|
|
|
|
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 501 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 3:18:19 PM | "and conservatives who couldn’t possibly admit that his actions were unconscionable, give him another “free pass”…
With what happened that particular day, I find that President Bush sitting
in ONE place for seven minutes is honestly irrelevant.
By the way, I"m not a conservative, but I can also state, I"m not
a liberal either, therefore, just wanted to let you know that your
stereotype of me is incorrect for the record.
"I’m shocked!!!"
Why are you shocked? Did you actually find yourself taking a stance? lol
One more thing to state here, I never voted for Bush, I've been very critical
of his actions many times to none, hence why I didn't vote for him
for president.
I do believe that the "seven minutes" he sat there in that classroom
could have been spent running to a phone booth and emerging as superman?
not likely, therefore, seven minutes is nothing to criticize him
over, but I do know that if it wasn't that, someone such as yourself
would criticize for something else, maybe the expression on his
face was not to your liking? Should he have pretended to faint?
my point is, you're just reaching here, and it's not working. :) | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 502 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 3:26:15 PM | "As to killing combatants in war, I have NO problem with that either. "
let me get this straight, you have no problem with "MURDER"? But you have
a problem with a procedure that takes less than 45 seconds to perform and
it does not kill them? This truly does not make sense on your part.
"I think a great mistake was done labeling these people as "enemy
combatants". That dignifies them far too much in my opinion. They
are common criminals, and mass murderers."
Actually, they are labeled as such so that they fall under a different
criteria of law meaning military tribunals, as compared to our regular
court system here in the states which is subjected to the laws of the
Constitution, whereas in military tribunals, the laws are much more
flexible and open in dealing with enemy combatants.
"I do feel that anyone captured, if wounded, should receive the same level of treatment that anyone else would. "
I agree with this as well.
"I also feel that any torture in custody is illegal, immoral, and unacceptable. "
This is where you once again do not make sense in your stance MG,
you state it's ok to murder someone, but torturing them is not ok,,I think
you need to make your mind up here. I too agree that torture is immoral,
but,,I know it's necessary, therefore, you will never view me stating
as you just have, in fact, I feel during war it's not only ok to
torture enemy combatants to gain useful intelligence, but I also believe
in shooting and killing them during battle,and I do believe my stance
is a true stance where yours is not. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 3:30:06 PM | | Thats the difference between the left and right, the left panics... George W. sucks as president that i agree, but on 9/11 he reacted the right way, the last thing this country needed was a president panicing infront of school children... I like after the '06 election how the dems said they were gonna stop the war it was a referendum by the people, are the democrat politicians soo stupid too know that they didn't win the house and senate over the war, they won the elections over illegal immigration... Most Americans while not in favor of this war, still want thier country too win, thats what wars are about winning and losing, and no matter which party is in power, if we are at war I want us, the United States of America too win at all cost and that includes waterboarding if need be.... | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 3:41:38 PM |
This is where you once again do not make sense in your stance MG,
you state it's ok to murder someone, but torturing them is not ok,,I think
you need to make your mind up here.
My mind IS made up.
Killing someone in combat is not murder. I defy you to find any law anywhere, even in the Geneva Convention(s) that says that.
Executing someone judged guilty of a crime is not murder , either. I disagree with the death penalty in criminal cases, but not here. It's the same as a spy being executed during wartime, an act that is totally legal to do - if procedure is followed.
I'm a supporter of the military, as you can see in many of my posts here. I'm also a military buff, with extensive knowledge gathered from reading and talking to vets and soldiers (even American ones).
I remember watching news footage on CNN during the Iraq invasion where they showed a video clip of an Iraqi soldier who had minutes before been trying to kill American troops who was very badly wounded .
An American medic rushed to his aid, while shots were still being fired. He was given the same treatment an American soldier would have received.
I expected no less from American troops in battle, and I found it to be no surprise.
It's the same type of response I've read about in almost case I've ever heard of from WW1 right through to the Iraq invasion , with few exceptions. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 4:25:50 PM | I defy you to find any law anywhere Maybe thats what the real issue is, your morality is based on current laws. All we need to do now is have laws passed that make waterboarding legal then the argument will be over.The Geneva Convention was designed to cover issues that had occured previously in War and that may occur in future Wars. I do not think that they had any idea what terrorist would be like and that terrorists may not be tied directly to any Armies or Country when they wrote their laws.So I think that using the Geneva Convention as a basis for the legality of how to treat terrorists is not appropraite. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 506 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 4:29:42 PM | "My mind IS made up."
