| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:44701 Activity:high |
10/5 I don't care about Michelle Malkin. Or Reps assfucking
pages. or George Soros. What I do care about is the administration
getting torture techniques legalized. What is really funny
is they are modeled on stuff used by the russians, the khmer
rouge, the real bad guys of the 20th century. what gwbush
forgets is those guys tortured people to get confessions,
not to get real live intel that they could act on. assholes.
\_ Colin Powell learned this the hard way. One of the "evidence"
he presented in United Nation was "extracted" from some "terrorist"
who later said he said that to stop the torture.
America should of draw a hard lesson learned from French
and its Algerian Revolution. Once you start to torture and loose
the moral high-ground, you loose legimacy on this struggle.
\_ Surely you have a link to back this up--or maybe you're just
blowing this out your ass. Oh, and for all the mantra-chanting
that torture doesn't work, we have proof that at least
waterboarding does:
9/21 In other torture news, ABC reporter Brian Ross reports that
torture works. Video clip: http://csua.org/u/gyd
\_ You know what? I don't care it works or not. This is not
an episode of 24. I live
in fucking UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The best
country in the WORLD. Or so I thought. Why the fuck
are we torturing people? I'm going to quit my
job and devote my life to ANSWER or something, this makes
me so mad.
\_ You're right, this isn't 24. If things go bad REAL PEOPLE
FUCKING DIE. And so I want our gov't to use the tools that
work against these animals.
\_ Yes, first step is dehumanizing your opponent. Then,
you can justify any degree of mistreatment for any
reason. They do it to us, we do it to them. You
filthy capitalist American infidel pig-dog! You
deserve to die, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. You fucking
idiot, we must not become our enemy.
\_ We are not becoming our enemy. We know that
waterboarding was used on top Al Qaeda people, not
necessarily on any random person. Meanwhile, our
enemy CUTS THE HEADS OFF OUR PEOPLE IF THEY'RE
\_ To them, "our people" are filthy infidel
Americans who deserve beheading. To you,
they are damn animals who deserve
waterboarding.
CAPTURED. You are apparently incapable of telling
the difference.
\_ So you're okay with indefinite detention on the
word of the executive? Redefinition of what
constitutes torture on the same word? As long
as we don't decapitate people, you're fine with
your government's actions?
\_ For a small number of people, indefinite
detention is okay. And no, my threshold is
lower than decapitaction. But it's higher than
waterboarding.
\_ Then you're unamerican, undemocratic, and
truly a danger to the future of our country.
\_ Do you understand what happens during
waterboarding? Would you be willing to have
it done to you in a reasonably safe
environment in order to demonstrate its
acceptability?
\_ Yes I understand. I've talked with
military guys who've gone through SERE
training and were waterboarded. I
suspect you don't know what it is. Hint:
it's not putting someone's head
underwater.
\_ No. It's placing the client on his
back with his head lower than his
torso, then putting a plastic bag or
other dam in place and then filling
the reservoir around the client's
with water. The water then fills the
nose and upper respiratory tract,
giving the immediate impression of
drowning. A doctor is generally kept
on hand to monitor the client's
life signs and to ressucitate,
through CPR and/or defib if the client
somehow aspirates the water. If this
is somehow something that you would
not mind being applied to one of your
loved ones without trial or reason
other than goverment suspicion, then
I propose that you try this first to
to show us how it's not that bad.
\_ Not how I heard it from someone who
went through it. No reservoir
necessary, just a very wet cloth
put over the face. Your version
sounds fine to me as well.
\_ If this is somehow something
that you would not mind being
applied to one of your loved
ones without trial or reason
other than goverment suspicion,
then I propose that you try
this first to show us how it's
fine.
\_ The thing you fail to grasp is that without trials,
without due process, we aren't necessarily
torturing those evil beheading enemies of ours,
we're torturing innocent people. This isn't a
hypothetical... it's already happened.
\_ The thing you fail to grasp is that without
trials, without due process, we aren't
necessarily torturing those evil beheading
enemies of ours, we're torturing innocent
people. This isn't a hypothetical... it's
already happened.
\_ Eggs, omelettes...
\_ What you fail to understand is that
concepts of criminality (such as the
presumption of innocence) may not be
applicable to warfare. Due process is
generally not applicable to prisoners
of war. Anyway, there is something to
lighten the mood:
link:tinyurl.com/ejakx (comics.com)
\_ I'm not watching an O'Reilley clip. Do you have another
source for this? Surely if it's ABC's Brian Ross you'll have
a non-video write-up somewhere? And no, I'm not stfw; it's
your point, you do the work.
