Perspective is everything. In perspective, anything we do is far more humane than a beheading, for example, let alone videotaping it for the world to see. We didnt invent torture, nor take it to this level on our own accord.

I think what most of you Canadians are missing ..........

the beauty of our system is .......

I am also sure that if information was gained through the used of waterboarding that would save the lives of thousands of Canadians your opinion may not change, but y0u would readily reap the benefits of said information.

Perspective? I see...

US torturers don't really count because others have been or are worse? It's OK because it is only "torture-lite" in comparison to what could be done?

Interestingly delusional, a polarised focus that I find comes from the US political and media mentality

Once again towing the party line from the administration

the beauty of our system is .......
...... that it can be hijacked to justify torture and selling that to the people

Does torture produce good intel (regardless of the morals and ethics, or lack there off), no.

Guess what the vast majority of the world (big place that is outside your boarders and a darn sight nicer that what's inside your boarders, there are weird things like books, Dixie chicks CDs and valid reporting out here.....)

Did I say it doesnt count?? No. It most certainly counts...when used as a tool, rather than a savage form of entertainment or revenge.

You don't think that almost all torturers see the practice as a tool used to further their own aims and goals?

In a military environment, it is a tool. That is why it is used.

No. They may see it as a tool to themselves

In reality it is only a savage form of entertainment or revenge.

Abu Ghurayb Prison
The Abu Ghurayb, [Abu Ghraib] prison, located approximately 20 miles west of Baghdad, is where Saddam Kamal (who was head of the Special Security Organization) oversaw the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners. The prison was under the control of the Directorate of General Security (DGS) also known as the Amn al-Amm.

As many as 4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984. At least 122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.

The facility occupies 280 acres with over 4 kilometers of security perimeter and 24 guard towers. The prison is composed of five distinct compound each surrounded by guard towers and high walls. Built by British contractors in the 1960s, Abu Ghraib is a virtual city within a city. The political section of Abu Ghraib was divided into "open" and "closed" wings. The closed wing housed only Shi'ites. The open wing held all other varieties of real or suspected activists. The "closed" wing was so named because its inmates -- at least until 1989 -- were permitted no visitors or outside contact. Cells measured approximately four meters by four meters and held an average of 40 persons.

As of 2001 Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, may have held as many as 15,000 persons, many of who were subject to torture. Hundreds of Fayli (Shi'a) Kurds and other citizens of Iranian origin, who had disappeared in the early 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, reportedly were being held incommunicado at the Abu Ghurayb prison. Such persons have been detained without charge for close to 2 decades in extremely harsh conditions. Many of the detainees were used as subjects in the country's outlawed experimental chemical and biological weapons programs.

And Jemue, unlike you who ran away from this country, many of us here support it, and love it, and consider it too be the Greatest Nation On God's Green earth.... Only cowards run when the going gets tough, people who believe stand up and fight for whats right, and this Nation my friend is right.....

Like George Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney Et Al during Viet Nam?

Hmmm... today I think I'll use the least effective methods of interrogation so that I can gather proven unreliable information that will result in no benefit to the national security of the United States"?!?!?!?!?

He might if he'd just hung up the phone after the White House told him to "take the gloves off" , without specifying what that actually might imply.

You can perhaps find some basis for that viewpoint by that comment about some CIA people seeking out lawyers and legal advice, because they were being pressured into crossing lines that might expose them to risk of prosecution.

I think it much more logical to preclude that the CIA would consider the opinion of trained interrogators (as have been submitted) in the matter before anything else. Even an ex-CIA head James Angleton, was against such practices.

It doesn't look like the CIA is going to let the white house off the hook for the cover up either. This just in from the Times a few days ago .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3087293.ece

Something tells me that alot of people who used to be afraid of the ruling class ( dictators ) aren't happy about being held solely accountable anymore no matter what the pay-off amounts.

If her assassination might have been stymied by harsh interrrogation, including possibly the seldom-used waterboarding, how can this be effectively argued against?

I dont buy into those symptoms per se. And remember that this was stated as a possibility. There was little in the mention of probability. I highly doubt it will cause loss for long term memory, maybe pershaps short term.

