I am a conservative republican and I hate Nancy Pelosy. That being said, who cares if she knew about the enhanced interrogations? People are losing sight of the real issue here. The past is the past. Although these techniques have been under close scrutiny by those who feel it was torture, I for one feel for no remorse for the men who, after being waterboarded, gave up information on a terror attack on the west coast similar to 9/11. I was in the Marine Corps for four years and spent two tours in Iraq defending your right to say we should not hurt the very men that decapitated my fellow Marines (and a civilian reporter). There is the one thing that no one on the news points out; NO ONE WANTS TO HURT ANYONE. I have been water boarded. A friend of mine is a Force Recon Scout Sniper and as part of his training learned how to and was waterboarded as well. Anyways, my only point is to say that weather or not Speaker Pelosy knew of this happening should not matter. We are trying to win a war, and some feelings are going to get hurt. If you are against waterboarding (which I have had worse happen to me in Iraq), this is my favorite question to ask and see absolutley no response except; Well.... not waterboard them. WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST THE CIA DO BESIDES POURING WATER DOWN THE NOSE OF A TERRORIST WHO SUPPOSEDLY HAS INFORMATION THAT COULD SAVE AMERICAN LIVES BUT WILL NOT GIVE IT UP?
William Derrick
POS2001 12pm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"the men who, after being waterboarded, gave up information on a terror attack on the west coast similar to 9/11"
Claims like this have to be backed up by evidence if you want people to beleive them.
I'm not aware of one person, ever, who said that the people who decapitated anyone shouldn't be punished or hurt. That's a straw man. The argument is that people who haven't been proven to be terrorists or convicted of anything shouldn't be punished until they are. That and the claim that torture violates American values and makes us just like the people we are fighting.
The Army Field Manual (and many other sources) contains numerous interrogation techniques, almost all of which have been shown to have higher success rates than waterboarding.
I am familiar with the with Army field book but my question still stands... Why is it that the CIA, people more qualified than you or I, would use waterboarding instead of another method? The CIA and Dick Cheney (not someone who I particularly enjoy but still a credible source) have both stated that without waterboarding Khlid Sheik Muhammad would not have given up the location of a terror cell on the west coast set up to carry out an attack similar to 9/11. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3790 This website along with thousands of others will talk about the CIA memo I am talking about. I do not believe in torture but I also do not believe waterboarding IS torture. If we sank to the level of our enimies we would cutting heads off and placing IED's on every street running through Baghdad and Kabul, Afghanistan.
William Derrick
POS2001 12
what you experienced in iraq has nothing to do with the fact that the CIA misled Pelosy on the torture technique waterboarding and its use during the Bush administration. if thats what you need to do to get information out of terrorist then so be it, but state the facts on its use and if other techniques are better, then forget waterboarding and use those other techniques. there was no need to mislead Pelosy on the matter unless the Bush administration hasd something to hide or cover up. people do die and people do get hurt but its the same on both sides if not worse on ther other, why mislead?
Gabriel Rivera
POS2001
M-F 12pm
When you simply offer up a question, though, you are engaging in the avoidance of positive information fallacy. Just because someone else you are talking to might not know the answer to your question doesn't mean there isn't one. For people to believe you, you have to provide the evidence to support your point.
Generally speaking, the CIA hasn't used waterboarding. They didn't before the Bush administration authorized it. In the past, the U.S. has prosecuted waterboarding as torture and as a war crime. Cheney is a politician, politicians are never credible sources. Just like you shouldn't take Al Gore's word on global warming, you shouldn't take Dick Cheney's word on torture. Also, citing a blog as your source is not particularly valid.
Citing the White House, who would have no reason to lie in a way to undermine Cheney's story, on the other hand, is quite valid. During the press conference linked below, the White House confirmed that the west coast terror attack was foiled before Muhammad was even captured, making it impossible that waterboarding him helped foil the plot. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-4.html
I won't debate whether or not waterboarding is torture or not, but I will say that the U.S. has considered it such in the past and it is considered so under international laws under which we are signatories. Treaties approved properly by the Senate are the supreme law of the land under Article VI, therefore if we signed a treaty that says waterboarding is torture, then it is, legally speaking.
I believe in what Malcolm X stated, "By any means necessary." Our troops are oversea fighting for our protection against these terrorist. Who cares how they get information out of them. But I do disagree with being lied to about how they are getting the information. I feel the CIA should have been more truthful to the public.
Chanequia Jones
POS2001
12pm M-F
But Malcolm X lost. His tactics and approach to things would be considered a failure by any objective standard. Martin Luther King Jr. and his non-violent methods are what succeeded. As he grew older, Malcolm X rejected his earlier views and did not agree with his earlier views.
I am a conservative republican and I hate Nancy Pelosi. .... Anyways, my only point is to say that whether or not Speaker Pelosi knew of this happening should not matter... If you are against waterboarding (which I have had worse happen to me in Iraq), this is my favorite question to ask and see absolutely no response except...
You should work on developing stronger spelling skills if you want your argument to be taken seriouslly. Also, using capital letters to emphasize your points is indictive of someone with a lack of control of language. It is the grammartical equivalent of yelling, and yelling does not usually help support your argument or convince others of your points.
My answer to your question, which is so modestly capitalized "WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST THE CIA DO BESIDES POURING WATER DOWN THE NOSE OF A TERRORIST WHO SUPPOSEDLY HAS INFORMATION THAT COULD SAVE AMERICAN LIVES BUT WILL NOT GIVE IT UP?"
I suggest following the Geneva Convention, prosecuting detainness through Military Tribunals, and following the rule of law in order to obtain information. If the detainees chose not to comply, we should not violate international law or administer torture. Incidents and prochedures such as those demonstrated at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib serve to further inflame the muslim war, and give them further reason to distrust the U.S.
Max Herrle
POS2001
12 PM
Max, while your criticisms, including pointing out the capitalization standards, are technically correct, they are basically ad hominem attacks because they avoid the substance of the claims made. Also, it makes little sense to criticize someone else for such things and then to misspell detainees and improperly capitalize military tribunals.
Also, you should put the initially quoted materials in quotes, so it looks like someone else said them. When I first started reading this comment, I thought you were saying you were a conservative Republican, which I thought was odd.
Post a Comment