 3 years. He is only 21 now and already has 2 bastards, one 7 and the other 4. The next thug generation is well on its way.

Figured that dropped 'r' would be enough to offend a self-inflated moron like you Bourrie, and that you'd be compelled to mention the misspelling. Well Borie, thanks for always being predictable...& usually wrong!

I hear you, Dave.

But I hope you're not blaming Mr. Cold Blood Murderer Stud Dad for his bad behaviour . . . Of course, it's not his fault.

(sarc off)

Sometimes I'm tempted to stop eating and turn my face to the wall—what our ancestors used to do when death was imminent and there was nothing they could do about it.

At the moment, until the civilizations of the West are prepared to call a spade a spade and name the evils—yes, evils—we're facing, we’re vulnerable to the literal murder and mayhem being planned for us by the hordes of barbarians, both outside the gates, and home grown and inside them.

(As far as the useful idiots go, these barbarians may as well be wearing Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak.)

Fascist blather. Not a fact or coherent argument in the lot.

mark bourrie - no, that is not how to handle questions, criticism and dissent from your opinions - i.e., retreating into name-calling.

Now, you'll have to explain how, and I'll refer only to my argument is 'fascist' and furthermore, is 'blather'. And, how there are no facts or 'coherent argument' in my argument.

You can't get away with simply asserting your opinions, and then, when criticism arises, retreating into name-calling and unfounded claims of 'no facts' and 'no logic'. After all, that means that you are unable to substantiate your opinions with facts and logic.

So, try again. This time, deal with the specific issues I raised.

"Let's get at the truth too about the word "torture," which to different people, means different things. Some think "torture" means standing on the 98th floor of a burning skyscraper and realizing you have a choice between jumping and being incinerated. Some think torture is being crushed when a building implodes around you. Some think torture is not thinking you might drown for several minutes, but looking at burning buildings on television and knowing that people you love are inside them. They remember that being crushed, incinerated, or killed in a jump from the 98th story happened to almost 3,000 blameless Americans (as well as a number of foreigners), and that 125 Pentagon employees were killed at their desks, while many survivors suffered terrible burns. They think the choice between stopping this from happening again by slapping around or scaring the hell out of a cluster of brigands, or leaving the brigands alone and letting it happen again, is a no-brainer. . . . .
The first job of a president is to safeguard his country and fellow citizens, which Bush did, to the apparent dismay of the opposition. Usually, an investigation takes place after someone has failed in his duty, to find out what went wrong so that it can be changed and improved on. But no attacks on U.S. soil in the seven-plus years between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009, is a record of success."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/422ggyuo.asp

As they say, "Read the whole thing."

And watch Liz Cheney defend her country and her father here:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/04/l_cheney_us_did.php

Degrading the most benign, unimperialistic super-power this world has ever known while ignoring or morally-equalizing the hideous regimes out there is infantile but depressingly common. This whole torture debate is moot in the face of reality, because one just knows, as Liz Cheney said, that any American captured by Al Queada will be horrifically tortured and have his head cut off, regardless of how any terrorists are treated at Guantanamo. Feel smug and superior all you want,you who never had to face a camera with Islamist thugs behind you holding knives, who never lost a loved one on 9/11, who can have any book you want on your bookshelf and trash your elected leaders without fear, but I'm grateful to Bush's "fascist" regime for keeping safe the civilization that my children and I (and you!)are enjoying, and that so many people in hideous regimes (who know what true torture is) try to escape to. Those who make it know that who are the true fascists.

I'm with you, ET.

I don’t believe that my thesis is "fascist" either: "Accountable citizens, who bear the burden of responsibility for preserving safety, good order, and the rule of law, who must, on occasion, use stern to harsh measures, in order to protect their fellow citizens from sociopaths, psychopaths, and plain, old fashioned evil doers, are targeted and accused. Meanwhile, by the multitude of useful idiots out there, the miscreants, criminals, and terrorists are considered poor, innocent victims of unjust actions.”

Name calling by our political opponents is immature and a total cop out. But what else does one expect?

ann, I altogether agree. Thanks.

And, yes, Liz Cheney was superb. The MSNBC shill, who intervie . . . I mean, interrogated her, was a disgrace. (Not waiting for the asteroid, indeed.)

Funny how Borie wants to dismiss hypothetical situations that he's placed in as 'silly scenarios', when they are far more relevant to the discussion than much of the nonsense he comes up with. I would imagine that there is a part of him buried far below the surface that recognizes the relevance of such questions, which causes great discomfort to his outer fool. Markie, did you ever issue a response to Tanker's comments? It seems it would be hard to dismiss him/her as not actually having skin in.

...the game, and a working knowledge of the efficacy of such persuasive techniques. Knew a former member of JTF2, wish he was still around to query (RIP A.R.).

I just keep asking people to deal with reality and prove the crap they've been spewing, and to remember the ideas of liberty and rule of law that underpin the American republic.
Seems like too much to ask here.

mark bourrie - no, don't try the 'I'm just a poor hapless victim' tactic. That's an equally fallacious strategy of dealing with a debate. You still haven't dealt with the criticisms of your opinions.

No, you aren't dealing with reality. That's why we question your comments - to point out their lack of validity and their unrealistic speculation.

You, remember, incorrectly equated members of a military service with Islamic fascist terrorists. This error - and it's a very serious error - has been pointed out to you. Instead of acknowledging your error - you talk about 'crap that we are spewing'. Heh - We could, if we wished, define your equation of a member of a genuine military unit, with a self-defined terrorist criminal - as 'crap that you are spewing'.

You are quite right - liberty and the rule of law are the basics of the American democracy. Now, explain how they are relevant to an examination of terrorists who have, as individuals, chosen to break the rule of law and chosen to kill as many civilians as they can; they are indifferent to their own loss of life in this process.

Isn't a government, obliged by both morality and that same rule of law, to protect its citizens from anyone intent on breaking the rule of law and killing those citizens?

Isn't that the reality that a government has to deal with - a set of fanatical criminals, individuals, not members of any military, who have made a self-determined choice to brutally murder hundreds, thousands, of people. You seem to ignore this reality. You seem to ignore the right of the citizens to their liberty - which means - to their freedom from being exposed to terrorist attacks such as planned by these individuals.

So- facts are facts; reality exists and it requires hard decisions; and a government must protect its citizens from criminals who are intent on breaking the rule of law and denying life and liberty to thousoands. You refuse to face these facts, this reality and this duty to protect people.

I'm not a victim.

Meanwhile, the Americans themselves say waterboarding hasn't done any good:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/66895.html

Meanwhile, America's enemies are feasting on the propaganda victory provided by Cheney and his fools.

I also wonder why all you brave, tough-talking people post under fake names. Easy to be tough when you're an anonymous member of a mob.

You'd have to ask Nancy Pelosi what she heard in the 30 briefings she attended on the issue.

You'd have to ask Nancy Pelosi what she meant when she asked as chair of the Intelligence Committee: ‘Are there any other techniques that would help?'

You'd have to prove criminal intent. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi saw no criminal intent. In fact, she asked if there were other techniques that would help gain information needed to protect the citizenry of the United States.

Apparently, facts are secondary to personal opinion and unprovable allegations.

Why not be like Diane Feinstein, the current chair of the Intelligence Committee, and question the release (the original topic of this thread) as she did on CNN this morning?

After all, those legislators are the ones who have the information to make an intelligent decision as to whether it's time to turn the page or to prosecute.

My understanding is that a prosecution cannot procede unless there's a reasonable certainty of criminal intent.s

This will go down in history as a big miscue by Obama, who would have been better to let Feinstein's committe do its work and come up with a report in 6-8 months.

That would have been the intelligent thing to do.

I also wonder why all you brave, tough-talking people post under fake names. Easy to be tough when you're an anonymous member of a mob.

Would the questions asked, bourrie, be easier for you to address if they were attached to names rather than nicknames? Or would you still evade, obfuscate and decline to answer them?

