Former CIA director Porter J. Goss
Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.
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.
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.”
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.