Bush trying to keep waterboarding

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this country isn't a theocracy, and religion shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Every national election is impacted hugely by religion.He pandered to religious Conservatives.They are his base.Now he thumbs his nose at Christ's teachings,and quite frankly it's time for his base to call him on it,or they are religious hypocrates (just like he is.) Every time the Conservatives want a good turn out in a state they have a referendum on gay marriage on the ballot.We wouldn't ever have had Bush as the president if religious conservatives weren't dominating blocks of states for him.If religion doesn't matter then why is he against stem cell etc.?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Every national election is impacted hugely by religion.He pandered to religious Conservatives.They are his base.Now he thumbs his nose at Christ's teachings,and quite frankly it's time for his base to call him on it,or they are religious hypocrates (just like he is.) Every time the Conservatives want a good turn out in a state they have a referendum on gay marriage on the ballot.We wouldn't ever have had Bush as the president if religious conservatives weren't dominating blocks of states for him.If religion doesn't matter then why is he against stem cell etc.?

there is stem cell research, just no fetal stem cell research funded with federal money. to be honest, that suits me just fine-but not due to religion. the federal govt was never supposed to include things like that.
i neither know, nor care, who bush considers his base. this veto would be for what is regarded as for the best for this nation and the safety of its citizens.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is stem cell research, just no fetal stem cell research funded with federal money. to be honest, that suits me just fine-but not due to religion. the federal govt was never supposed to include things like that.
i neither know, nor care, who bush considers his base. this veto would be for what is regarded as for the best for this nation and the safety of its citizens.

No,it's torture.You want to have torture allowed then fine,but not 1 of the candidates running are for it,and this is gunna get cleaned up when this f'n hypocrite dog leaves the White House.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No,it's torture.You want to have torture allowed then fine,but not 1 of the candidates running are for it,and this is gunna get cleaned up when this f'n hypocrite dog leaves the White House.

what part of 'waterboarding has been banned by both the military and cia' do you not understand? to say that a veto automatically = use of waterboarding is simplistic.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what part of 'waterboarding has been banned by both the military and cia' do you not understand? to say that a veto automatically = use of waterboarding is simplistic.

Danzig...the part where the bill bans it's use and Bush is vetoing it!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Danzig...the part where the bill bans it's use and Bush is vetoing it!

The bill would have limited the CIA to 19 interrogation techniques that are used by the military and spelled out in the Army Field Manual. Bush said he vetoed the measure because it is important for the CIA to have a separate and classified interrogation program for suspected terrorists who possess critical information about possible plots against the United States.


Bush said he did not veto the bill specifically over waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning. The Army banned the use of waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners in 2006. The CIA, which also prohibited the practice in 2006, has acknowledged using waterboarding on three suspected terrorists in 2003.
"My disagreement ... is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program," Bush said in his veto message to the House. The attorney general has deemed that program legal under domestic and international law, he said.

In a memo to CIA employees Saturday, CIA Director Michael Hayden said the Army Field Manual does not "exhaust the universe" of lawful interrogation techniques. "There are methods in the CIA's program that have been briefed to our oversight committees, are fully consistent with the Geneva Convention and current U.S. law and are most certainly not torture," Hayden wrote

[Danzig]

and just for the record, i don't think we should be torturing anyone.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The bill would have limited the CIA to 19 interrogation techniques that are used by the military and spelled out in the Army Field Manual. Bush said he vetoed the measure because it is important for the CIA to have a separate and classified interrogation program for suspected terrorists who possess critical information about possible plots against the United States.


Bush said he did not veto the bill specifically over waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning. The Army banned the use of waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners in 2006. The CIA, which also prohibited the practice in 2006, has acknowledged using waterboarding on three suspected terrorists in 2003.
"My disagreement ... is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program," Bush said in his veto message to the House. The attorney general has deemed that program legal under domestic and international law, he said.

In a memo to CIA employees Saturday, CIA Director Michael Hayden said the Army Field Manual does not "exhaust the universe" of lawful interrogation techniques. "There are methods in the CIA's program that have been briefed to our oversight committees, are fully consistent with the Geneva Convention and current U.S. law and are most certainly not torture," Hayden wrote

Unfortunately, taking the word of the Bush administration seems risky to me...I close my eyes and see all those WMD going poof before the eyes of the world...

One question that has been answered
but is not widely publicized is:

Does waterboarding actually yield good quick information?

And the answer appears to be in some cases
it works very well in extracting information quickly.