Just wondering.

mhb

I don't have to prove criminal intent. Anyone involved in torture had the intent to do it, and knew it was illegal. Americans tortured people.
Torture is not only illegal under international law, it's also a very ineffective way of gathering accurate information. Anyone connected with torture should be exposed. Since America is a democracy, the voters can hold those responsible to account.
Again, we're supposed to be on the side of "good". Torturing makes us less good. It makes it easier for Islamist recruiters to argue that America is a "Great Satan". And it doesn't matter what the other side does. The fact that they torture people (among other reasons) makes the the bad guys. Let's make sure the world can tell the difference.

I don't have to prove criminal intent. Anyone involved in torture had the intent to do it, and knew it was illegal. Americans tortured people.
Torture is not only illegal under international law, it's also a very ineffective way of gathering accurate information. Anyone connected with torture should be exposed. Since America is a democracy, the voters can hold those responsible to account.
Again, we're supposed to be on the side of "good". Torturing makes us less good. It makes it easier for Islamist recruiters to argue that America is a "Great Satan". And it doesn't matter what the other side does. The fact that they torture people (among other reasons) makes them the bad guys. Let's make sure the world can tell the difference.

mark bourrie - you misunderstand; I said that you were using the 'victim' strategy with your "I'm just asking people to deal with reality". No, you weren't. You were giving your opinions and this 'victim' statement is a 'diversion'; It's pretending that you are a hapless person just asking for reality and truth, when in reality, you are, as many have pointed out, evading both reality and truth. We've criticized you; you refuse to deal with the criticisms.

I prefer to rely, not on an obviously biased report but on an impartial report. Others in the CIA say that waterboarding did work. But, you, mark bourrie, are evading the questions.

And no, don't move into a 'red herring' or diversionary argumentative tactic, with your attempt to denigrate the validity of our criticism of your opinions by claiming that our use of blog names suggests that our criticism has no merit.
That's a fake tactic to divert the issue. Our criticisms of your opinions remain. They are valid, and so far, you haven't addressed a single criticism. Not one.

A great part of your argument was your comparison of these terrorists to men in the military. This is obviously invalid, and yet, you still haven't dealt with acknowledging the CHOSEN INTENTION of these terrorists to brutally murder thousands of civilians.

For heaven's sake - the criminal intent really refers to the intent of these terrorists to murder civilians. You haven't addressed this issue.

Again, harsh interrogation isn't torture. For genuine torture, check out what Al Qaeda does, with blowtorching, putting out of eyes, cutting off limbs, etc. You are setting up yet another false comparison.

Again, you haven't dealt with the reality - that these individuals CHOSE to both bomb and develop more plans, to bomb, brutally murder and terrorize civilians. It's quite incredible, but you absolutely ignore this fact, this reality.

Does a government have the moral and legal duty to prevent such individuals from carrying out their actions? Well? Why don't you answer?

Your naive sentimentalism is misplaced; you are ignoring that 'the good side' means that duty, which is both a moral and legal duty, of a govt to protect its citizens. If they fail to do this, then they have failed in that moral and legal duty. Incredible - but you say NOT ONE WORD about this requirement. Why not?

"Others say", huh?

More vague stuff and generalizations.

Mark Bourie: Legal, moral and correct only occasionally coincide. Making an act legal does not make it right or moral. Making an act illegal does not make it wrong or immoral. We Christians have an expression that says 'the letter kills but the Spirit gives life'. Because it is impossible to foresee all eventualities our legal (letter) system often fails us. However when we are at a crossroads we often resort to what is our intent. If our intent in waterboarding is to induce suffering in the waterboarded then waterboarding is wrong. If the intent of waterboarding is, in absence of any better method, to obtain information that may well prevent the deaths of thousands of innocent people then waterboarding is the right course of action.

Mark,
They caught the guy in Manila because he screwed up the recipe for a bomb, then they tortured him and got the details of the plot. You don't get to re-write history.

Sort of amazing how little evidence, as in none, Mark needs to call someone a liar. I guess he would rather take chances with *my* life flying for 17 hours over open ocean, many hours from any kind of help for the majority of the trip, to prove *his* moral superiority.

And, Mark, if torture doesn't work, why did Obama redact the information in the memo he release detailing what was learned? Seems like it would be a no-brainer to just release the info and prove his point.

Mark Bourrie must have some kind of processing problem, or maybe he can't read; I haven't been reading "vague stuff" and "generalizations" but some very specific arguments which he doesn't seem to want to deal with.

So typically leftard. If they don't agree, they stick out their tongues, call people names, and pretend that opposing arguments aren't worth their time or attention. Oh yeah, did I mention arrogance?

Mr. Bourrie obviously likes a lot of attention. 'How about ignoring him?

Batb (if that is, indeed, your real name), I suggest you read the stuff over again.

batb - mark is obviously young and a leftist, but a leftist without any thought about WHY he is such, or WHAT this entails.

And again, he doesn't address the criticisms of his opinions.

For example, he refuses to acknowledge his invalid arguments - i.e., his false comparisons of soldiers with criminals; his definitions (what is torture); he refuses to deal with the moral and legal requirement of a govt to protect its citizens; he refuses to deal with the FACT that these terrorists CHOSE to carry out criminal acts.

Furthermore, he does not deal with intentionality when he deals with 'torture'. All he does is focus on The Act. He ignores causality (obviously, he hasn't read Aristotle!).

He does not consider WHY the CIA carried out these 'harsh interrogations'. Mark Bourrie instead, ignores this basic requirement of intentionality of the act - and only focuses on the act.

As a comparison, how about the Islamic complaint of 'racism' because the chocolate swirls on an ice-cream cone in England 'look like' the Arabic word for Allah, and therefore, the ice-cream company is 'insulting Islam'. Intention to insult? No.

So, how about the individual who has chosen to align with Al Qaeda, and his intentions of bombing a church/mosque/shopping mall etc. Mark Bourrie totally, utterly ignores this and focuses only on 'how evil we are' at getting this information out of this individual..who, remember, has made an individual choice to carry out this agenda. We didn't force him to make that choice; he chose criminality and terrorism.

When Al Qaeda kills, it does so out of the lust to destroy. When Al Qaeda tortures - and they torture to maim - they do so out of the lust to destroy.

Yet, Mark Bourrie totally, utterly ignores this basic intentionality, that lust to destroy, and equates it with the US CIA acts, which do not destroy anyone, but which PREVENT the destruction of thousands of people. Now, such an illogical equation of two different intentionalities shows how immature his thinking is.

Mark Bourrie, yes, you are young naive leftist.

You do not know that when ET states something it is fact, simply by virtue of her saying it.

ET says America does not torture.

America waterboards. The Japanese,, the Kmher Rouge, The Chinese Communists, the Nazis, all waterboarded and when they did so, it was known as torture. The US actually executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded - because it's torture.

But ET says it isn't torture. So it simply can't be.

ET says that you state torture doesn't work, but the CIA says it does. She says who are we to believe, you or the CIA?

Yet according to this article, of which ET is surely aware, the CIA says it does not work:

www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html -

ET makes statements but rest assured you'll never see them backed up with links like the one above. She seems to feel that if she can be as verbose and academic-sounding as possible, that's all it takes to make her claims credible. Not too intellectually admirable.

For ET to make such statements, it is obvious she is either uninformed or a fabulist. Though I suppose there is a chance that she is both.

In any case, these guys keep coming with the same made-up scenario, of an imminent attack which can only be thwarted by the use of these Nazi-like tactics.

However, neither they or Cheney can produce one actual event where this was the case. And of course we have aforementioned link in which the CIA states that there never was a case. These people are simply blowing smoke in a factless, unfounded attempt to justify barbarism -why? Who knows?

Perhaps what's really eating them is the recent revelation that torture was used not in a panicked attempt to save American lives but to try and fashion false info to justify the Iraq war, as seen in this link where people were tortured to try and get them to say there was a 9-11/Iraq link:

www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

What a noble, moralistic enterprise! Torturing people to create false information to swindle the rubes into supporting their elective war! Beauty!