Sounds like your mind is screwed up, no offense, due to this reasoning.
to say that murder of any kind is ok, and then jump on a soapbox and declare that torture should not be performed due to the poor enemy combatants are suffering is a flip-flop stance therefore enabling no one to take your stance seriously. WHy is it ok to kill someone but not ok to torture them? Doesn't make sense now does it? 
Now I see what happens when you do not copy and paste, you are forced to argue your point, and now it's hard to determine if you even have a point.....You support murder? You
are against torture of any kind? Make your mind up MG. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 507 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 4:37:09 PM | I also wanted to make this point. If you think that soldiers fighting against one another in battle is humane, you need to read up about war. There are times when two sides fighting against each other is so pissed off shooting them is too easy and is not enough punishment, try being an enemy soldier on the battlefield and getting surrounded by a bunch of pissed off enemies who just lost their friends, TRUST ME, torture would be a great alternative for the enemy, so if you think soldiers battling on a battle field is "humane", it's actually worse more times to none than torture, so for you to condone this it just doesn't make sense either.
"An American medic rushed to his aid, while shots were still being fired. He was given the same treatment an American soldier would have received. "
Why are you bringing up this point? We both agreed that injured military members SHOULD be entitled to fair and humane treatment, therefore, no need to keep repeating it.
I'm more interested in your stance that murder is ok but torture isn't.
"Killing someone in combat is not murder"
Oh yes it is. Murder is murder, no matter if someone is acting along, or in the name of their country, this is why you will not view many war veterans screaming they are pro life, largely due to the fact, if they fought in battle, they have shot at people as well as possibly killed people, and if they didn't do either, they more than likely would have if they had a chance to do so. Even I as a war veteran will not sugar coat someone murdering in the name of their country, I never even said it was moral to do as such, for I am someone who understands that things such as this can not be sugarcoated, and even in stating this, I still believe in war as well as murder meaning shooting at the enemy to kill them and I believe in torturing, and I will NEVER stand on a soapbox saying that any of this is moral behavior, it's not, but I as a war veteran will take responsibility for my actions someday, and I must say, I do not regret what I have done for my country, but I will NEVER stand in front of God and say killing of any kind is moral, because it is not, where murder during war is justified, it's still murder and immoral, but war vets do it anyways, so that others do not have to, and I feel it's up to God to forgive, not humans on this earth, especially those who do not and will not fight, therefore, once again, murder is murder, one can not sugarcoat that fact. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 4:41:15 PM | can someone here tell me what "laws" have to do with war? the only "law" that the enemy follows is "sharia" law which pretty much says anything is ok against infidels.
did we fight our past wars based on "laws"? what law were senator mc clain's captors following when they were tortured in the hanoi hilton? the only "law" was that we would continue our highly successful bombing and could use that at the negotiating table....the only real guarantee that we might get our guys back alive. war is not a civil issue. shouldnt be treated as such. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:09:17 PM | Sounds like your mind is screwed up, no offense, due to this reasoning.
to say that murder of any kind is ok, and then jump on a soapbox and declare that torture should not be performed due to the poor enemy combatants are suffering is a flip-flop stance therefore enabling no one to take your stance seriously. WHy is it ok to kill someone but not ok to torture them? Doesn't make sense now does it?
Except for one thing....
That's the way every single war America ever fought in was fought , up until quite recently.
Check out that reference to George Washington after the Battle of Trenton, when the British were giving no quarter to his soldiers. He did not deem that as an excuse.
Check out Lincoln's orders, which became one of the bases from which the 1929 Geneva Convention was born. This occurred at a time where the South was certainly committing atrocities against Union troops, like executing black troops on sight, and starving them to death at Andersonville
Lincoln did not deem that as an excuse to follow in their path.
There are many other examples, like those others I provided in the same post.
As for taking my stance seriously, since you are an ex-service person in the US military, these are EXACTLY the same rules you were obliged to obey in combat. Had you not, you would of risked court martial and probable conviction for violating the rules of the UCMJ.
"SEC. 1002. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS
UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
"(a) In General. - No person in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention
in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any
treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and
listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence
Interrogation.
Under that Army Field Manual , if I understand your period of service, this rule would have applied :
FM 34-52
PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.
The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.
Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
Those same regulations you were bound to follow as a US service person allowed you to kill in combat , against any enemy you faced that was trying to kill you.
Doesn't make sense now does it?
Based on your service to your country, you are totally right, it sure doesn't. | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 9/11/2007
Msg: 510 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:14:55 PM |
can someone here tell me what "laws" have to do with war?
I'll tell you peter, as gently as I can...
you silly savage wannabe, even though you were probably the school yard bully, let me be the first to tell you that even war has laws that nations follow
these laws exist to regulate armed conflict between nations and address the treatment of noncombatants and prisoners of war…
these laws usually serve humanitarian purposes so I am not surprised that you don't think they're necessary, but unless you amend the Geneva Convention, they are still inforced~ | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 511 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:17:23 PM | "That's the way every single war America ever fought in was fought , up until quite recently"
Ok, and this has what to do with your flip flop stance? I see absolutely nothing.
"Check out that reference to George Washington after the Battle of Trenton, when the British were giving no quarter to his soldiers. He did not deem that as an excuse. "
Ok, and this has what to do with your flip flop stance? I see absolutely nothing.
"Check out Lincoln's orders, which became one of the bases from which the 1929 Geneva Convention was born. This occurred at a time where the South was certainly committing atrocities against Union troops, like executing black troops on sight, and starving them to death at Andersonville "
Ok, and this has what to do with your flip flop stance? I see absolutely nothing.
"Lincoln did not deem that as an excuse to follow in their path. "
Ok, and this has what to do with your flip flop stance? I see ONCE AGAIN absolutely nothing.
"There are many other examples, like those others I provided in the same post. "
No matter how many examples, you still have not explained your stance
of murder is ok but torture is not.
"As for taking my stance seriously, since you are an ex-service person in the US military, these are EXACTLY the same rules you were obliged to obey in combat. Had you not, you would of risked court martial and probable conviction for violating the rules of the UCMJ."
You still haven't explained your stance MG,,,you need to stop avoiding the question and
explain
"Under that Army Field Manual , if I understand your period of service, this rule would have applied :"
and yet still, you have not explained your stance.
"Those same regulations you were bound to follow as a US service person allowed you to kill in combat , against any enemy you faced that was trying to kill you. "
Yet again and again you do not explain your stance. I'm sure at this point you either can not explain it or are ignoring the question, for it's TRULY obvious you did NOT explain your stance, I have no idea why you would cut and paste a field manual when I asked you why murder is ok and torture isn't, you didn't prove your point, and at this point, I"m not surprised.
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:26:16 PM | Sounds like your mind is screwed up, no offense, due to this reasoning.
to say that murder of any kind is ok, and then jump on a soapbox and declare that torture should not be performed due to the poor enemy combatants are suffering is a flip-flop stance therefore enabling no one to take your stance seriously. WHy is it ok to kill someone but not ok to torture them? Doesn't make sense now does it?
Someone fancies themselves to be quite the "spinmeister" here.
Combat is not murder by any stretch of the definition of the term, it may be killing but it is definitely not murder.
Murder is a legal term for a premeditated unlawful act of killing, not a generic term for killing (which is sometimes legal, such as self-defense or the death penalty). Internationally, murder is considered criminal but killing may not be (depending on circumstances) and international law recognizes that killing in combat is not murder (most times).
Torture, on the other hand, is internationally recognized as an illegal act and cannot be made legal by any signatory to the Convention against Torture (of which the US is one). Neither can the US declare torture legal, for one main reason, the Constitution, which both forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" and (most relevant) declares that all treaties duly adopted (as the Convention against Torture was) to be the "supreme law of the land".
Twist it and spin it however you like, it will not make any of the above less true.
*sings "I Have a Little Dreidel"* | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:28:07 PM | Etourdi said: ".The Geneva Convention was designed to cover issues that had occured previously in War and that may occur in future Wars."
====
my comment: right on. It was for the equivalent of if Canada and the USA had a war, and had previously signed the Geneva Convention.
It is NOT for rabid non-signatories. You have to then rely on a combination of humanity and common sense. And common sense in war is not always pretty. I am not a veteran, but common sense also tells me that. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:31:09 PM | Montreal Guy said: "Killing someone in combat is not murder. I defy you to find any law anywhere, even in the Geneva Convention(s) that says that.
Executing someone judged guilty of a crime is not murder , either. I disagree with the death penalty in criminal cases, but not here. It's the same as a spy being executed during wartime, an act that is totally legal to do - if procedure is followed."