So President Scuds sits in the Oval Office:

Pres. Scuds, we have information about a terrorist
attack in LA. It looks like a big network and we dont
know where the hell they are in LA, but its going to
be real bad as it involves a dirty nuke. We do have
suspects in the planning in custody. The attack appears
to be imminent. We think waterboarding will possibly work
on one of these guys. We need info NOW. And this guy has
the goods. He knows. It might work... We have tried other
quick techniques on this guy and its not working.

Does this situation arise often? NO. But if it does,
do you want to leave the option open?

So do you want to say we will prohibit this practice unless
we see a dire need to do it, or just flat out prohibit KNOWING
that it IS effective at getting vital information quickly IN SOME
cases?

And of course we prohibit it completely because we
know it will be abused by Bush and his Cowboy military...
And because we cant set proper criteria when it should
be used.
They are holding a gun to your head, tell the
Cops to back off and let them kill you...take one
for the country and ethics.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

One question that has been answered
but is not widely publicized is:

Does waterboarding actually yield good quick information?

And the answer appears to be in some cases
it works very well in extracting information quickly.

So President Scuds sits in the Oval Office:

Pres. Scuds, we have information about a terrorist
attack in LA. It looks like a big network and we dont
know where the hell they are in LA, but its going to
be real bad as it involves a dirty nuke. We do have
suspects in the planning in custody. The attack appears
to be imminent. We think waterboarding will possibly work
on one of these guys. We need info NOW. And this guy has
the goods. He knows. It might work... We have tried other
quick techniques on this guy and its not working.

Does this situation arise often? NO. But if it does,
do you want to leave the option open?

So do you want to say we will prohibit this practice unless
we see a dire need to do it, or just flat out prohibit KNOWING
that it IS effective at getting vital information quickly IN SOME
cases?

And of course we prohibit it completely because we
know it will be abused by Bush and his Cowboy military...
And because we cant set proper criteria when it should
be used.
They are holding a gun to your head, tell the
Cops to back off and let them kill you...take one
for the country and ethics.

i've always thought that torture may well yield what you want the person to tell you, not necessarily the truth. to this day you have people who give false confessions due to hours upon hours of questioning by the police. why wouldn't this be different?
i don't know what the cia uses vs the military. i'd hate to see limits placed that shouldn't be placed by congress, but whether that's the case here, i don't know. i don't want this country to become exactly the type of thing it is supposedly fighting.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i've always thought that torture may well yield what you want the person to tell you, not necessarily the truth. to this day you have people who give false confessions due to hours upon hours of questioning by the police. why wouldn't this be different?
i don't know what the cia uses vs the military. i'd hate to see limits placed that shouldn't be placed by congress, but whether that's the case here, i don't know. i don't want this country to become exactly the type of thing it is supposedly fighting.

My information about waterboarding
being very accurate and quick, in
SOME cases, came from an interview
with a military intelligence officer on
NPR (always ultra-liberal supposedly)
It was backed up by some Pyschologist
from a University they had on.

I cant see taking it completely
off the table (pun, no..)
when it MIGHT be very effective in
getting good information quickly in
some cases. The potential for abuse
is always present. The Geneva convention
has it on the no list. But we live in a world
where a few zealots can kill very large
numbers of innocent people very quickly.
Its not a stone throwing world anymore.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

One question that has been answered
but is not widely publicized is:

Does waterboarding actually yield good quick information?

And the answer appears to be in some cases
it works very well in extracting information quickly.

So President Scuds sits in the Oval Office:

Pres. Scuds, we have information about a terrorist
attack in LA. It looks like a big network and we dont
know where the hell they are in LA, but its going to
be real bad as it involves a dirty nuke. We do have
suspects in the planning in custody. The attack appears
to be imminent. We think waterboarding will possibly work
on one of these guys. We need info NOW. And this guy has
the goods. He knows. It might work... We have tried other
quick techniques on this guy and its not working.

Does this situation arise often? NO. But if it does,
do you want to leave the option open?

So do you want to say we will prohibit this practice unless
we see a dire need to do it, or just flat out prohibit KNOWING
that it IS effective at getting vital information quickly IN SOME
cases?

And of course we prohibit it completely because we
know it will be abused by Bush and his Cowboy military...
And because we cant set proper criteria when it should
be used.
They are holding a gun to your head, tell the
Cops to back off and let them kill you...take one
for the country and ethics.