Mark Bourrie,you naive, young leftist. Let this be an education for you. We know that all Germans weren't by-the-book Nazis. But enough of them were willing to compromise their basic humanity to allow Hitler's atrocities to occur. The people on this board are willing to tell any falsehood and make any illogical leap of reasoning in their support of torture - cheif among them being the intellectually disgraceful arguments in bad faith of ET. They are the enemies of Western civilization.

If I wanted to get the pin number of Mark borrie's atm card does anyone think that torture would not work?

Torture works.

When dealing with a crazed enemy who plays by no rules we have to bend the rules just as in war we give soldiers the right to shoot to kill.

What would be desirable would be a torture warrant system so as to properly transfer the responsibility for making the decision to torture from the individual administering it to the crown - the judicial not political arm - under who that individual is serving.

We do the same when we permit police to search one's residence or to wiretap their phone or office - things that are clearly against the law when they are not done under the authority of a court-issued warrant.

It is a greater crime if politicians sit on their hands and tie those of the enforcement agencies when citizens lives could be saved from harm.

I consider it completely legitimate to annilihilate tens of thousands of foreigners if it will save Canadian lives. We have done it in the past as we have also tortured our enemies for the same purpose. It is our right.

good heavens, bleet, the old leftist nazi comparisons. Won't work.

Oh, and to use as reference an obviously die-hard leftist internet site as your only site - how's that for facticity?
You have to see the original CIA memoes - and these aren't available. That's why Cheney wants them; but Obama's team has blacked out the RESULTS of the interrogations!

And, you also, don't provide any facts or logic. Just trivial ad hominem. Won't work. Stick to the issues - which are, the choice of individuals to be terrorists; the moral and legal duty of the state to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks - and the task of obtaining information about terrorist attacks.

I don't think that there is any doubt about an Iraqi-al Qaeda link - and by Al Qaeda I don't mean only 9/11 activities but Al Qaeda in itself. And this is all long, long prior to 9/11. Check out Wright's The Looming Tower for that. Al Qaeda operates in every ME Islamic nation. Got that? EVERY single Islamic nation.

So, your opinion that the harsh interrogations were to provide reasons for the Iraq War have no validity. After all, Al Qaeda didn't exist only in Iraq! What a nonsensical statement! Read up on Al Qaeda. It was in Iraq, Iran, heavily in Sudan, in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon. Get the facts! THINK!

The war in Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda but about islamic fascism, of which Al Qaeda is one version. The war was about the root cause of Islamic fascism - which is tribalism in an industrial economy.

Check out the civil wars being fought in the post WWII era in the ME. Check out Algeria in the 1990s - where the fanatics rejected dialogue and killed any and all who were 'apostates and deserved to die'. Check out Saudi Arabia, where the moderates in 1990 tried for reforms and lost. What's needed? Democracy - and that was the reason for Iraq. You, I'm very sure, don't understand the difference in social and economic structure between a tribal and civic format.

Again, you are both utterly ignoring the moral and ethical duty of a govt to protect its citizens against criminals - criminals who have one agenda - to brutally murder as many 'apostates' as they can. The choice to act immorally, i.e., to be a terrorist and plan to kills thousands - is theirs. Not ours. Our choice is to defend ourselves.

So, using waterboarding on two of the Al Qaeda terrorists - and getting results - that's the duty of a govt. Remember, a criminal, a terrorist, is someone who has made a deliberate choice...to kill as many innocents as he can.

What's your choice to prevent this? You consider that we, who criticize your sentimentalism and refusal to confront reality as 'enemies of Western civilization'. Heh.
I consider Al Qaeda and Islamic fascism the true enemy of Western civilization.

ET:

Sorry but you are utterly mistaken, as are the rest of the neoconfacistrightwinghatemongeringfreemarketcapitalist posters here.

Bush lied. People died.

It was all about oil.

Fire doesn't melt steel.

Iraqi WMD's were a fabrication (verify this with any source you like, apart from a few thousand Kurds)

Torture doesn't work (apart from Khaled Sheikh Mohammad & others), and references to those blacked-out CIA memos are just more proof you're a Bush/Cheney stooge. Or a plant. Subversive. Anarchist. Vegan. Whatever.

Hey! This leftoid posting stuff is fun! I don't need facts, I just change the topic and deny everything you say as often as possible, because in the end, that'll make it untrue! I'd throw in some token ad hominems, too, except I like your posts too much :)

Seriously, though, I do admire your persistence in trying to rationally debate those who obviously aren't interested. You must get weary of it, betimes.

mhb

ET ditto what mhb said.

mhb and gord tulk - yes, I agree. Fascinating how facts and logic simply aren't part of the leftist repertoire.

Here's a factual and logical outline of how those 'harsh interrogation tactics worked'. It's at The Corner, by Mark Thiessen.

The West Coast Plot

And another interesting analysis is that Obama is deliberately bringing up this issue to divert attention from the problems in his regime.Those Tea Parties frightened the Obama team. His Bash Bush strategy has been a mainstay since he began to campaign and he continues to use it as he denigrates America abroad and he continues to use it to whitewash himself and divert attention from his economic fiasco and his foreign policy failures.

Great! I hope the CIA is brought to their knees. With all of the torture and unlawful means of interrogation that has been going on under their sanction, it is about time that they are the ones being demoralized.

ET - John Adams had it right, concerning facts.

mhb

Anyone surf over to Marks blog? I can see why he trolls other forums, no one wants to comment on his blather. Yawn, at least you were nearly imaginative and stole part of Kate's radio shtick.

How cute. MHB thinks that he's proving something by recycling right-wing ad hominems. I guess that passes for humour inside his Limbaughian bubble of groupthink.

Then again, MHB also cited Christopher Hitchens' waterboarding as 'proof' that it isn't torture simply because Hitchens survived it. He quite ignores Hitchens' comment "If waterboarding is not torture, nothing is torture." Doh!

ET states that"I don't think there is any doubt about an Iraqi-Al Queda link - and by Al Queda I mean not only 9-11 activities but Al Queda itself"

Not 'only' 9-11 activities? But Bush himself denied an Iraqi link to 9-11 activites:
www.seattlepi.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html - 31k

ET states it's my 'opinion' that torture was used to come up with reasons for the Iraq war. No, it isn't my 'opinion'. As the link I provided shows, it is actual Fact as articulated by a senior US intelligence official.

ET's case for defending torture rests on two premises:

1)That the tactics of the US are not torture

2)That torture is so efficacious that it is imperative.

For 1) it is simple fact that the tactic of waterboarding, to choose only one, has been regarded as torture throughout history from the Spanish Inquisition to the Nazis and on. ET's revisionism says more about herself than it does about what consitutes torture.

For 2) we have the testimony of the most successful interrogator of Al Queda suspects, FBI special agent Ali Soufan who states:

"When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them," he says. "That means the information you're getting is useless." But his main objection to the techniques, Soufan says, is moral. To use violence against detainees, he says, "is [al-Qaeda's] way, not the American way."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html

We also have the observations of CIA Middle East Field Officer Robert Baer, who states "We tortured people for almost no verifiable information."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1893509,00.html

This is in addition to my earlier posted link, which quoted the CIA inspector general as stating that no terror attack was stopped by the use of torture; and also that FBI director Robert Mueller stated that no torture techniques had disrupted attacks on America.

But what do all of these people know, really? Why, they're only senior US intelligence officials, FBI special agents, CIA Middle East Field Officers, Inspector Generals of the CIA, the director of the FBI, and other such neophytes.

And ET is...ET! She who merely has to state something and it is so.

If an enemy of my wife and boy were trying to harm them just because they are American means one thing to me.

I expect the Intelligence services and the Armed Forces to do whatever it reasonably needs to in order to protect them.

Don't want to be handled roughly? Don't try and kill people.

Mark Bourrie said "Easy to be tough when you're an anonymous member of a mob."