===
my comment: sounds like you are more concerned about red tape ^ than morality, at least concerning the above. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:37:45 PM | MG says: "If you should take anything away from reading my posts, I've consistently mentioned the USA's "better angels" every step of the way.Almost all of the people I've referenced in this thread are Americans, and the laws I've mentioned were ones accepted and agreed to by Americans. In most cases they were actually partially WRITTEN with American involvement. "
=============
my comment: like I said before, I am not questioning your motivations, though I question lots of peoples' motivations on this subject, for reasons mentioned...other shoe, etc. You seem sincere and all that, and well-informed.
What I was trying to point out was that your quote (which I was referring to) shows the disparity between waterboarding and "real" torture.
Best to you, and to Canada, natural allies. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 516 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:51:01 PM | "Someone fancies themselves to be quite the "spinmeister" here.
Oh my, you are such a witty lass
"Combat is not murder by any stretch of the definition of the term, it may be killing but it is definitely not murder"
Where soldiers are not held accountable according to the rules of war,
when you aim your weapon and zero in on them and pull the trigger, yes
my kind sir, it's murder. All I'm saying is that it is justified due
to war, but murder is murder, no matter the legalities behind it.
"Twist it and spin it however you like, it will not make any of the above less true."
You should take your own advice actually, for you are a notorious "spin doctor" on
this thread, I speak of reality, you however speak only liberal crap.
"*sings "I Have a Little Dreidel"*"
"I'm a loser baby" would be much more fitting in your case. | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 9/11/2007
Msg: 517 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:59:48 PM |
Where soldiers are not held accountable according to the rules of war, when you aim your weapon and zero in on them and pull the trigger, yes my kind sir, it's murder.
OMG, did hell freeze over?
I agree with nona...
All I'm saying is that it is justified due to war, but murder is murder, no matter the legalities behind it.
killing in war is murder, but it is justified?
okay, hell just heated up again...
I disagree with nona.... | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:02:10 PM | we arent fighting a nation. we are fighting insurgents, kids, age 14 to 24 recruited from all over the arab world and africa. their mothers seem to have no problem sending them, at times even furnishing them with the bombing vests. this will bring honor upon themselves, their families, and maybe money to boot. munitions come from russia, china and thru iran. what country are we fighting? what uniforms are they wearing? they are chicken crap,disappearing into the night emerging only when it suits them. our people are mostly killed by hidden bombs, not in firefights. plenty of countries EXECUTE spies out of uniform. no questions asked.
arabs dont come out and fight a fair fight. they only fight you when they have the drop on you. when they are armed and you arent !....like in the rome airport shootings, the munich athlete killings, the bombings in a german night club, in a bali nightclub, in a tel aviv nightclub. or in bombing airliners like pan am over lockerbie, the twa killings, the planes blown up in the desert. or by surprise, like the uss cole bombing, and the marine base mass bombing. lets not forget 9-11 and the 1993 bombing before that.
and torture is their specialty, like what they did to the cia bureau chief and journalist daniel pearl. they have no problem tearing people limb from limb and leaving the pieces behind, like they did to a jewish scholar in france.
i wish we didnt know what black arts our government uses. it isnt our business, it just gives aid and comfort to the enemy. as do liberals who question and publicize everything. is the enemy doing that?
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:07:10 PM |
You still haven't explained your stance MG,,,you need to stop avoiding the question and explain
It's exactly the same "stance" you took in the military, in the ROE you were expected to follow under existing military regulations for combat . You took an oath to serve, and part of your obligation while in the service was to do EXACTLY what was specified in those regulations quoted.
That's been pretty much the case for US military service since the Lieber Code was first written in1862 for the Union army.
You'll notice there is no asterisk in those regulations which states "Unless you save lives, because torture IS effective in some cases. In that case ignore the above text completely."
The only flip-flop here is yours, since you were actually once bound to follow these regulations or face court martial and highly probable prison time, and now suddenly seem to have great difficulty understanding them at all.
This may top your "Don't ask , don't tell" concept of Presidential executive powers . | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 520 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:24:58 PM | "OMG, did hell freeze over?
I agree with nona..."