I said specifically that if it were counterproductive i would be against it NOT on moral geounds but on practical grounds. Morally it would still be ok. So "B" is in this case has no bearing on "A"

The reason that I hesitate with women, is because women are a greater propaganda threat. Dispite the way women are treated in the middleast, even with sanctioned beatings at home, the sensitivity for women when it comes to interrogation/imprisionment is there. Ive noticed many demands for the release of all prisioners or the release of all women prisoners in terrorist propaganda, not specifically the release of all men. In an urgent situation however I find it permitable, but stress that an added awareness be applied to the issue. Its not a matter of its ok for men but not for women in the moral sense but I differentiate the two because of the above mentioned reason. It has nothing to do with the feelings for women.

We do know that the individual who was part of the 40 seconds and is against it does it because of he is concerned about the reputation of the United States, but he wasnt given the question of whether it would be moral or useful if used in very limited circumstances and only permitted for a specific amount of time. I do not think he was operating under the guidlines of a limited timeframe- that is to say the terrorist would have been subjected to additional time had he not said something the next day. Theres so many questions that need to be answered before we can nail down why people believe what they believe.

"But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."

There are alot of fundemental differences to large questions that noone has a solid answer to.

I believe it matters how much we use this tecnique while you see the nimber of times not making a difference.

Time and application are certainly standards in he differentiate crime from non-crime. Like I cited earlier, if you leave a six year old child alone in the room for a moment and he bumps his head its an accident. Now if you were gone for several hourse we call this neglect.

As for the propaganda piece your entirely off base. Propaganda is within its own right an attempt to frame a subject in a particiculiar light. So in this regard even if the United States had/does not interroage using torture (extreme waterboarding), it doesnt matter, because propaganda gives the impression that it is happening nonetheless.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,632967,00.html

I do acknowledge that if something like waterboarding was used widescale, it becomes of greater propaganda value.

And if you reason that since my values are not in accordance with your own and cite me as being a torturer, then if the reverse is applied to yourself and cannot cause a terrorist uncomfort than by the end of the day youve become a terroist sympathizer.

Of insurgents I would say they have goals (ones other than constant killing). But Al-Queda stands for nothing but fear and death and some more fear and death. At least Hezbollah, Hamas, the Mahdi Militia run social programs. As for Al-Queda the means have become the goals (not all to valid in these eyes)

Bin Laden condemned the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, criticized the international sanctions regime on Iraq, and voiced his opposition to U.S. support for Israel.9 The declaration also cited “massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Assam, the Philippines, Fatani [as transliterated], Ogaden, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnya, and Bosnia-Herzegovina” as examples of a growing war on Islam for which the United States should be punished (Bin Laden did not recognize the humanitarian aspects of U.S. efforts in Bosnia and Somalia explicitly).

I agree, however, that an attempt at being humane can have both short-term and long-term benefits.
However, it has to be compared to both the propaganda aspects involved, and considerations of benefits have to be maintained, as well as cognition, as said, that this is war, and when heavy-duty killing is involved, despite all efforts by "our side" (the USA) to thwart killing, if a military view (perhaps arguable) deems a certain procedure as profitable in that attempt to thwart killing, I say go for it.

Y'know, MG, your delusion evidently knows no bounds. Now you're comparing American revolutionists with radical Islamic terrorists, and doing so with a straight face I presume?

Throwing the word TORTURE around to garner stereotypical knee jerk emotional responses is a hard slap to those, who actually endured TRUE torture.

You all need to have a word with former Viet Nam or Korean War POWs, or, better yet, the few remaining POWs of the Japanese during WW2.

Did I say it doesnt count?? No. It most certainly counts...when used as a tool, rather than a savage form of entertainment or revenge. So you do not see perspective in this concept by the absurd non related examples you present above/\/\/\.

No. They may see it as a tool to themselves, but nothing justifiable is gained from it & there was no justifiable cause to implement it. In reality it is only a savage form of entertainment or revenge. However they see it doesn't change that fact.

In a military environment, it is a tool. That is why it is used.

It's not a question of saying, "They're not bad people", or "The American Revolutionaries were terrorists". Having seen MG's posts for a number of years now, I am pretty sure that he was attempting to explain that the people who we are fighting now view their cause as being every bit as justified and necessary as the American Revolutionaries did theirs. That to a certain degree they view us the same way the Revolutionaries viewed the British. And there's nothing delusional about it.