No Mark. It's easy to be tough because I am tough. And I've got nothing to prove to guys like you.

Time to give up this 'discussion' with concrete trolls.
These sorts are all mixed up and permanently set makes for an impermeable and unyielding mind set.
Over identifying with some pretend victim hood group is their high and solidifies their faulty foundation of beliefs. Gives them a sense of self importance that they crave but can't achieve on their own merit.

MHB thinks that he's proving something by recycling right-wing ad hominems

Actually, Brainiac, those originated from the Left.

He quite ignores Hitchens' comment "If waterboarding is not torture, nothing is torture."

I see. So your de facto "proof" that waterboarding is torture is hitchens' first-hand testimony? At least hitchens was able to log his experience using two hands - unaffected by amputations - to type. And he was able to discuss his w/b trial with folks that his un-gouged eyes could see. And, for that matter, go on afterwards, permanently unimpeded, with his un-decapitated head still in-place.

Or are those simply lesser forms of "torture", bleet, when compared to waterboarding?

Tell me, bleet, do you think the Allies were wrong in effecting the Dresden and Tokyo bombings in WWII? What about Hiroshima & Nagasaki? The reductio of your logic tends to point in the direction of your condemning these actions, but perhaps, like many of us, you agree with them but regret the suffering that ensued.

As bourrie refuses to answer the question above, bleet, why don't you: with the clock ticking down to another 9/11 - or worse - would you approve of applying waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques to a terrorist to prevent attack, or would you prefer to watch thousands of innocents die?

No speeches, equivocations or any of your other non-sequiturious BS, please. Just a simple answer will suffice: aye, or nay.

Which is it, bleet?

mhb

MHB

My proof that waterboarding is torture is the common consensus that waterboarding is torture for the last century, as well as all the sources I've cited above, as well as people like Robert Baer, field officer for the CIA in the Middle East, who was tortured himself by the Iranians...as well as McCain, who was also tortured.

Your statement that my 'proof' is based on Hitchen's claim is a lie, since I've provided the many other 'proofs' above.

Frankly it is only after-the-fact revisionists like yourself and ET who claim that waterboarding isn't torture.

Since all the sources I've cited above have stated torture is ineffective, your straw man argument, likely harvested from an episode of '24', breaks down quite quickly. As the most successful interrogator of Al Queda, Ali Soufan said, the torturee will say anything to stop the torturing - and why would that 'anything' be the truth?

So the upshot of your false scenario would be: torture would be quite ineffective in stopping the fantastical attack. It would be a waste of time which would send forces on a wild goose chase when actual methods that really work could be applied, in order to stop the attack and save lives.

All that is achieved by torture is a waste of time, and the sacrifice of Western values and ideals which is, you know, what we're supposed to be fighting for - and that's according to the top officials of the FBI and CIA.

The other thing that's achieved, I guess, is allowing people like you to feel 'tough' and to act as though in doing so you're more passionate and vigilant about defending our society. All the data, though, shows, that quite the opposite is true - torture is not only ineffective but injurious to the cause of democracy. You're propounding an ineffective policy simply because you want to feel tough and compensate, one presumes, for some inner deficiency you feel about yourself.

I'm sorry, MHB, but that's too high a price to pay when the defense of our society and its values hangs in the balance.

The only thing one may "presume" from your windy response, bleet, is that you're incapable of, or afraid, to answer a simple yes/no question.

I'll wager I'm not the only one unsurprised by this.

mhb

And I'll wager that you have hard time comprehending that reality doesn't correspond to the childish, 'manly' heroics of your favourite TV show daydreams, MHB.

But you keep fantasizing, guy. The rest of us will defeat the enemy the way we defeated the Nazis and all the other evil forces of the last century - without torture. After all, as Ali Soufan, the FBI's most successful interrogator of Al Queda noted: "the use of violence against detainees is Al Queda's way, not the American way."

So keep fantasizing in front of that TV, MHB. The grown-ups will finish this one up.

Yup. Tough-talkin' people hiding behind nicknames, reading Soldier of Fortune, watching Dirty Harry and strapping on their imaginary balls.

Bourie's ignorance of the facts of the '95 plot show that he is poorly informed on the subject on which he pretends to be so well informed.

So answer this simple question Mark, is your contention that harsh interrogation doesn't work? I am just curious, because there is evidence that it does. Or is your contention that harsh interrogation is so morally repugnant that it would be better to suffer thousands of civilian casualties (that would be horrifying, drawn out deaths of men with their families, unaccompanied children, innocents of every kind that find themselves on an aircraft) than use it? Or is that that there is some proven third method that can get the information in a timely manner.

There is no third choice Mark. Any third choice you come up with is an unsubstantiated fantasy, or takes years and only works after the information is no longer important. I tell you one thing, if there is another attack, Obama owns it. It is going to be hard to blame it on Bush. 9-11 was planned while Clinton was president, nobody blames him.

Let's see the evidence. Real facts, not just your statements. I'm tired of you fascists claiming evidence exists, then walking away whistling when I ask you to put up or shut up.

Let's see the evidence. Real facts, not just your statements. I'm tired of you fascists claiming evidence exists, then walking away whistling when I ask you to put up or shut up.
And even if torture did "work", what, exactly, would separate America from the bad guys?
You folks would have been first on the Nazi bandwagon. You believe everything that fits the party line, and you're so eager to give up your rights and freedoms for the sake of some vague promises of security. Shame on you.

From one of the lawyers at Power Line:

Dancing around the obvious
Share Post PrintApril 26, 2009 Posted by Paul at 6:47 PM

The Washington Post continues its now-daily quest to persuade its readers that, in the words of today's front-page headline, the "effectiveness of harsh questioning is unclear." This time, the Post considers the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Post concedes, as it must, that after the CIA turned to enhanced interrogation tactics, KSM started talking and has barely stopped since. But the Post suggests that harsh interrogation might have been unnecessary because the traditional approach to interrogation wasn't used for long enough.

The Post marshals no evidence to support its implausible speculation. It doesn't tell how long it was before the CIA shifted to harsher tactics, though it's clear from the story that this did occur within a month. Nor does the Post say what signs of progress (if any) there were before the harsher tactics were employed.

The CIA reported (and the Post does not dispute) that KSM would not answer questions about planned future attacks except to say "soon you will see." There is no basis for concluding that, without a change in interrogation tactics, KSM's answer would have changed.

Perhaps the Obama administration, in a similar position, will keep using tactics that aren't working while hoping that no attacks materialize "soon." Fortunately, the Bush administration acted more responsibly.

The Post then proceeds to its next line of defense, that the information obtained from KSM wasn't all that helpful. The Post concedes that, under the harsh interrogation to which he was subjected, KSM disclosed that he had planned to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliners into a building in Los Angeles. But, says the Post, "a number of officials" say this wouldn't have worked given the changes that had been made in airport security.

Perhaps the Obama administration, in a similar position, will stop short of obtaining information about potentially deadly attacks on our soil under the theory that, whatever those plots might be, they probably won't work. Fortunately, the Bush administration acted more responsibly.

The Post also acknowledges that, under harsh interrogation, KSM (or maybe Abu Zubaida, it's not clear which) gave up information that led to the break-up of an al Qaeda cell in Indonesia and the capture of several suspects. The Post buries this "undoubted success" deep in its story. Perhaps it falls under the "insignificant plot doctrine."

The lines of the "torture" debate are clear. The left knows that most Americans believe that tactics like waterboarding should be used if there is good reason to believe they are effective. Thus, the left can't rest on a "moral absolutist" position, but instead must attack the efficacy of harsh interrogation.

But it's clear that such interrogation yielded reliable information that led us to terrorists and prevented their plots. So the left must resort to dancing: some of the information was not reliable; if we had just stayed with traditional tactics a little longer we would have gotten the same information; the plots we found out about weren't significant; if significant, the plots wouldn't have worked. The idea is to raise the bar to the point that defenders of enhanced interrogation must show with 100 percent certainty that without such interrogation our enemies would have successfully carried out a massive strike.