\_ Is the O'Reilley clip inaccurate or wrong in some way or
is this just a rejection on personal grounds? -someone else
\_ BOR raises my blood pressure. That's a personal failing,
and I freely admit to it.
\_ Um, most of the clip is Brian Ross speaking. It's
directly from his mouth.
\_ Never mind, I couldn't resist stfw anyway. Most results on
"brian ross torture" return right-wing sites pointing to
the BOR clip. Nowhere on the ABC site was there any
confirmation. Care to try again?
\_ Are you brain damaged? You won't watch BOR even when
most of the clip is Brian Ross? And BOR is expressing
some skepticism about anonymous sources?
\_ Ah, that's right, only brain damaged people would
want to avoid watching an interview clip from the
Factor. If Brian Ross thinks torture works, let him
say so on his ABC blog. Or, barring that, let him
say so on any other media outlet than BOR. I've
never considered BOR to be news, so why would I want
to get news from BOR? If I want opinion, sure, but
news? I mean, you don't go to the Daily Show for
news, right? (Though recent research suggests you
should.)
\_ But you're getting your news from BRIAN FUCKING
ROSS. Just because he's talking to BOR, why do
you care?
\_ Because I'm getting my news from an
interview with Ross conducted by O'Reilly.
\_ So what? You're hearing it from Ross'
mouth.
\_ It's been fun playing with you, but
work (hunting through someone else's
Perl spaghetti code) sounds like more
fun. Bye.
\_ Wow, touchy, no wonder your blood
boils so easily. --!ppp
\_ "should've drawn?" "lose the moral high-ground?"
It's a miracle you got "its" right, but it may have been an
accident. Seriously, I can look past "loose," but "should of"
is just too far out there.
\_ Bad grammar aside, I did not know that Powell's points
in his UN speech was a bunch of shit extracted from
a tortured suspect. So any word on who the hell
in the Bush Administration or Heritage Foundation decided
one day that torturing people got us good intel?
\_ They just wanted to set a precedent on torture.
Before long we'll be torturing confessions out of
our own people.
\_ Bad grammar or not, he's right on every point.
\_ Why do you care? Youtube is a free, money losing
service. They can do what they want. Michelle Malkin
is an evil annoying ugly real life troll who lives
to bait people so she can issue self righteous
commentary, the entire world would be better off
if she would move to North Korea.
\_ Because she hasn't done anything to violate their
terms of service. If they'd like to change their
terms to cover her, they're welcome to and then they
can apply and enforce that policy across the board.
\_ See below.
\_ And my reply to that below. |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/gyd -> hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/ Ace e-mailed me the instant this finished airing on O'Reilly with the subject header "must record". Anti-"torture" absolutists like Sullivan adamantly deny that harsh tactics produce reliable information. It's their way of avoiding the moral dilemma presented by a ticking time-bomb scenario. But they'll have to face it now, because in four short minutes Brian Ross utterly explodes that particular article of quasi-religious faith as fantasy. but Ross's sources include people within the CIA who are opposed to the practices. Learning that Ramzi Binalshibh cried like a three-year-old girl. Digg this Blowback Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from our readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 20, 2006 at 9:25 PM Screw it. The RINO's in the Senate are determined to cave in to the demands of terrorists, and ILLEGALS. We have no one to blame except for ourselves for worrying more about how Ann Coulter writes a column than we do about casting a vote for a real conservative. I used to think that symbolism over substance was a liberal trait. DannoJyd on September 20, 2006 at 9:27 PM Allah, I have to take issue with your title in which you call the CIA's interrogation techniques "torture techniques." I don't know if you saw the second season of "24'' but the very first scene of the first episode included a man who was tortured for information. He was strapped to a table, I think, and his feet were in bags of what I assumed was acid and various parts of his body where terribly beaten and bloodied. Having water poured over your face to mimick the sensation of drowning may be scary as hell, but it's not torture. kimpriestap on September 20, 2006 at 9:39 PM It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how effective these interrogations were, or how many lives were saved. People like Andrew Sullivan and his ilk have far to much invested in this to re-asses their position. If anyone is expecting Andy to post anything that even hints that perhaps this "torture" wasn't quite that, or that "Torture never works! I just don't know the exact manner in which it will be expressed. I for one think it is high time for AP's photoshopped version of the Andrew Sullivan HeartAche Alert. EFG on September 20, 2006 at 9:39 PM Did they try asking nicely? EFG on September 20, 2006 at 10:00 PM It is a very good thing I am not in charge of "torture". I have written better torture scenerious when just musing. I guarantee you, if we used what I would do to these guys, nothing else would have to be done and they'd be talking in less time than it would take for me to take off one square inch of skin, rub