Ok, this did make me laugh and I'm not being sarcastic either lol
MG: Your stance still makes no sense, one can not justify murder and then turn around and say "torture should not be performed", you are saying the worst of the two evils meaning "murder" is ok but the less of these two evils in my eyes anyways being "torture" is NOT ok, it makes absolutely no sense, no matter how many field manuals you copy and paste etc..and yes, I followed the rules of the UCMJ while in the military, and I have fought for my country and in the name of my country, and even I, someone who supports war would not be foolish enough to say that killing people in combat is not murder, I still do not believe you have sucessfully proved your stance MG, no offense. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:27:06 PM |
Where soldiers are not held accountable according to the rules of war,
when you aim your weapon and zero in on them and pull the trigger, yes
my kind sir, it's murder.
Did you simply fail to notice the body statement that followed or did you intentionally ignore it because it ran contrary to your spin?
Internationally, murder is considered criminal but killing may not be (depending on circumstances) and international law recognizes that killing in combat is not murder (most times).
and yet another spin
All I'm saying is that it is justified due
to war, but murder is murder, no matter the legalities behind it.
And you talk about your "facts" while deriding others lack of fact.
It is a fundamental reality that "murder" is defined by all accepted authority as a legal term describing "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". The legalities behind it are, in fact, critical to the application of the term.
But then, I suppose, that actual facts are irrelevant to your little world, where "fact" is determined by whatever supports your opinion. After all, how else could you come to the conclusion that the President can make torture legal in spite of the Constitution and duly adopted treaties.
"*sings "I Have a Little Dreidel"*"
"I'm a loser baby" would be much more fitting in your case.
hee, hee, hee
Can't kill the message so go after the messenger, right? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:30:17 PM |
someone who supports war would not be foolish enough to say that killing people in combat is not murder
So you often support the American military strongly, but also consider many American combat vets murderers ?
Wait, I think my brain just locked up. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:50:06 PM | You should perhaps bone up on current affairs, your own history and examine your claims to having saved the world.
Current affairs. We Canadians are in Afghanistan and taking casualties at your side but we get no credit for that at all, none. We were the first, the very first, at your side in 911, firstly offering sanctuary to 35,000 repeat 35,000 of your citizens FREE OF CHARGE while hotels in NY raised their prices 600% making windfall profits, we had rescue teams in NY within 24 hours, our citizens donated millions in aid to the families of the victims. And we got no credit for it at all - and it took your president 3 years to acknowledge it . He thanked Mexico - who did absolutely nothing - but did not even mention us, the VERY FIRST ones at your side.
History. Let me remind you that Germany invaded Poland on 1 Sep 1939. For the next two years America sold supplies to both sides, to whoever had the cash to pay. London was bombed almost daily, repeat almost daily. Please, please enlighten us as to why the "saviour of the free world" stood as an observer for two years, that is to say, stood by and did nothing for two years. My country, the draft dodgers guys you mention, was fighting all the time. We are all interested to know how this "freedom loving people" could stand idly by while Europe was under the heel of a brutal dictator, their British friends were bombed almost daily, while extermination camps were being set up. It was not until the British treasury, and my countries treasury incidentally, were transferred to the US and both countries were on the verge of bankruptcy that Lend Lease was enacted, there was no more money anyway. You will know that while most countries were bankrupt after WWII, america was twice as wealthy. Small wonder.
Draft dodgers. Yes we did offer sanctuary to americans during the Viertnam war, to those protesting an illegal, not to mention an immoral war. It is to be noted however that wealthy or influential americans such as the current President and Vice President were able to avoid their national duty. It was only the poor or those without influence who had to fight, yet these same folks who were able to avoid fighting themselves are today the loudest voices shouting for war.
To those who advocate that waterboarding it not torture, I would like to hear one, just one, of them say that it would be OK for someone to waterboard THEM or THEIR family.
So lets hear it..... someone say it would be OK to waterboard their family! | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:33:54 PM | montreal: "As I said, what if it's an eight year old child....or a woman ? That same threat is there, and it's not going away. That clock is ticking Merc4aGoodCause, innocent Americans are going to die.....you can't lose any more time.
Are you going to tell me you'd torture that kid, or woman ? Are you going to take that little kid's hand, and smash every bone in it one by one ... and then go on to the next.
Say they keep silent, until they die.
(American troops did exactly that in WW2, and Vietnam. Others have, too. )
Say they lied to you to get you to stop, and the bomb goes off anyway. You've lost on both sides of the issue.
Say you were wrong, and they really knew nothing about it, and were framed by someone else.
Let's say that when that story leaks out a thousand others join the cause in anger.