Fortunately, this sort of "lawyering" isn't likely to impress the American public. Whatever else they may think about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Americans are grateful that they focused single-mindedly and successfully on keeping the homeland safe after 9/11.

bleet, in your screaming ignorance, you've overlooked the fact that the "ticking bomb" scenario was the yardstick established by the US government to determine whether or not to use waterboarding or other techniques. To my recollection, they didn't call me beforehand to ask for my input. Honest. Doubtless if this thread were dated September 10/01 and the topic was the concept of terrorists using airplanes as flying bombs, you'd label the ideas as pure fantasy, notwithstanding the fact that there was no primetime TV show to bolster your ignorant derision. Sometimes, bleet, terrible things happen that aren't quite so farfetched. Bourrie huffs, "Let's see the evidence", and he'd be saying the same on 9/10, too.

You and bourrie overlook one fact: that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques are an issue at all is due to the fact that islamofacist terrorists decided to declare war by wiping out some 3000 innocent americans. You don't fight war treating the enemy as a citizen with Constitutional rights; that's why you don't Mirandize them on the battlefield, rather you shoot them dead, instead. Sometimes, trolls, you have to do unpleasant things in war to defeat your enemy. I know it scares you and makes you angry, but it happens, nonetheless.

Fighting this war in an FBI-lead rather than military-lead fashion guarantees success for the enemy; Clinton treated the first WTC bombing as a crime, as well as the various '90s bombings against US assets: we got 9/11 as a result. Bush treated 9/11 as an act of war, engaged the full strength of the military, and there were no attacks on US soil for 7 years.

One thing is certain: if the next terrorist attack occurs on US soil, it will be a wholly-owned event of obama, the democrats and the left. As much as I pray it doesn't happen, if it does, can we assume bleet and bourrie will have the humility and decency to refrain from commenting, and to simply STFU? Likely not; they'll still employ twisted logic in a herculean attempt to pin it on Bush.

The fact that we aren't fighting a conventional enemy where name/rank/serial number apply has been noted many times, but it is a concept too difficult for you to grasp. Nobody is advocating waterboarding of soldiers of opposing battlefield armies: where tactics and strategies follow Geneva accords to protect the innocent. Terrorists (not covered by Geneva accords) kill the innocent not as a means to an end but as an end itself. They are the ones who lob rockets into Israel to kill civilians, then hide in schools or hospitals and then chortle with glee when the israelis strike back on those same hideouts, because they know the bleets & bourries of the world will react with outrage and horror.

The rest of us will defeat the enemy the way we defeated the Nazis and all the other evil forces of the last century

Hilarious, bleet. The likes of you and bourrie were cheering Neville Chamberlain, when he returned from germany beaming that "Mr. hitler has promised peace in our time". The "grown ups", as you call them were making decisions about hiroshima and nagasaki that your moral equivalence pals were proclaiming "barbaric", and more recently, condemning the US for employing.

How does it feel to be a useful idiot, you two? It's hardly a surprise that the world's terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, Hamas) joined hands with your crowd in publicly advocating for obama's election, and used democrat anti-bush slogans as frequent talking points. Swell company you keep, guys. They tailor their web releases just to incite fools such as you, as you're a valuable propaganda asset.

I've said it before, and I repeat: I don't care a whit if a terrorist is denied sleep, mocked in the nude, forced to listen to christina aguilera CDs, belly slapped... or waterboarded. To borrow a line you moral preeners of the left hold so dearly, "If it saves just one life, it's worth it".

Because the saving of innocent lives is what I hold most dearly, and terrorists be damned. And regardless of the contempt I hold for ignorant, self-important preening clods like bleet and bourrie, I'd extend my sentiments to protect your lives, too.

mhb

Mark,
I am sick of arguing with someone who clearly has not familiarized himself with the other side of the torture debate before attempting to pass himself off as some kind of authoritative source. If you were really familiar with the pro harsh interrogation arguments widely available on the right side of the blogosphere, you would be familiar with the details of the '95 plot, not ignorant of them and begging for links.

And speaking of bullshit bravado, it is amazing to me that you are perfectly willing to accept the deaths of thousands of civilians based on your complete faith in what has clearly been shown to be your incomplete knowledge of the facts of the debate.

If torture didn't work, I ask again, why did Obama black out the parts of the "torture memos" that show what was discovered? I would really like an answer to that. Not expecting one though.

Another morally complicated issue involves state use of torture during interrogation. When Abdul Hakim Murad was questioned by Philippine investigators in 1995, he was reportedly subjected to various forms of torture. At one stage in the interrogation, Philippine authorities allegedly deceived Murad into believing that Israeli Mossad agents were behind his interrogation. Whether because of that or for other reasons, Murad eventually confessed the details of Oplan Bojinka. In this case, aggressive interrogation techniques, while arguably morally abhorrent and distasteful, effectively served their purpose. Thousands of innocent civilians did not die in early 1995 because of information gained through these methods.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703884/posts

"The other side of the torture debate" is a place I never want to be.
Would George Washington agree with torture? Would Lincoln? Would Ike? Would any real great American argue "the other side of the torture debate"?

Typical liberal response: "Reject first, ask rhetorical questions later!"

Why should anybody take you seriously?

You said Torture never works, you said that the '95 plot was the product of fevered right-wing imagination. You claim that you can argue an issue without knowing both sides because, like a typical liberal, you genuinely believe that there is only one side to any debate.

You genuinely do not believe that there is any possible moral case to be made for saving thousands of lives based on torturing somebody who was caught making bombs? Good luck with that point of view in the next election. Especially if some terrorist manages to squeeze off an event in the next three years. Remember too the hornets nest in Wazyristan that Obama is stirring up with Predator strikes on the Taliban.

'Anti-Fascism is the New Fascism."

In England, here, the U.S.: everywhere these emotionally abusive labellers ("you're a faaaa---ciiiist!!!") are to be found. Their chief aim is to use our historical aversion of horrific fascist regimes to silence any opposition to their anti-Western aims. Socialism, fascism, communism -- sigh. Why don't bad ideas ever die? Instead they just kill millions and millions, and still some idiots try to resurrect them and take down the best country this world has ever known.

Read the whole thing:
http://conservativedemocrats.20m.com/photo3.html

"The left, and many bien pensant liberals and Tories with them, would like us to visualise fascists as aggrieved, poorly educated working class whites - white males in particular, since they are a double negative for the Politically Correct. Such progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion. Likewise, the true heirs to fascism are not skinheads, bigots, or BNP-voting former socialists. They are the BNP's sworn enemies, the 'anti-fascist' shock troops of the left, whose slogans of contrived defiance, melodramatic gesture politics and emotional blackmail reach far beyond the Marxist coteries where they originate."
. . . .

"It is easy, and tempting, at times, to dismiss anti-fascism as a peripheral fringe interest, irrelevant to our lives and thoughts. However its crocodile-tear appeals are in some ways more effective than those of the more traditional far left. Anti-fascists claim to be opposing a political evil. In so doing, they evoke memories of that evil and the wrong done to millions of our fellow human beings. Many people of good will, therefore, fail to see that they are being manipulated. This is why ritual denunciations and balkanising 'group rights' are in danger of pervading public life. The subjectivist definition of a racist incident in the MacPherson Report - any incident that the victim or anyone else 'perceives' as racist - has all the totalitarian characteristics of anti-fascist anti-fascism, yet few dare to describe it as totalitarian for fear that they might be smeared as 'racist'. Likewise, the attempts of New Labour apparatchiks to unearth political 'information' about the Paddington rail crash survivors had all the furtive and perverse instincts of a Searchlight campaign. Such influences have touched conservative politics as well. In the interests of inclusiveness, the Tories tend increasingly towards reverse discrimination and group rights, forgetting that many black and Asian people want freedom from racial politics.

Anti-fascism, like its fascist precursor, is primarily anti-human and misanthropic. It despises its supposed constituents as much as its sworn enemies, and has a vested interest in promoting racial conflict. When we recognise that fascists and anti-fascists are as one, their rhetoric of hatred will lose its power."

