Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What you just did was put words in my mouth. If you don't see the difference between what we did and what they did then perhaps it is your moral compass that's out of wack. Too much relativism if you ask me.

---

Actually he seems to be quite categorical in his moral judgements. If anyone is invoking relativism here, it is those that are in favour of torture, RELATIVE to the situation at hand. Before you start throwing around moral terms, it is always good to have some idea of what they actually mean.

No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved is not immoral.But equating a cold room ,loud music,pushing someone against a fake wall, or making someone think they are going to drown... with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.What you guys are doing is dumbing down torture to any method of interrogation technique that gets someone the say something they did not intend to reveal willingly .

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets... what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets...what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?

---

Hello again, tom:

I have answered. You just don't like my answer. Our law doesn't call for special treatment for the really bad guys. Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.

You, on the other hand, want to list certain people, or offenses, who are exceptionally bad... In fact, SO bad, that our law shouldn't apply to them, because, well THEY'RE BAD.

That isn't how our laws work here.

excon

PS> I'm not an interrogator, but I don't think tea and crumpets are served.

PPS> You never did answer question #35, did you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leviston

Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?

YouTube - Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?

---

Interesting question.

First of all, the question used in the poll (according to what Cafferty reported) was regarding support for "enhanced interrogation techniques". The word "torture" seems to not have been used in the poll. I wonder what the results of the poll would have been if the word "torture" had been used instead.

Secondly, the number of people who support enhanced interrogation matches very closely the number that doesn't... 49% to 47% I think the report said. So the country is evenly split on the issue. Also, the issue splits along party lines... Republicans favor it, while Democrats do not.

I wonder what the demographics are for churchgoers... what percentage are Dems vs. Reps. If, as I suspect, most frequent churchgoers are Republicans, then the issue of enhanced interrogation has nothing to do with whether they go to church, but rather is a function of their conservative leanings. It just so happens that people with conservative leanings tend to go to church more often.

It's sort of like asking why more people with Southern accents drink mint juleps than those with Northern accents. It just so happens that a mint julep is a regional drink based in the south. More Southerners drink it. Therefore, most of the people who drink it will have a Southern accent. The fact of an accent is not the determining factor over who drinks mint juleps. The accent is a function of region, and region is the deciding factor on who drinks mint juleps.

Similarly, churchgoing is not the deciding factor on who supports enhanced interrogation techniques. Political affiliation is the deciding factor, and it just so happens that Conservatives are the political group that is more likely to go to church regularly.

In other words, there is no cause and effect relationship between churchgoing and support of enhanced interrogations. There IS a relationship between CONSERVATISM and support of enhanced interrogations.

I'm not going to get into the question of whether the enhanced interrogations constitute "torture" or not, because that is beyond the scope of the question.

Hope this answers your question.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Our law doesn't call for special treatment for the really bad guys. Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.

---

But this isn't law enforcement . It is war.

Quote:

---

You never did answer question #35, did you?

---

#35 you exaggeration The Red Cross confirmed that .They were waterboarded fewer than 15 times in all, according to the Red Cross, which has spoken to them.The large number the MSM ran with is the number of times water was poured on them, with each pour lasting only seconds. Abu Zubaida lasted 35 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

but this isn't law enforcement . it is war.

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know. I thought there were laws that govern our conduct in war. Yes, as I recall, there definitely are. Those are the ones I'm talking about.

excon

PS> Notice how I said laws that govern OUR conduct in war... I said that, because those laws don't make any exceptions for how we treat the really bad guy, either.

Quote:

---

PS> I'm not an interrogator, but I don't think tea and crumpets are served

---

How about Monty Python's Big Comfey Couch from the Spanish Inquisition skit ?

Quote:

---

laws that govern our conduct in war

---

Yes; and Justice Dept lawyers used those guidelines in drafting the memos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leviston

So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.

---

Have you ever seen a Star Trek: The Original Series episode called "The Savage Curtain"? (It's the one with Lincoln and Surak.) The basic lesson of the episode is that there is no difference between how "good" fights and how "evil" fights. The difference is not in the methods by which they fight, but rather what it is they are fighting for.

Historically, this lesson is true. The methods used by the Allies to combat the Axis Powers in WWII were no different from those used by the Axis Powers. Tanks, planes, bombs, grenades, guns, strategies, tactics, hand-to-hand techniques, training methods, INTERROGATIONS OF POWs, etc. were relatively the same on both sides. The difference is in what they were fighting for. One side fought for world domination and oppression, the other for freedom.

So when you ask "What would be the difference between us (the USA) and them (the terrorists)?" my answer is there is no difference in technique or method. The difference is in what we are fighting for. They are fighting for oppression and forced conversion to Islam, while we are fighting for freedom and the protection of innocent civillians.

As for whether I think simulated drowning is torture or not, I would like to see what our former colleague on this website, KINDJ, would say about it. You see, as a former SEAL, he went through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) school as part of his training. SERE training is the part of special warfare training that teaches operatives how to resist torture when captured. During SERE training, operatives are "tortured" with simulated drowning, tight confinement, sleep deprivation, positional stress positions, beatings, cold, heat, exposure, and all the other methods used on the terrorists at Gitmo. So we have a colleague who has been through this stuff and has a working knowledge of what these techniques entail and how effective they are.

(I don't want to answer for him, but in conversations that I have had with him in the past, he told me that those techniques, while very unpleasant, leave no lasting damage or harm. Therefore, under the LEGAL definition of "torture" these techniques do not constitute torture. Nevertheless, we should ask him directly for his response.)