salt with hot oil in the wound. speed647 on September 20, 2006 at 10:11 PM All this outrage over pimpslaps and pinkbellies. God forbid we should ever get rough with one of these head-chopping animals. I question Colin Powell's moral basis for his opposition to a much-needed clarification of Geneva. Kid from Brooklyn on September 20, 2006 at 10:17 PM The best part: right then, on MSNBC, Olbermann was telling us torture doesn't work. It boggles the mind that Sully and Olbermann and others on the left would stake out this position in the face of that certainty. daveintexas on September 20, 2006 at 11:51 PM That chick from Human Rights Watch got her butt kicked and she knows it. As I was watching, I was yellin' at the TV "Well then what techniques DO we use, tickle their damn feet?" Yeah, that'll work: "Tell us where the next attack will be ... Kid, when I was in the Air Force, the pinkbelly was the harshest form of hazing ... They should line these guys up, by rank, start at with the lowest rank, pull out a gun and ask a question. All that crap about being eager to die for islam is all a bunch of BS It's only for the guilable suckers they get to act as suicide bombers. Tony737 on September 20, 2006 at 11:51 PM This country has lost it's soul. This country doesn't have a soul - remember the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state)? That was said in sarcasm, but I have actually heard people say that we ARE no better then the terrorist, because we are not nice and give them lolypops (halel of course) for information. My answer to that is "The middle east is not glowing, your wife is not wearing a burka, and I did not just have you shot for speaking against our government, so I guesse we ARE still better then they are" Wyrd on September 21, 2006 at 9:30 AM The real truth is that "torture," properly applied, does extract information from people who have it. The Germans in WWII got everything that they wanted from the resistance people they interrogated. So did the North Vietnamese (even John McCain spilled his guts). The real question is whether we are using this as an interrogation technique against known terrorists, or simply using it to abuse prisoners. In the first case, we should do everything necessary to protect our citizens. For the record, it should be noted that none of our enemies have ever complied with the Geneva Conventions, even if they had signed them. The argument that we risk our soldiers being abused is stupid. old_dawg on September 21, 2006 at 9:35 AM I keep wanting to ask Sen McCain if he would liek to play some solitaire. The way he has been acting lately, I wonder if he hasn't been compromised. Wyrd on September 21, 2006 at 9:50 AM Torture (or "torture") can work. I've said it before, but I'll repeat: torture should be illegal, but I'd hope that someone would break the law for a "ticking time bomb" scenario. Mark Jaquith on September 21, 2006 at 9:58 AM If waterboarding acceptable for our special forces, it is OK for terrorists and not torture. I am waiting for McCain to give captured terrorists their Second Amendment rights. McCain, like the aged Goldwater before him, has spent too much time in the Arizona sun. Valiant on September 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM Isn't there a clause in divorce formental cruelty? Torture was written about by Jack London, see The Star Rover. It's in the public domain, won't cost two cents to read, and is done by one of the best american writers. Besides, those who know say it's how often you practice. tormod on September 21, 2006 at 10:41 AM The issue being that there's often no way to tell if the person is telling the truth, lying, or lying "the truth" that you want to hear. We'll check out their story and the perp' will still be incarcerated if its a lie. shooter on September 21, 2006 at 10:53 AM I've said it before, but I'll repeat: torture should be illegal, but I'd hope that someone would break the law for a "ticking time bomb" scenario. Mark Jaquith on September 21, 2006 at 9:58 AM How understanding of you! In the meantime, said someone who would break the law would have to correctly guess beforehand whether or not they would be right. So what will you do if they honestly believe the detainee is holding critical, time-sensitive information but fail to get any out of them? thirteen28 on September 21, 2006 at 10:55 AM Why stop there? why not cut off some digits everytime we think they lie? Look, a little chest slap, sleep deprivation, cold rooms and listening to Drowning Pool for 24 hours straight I would consider torture, but waterboarding is right there on the line for me. As I noted before we aren't only American by virtue of the fact we live here, we are American by our values as well. I find it hard to support torture regardless of what the jihadis do to our troops. Sure it makes me mad, but stooping to their level makes us no better than these animals. bentman78 on September 21, 2006 at 11:41 AM Let me rephrase, a little chest slap, sleep deprivation, cold rooms and listening to Drowning Pool for 24 hours straight I would NOT consider torture. bentman78 on September 21, 2006 at 11:43 AM For those that ask the question, "what's the difference between us and them if we torture?" We torture to gather information that will save the lives of civilians inside and outside of the US. They torture just to make the person feel pain before they murder them. I view it ... |