But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.

Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.

Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.

This is where the "reject first, ask rhetorical questions later" quote comes from. This guy who shows, as Mark Bourrie has amply demonstrated, that liberals are lousy debaters because they cannot even consider the other side of the argument. It even comes from their "All the news we see fit to print" NYT.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/

"Would Lincoln" (agree with torture)?

Perhaps; he consigned some 620,000 of his fellow countrymen to their deaths in the Civil War. He was obviously familiar with making hard decisions. Who knows for certain? Your posing the question isn't "proof" that he'd not advocate it, regardless.

As for Washington, he executed spies that were caught. Is that "torture"? If so, I wonder - if a choice was offered - if they'd have picked a minute or two of waterboarding over the noose?

mhb

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Liberals are so ignorant, yet so convinced that they are knowledgeable.

Tim in Vermont:

Oops - I forgot about that. Thanks for the instructive reminder, no matter if it's relevance will be lost.

mhb

How do we have any idea what happened to those captives for whom the right of habeas corpus was denied?

MHB

My type was cheering on Neville Chamberlain, was it?

Yet it's you and your type that advocates the same techniques as were used by the Nazis.

The same techniques condemned by FBI interrogator Ali Soufan as being "the Al Queda way not the American way."

If it were up to you and Tim in Vermont our side would be no better than the Nazis; types like me insured we defeated the Nazis without descending to their level.

It's telling that I have presented link after link to actual facts which support my argument; you and Tim in Vermont have provided nothing except to claim like ET, if you say it's true, it's true. I guess you've been living in your Limbaughian bubble for so long - and pleasuring yourself to episodes of 24 - that you think it's 'reality'.

Similarly there's a disturbing recurring theme to yours and Tim's posts - "if we're attacked again" - as though you almost hope an attack will occur because you believe it will prove you 'right'.

Cheney seems to salivating for it too; fitting, since you're all 'party over country' traitors.

But let's get clear on this: you propound an proven ineffective technique simply because 'your side' does it. You believe 'your side' can't be wrong even as it adopts the values of Al Queda and the Nazis.

You've thrown a few ad hominem at me in your last post. Here's one for you & Tim: authoritarian bootlickers and surrenderers to the values of Al Queda.

Oh Dear!

Looks like I hit a nerve with bleat. Guess the truth tends to hurt a bit.

On another note, however, by my count, in your 9 posts in this thread, bleet, you've invoked Godwin's law a stunning seven times! Congratulations; your Godwin count & incredible 78% reference rate must be approaching a SDA record, if not seized the lead already.

Perhaps a new perma-thread, entitled, I dunno, "Postings Where Bleet May Exclusively Reference Naziism", or "Bleet's Nicey Nazi Place" could be set up and you could really pour it on, bleet. Do keep up the efforts, though, because - as you could surely advise - arbeit macht frei, eh?

Un-National Socialistically Yours,

mhb

Okay once again, everybody knows they tortured, so what secrets is he referring to?

And it seems this spook forgets that A) he lives in a democracy, where an informed populace is key to its very survival. And B) That the US signed a treaty against Torture.

Now you weasels can argue what is, and is not torture, but that's what you do... you have been doing for the past 8 years. Avoiding taking any responsibility for the messes you make. You have literally shit on the carpet, and you have the nerve to stand there next to the steaming pile with your pants around you ankles, toilet paper in hand, and say "WHAT?!"

"Security before politics", as he puts it is in fact "saving your ass, before protecting the most sacred laws of the United States."

Again... the US has been in brutal wars before. It did not torture then, and prosecuted those who did. Now a few buildings get knocked down by a handful of extremists, and rather than deal with it in a rational way, they lose their freakin' minds, and give up that which they are trying to protect in the name of security.

Seriously, you guys are such losers. You don't deserve democracy, because you don't understand what it is.

"you and Tim in Vermont have provided nothing"

We reading the same thread?

"you propound an proven ineffective technique"

Logic 101: If you assert a negative, it takes one counterexample to be disproved. Of course, if you refuse to read the thread, then I guess that is why you missed the counterexample of effective use of harsh interrogation that saved thousands of lives.

I am going to be charitable and assume that you didn't refresh the browser. Otherwise your powers of denial and self deception are something to behold.

Here is a link to a post upthread for which I am certain you have no response except to pretend that it didn't happen.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011278.html#c384787

At least Bourrie has the good sense to know when he has been beaten.

"so what secrets is he referring to?" -John

We don't know John, because Obama blacked out the parts of the memo where the information gleaned from harsh interrogation was listed. I guess if it was blacked out, no such information exists.

"a few buildings get knocked down"

You forgot to mention the *3,000* people who died John. At least be honest and say that the price of moral purity must be paid in lives lost by the thousands. Don't try to sugar coat it. It is almost as if you don't really believe in what you are saying if you can't even acknowledge the lives lost in 9-11.

"One terrorist tortured is a tragedy, 3,000 lives lost to terrorism is a statistic." - Shorter John.

"You have literally sh*t on the carpet... a few buildings get knocked down by a handful of extremists, and rather than deal with it in a rational way, they lose their freakin' minds"

Congratulations on what may be the most callous and heartless post on SDA.

If there's excrement been dumped, then it's you who's sh*t upon the memory of some 3000 innocents lost to the most cowardly terrorist attack against the US. But the lives of innocent Americans mean nothing to the likes of you and your left-wing swine on the left, do they, john? Just waypoints to be used to further your political agenda, and virulent, reflexive anti-americanism.

You, sir, are filth, and not worth debating one iota more. Utter human garbage.

mhb

I love his reference to "rationalism" when he has no real interest in examining all sides of the issue. They say the right has no sense of irony, but these guys are off the charts out of touch with rational thinking.

viz: ""The other side of the torture debate" is a place I never want to be."

Meaning he doesn't want to hear both sides, but hey! He's rational and we are not.

For you slow of wit lefties:

The case against "torture" is a moral one. "We shouldn't lower our civilization's standards to that of the enemy"

The case for "torture" is a moral one. "Is the use of torture in extremely limited cases justified to save large numbers of innocent lives?"

If you want to examine the issue rationally, you have to come up with some alternative to torture that is proven to work as well as torture does or, alternatively, accept that in your moral calculus, innocent lives are worth less than your sense of moral purity. Hint: don't tell me torture doesn't work until you deal with specific cases mentioned in this thread where it has.

So answer me this... did the US torture or not? Because I can't tell what you guys are arguing. It seems on one hand you are denying it's torture, but on the other hand that torture is okay, because it saves lives.

As for my supposedly "callous" comment... I stand by it. The US was attacked. Lives were lost. It was a terrible day, and I can't imagine what it was like for those who went through it, or lost loved ones.

Did it justify torture? No. It did not. The British were dealing with a 911 every single week during WWII. Did they shit their pants and resort to savagery? No. They went in the opposite direction.

Those who shed their morality in the face of what was ultimately a relatively small attack demonstrates an incredible lack of spine. They traded their values the second the going got tough.

You guys rail against the French for surrendering during WWII, not once considering the losses they dealt with throughout WWI, or the fact that they'd been completely routed. Why do you try to make excuses for pathetic behavior on the parts of Americans who've never actually dealt with massive civilian losses during war time?

Everything about the last administration was a failure. Everything. They failed at every task they set out to do. All that's left is the pathetic attempts at ass-covering.

"Oh look... we did the right thing, because we haven't been attacked again!"

Yeah... the US also hasn't been attacked by aliens. So clearly, GWB is to thank. If you buy into this line of reasoning I have some land in Florida to sell you.

You have to wonder how much further conservatism can sink.

"As for my supposedly "callous" comment... *I stand by it.* " - John

Then he changes it from "a few buildings were knocked down" to actually acknowledging the horrors of that day.

"Did they shit their pants and resort to savagery?" - John

They firebombed Dresden for no real tactical advantage.