The word "torture" is being redefined in a way that has never been applied before in our history to a military setting. We have used similar (and worse) techniques to interrogate POWs since the beginning of our existence as a nation. In every war, we have used "harsh interrogation techniques" to obtain information necessary to defeat the enemy and disrupt his plans. This idea that "torture" is something new for the CIA or military interrogators is completely false. We have ALWAYS used these techniques to get the information we need. Again the difference between us and the enemy is not in the methods we use to fight, but rather in what we are fighting for.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.

---

Except when a little empathy is needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and Justice Dept lawyers used those guidelines in drafting the memos.

---

Hello again, tom:

And, that same Justice Department recommended disciplinary action against these very lawyers, including reprimands and disbarment.

You don't get disbarred for writing bad law. You get disbarred because you did something illegal or unethical...

The entire house of cards is coming down. Bybee will be impeached. Yoo will be fired. And, the other guy will never find work.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Except when a little empathy is needed?

---

Tee hee hee... ;) ( I think ex is going to ignore that comment)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

except when a little empathy is needed?

---

Nice one!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Yeah, the deniers don't torture. They engage in torture "light", and torture "light" is just fine.

For sure if 41 seconds of waterboarding is torture, then 39 seconds is torture light. If banging a guy into a wall is torture, hanging on to his collar when you do it is only torture light.

But, of course, they are in denial.... They see ONE act, and don't think it's torture, so ALL the acts put together couldn't be torture if any one act isn't.... But, of course, they are in denial...

I guess they think being hung from a ceiling by handcuffs when it's time to sleep is ok... But, when they take you down, they don't let you sleep.... Nope, they take you in for your morning waterboard... After your waterboard, they put you in a little tiny box with bugs... Then its time for your NEXT waterboard... After your morning waterboard, you're hung up again in your cell... By the way, the temp in your cell is freezing... Then it's time for some wall banging, maybe a head slap or two, and then your before lunch waterboard...

Yup, they're in denial... And, I have no idea why churchgoers are in the forefront of it. Kinda makes you NEVER want to go to church, doesn't it?

excon

---

Makes me wonder how many freezing days there are annually in Cuba:=?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Makes me wonder how many freezing days there are annually in Cuba:=?

---

Hello gal:

Yup, waterboarding isn't torture because they can hold their breath for 40 seconds. Besides that, they don't have air conditioning in Cuba.

You epitomize denial.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved is not immoral.But equating a cold room ,loud music,pushing someone against a fake wall, or making someone think they are going to drown ...with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.What you guys are doing is dumbing down torture to any method of interrogation technique that gets someone the say something they did not intend to reveal willingly .

I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets...what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?

---

I'm not one of those who think that what went on at gitmo qualifies as torture.

I think I could get a lot of information out of these terrorists using nothing more than a handful of lard or a piece of bacon.

Would that be torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Yeah, the deniers don't torture. They engage in torture "light", and torture "light" is just fine.

For sure if 41 seconds of waterboarding is torture, then 39 seconds is torture light. If banging a guy into a wall is torture, hanging on to his collar when you do it is only torture light.

But, of course, they are in denial.... They see ONE act, and don't think it's torture, so ALL the acts put together couldn't be torture if any one act isn't.... But, of course, they are in denial...

I guess they think being hung from a ceiling by handcuffs when it's time to sleep is ok... But, when they take you down, they don't let you sleep.... Nope, they take you in for your morning waterboard... After your waterboard, they put you in a little tiny box with bugs... Then its time for your NEXT waterboard... After your morning waterboard, you're hung up again in your cell... By the way, the temp in your cell is freezing... Then it's time for some wall banging, maybe a head slap or two, and then your before lunch waterboard...

Yup, they're in denial... And, I have no idea why churchgoers are in the forefront of it. Kinda makes you NEVER want to go to church, doesn't it?

excon

---

Now I know you don't know what you're talking about... and everyone else who has read the "torture memos" and the accounts of what occurred in the interrogations knows it too.

You clearly have not read the "torture memos". You also clearly have not read actual accounts of what occurred. Your own description of the "events" makes that clear.

There were no "morning and afternoon waterboardings". It was not permisable to do a waterboarding session more than twice a week, and never twice in the same day. People were never hung up by handcuffs. You made it up. Perhaps based on movies you've seen, perhaps based on stories you've heard about REAL torture. But it is not the reality of what occurred.

On the other hand, your position makes sense now. IF you assume that your description is accurate, then sure, I can understand why you would be against that sort of thing.

But since that is NOT what occurred, but rather only your own imagination at work, we cannot base decisions of national security on your fantasies.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello gal:

Yup, waterboarding isn't torture because they can hold their breath for 40 seconds. Besides that, they don't have air conditioning in Cuba.

You epitomize denial.

excon

---

May I respectfully suggest you try about 4 squares of Ex Lax?:)

Quote:

---

And, that same Justice Department recommended disciplinary action against these very lawyers, including reprimands and disbarment.

---

Yes... no prosecution because they could find nothing to justify it. Instead they will be remanded to liberal state bars to do their own versions of kangaroo justice. Lolololol

I expect a slew of resignations from the Obama justice dept .because they are clearly politicizing giving legal advice to an administration. Why would Obama justice dept attys think that they will be protected when the next administration comes in ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Why would Obama justice dept attys think that they will be protected when the next administration comes in ?

---

Hello tom:

They'd be protected the same way you and I are protected - by obeying the law. I don't know why that's so hard for you supposed law and order people to grasp.

excon