As a student at Yale University, Bushnell worked on the development of underwater explosives. In his research, he discovered that gunpowder could be exploded underwater. During the American Revolution Bushnell was authorized to design a sea mine (usually referred to as a "torpedo" by Bushnell) to be used against the British fleet.

The Turtle's torpedo, a keg of powder, was to be attached to an enemy ship's hull and detonated by a time fuse. On the night of September 7, 1776, the Turtle, operated by an Army volunteer, Sergeant Ezra Lee, conducted an attack on the British ship HMS Eagle.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sub-history1.htm

Task Force 6-26 was a creation of the Pentagon's post-Sept. 11 campaign against terrorism, and it quickly became the model for how the military would gain intelligence and battle insurgents in the future.

The task force was a melting pot of military and civilian units. It drew on elite troops from the Joint Special Operations Command, whose elements include the Army unit Delta Force, Navy's Seal Team 6 and the 75th Ranger Regiment. Military reservists and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel with special skills, like interrogators, were temporarily assigned to the unit. CIA officers, FBI agents and special operations forces from other countries also worked closely with the task force.

Task Force 6-26 had a singular focus: capture or kill Mr. Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant operating in Iraq. "Anytime there was even the smell of Zarqawi nearby, they would go out and use any means possible to get information from a detainee," one official said.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18484

The CIA's Baghdad station sent a cable to headquarters on Aug. 3, 2003, raising concern that Special Operations troops who served with agency officers had used techniques that had become too aggressive. Five days later, the CIA issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations. Separately, the CIA barred its officers from working at Camp Nama but allowed them to keep providing target information and other intelligence to the task force.

The warnings still echoed nearly a year later. On June 25, 2004, nearly two months after the disclosure of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, an FBI agent in Iraq sent an e-mail message to his superiors in Washington, warning that a detainee captured by Task Force 6-26 had suspicious burn marks on his body. The detainee said he had been tortured. A month earlier, another FBI agent asked top bureau officials for guidance on how to deal with military interrogators across Iraq who used techniques like loud music and yelling that exceeded "the bounds of standard FBI practice."

American generals were also alerted to the problem. In December 2003, Col. Stuart A. Herrington, a retired Army intelligence officer, warned in a confidential memo that medical personnel reported that prisoners seized by the unit, then known as Task Force 121, had injuries consistent with beatings. "It seems clear that TF 121 needs to be reined in with respect to its treatment of detainees," Colonel Herrington concluded.

Many were initially reluctant to discuss Task Force 6-26 because its missions are classified. But when pressed repeatedly by reporters who contacted them, they agreed to speak about their experiences and observations out of what they said was anger and disgust over the unit's treatment of detainees and the failure of task force commanders to punish misconduct more aggressively. The critics said the harsh interrogations yielded little information to help capture insurgents or save American lives.

Virtually all of those who agreed to speak are career government employees, many with previous military service, and they were granted anonymity to encourage them to speak candidly without fear of retribution from the Pentagon. Many of their complaints are supported by declassified military documents and e-mail messages from FBI agents who worked regularly with the task force in Iraq.
- Ibid

Despite the task force's access to a wide range of intelligence, its raids were often dry holes, yielding little if any intelligence and alienating ordinary Iraqis, Defense Department personnel said. Prisoners deemed no threat to American troops were often driven deep into the Iraqi desert at night and released, sometimes given $100 or more in American money for their trouble.

What the Americans had always lacked was someone inside Zarqawi's network, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who would betray him - someone close enough and trusted enough to show the Americans where he was.

According to a Pentagon official, the Americans finally got one.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia provided the critical piece of intelligence about Rahman's meeting with Zarqawi. The source's identity was notclear - nor was it clear how that source was able to pinpoint Zarqawi's location without getting killed himself.

"We have a guy on the inside who led us directly to Zarqawi," the official said.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18484

And Jemue, unlike you who ran away from this country, many of us here support it, and love it, and consider it too be the Greatest Nation On God's Green earth.... Only cowards run when the going gets tough, people who believe stand up and fight for whats right, and this Nation my friend is right.....