I am amazed too that you have complete knowledge of every interrogation that was ever done during WWII. How do you *know* that nobody was tortured by the Allies? Simple answer, you don't. People could keep secrets then. You are making up facts again.

I found a picture of Mark Bourrie.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail020.jpg

From my post:
"Another morally complicated issue involves state use of torture during interrogation. When Abdul Hakim Murad was questioned by Philippine investigators in 1995, he was reportedly subjected to various forms of torture. At one stage in the interrogation, Philippine authorities allegedly deceived Murad into believing that Israeli Mossad agents were behind his interrogation. Whether because of that or for other reasons, Murad eventually confessed the details of Oplan Bojinka. In this case, aggressive interrogation techniques, while arguably morally abhorrent and distasteful, effectively served their purpose. Thousands of innocent civilians did not die in early 1995 because of information gained through these methods."

"Oh look... we did the right thing, because we haven't been attacked again!" - John's summary.

Yeah, clearly I don't give a shit about 911 and it's victims.

I can tell you're think Tim, so let me clarify. By a "few buildings" I meant that over all, the damage was minimal compared to other conflicts around the world.

As for Dresden, yeah, that was pretty bad. So was the bombing of Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And we were complicit.

But only enough, through all that horror, it was basic policy that we did not subject POWs to inhumane treatment. Whereas, it seems the Bush Administration did so as a matter of course, and whenever they got caught, blamed "a few bad apples". Are you saying that it isn't weaselly to blame the troops for stuff the administration authorized? Way to support the troops buddy.

And again, Reagan, the guy who most on the right worship, signed a treaty outlawing torture. Are you suggesting that he would have changed his mind so quickly and easily? Was he, like you, made of such truly weak material?

The right is pathetic. Not only do they switch sides to do the things our society is suppose to oppose, they get pissy when they get caught doing it.

So, an A is given when the TOTUS refuses to bow to the Queen, yet bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. I was horrified when MO put her arm around the Queen - like they were school girl friends or something. Huge mistake - huge show of disrespect and superiority. Her act reminded me of when the photographer, Annie Leibovitz, asked the Queen to take off her crown off when Annie was hired to take professional pictures of the Queen to be used for official purposes. The Queens servants told Annie to stuff it and the crown stays on - politely of course.

He named his children's dog after himself - dogs name is BO.

This man is so bizarre, in word and deed, I feel like I am in a parallel universe or some kind of living nightmare whenever he speaks.

"Whereas, it seems the Bush Administration did so as a matter of course"

I am pretty sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. I feel like that time I started arguing with a 911 troofer, and then felt bad to find out he was retarded.

These people aren't conservatives. Dwight Eisenhower was a conservative. Herbert Hoover was a conservative. These people are fascists. They are oh-so-willing to allow the government to break the law and torture brown people. They are eager to let the ends justify the means. They have no respect for laws, treaties or anything else of value. They are just the kind of people who would have joined Hitler in a heartbeat.
I'm a conservative. These people are beneath contempt. They are more of a threat to our liberty and democracy than any Islamicist.

You're not a conservative Mark, you're a sissy with no brain. Now get off this site idiot, nobody here cares what you think.

That's nice talk.
I am a conservative. I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in handing the power of torture to those nice people in government who may decise to use torture to find the next Tim McVeigh among right-wingers and war vets. I believe liberty does not come easy. I am not willing to sacrifice honor, decency and legality for a false sense of security offered up by government officials. I am not like you, someone willing and eager to take the first steps towards a police state.

BTW, Multirec (if that's your real name), look me up and we'll see how much of a sissy I am. Just give me a shout and drop by. Just because you talk tough behind a fake name doesn't make you tough. I use my real name. My number is in the book. So who's a sissy?

Oooh...tough guy on the internet. Naw, anyone who talks tough on the internet is a sissy...but it's pretty funny though. But do let me know when you're in BC sissy, I'll have a beer with you anytime *)

Sure. Google me, find my e-mail address and send my your co-ordinates. I'll be glad to either kick your ass or have a beer with you, depending on how much of a f**kwad I determine you to be.

They are just the kind of people who would have joined Hitler in a heartbeat

Hey, bourrie, are you vying for somebody else's spot as Godwin poster extraordinnaire? C'mon, man! Keep 'em coming; we love the competition.

"They are more of a threat to our liberty and democracy than any Islamicist"

That hissing sound is the last of your credibility escaping into thin air, ha ha. Congratulations, bourrie: you are now beyond parody. Next time, don't break the Prozac in half before posting.

mhb

LOL!!! Kick my ass? You couldn't beat an egg ya wimpy retard! Man, you are funny though sissy boy.

sarge here looks like M Bourrie has old multirecs number sure would like to see old cheney get waterborded though pretty sure that boy cheney would expire pretty quik with that bum ticker

Tharge here...enough said. What an idiot.

Well, damn, MHB -

If you consistently and passionately propound a technique used by the Nazis, do you really expect not to be called on it?

If I were advocating for torture like you, I'd certainly realize I'd be called on the fact that I'm defending techniques used by the Nazis, and wouldn't start simpering about Godwin's Law, as though the Nazi aspect weren't pertinent at all, when you youself know it is.

Why don't you be proud of the fact that the techniques you're defending were used by the Nazis, by the Chinese communists, by the Khmer Rouge?

I'm certainly proud of the fact that my approach was used by the Allied forces in defeating fascism - i.e., all the guys whose approach you champion.

Actually, let me amend:

"Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means 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.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

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

That's the UN declaration on torture which was signed by and championed by Ronald Reagan.

So, to sum up: I advocate the approach favoured by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Ronald Reagan.

While you advocate the approach favoured by Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Osama Bin Laden.

Glad you're cool with that.

Gee Tim in Vermont

You cite a report on far-right-wing-whacko site Freerepublic where a guy was "Reportedly" tortured, as the single scrap of evidence you can find that torture has ever been effective - and you think that's enough to sacrifice Western values and ideals?

What an eager 'surrender monkey' you are! Just like MHB.

You might want to glance at one of the articles I linked to which actually occurs in a reputable publication (not a drool-slobbering far-right whack-job site like the one you sited), where CIA field officer Robert Baer states that even the small percentage of true info they get from torturing can be gotten more effectively by using other, non-torture techniques.

With those other techniques, the values of Western civilization are actually upheld rather than surrendered, as you and MHB would have us do.

(Sheesh, what's next for you surrender monkeys? Do you want women in burkhas, etc.?)

Again, the people I've cited to defend my position are top CIA and FBI interrogators who've actually had experience with what we're discussing - whereas the greatest hardship you & MHB have is running out of Jergen's hand lotion while you're watching your 'Mission Accomplished' and '24' videos.

sarge here but not holding sarges breath pun inteneded.
"

"Last Wednesday, Hannity took his torture enthusiasm to a new level. After promoting torture during his entire program, he agreed to guest Charles Grodin's challenge to subject himself to waterboarding, volunteering to do it for charity:

GRODIN: You're for torture.

HANNITY: I am for enhanced interrogation.

GRODIN: You don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?

HANNITY: No, but Ollie North has and talked to me about it.

GRODIN: Would you consent to be waterboarded so we can get the truth out of you? We can waterboard you?

HANNITY: Sure. ... I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. ... I'll do it for the troops' families.

The next night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann declared that he would give $1,000 to charity for every second Hannity withstood waterboarding.

Despite Hannity's affection for torture, he has not mentioned his agreement to be waterboarded since Wednesday. If he ever does "put his money where his mouth is," as Olbermann challenged him to, he can expect to enjoy the torturous sensation of very real -- and very terrifying -- drowning, as Christopher Hitchens explained after subjecting himself to it:

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning -- or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.

Bourrie's website is ok but this one he links to is outa site!

http://skippy-posts.blogspot.com/

ps multirec (rectum? damn near killed 'em!) any vet of school yard punch ups knows what a p*ssy sounds like; and rec you sound like a p*ssy. I can't help but picture you hiding behind the recess lady's skirt while you hurl your crap at the bigger stronger kids.

bleet,
Free Republic posts news articles. That article was not written by them. I can see that denial continues to be your approach to this debate.

