Conservatives Waterboarded - Voluntarily. - Page 13

On May 25 2009 05:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Not only that a 2006 report by the Government stated that Waterboarding was being done in Sri Lanka and advocated it as torture.

Also the the "ticking time bomb" has never happened even counter terrorism experts have stated this.

On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).

- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.

- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..

- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.

- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.

On May 25 2009 06:37 Servolisk wrote:


/thread

On May 25 2009 12:03 HeadBangaa wrote:

because if physician said it, it must be true

On May 25 2009 12:08 jeppew wrote:

because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote.

On May 25 2009 16:14 Syntax Lost wrote:
Except Physician's opinion has been supported numerous times already in this thread (and in the Condoleezza thread). Heck, you only need to scroll up one post to see evidence. On the other hand, the torture advocates have provided not a single shred of credible evidence (in either this or the Condoleezza thread) to support their claims that torture (or waterboarding) is effective, or that waterboarding is not torture.

HeadBangaa wrote:
But it looks like it got some useful information out of Abu Zubaydah very quickly, undoubtedly saving lives.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/12/11/cia-agent-waterboarding-saved-lives/

The money quote says...
UPDATE: U.S. Government documents released in April 2009 indicate that Kiriakou's account that Abu Zubaydah broke after only one water boarding session was incorrect. According to a footnote in newly released, previously classified "Top Secret" memos, the CIA used the water board "at least 83 times during August 2002 in the interrogation of Zubaydah."

Following the release of the documents, Kiriakou said: "When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."

On May 25 2009 16:39 tinman wrote:
fizzician has a grand total of 1 opinion that can, even theoretically, be factually supported. i.e.: that torture or enhanced interrogative metals are counterproductive. the rest of them are things like "this patient has a case of poor convictions" or "this patient is retarded and that cannot be corrected." while he is probably a brilliant diagnostician an all that, being a physician and all, he still wasn't saying anything that can be factually corroborated or disproved. and you either agree with me or you are basically admitting that you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile.

On May 25 2009 17:23 Syntax Lost wrote:


You do realise that his comments were based on the fact that the torture advocates don't have a leg to stand on, right? And that's very obvious from this thread since they never provide any credible evidence to support their case (in either this thread or the Condoleezza thread).

On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).

- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.

- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..

- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.

- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.

On May 25 2009 16:34 HeadBangaa wrote:
I said: I have read conflicting reports about its efficacy. Servo, Phys, and co. have said: no, there is NOTHING showing it is effective.

But it looks like it got some useful information out of Abu Zubaydah very quickly, undoubtedly saving lives.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/12/11/cia-agent-waterboarding-saved-lives/

So now I have shown that it is sometimes effective. But don't forget my original post. I claimed that torture-interrogation is only necessary when we commit other evil acts. I am a non-interventionist, and I don't think we'd need to protect ourselves so aggressively if we just backed off.

To argue in favor of nation building and excessive american hegemony, but not to condone any-and-all means of interrogation, is literally promoting the harm to Americans. It is a force we create that we protect ourselves against. The source of that force must be stopped before we undue the heinous means of protection we have implemented.