Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture

[MTK]

Is there any evidence that suggests torture leads to information being obtained and the correct info at that? If no, why is torture ok with people? I'm not saying it is or isn't the answer, I'm just asking if it's not leading to the desired result shouldn't other methods be considered?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Is there any evidence that suggests torture leads to information being obtained and the correct info at that? If no, why is torture ok with people? I'm not saying it is or isn't the answer, I'm just asking if it's not leading to the desired result shouldn't other methods be considered?

Pretty partisan article, but the information contained indicates there was much information that was obtained through "enhanced interrogations" that was not obtained by softer means. If correct, a second 9/11 in LA was thwarted by the actions of the CIA and Bush Admin.

Cracking KSM by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online=

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Pretty partisan article, but the information contained indicates there was much information that was obtained through "enhanced interrogations" that was not obtained by softer means. If correct, a second 9/11 in LA was thwarted by the actions of the CIA and Bush Admin.

Cracking KSM by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online=

There are good arguments for either side

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

I'm honestly on the fence. I really don't know what the answer is.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There are good arguments for either side

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)

I'm honestly on the fence. I really don't know what the answer is.

The unfortunate part is that these decsions have to be made in the first place and will continue to have to be made for the forseeable future.

[Daseal]

Trample, perhaps Im wrong here -- but I believe the question was are you okay with Americans being tortured by terrorists, rather than American traitors.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Trample, perhaps Im wrong here -- but I believe the question was are you okay with Americans being tortured by terrorists, rather than American traitors.

I think the assumption is that if we don't torture terrorist than they'll be nice to our captured troops? Whoever believes that needs to have their head examined.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

The answer is acceptance for the present moment, and hence acceptance for all that is. Everything has its perfect place and could not be other than what it is and the way it is.

... call me crazy.

[saden1]

Even the DoD knows violence (military action) is not a good solution to solving the terrorism threat so all you couch six star generals ain't got no cloths. Just ask the Russians, they'll tell you you're naked.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Even the DoD knows violence (military action) is not a good solution to solving the terrorism threat so all you couch six star generals ain't got no cloths. Just ask the Russians, they'll tell you you're naked.

What the report fails to address in the proverbial "nuclear option". If we wanted we could go the way of dictators and simply kill every freaking last one of them. That isn't our way though.

But yeah in the long run our national discussion needs to change towards newer more favorable methods for fighting this stuff. Practical methods that can work. The first thing we need to get straight on though is expectations. We cannot expect to ever make everyone happy. There will never be peace in the world. At least in a world of 7 billion humans beings all with competing interests. And where there are unhappy people there will be undoubtedly some crazy people and unhappy crazy people blow up buses and fly planes into buildings. We have to accept that we can't end terrorism we can only hope to contain it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

What the report fails to address in the proverbial "nuclear option". If we wanted we could go the way of dictators and simply kill every freaking last one of them. That isn't our way though.

But yeah in the long run our national discussion needs to change towards newer more favorable methods for fighting this stuff. Practical methods that can work. The first thing we need to get straight on though is expectations. We cannot expect to ever make everyone happy. There will never be peace in the world. At least in a world of 7 billion humans beings all with competing interests. And where there are unhappy people there will be undoubtedly some crazy people and unhappy crazy people blow up buses and fly planes into buildings. We have to accept that we can't end terrorism we can only hope to contain it.

Every action has equal and opposite reaction. The equal and opposite reaction to the "nuclear option' is not a pleasant one and that much I am certain of. Maybe we won't feel the reaction immediately, maybe not in 5 years or 10 but eventually the reaction would be at our door step. This isn't merely philosophical musing but a fact of life.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Every action has equal and opposite reaction. The equal and opposite reaction to the "nuclear option' is not a pleasant one and that much I am certain of. Maybe we won't feel the reaction immediately, maybe not in 5 years or 10 but eventually the reaction would be at our door step. This isn't merely philosophical musing but a fact of life.

Totally agree.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Every action has equal and opposite reaction. The equal and opposite reaction to the "nuclear option' is not a pleasant one and that much I am certain of. Maybe we won't feel the reaction immediately, maybe not in 5 years or 10 but eventually the reaction would be at our door step. This isn't merely philosophical musing but a fact of life.

ya know, we nuked Japan, and now have had 60+ years of peace with them. Maybe your equal and opposite fact has some truth, so if we all out nukem, then we could have an incredibly long peace with everyone else. Kinda reminds me of the burning of Carthage.

ok, this was just philosophical musings.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

ya know, we nuked Japan, and now have had 60+ years of peace with them. Maybe your equal and opposite fact has some truth, so if we all out nukem, then we could have an incredibly long peace with everyone else. Kinda reminds me of the burning of Carthage.

ok, this was just philosophical musings.

It is the Japanese who felt our reaction to their attack at PH and I must say our reaction was not equal and opposite but rather a vicious knockout punch.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Even the DoD knows violence (military action) is not a good solution to solving the terrorism threat so all you couch six star generals ain't got no cloths. Just ask the Russians, they'll tell you you're naked.

And you were questioning Trample's reading comprehension.....

This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However it encourages; "....special operations against high-value targets." Anytime Special Ops are involved you can be pretty sure "violence" is involved.

The USSR had a totally different reason for being in Afghanistan than we do. They were attempting to expand their empire. We are responding to the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. The USSR tried to take over Afghanistan. We are attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy.

We went into Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing can change that. What do you suggest we do now, just pull out and leave a HUGE void that will certainly be filled by extremists/terrorists? There is a reason Iran is funding and supporting terrorist groups efforts to de-stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

And you were questioning Trample's reading comprehension.....

This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However it encourages; "....special operations against high-value targets." Anytime Special Ops are involved you can be pretty sure "violence" is involved.

The USSR had a totally different reason for being in Afghanistan than we do. They were attempting to expand their empire. We are responding to the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. The USSR tried to take over Afghanistan. We are attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy.

We went into Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing can change that. What do you suggest we do now, just pull out and leave a HUGE void that will certainly be filled by extremists/terrorists? There is a reason Iran is funding and supporting terrorist groups efforts to de-stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, we are, "attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy." However, the study shows our efforts (U.S. military intervention) are, "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."

So, we need to change what we're doing. In essence, we need to abandon, "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world." Instead, we should, "focus [our] priorities on improving 'civil governance' and building 'local security forces,' according to the report, referring to those steps as 'capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

That is what the study says.