"you consistently and passionately propound a technique used by the Nazis and you expect not to be called on it?"

Let's talk about Nazis: Hitler, after accomplishing nothing, wrote an autobiography in his thirties, kind of like Obama.

Hitler meddled in Germany's auto industry, ordering them to build a car for the "Volk", kind of like Obama.

Hitler had his own personal symbol and brand, kind of like Obama, which his supporters used instead of the traditional national symbols, kind of like Obama's.

I could go on. Does it prove anything to you bleet? Hitler was a vegetarian too. Does that make vegetarians Nazis?

Interesting how Bourrie drops the subject of conversation to go back to his pointless bashing, as if the rest of the thread had never happened.

bleet,
Now show us the part of the Geneva Convention where it applies to non-uniformed, stateless combatants, since you seem to have it right there handy.

I am sure you would never stoop so low as to selectively quote a document. I would put the quote here myself except *it isn't there*.

Read this, fascists:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090427.wcowent28/BNStory/specialComment/home

Tim -

As long as we're flush with nazi references, your casual comparison to the parallels with obama is quite interesting. Your mentioning the Geneva Accords don't apply to terrorists fall upon ignorant, deaf ears.

bleet, I have nothing more to say to you except this. I noted in another post a week or so ago that the common theme to your posts tends to be hate. It seems to be looming somewhat larger, lately, and your rants are starting to get a bit erratic, if not incoherent. Even your ad hominems are starting to sound a bit loony, and if you have any faculty of self-observation at all, you might be a trifle concerned. Likely not, though.

I enjoy a good online debate - even an argument - as much as the next guy. But bleet, seriously, fella, you're getting a little creepy. Is this blog where you self-medicate daily and excise whatever mental bile or pus you're carrying around? Maybe a bit less blogging and more time with family or friends would make your world seem a bit less foul.

Just a thought, anyway. Your choice.

mhb

mhb

Unlike the love around here, I suppose.

Gee MHB

Each one of your arguments has blown up in your face, so you slither around try another tack: showing your deep "concern" about my hateful ad hominems.

MHB sulks and whimpers: 'You're mean to me!'

This in a thread where he's called me an idiot, a clod, and ignorant.

Know what, MHB? I'll skip lectures on civility from a slavering wild-eyed barbarian torture fanatic championing the techniques of Hitler, Pol Pot and Bin Laden.

'Kay?

Wow,the trolls are out en masse.I don't find waterboarding as torturous as a left wing rant,such as this Bourrie fella keeps on subjecting us to,and the online chest thumping would be funny if it were not so pathetic.One has to wonder why things like bourrie and bleet and yahoos like them come here anyways,to convert maybe?

You misread me, bleet. I noted above that if anyone might be concerned about the tone of your postings, it should be you. I've been told far worse by much better souls than you. For my part, bleet, you can simmer in your own hatred as long as you like, as your judgements are meaningless. "Why do you hate?" was a question I asked one other time, and it seems you've still not answered it. Perhaps you're happiest when you're angry.

I've little interest in continuing to "debate" you, because as I've said in the past, you don't want to debate, but simply troll wherever you post. I stand by my points, as - apparently - you stand by your nazi meanderings. Why continue?

But do review some of your posts above, bleet. Of particular note (distasteful as it is) is your recurring image or fantasy of other men str0king, complete with the (unnecessary) helpful instructions on the hand lotion of choice. Blechhh. A little bit of projection there, bleet? Or is that experience talking? Perhaps a little bit of homoerotic subconscious seeping to the surface? One wonders if your closet door is not quite so tightly closed, eh?

PLEASE do spare us any more visual details in that vein, okay? Please.

I'm quite through with this thread, I think. I've a 3yr old who's asking to play catch, and 60 seconds playing with him is worth a lifetime of debate and head-banging with you, bleet. You've convinced me there's little discourse left in this topic, regardless. Please flame on, accordingly.

mhb

"Each one of your arguments has blown up in your face" - bleet

"project much?" - most everybody else still reading this thread.

Sorry about the handle change, but Beowulf is the only guy I can think of who enjoyed beating the crap out of trolls as much as I do.

Thing is, you do these guys too much honor calling them trolls. Trolls as hard questions that only the most heroic can answer. These guys ask questions that are only hard for them because they deliberately avoid the information that would make the answers plain, even to them.

They can live with the fact they support torture.
What would Jesus say?

Hey sissy boy, it's only torture in your wee brain, come back when your testys drop, mkay?
Why do you fools come here, do you actually believe that most here give a rats ass what you say? Off to KO's with ya where your whinging is appreciated.

I wonder what 'points' you think you're standing by, MHB? I've substantiated my points with copious links to reputable sources - with, you know, facts, from high-ranking officials in the FBI and the CIA to Ronald Reagan. You have provided nothing to substantiate your position.

Again, it seems to me you've lived so long in your Limbaughian bubble that you really don't know how to defend your position. You seem to think you need only to state it and that's enough.

Well it's not enough, out here in the fact-based world.

As for the imagery I've employed, I was simply wondering why a sentient person would continue agitating for techniques which have been proven ineffective, and which are in direct opposition to Western values.

I concluded that perhaps your irrational yen for torture owes itself to a sexual kink. Then again perhaps it is mere sadism on your part.

As for your speculaton that I am homosexual, is that a mark against me if I were? Are you a homophobe in addition to your other barbaric sentiments?

As for your son, you might want to advise him:

1) to avoid the transparent hypocrisy of calling someone a "hater" when you've already spewed them with ad hominems like "idiot", "clod", and "ignorant" in the same thread,

and 2)to avoid the transparent hypocrisy of calling someone else a hater when you champion torture as it was carried out by Pol Pot.

I know this will be ignored, bleet, but I suggest you study the First Law of Holes. And nice failed effort ducking & weaving around your male sexual comments earlier; you introduced the topic to the thread and continue to obssess on it; your efforts to weasel your way out are pretty transparent, even by your standards. By all means, do keep the topic alive if it pleases you, but please spare us your insightful visual supplement if it won't cramp your literary style.

The little guy is a bit young to talk politics, but I do educate my 2 older sons about the evils of liberalism, bleet. How it brooks no criticism, its almost ruthless conformance and hate of true diversity of thought, how it sets up victim ideology with Big Government control and regulation as a "cure", its marginalization of its opponents and those who don't agree with its dogma. How liberalism robs people of their incentive to achieve their dreams, how it instigates the politics of envy in the battle against achievers and producers, and its predictability of failure in almost every government program it creates (indeed, how liberalism demands that its works be judged on intentions, rather than on results). Actually, bleet, I'd use your postings here as useful if grim examples to illustrate some of this, were they not as distasteful as they've sunk. Ahh well. Guess you've had better days, hey?

mhb

MHB

I never denied that I introduced the "male sexual" subject to the thread. Where did you get that idea? Can't read, huh?

I said my reason for introducing it was as a possible explanation for your irrational, inexplicable support of the US gov't. adopting the policies of Pol Pot.

But now I see that mere mental - and moral - sickness is reason enough for your support of barbarism.

As for your virtually unreadable regurgitation of partisan hackery (have you *ever* had an original thought, MHB?), I was drawn to your description of the supposed liberal "hate of true diversity of thought."

Can't say the hatred of diversity in itself rings true, but I will cop to the fact that my support of diversity of thought doesn't quite extend to the policies implemented by such moral monsters as Pol Pot, Hitler, and Bin Laden.

And I repel the attempts of morally ill people to make such policies part of Western civilization, no matter what personal dysfunctions inspire them to do so - mental, moral or sexual.

Be sure to put away the shovel when you're through digging, bleet.

Be sure to rehearse your alibi for when your son asks you why you supported Nazi torture techniques during the Bush years, MHB.

What would Jesus say?