Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You can be fine with that, but it's still torture and fundamentally against all principles of the law of armed conflict.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Got that, everyone? We got KSM's name from Zubaydah using time-tested NON-TORTURE interrogation techniques, BEFORE torture was introduced. He calls claims like Cheney's "false claims" and the torture memos based on "false premises." And he was in a position to know.<< Now we'll have Douglas claim this is all more "idle speculation" and he'll dismiss it with a wave of the hand while telling others they disrespect our CIA, FBI, military, etc. LOL! His respect for these people ends where his party loyalty begins.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh < In other words, since you disagree with me, it's okay to paint me as sympathetic to terrorists and unconcerned about the lives of innocents, completely dismiss, distort and denigrate whatever I say.> No, but because you're willing to dismiss, distort and denigrate those who disagree with you, don't be surprised if others use that tactic with you. I've apologized for the snarkiness in my response, but please don't try to pretend you're the completely innocent victim here, because there has definitely been some snark in some of your posts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <but making up reasons to go to war in a totally different country I'm not okay with.> No one is.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No, but<< I didn't dismiss anything you said and I did not get snarky. You got frustrated and lashed out. I am not surprised you got frustrated, as defending much of the previous administration's actions takes a lot of effort. It must be frustrating to keep thinking the best about them as more and more of the worst is revealed time and again. It's how I felt after believing that there must be WMDs and then having to accept that we were wrong about that. You're going to regret backing this bunch, Douglas, as more and more of this comes out.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I've apologized for the snarkiness in my response<< No you didn't. You said "sorry, but you deserved what you got". And you didn't apologize for continuing to distort what I said or to make it appear I am all for innocent lives being lost. You don't get to do that without some of it blowing back at you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <they were duly tried and convicted by military tribunal and sentence passed, and were not tortured.> We don't know if they were roughed up a bit, or harshly interrogated, or even tortured. I think it's naïve to believe those things never happened until the Bush administration. But they were definitely dead, less than two months after they were captured.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <His respect for these people ends where his party loyalty begins.> I'm not the one who started that.
Originally Posted By DAR <<"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics." Read that again. Torture is both morally wrong, and unnecessary. >> I've now gone on record saying it's wrong to torture(a little credit would be nice for admiting that)but I don't was our interrogator's to get buddy buddy with these folks either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I didn't dismiss anything you said and I did not get snarky.> I disagree. I think post 107 was a little snarky, and dismissed a valid point. 114 was a little snarky, as was 130. Post 154 denigrated VP Cheney, for pure snark. And 186 distorted the argument. <You said "sorry, but you deserved what you got".> No, I really didn't. My intent in post 195 was to apologize and to make clear I think we should give these guys the benefit of the doubt. While there may be a few bad eggs scattered amongst our CIA and military, I think the vast majority of them are trying to do their best to keep us safe and that they would not "torture" anyone if they had another way to do that. Much of that response was directed at others rather than just you, and I'm sorry if it came out unduly harsh, but I was trying to address several overlapping points at once.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<they were duly tried and convicted by military tribunal and sentence passed, and were not tortured.>> <We don't know if they were roughed up a bit, or harshly interrogated, or even tortured. > That's lame. By that standard, we don't know anything we weren't eyewitnesses to. <I think it's naïve to believe those things never happened until the Bush administration.> What DO we know? That it was the policy of this country at that time that such techniques would not be used, even against men such as this, from a country that had taken over most of Europe, allied with a country that had taken over much of Asia, and was gassing literally millions of people. And we further know that Bush and co. changed the policy of this country to allow them. Did some WWII interrogator rough up a captured Nazi? How can we possibly know? But we do know the official policy of this country changed, and that MATTERS. <But they were definitely dead, less than two months after they were captured.> After duly receiving a trial. Google "apple and orange" again, and look up the subheading "not using an apple to attempt to justify an orange."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Just to take the first two... <I think post 107 was a little snarky, and dismissed a valid point. > That a fictional superhero and fictional supervillain should be used as a valid comparison for... well, anything? I mean, really. Batman and the Joker? Valid point? To a 14-year old, maybe. LOL! "Meanwhile, back in reality" was right on the money. <114 was a little snarky, > He pointed out that "honesty believed" and "pretty damn sure" are impossible to define and as legal terms are both indistinguishable and essentially worthless.
Originally Posted By DAR Doug is right in that it is naive to think the Bush administration is one only that tortured prisoners.
Originally Posted By DAR I don't know many people thought The Dark Knight was a metaphor for the War on Terror.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And apart from this, Douglas, I notice you haven't commented on the link I provided. Are you going to claim that the guy who actually interrogated Zubaydah was not in a "position to know" about interrogations? How about the other things he said about how we actually got useful information, and how we didn't? And about the false claims - his words - being spread (and lapped up by some) about how we got it?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I've now gone on record saying it's wrong to torture(a little credit would be nice for admiting that)> I do give you credit for that. <but I don't was our interrogator's to get buddy buddy with these folks either.> Getting "buddy buddy" with them (or seeming to) is a technique they use to get information. Which actually works.
Originally Posted By ecdc Great posts, Dabob2. No wonder the substance is being ignored - it contradicts everything we hear about the efficacy of torture vs. the efficacy of traditional methods. The funny thing is this is another one of those issues that shouldn't be partisan. But for whatever reason, some conservatives dig in their heels and are obstinate to an absurd degree, just because the guy with the R after his name said it was a good idea. It's like climate change or national healthcare. In other nations, these aren't left/right issues. Here, we have plenty of evidence to show that torture has let us down and that traditional methods have worked. I get that it's not a 100% pass/fail scenario; but by and large, experts agree torture doesn't work because those we do it to will say anything to make it stop. They also agree that if we do it, then we're ok with it happening to our soldiers. But rather than have a consensus that maybe this isn't the best idea and that there's equally, if not more effective, ways to get information, some conservatives argue for the sake of argument. If Bush said the sky was green and Obama said, nope, it's blue, they'd come up with all sorts of tortured (no pun intended) logic and semantics to explain how the sky really can be green.
Originally Posted By DAR Well there has to be a middle ground, we shouldn't torture or befriend these people.
