Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Righty's:

Lemme ask you some other stuff. Here's YOUR parameters, as I learned them from you:

1) You are in charge of interrogation.

2) SAVING AMERICAN LIVES is your objective in accordance with the law.

3) You KNOW (as in tom telling us he KNOWS), that the guy you are about to waterboard can SAVE AMERICAN LIVES, if you can get him to spill the beans.

4) You're waterboarding him for 60th time. He ISN'T spilling the beans and hasn't yet, because as Gal said, he can hold his breath for 40 seconds.

5) The clock is approaching 40 seconds, and he's struggling. If only you could waterboard him for 10 more seconds or maybe 20, you KNOW you could get him to spill the beans, and SAVE AMERICAN LIVES.

6) Are you gonna stop when the 40 second bell rings? What's important here - AMERICAN LIVES or the law??? If you did stop, would you be a pantywaist terrorist loving jerk, or a good soldier? If you went beyond the 40 seconds, would you be an American patriot or a criminal?

7) If you got information from him after 60 seconds, does that make a difference?

Yes, my questions are inconvenient. Maybe if you had asked them FIRST, you wouldn't be torturers.

excon

---

Hello:

I'm still waiting for an answer...

excon

Your questions only become an issue AFTER Obama and his Administration spilled the beans.

You see, until that point, none of the terrorists knew they only had to hold their breath for 40 seconds. NOW they do.

And personally, I never would have put the 40-second limitation in there in the first place.

So, no, I wouldn't stop. I'd have kept going. And I would sleep quite well that night as well. But maybe that's why I ain't in the CIA.

Is my answer clear and concise enough for you?

On the other hand, you still haven't answered the question that Tom and I asked. If "torture" as defined by you is off the table, what would you do to get the information we need in enough time to prevent the next attack?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Is my answer clear and concise enough for you?

On the other hand, you still haven't answered the question that Tom and I asked. If "torture" as defined by you is off the table, what would you do to get the information we need in enough time to prevent the next attack?

---

Hello again, El:

Yup. Clear as a bell. You'da BROKE the law!

Interesting... Because my answer to you is, I would have OBEYED the law!

Guess we'll have to switch names...

Exwolverinecon

I make no bones about that fact. I don't even think it's torture in an historical or legal context.

Remember when I told you that there are times that you have to decide whether to break the law vs. uphold it? You just have to be willing to deal with the consequences of that choice? I am willing to deal with the consequences of breaking that law and pouring water for 60 seconds instead of 40, in order to save thousands or millions of American lives.

You're just willing to break the law so that you can grab a took.

But you still haven't answered my question. You keep shucking and jiving.

If you wouldn't "torture" as you define it, how would you get the information necessary to save lives and prevent another attack?

Telling me that "[you'da] obayed the law" doesn't tell me what you would have done. Please answer the question.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Telling me that "[you'da] obayed the law" doesn't tell me what you would have done. Please answer the question.

---

Hello again, El:

I'm not an interrogator. What I would have done isn't important. What WE should do as a nation among nations, is obey the law.

That means our interrogators may continue to use the lawful means they've always used. I don't know what they are. I do know, they're not torture.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I'm not an interrogator. What I would have done isn't important. What WE should do as a nation among nations, is obey the law.

---

It is important. It is, in fact, the entire point of the matter.

You cannot give someone the job of protecting an entire country against terrorist attacks and then tell them that they are not allowed to use any means at their disposal unless you give them a set of tools that they CAN use. You are taking away the basic tools of CIA interrogators who have a hard job to do. What are you suggesting that they replace these tools with?

Quote:

---

That means our interrogators may continue to use the lawful means they've always used. I don't know what they are. I do know, they're not torture.

Excon

---

And I have showed you that they DO include what you have defined as torture. Throughout our history that is what interrogators have used. And with good effect as well. Only NOW have we come to a point when these tools, which have always been used by our troops and intelligence operatives, are being taken off the table. Well, what should they replace them with?

And face it, you can't answer the question because there is no answer. And there is no answer because the situation you wish to create is impossible to deal with and has never occurred in our entire history.

If you can come up with an effective alternative, fine, we'll look at it. Till then, why don't you let the people who are protecting your sorry, ingrate butt get back to their jobs without interference.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

the lawful means they've always used. I don't know what they are. I do know, they're not torture.

excon

---

You don't know what methods interrogators use or have used in the past... but you are SURE that the methods used on the Gitmo terrorists aren't them, AND that the methods used on the Gitmo terrorists constitute torture.

You can't have it both ways, excon. Either you know or you don't know.

You're not an expert interrogator by your own admission. You don't know what interrogators do to get information. You don't know what methods have been used in the past. But when it comes to Bush, you KNOW he's guilty of approving torture.

I think you should stick with "I don't know" and leave it to the experts. Because they DO know, and you don't.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I thought it was the right wing who believed in American exceptionalism. But, if you think we've always been torturers, then we've never been the good guys, and we're no more exceptional than your ordinary banana republic.

I, on the other hand, DO believe that we're the good guys. Always have been. Always will be.

excon