These are the things at stake here. "
I didnt say anything about torture, I said they could be waterboarded. After all not all of us believe that waterboarding ( the full spectrum of activities) is torture. Now throwing out the unlikely situations really doesnt make for a good argument. What are you going to ask next, if a 2 year old child might know something. And who said anything about breaking fingers? I sure did not. Trying to lump me in with people who advocate no rules is absolutely dispicable. Go ahead you might as well accuse me of being like Stalin while your at it.
I have already went into the need to have restrint because people do have their breaking points and will tell lies. Waterboarding someone for 40 seconds is very different than breaking ones fingers one at a time. And again I said I would reserve it only for mid- top leaders, the likelyhood of complete innocence is extremely unlikely. Maybe we should never have prisons because people do get wrongly accused. Maybe e should ban all laws, lest for the occassion one is caught up an faces an unjust system.
those thousand people who you advocate joining were already there, because if it takes one story about one instance of waterboarding to motivate them to join Al-Queda, then they are already on a hairpin trigger. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 525 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/23/2007 8:24:07 PM | "Did you simply fail to notice the body statement that followed or did you intentionally ignore it because it ran contrary to your spin?"
Actually, I read it and as I stated earlier, no matter what a law
states, no matter what YOU say or anyone else, murder is murder and
I stand by that claim, shooting and killing people intentionally is murder,
where I do understand from a legal sense it is justified, but one can not
label murder anything else other than what it is.
"Internationally, murder is considered criminal but killing may not be (depending on circumstances) and international law recognizes that killing in combat is not murder (most times).
and yet another spin"
The question here is NOT that it is criminal, for I have agreed that
killing during combat is not considered as such, but in my eyes,
no matter in the name of your country or otherwise, it's murder.
"And you talk about your "facts" while deriding others lack of
fact.
It is a fundamental reality that "murder" is defined by all
accepted authority as a legal term describing "the crime of
unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought".
The legalities behind it are, in fact, critical to the application
of the term.
But then, I suppose, that actual facts are irrelevant to your
little world, where "fact" is determined by whatever supports your
opinion. After all, how else could you come to the conclusion
that the President can make torture legal in spite of the
Constitution and duly adopted treaties."
Yes, I speak of facts, and the realistic fact of killing is murder
and mayhem during war, where there are legalities that justify it,
it's still murder, and it doesn't get any more real than that, and
it's the truth of the fact, therefore, deriding your accusation that
I'm lacking facts, it doesn't get any more factual than what I state.
In reference to my opinion, yes, it is MY opinion that killing even
during combat is murder, no where did you ever see me argue the fact
that our nation along with other nations legally justify killing
during combat, and even upon stating that I feel it's murder in my
opinion I was in a war, therefore supporting killing during combat,
but I will not deny that its not murder, and you being the liberal Nazi
that you are, should appreciate the honesty.
""*sings "I Have a Little Dreidel"*"
"I'm a loser baby" would be much more fitting in your case.
hee, hee, hee
Can't kill the message so go after the messenger, right?"
I would say "yes" to this statement, but I think you and I would
argue whether it would be murder or not. lol
"So you often support the American military strongly, but also consider many American combat vets murderers ?"
Yes I support my nation's military VERY strongly and yes, I will still
state that killing is murder, but accepting it has to be done.
pssstt you still haven't proved your stance yet, and no,,,I haven't forgotten
"Current affairs. We Canadians are in Afghanistan and taking casualties at your side."
I agree with this statement of Canadians in Afhanistan and yes they
have most definitely taken casualties, even from the friendly side,
and God Bless them for being there.
"firstly offering sanctuary to 35,000 repeat 35,000 of your
citizens FREE OF CHARGE while hotels in NY raised their prices
600% making windfall profits, we had rescue teams in NY within 24
hours, our citizens donated millions in aid to the families of the
victims. "
yes, Canada did this, and I as an American thank your nation.
"but we get no credit for that at all"
The credit that Canada receives is our American dollars being poured
into your economy and of course we not making your nation a US Sovereignty, how's that for credit?
"to those who advocate that waterboarding it not torture, I would like to hear one, just one, of them say that it would be OK for someone to waterboard THEM or THEIR family."
I NEVER advocated that waterboarding is not torture, in fact, I even agree
that torture even from a general sense is immoral, but I support
performing these immoral acts in gaining useful intelligence as
well as saving lives. | |
|
|
| Page 21 of 41
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
