Torture Doesn't Work - Now Get The Fuck Out.
- Thread starter nickycakes
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't it Saddam Hussein? Or why the hell did Bush invade Iraq? It wasn't for oil, that's for sure.
Ah, right, it was to liberate the people there.
Btw I know about 50 other countries were people should be relieved from their government. But unfortunately there's no oil...
I've written and deleted or written and not posted a half dozen times to this thread.
Whether or not torture works isn't the issue. The media and government have tried to frame it that way.
Is torture right or wrong? Do the ends justify the means?
If raping 15 year old girls will stop terrorism, does that justify it?
If (as Bush legal council John Yoo wrote) the testicles of a young boy were crushed with visegrips in order to get actionable intelligence, would that justify it?
This is a question of civilization or barbarism.
The government and politicians love to frame everything as ends vs. means.
That is never the question.
It is always about right vs. wrong.
Whether or not torture works isn't the issue. The media and government have tried to frame it that way.
Is torture right or wrong? Do the ends justify the means?
If raping 15 year old girls will stop terrorism, does that justify it?
If (as Bush legal council John Yoo wrote) the testicles of a young boy were crushed with visegrips in order to get actionable intelligence, would that justify it?
This is a question of civilization or barbarism.
The government and politicians love to frame everything as ends vs. means.
That is never the question.
It is always about right vs. wrong.
Whether or not torture works (and I doubt that it does) the practices that are coming to light make us look like a banana republic. Will you take a position that protects personal liberties, or would you rather be an angry white man chortling to Rush Limbaugh while the country morphs into Paraguay?
Wow, my thread must really have bothered you Nicky.
I'll forgive the posting of a NYT link just to point out several obvious flaws in this story.
This is pure speculation. He has no idea if the intel gained from using the EIT could have been gained from regular tactics.
Furthermore, if they could have been extracted using traditional tactics, why bother using EIT anyways? Not only does this Ali Soufan allege that the CIA unnecessarily used harsher techniques, he provides no motive as to why they would do this.
Furthermore, let's consider the source. This guy positions himself as the sole authority on this subject, and I'm sure the greasy liberals at the NYT were creaming their pants ready to throw him on the front page, but let's take a closer look. How much experience does he really have?
An FBI guy who worked with the CIA for 3 months. 3 months. That's it.
It's interesting to see how liberals debate.
Quote the Director of the CIA, and the response is 'Dude, you're gonna believe what the CIA says?"
Quote the Director of National Intelligence, and the response is 'Dude, you're gonna believe what the DNI says?"
I know, I know - this is all intelligent stuff they're responding with. Forget the fact that the Director of the CIA would have a much broader, widespread view of the interrogation process and be in a much better position to judge the effectiveness - or lack of - enhanced interrogation techniques.
Forget all that - what do we have here? Nickycakes, classic liberal on this subject, quoting some FBI rookie who got his hands wet for 3 months, and suddenly liberals are ready to crown this FBI rookie King of the Interrogation Debate.
What's going on is obvious. What people actually say doesn't really matter to liberals; they have a preconceived idea and they will just fit people into it. They have their rock-solid beliefs on how they feel about EIT and any people who differ from it are merely ignored as inconveniences.
Looks like standard programming to me. But I doubt it will be received that way, as Nickycakes is mostly preaching to the choir. They'll eat up this meager article quoting some FBI has-been eager for attention and hold him up at if he's God.
Face it, fellas. You've lost this debate. The American people have spoken. Almost 60% of them believe Obama endangered the country by releasing these techniques to the world. A pitiful 30% thought it helped our image abroad. You can't hide from the truth, even if it is pretty much an echo chamber in here.
I'll forgive the posting of a NYT link just to point out several obvious flaws in this story.
This is pure speculation. He has no idea if the intel gained from using the EIT could have been gained from regular tactics.
Furthermore, if they could have been extracted using traditional tactics, why bother using EIT anyways? Not only does this Ali Soufan allege that the CIA unnecessarily used harsher techniques, he provides no motive as to why they would do this.
Furthermore, let's consider the source. This guy positions himself as the sole authority on this subject, and I'm sure the greasy liberals at the NYT were creaming their pants ready to throw him on the front page, but let's take a closer look. How much experience does he really have?
An FBI guy who worked with the CIA for 3 months. 3 months. That's it.
It's interesting to see how liberals debate.
Quote the Director of the CIA, and the response is 'Dude, you're gonna believe what the CIA says?"
Quote the Director of National Intelligence, and the response is 'Dude, you're gonna believe what the DNI says?"
I know, I know - this is all intelligent stuff they're responding with. Forget the fact that the Director of the CIA would have a much broader, widespread view of the interrogation process and be in a much better position to judge the effectiveness - or lack of - enhanced interrogation techniques.
Forget all that - what do we have here? Nickycakes, classic liberal on this subject, quoting some FBI rookie who got his hands wet for 3 months, and suddenly liberals are ready to crown this FBI rookie King of the Interrogation Debate.
What's going on is obvious. What people actually say doesn't really matter to liberals; they have a preconceived idea and they will just fit people into it. They have their rock-solid beliefs on how they feel about EIT and any people who differ from it are merely ignored as inconveniences.
Looks like standard programming to me. But I doubt it will be received that way, as Nickycakes is mostly preaching to the choir. They'll eat up this meager article quoting some FBI has-been eager for attention and hold him up at if he's God.
Face it, fellas. You've lost this debate. The American people have spoken. Almost 60% of them believe Obama endangered the country by releasing these techniques to the world. A pitiful 30% thought it helped our image abroad. You can't hide from the truth, even if it is pretty much an echo chamber in here.
Well, don't just blame Rush. This is bi-partisan. Obama is protecting Bush and Cheney, because Obama still allows torture at Baghram (sp?!) iirc, and he definitely still supports Rendition, which is just outsourcing the torture to countries like Syria. Don't believe for a minute that his regime has changed anything substantial that the Bushies were doing.
If the Nazis had tried to argue that torture or genocide worked no one would have bought it. No one bought when the Nazis said at Nuremberg, exactly what the FBI agent in that article is saying.
"Just following orders".
Sure he does. He's a professional, expert interrogator. If anyone can make that statement, he can.
Yes, because if a guy is the Director of the CIA, he MUST have a more 'well-rounded view' of processes like waterboarding (and ALL other enhanced methods used) than everyone else in the world (because almost everyone else is going to have less experience in the CIA)... What a load of crap. Just because a guy is the Director of the CIA doesn't mean he's qualified to judge shit.. if anything, he'd more likely than not, be bias.
Since waterboarding is an offense on one's rights and there is no doubt that the CIA is going to detain innocents -- there is no way in hell this torture technique (it is drowning after all) should ever be used. It's not a liberal argument, it's an argument for liberty.
hellblazer makes hella points here but of course the liberal housewives and acai pushers are experts on the subject of enchanced interogation, so case closed!
- Status