You want the right to act like a dog in rare cases? Right? I don't want to be like them at all.If you torture ,then they've succeeded in making you like them.This is why we have so much trouble now(too many people think it's o.k. to cheat,steal,and lie once in a while.)Multiply that by 300 million people,and you have got the reason for a lot of our present day problems.Take, for instance, the guy who (I guess) threw a puppy off a cliff(I didn't watch it,so you tell me.) Is it o.k. if he just does that one time? In a rare case? There are a lot of people with sick tendencies.Do you really want to give out the message that it's o.k. to do evil stuff once in a while? To torture once in a while? To kill a cat once in a while? Huh? I don't. Hey we have very good communication systems.One of the best ways to stop this scum is to put their evil on full display as often as possible,and let them know what we really do think of them.We don't do that.We fear being called anti-Islamic,or racist,or whatever.That's what is the problem.If you constantly show young people the stuff these people do to innocent people,then this scum will be very interested.They are very interested in how they are viewed around the world.Show them for what they are.Put it on MTV.Constantly show THIS SCUM ACTING LIKE SCUM.They won't like it.They don't have the communication systems here to compete with us.All they can do is stop acting like scum.We are good at entertainment systems,and communuication systems.We beat them at this.Start using it.Stop being scared about upsetting Moslems.That doesn't work.Show everybody what Moslems are doing to innocent people,and let Moslems change their own people.They are only going to change if they have a huge microscope showing them exactly as they are. That will be much more useful than torture,but we can't complain about them being scum if we allow GEEDUBBYA etc. to act like scum.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You want the right to act like a dog in rare cases? Right? I don't want to be like them at all.If you torture ,then they've succeeded in making you like them.This is why we have so much trouble now(too many people think it's o.k. to cheat,steal,and lie once in a while.)Multiply that by 300 million people,and you have got the reason for a lot of our present day problems.Take, for instance, the guy who (I guess) threw a puppy off a cliff(I didn't watch it,so you tell me.) Is it o.k. if he just does that one time? In a rare case? There are a lot of people with sick tendencies.Do you really want to give out the message that it's o.k. to do evil stuff once in a while? To torture once in a while? To kill a cat once in a while? Huh? I don't. Hey we have very good communication systems.One of the best ways to stop this scum is to put their evil on full display as often as possible,and let them know what we really do think of them.We don't do that.We fear being called anti-Islamic,or racist,or whatever.That's what is the problem.If you constantly show young people the stuff these people do to innocent people,then this scum will be very interested.They are very interested in how they are viewed around the world.Show them for what they are.Put it on MTV.Constantly show THIS SCUM ACTING LIKE SCUM.They won't like it.They don't have the communication systems here to compete with us.All they can do is stop acting like scum.We are good at entertainment systems,and communuication systems.We beat them at this.Start using it.Stop being scared about upsetting Moslems.That doesn't work.Show everybody what Moslems are doing to innocent people,and let Moslems change their own people.They are only going to change if they have a huge microscope showing them exactly as they are. That will be much more useful than torture,but we can't complain about them being scum if we allow GEEDUBBYA etc. to act like scum.

So you are saying you would not use
it, even if it had the chance of saving your
city from being blown up? And then you would
be able to explain to all the families that you
could have, but did not...
And they would say," but it might have worked" and
you would lie and say "it had no chance to help save
lives"?

A very difficult decision had to be made in WWII
about Japan. It is still being debated today.
I happen to think it was horrible but a correct
decision. I dont think anybody WANTED to do
this, the felt they had to. There is a difference.

Scuds we all make decisions in our lives that
go against our ethical values. We all do. We
rationalize and huff and puff but we all do.
We fight the temptation but it happens.
You know you have. You have acted like
a dog in rare cases and so have I. Not that
we have killed anyone or tortured anyone,
but we have all crossed the line in some way
meaningful way to us (maybe not to anyone else).
I am not Jesus and I dont think you are.

So cut the high and mighty.

If this technique can, under unique circumstances,
give the country a means of saving the lives of
innocent people right now, I cant see taking it completely off
the table. Hopefully we research ways to come up
with other techniques. If what I heard on NPR is all wrong,
then fine. But it was clearly stated that this technique
can in certain cases give accurate information quickly.
Not like other techniques. This is what I understand.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

A very difficult decision had to be made in WWII
about Japan. It is still being debated today.
I happen to think it was horrible but a correct
decision. I dont think anybody WANTED to do
this, the felt they had to. There is a difference.

I am against torture in all forms.What happened during the 2nd World War was not torture.We could either lose Japanese and American lives in a land war invading Japan,or we could lose Japanese lives in a way that would convince them to stop fighting us.That was not torture.It was war.We didn't have those people in our custody.I am against torture of anybody.Don't treat your prisoners the way scum does.Treat them the way you would want American prisoners treated,or don't complain when our men are tortured.The reason to have prisoners is to keep them from harming others.They aren't for you to do as you please with.I don't know when we started acting like this,but I will never think (in any case)that it's anything less than dog activity.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I am against torture in all forms.What happened during the 2nd World War was not torture.We could either lose Japanese and American lives in a land war invading Japan,or we could lose Japanese lives in a way that would convince them to stop fighting us.That was not torture.It was war.We didn't have those people in our custody.I am against torture of anybody.Don't treat your prisoners the way scum does.Treat them the way you would want American prisoners treated,or don't complain when our men are tortured.The reason to have prisoners is to keep them from harming others.They aren't for you to do as you please with.I don't know when we started acting like this,but I will never think (in any case)that it's anything less than dog activity.

There's a difference between random torture for "funsies" and the need to get information to save thousands. Do you differentiate between the two at all?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I am against torture in all forms.What happened during the 2nd World War was not torture.We could either lose Japanese and American lives in a land war invading Japan,or we could lose Japanese lives in a way that would convince them to stop fighting us.That was not torture.It was war.We didn't have those people in our custody.I am against torture of anybody.Don't treat your prisoners the way scum does.Treat them the way you would want American prisoners treated,or don't complain when our men are tortured.The reason to have prisoners is to keep them from harming others.They aren't for you to do as you please with.I don't know when we started acting like this,but I will never think (in any case)that it's anything less than dog activity.

There is pretty compelling evidence that the Japanese ate many of our prisoners of war.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I am against torture in all forms.What happened during the 2nd World War was not torture.We could either lose Japanese and American lives in a land war invading Japan,or we could lose Japanese lives in a way that would convince them to stop fighting us.That was not torture.It was war.We didn't have those people in our custody.I am against torture of anybody.Don't treat your prisoners the way scum does.Treat them the way you would want American prisoners treated,or don't complain when our men are tortured.The reason to have prisoners is to keep them from harming others.They aren't for you to do as you please with.I don't know when we started acting like this,but I will never think (in any case)that it's anything less than dog activity.

So we should just turn em lose and nuke em?

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I am against torture in all forms.What happened during the 2nd World War was not torture.We could either lose Japanese and American lives in a land war invading Japan,or we could lose Japanese lives in a way that would convince them to stop fighting us.That was not torture.It was war.We didn't have those people in our custody.I am against torture of anybody.Don't treat your prisoners the way scum does.Treat them the way you would want American prisoners treated,or don't complain when our men are tortured.The reason to have prisoners is to keep them from harming others.They aren't for you to do as you please with.I don't know when we started acting like this,but I will never think (in any case)that it's anything less than dog activity.

If American prisoners were knowingly withholding information that
would help stop the decimation of a huge numer of innoncent people
all intended to terrorize other innocent people as a whole, I would want them
waterboarded.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You want the right to act like a dog in rare cases? Right? I don't want to be like them at all.If you torture ,then they've succeeded in making you like them.This is why we have so much trouble now(too many people think it's o.k. to cheat,steal,and lie once in a while.)Multiply that by 300 million people,and you have got the reason for a lot of our present day problems.Take, for instance, the guy who (I guess) threw a puppy off a cliff(I didn't watch it,so you tell me.) Is it o.k. if he just does that one time? In a rare case? There are a lot of people with sick tendencies.Do you really want to give out the message that it's o.k. to do evil stuff once in a while? To torture once in a while? To kill a cat once in a while? Huh? I don't. Hey we have very good communication systems.One of the best ways to stop this scum is to put their evil on full display as often as possible,and let them know what we really do think of them.We don't do that.We fear being called anti-Islamic,or racist,or whatever.That's what is the problem.If you constantly show young people the stuff these people do to innocent people,then this scum will be very interested.They are very interested in how they are viewed around the world.Show them for what they are.Put it on MTV.Constantly show THIS SCUM ACTING LIKE SCUM.They won't like it.They don't have the communication systems here to compete with us.All they can do is stop acting like scum.We are good at entertainment systems,and communuication systems.We beat them at this.Start using it.Stop being scared about upsetting Moslems.That doesn't work.Show everybody what Moslems are doing to innocent people,and let Moslems change their own people.They are only going to change if they have a huge microscope showing them exactly as they are. That will be much more useful than torture,but we can't complain about them being scum if we allow GEEDUBBYA etc. to act like scum.

There aren't many more lefties on this board, or anywhere else than me. And not to be melodramatic, but I've really struggled with this waterboard/torture thing quite a bit and it pains me to side with anything GDubya supports, but it's hard not to understand the need for some type of method of protection for the greater good. Whether it's Hiroshama or waterboarding, I think at some point you have to close your eyes and cover your ears and just trust that it's neccessary. Now, there is a very slippery slope that this administration ( cough, cough) has followed and I hate to give them an inch, etc..but as others have posted, the emotional knee jerk reaction to this that you and I have has to be looked at further

[Cannon Shell]

I'm a bigger fan of the electric cords attached to the gonads or the head in the vice but I guess I'm just violent from listening to rap lyrics when I was younger