Waterboarding, How to Do It.

[Evil_One]

@elucidator

They lie to you with every other breath, for six years, while everything they touch turns to shit. And then they tell you that they are doing a truly splendid job protecting you, but they can’t tell you about it, 'cause its a secret, but you should believe them because when have they ever lied to you?

And you buy it. The Leader says it, you believe it, and that settles it.

And just to cap it all off, you say its the left that is naive.

Far out.

Sorry to kill the buzz, dude. I know it fits the script for me to be sitting in an ideological high chair being spoonfed by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh, but that’s not the case.

It’s not as bad as you make it out to be. Some mistakes have been made and I wish some things have been done differently, but I think you are letting your distaste for the administration in power color your perspective.

Take Iraq for example. It may turn out to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in decades. Or it could turn out to be a counterweight to Iran and an example of democracy in a region that very much needs it. We’ll know for sure in twenty years or so. Of course, historians will analyze the issue through their own ideological bias, so it’ll depend on who you talk to, If there is one thing I have learned on this board and elsewhere, it really is “Ideology Uber Alles”.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

@**elucidator**

Yeah, good thing the government is in the hands of hard-nosed and realistic men, not given to fantasy.

Hows that working out for you?

Most excellent post elucidator

[Evil_One]

@Miller

Somehow, I’m guessing it’ll be the party that controlled the White House and both houses of Congress during the attack and the years leading up to it. You really think a major terrorist attack at this point is going to make your party look better? All it’ll do is highlight the craven power brokering and total incompetence that has been the hallmark of the Republican party for the last fifteen years. If there’s another terrorist attack, it won’t be because of “obstructionist” Democrats, it will be because of the utter failure of the Republican party to govern this country.

Which party and ideology suffered in the wake of 9/11? Defense and Intelligence spending went up and a new doctrine of preemtive intervention was instituted among other developments.

If another attack on a similar scale happens, who do think will suffer then? The Republicans who have managed to prevent one for over five years? Or will it be the Democrats who are making a stand on not being able to aggressively interrorgate captured terrorists? The same Democrats who are trying to misrepresent the NSA surveillance program from listening in to foreign terror suspects overseas into trying to make people think they are listening to you order pizza in Iowa?

If more American blood is spilled on a 9/11 scale do you really think that a majority of voters will embrace what the Democrats are selling on terror policy?

[GIGObuster]

@Evil One

Sorry to kill the buzz, dude. I know it fits the script for me to be sitting in an ideological high chair being spoonfed by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh, but that’s not the case.

It’s not as bad as you make it out to be. Some mistakes have been made and I wish some things have been done differently, but I think you are letting your distaste for the administration in power color your perspective.

As long as they are not paying for it (no taxes to beat the axis) sure it will color the conservative perspective.

Take Iraq for example. It may turn out to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in decades.

May?

Or it could turn out to be a counterweight to Iran and an example of democracy in a region that very much needs it.

Only by willfully ignoring what Chalabi did, it needs to be remarked again that Chalabi was doing the bidding of Iran, and that one of the best scenarios for us shows a semi-democratic Iraqi state with Iran having a big influence over.

We’ll know for sure in twenty years or so. Of course, historians will analyze the issue through their own ideological bias, so it’ll depend on who you talk to, If there is one thing I have learned on this board and elsewhere, it really is “Ideology Uber Alles”.

My history teacher, from a conservative institution, in conservative Arizona said that Bush really did screw the pooch in Iraq.

[elucidator]

@Paul in Saudi

Most excellent post elucidator

[blush]

[Der_Trihs]

@Evil One

Take Iraq for example. It may turn out to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in decades. Or it could turn out to be a counterweight to Iran and an example of democracy in a region that very much needs it. We’ll know for sure in twenty years or so.

No, we know for sure now. They hate us, they are our enemies, and they will never therefore never be a democracy and a “counterweight to Iran” at the same time. Any democratic Iraq will do it’s best to harm us. It’s much more likely that they will cooperate against us.

There’s also the fact that we’ve killed tens of thousands, wrecked the country, injured and crippled who knows how many, and general made the place hell on Earth. No end result is worth what we have done; the invasion was an evil act.

[jshore]

@Evil One

Some mistakes have been made and I wish some things have been done differently, but I think you are letting your distaste for the administration in power color your perspective.

Yeah…elucidator and we fellow travellers were all in favor of torture during the Clinton Administration! :rolleyes:

[buns3000]

@Evil One

Let another major terrorist attack happen and see which group takes it in the shorts for at least a decade.

So I guess another major terrorist attack would be a sign we’re just not torturing hard enough.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der Trihs

You get the answers you want, not the true ones. Yes, if you torture enough people you can often make them submit; not because you are getting good information, but because everybody is too terrified to do anything beyond keep their head down and stay alive. That’s terrified as in terrorism, but of course terrorism is OK if we are the terrorists. I also disagree with you that no one likes the idea; most Americans don’t care, and most of the rest are gloating sadists.

Noone is saying that coerced confessions have ANY value.
Noone is saying that coerced confirmation has any probative value (e.g. if we tortured someone and they admitted that Saddam Hussein was actually responsible for 9/11 or that Saddam Hussein flushed all the WMDs down the toilet just as we invaded, it would be useless information).
However, there is often useful information that CAN be extracted through torture.

For example, The French Government used it to find terrorists in Algeria, The Italians used it to discover the whereabouts of the leader of a domestic terroist organization, it has been used usccessfully throughout history to get useful information that leads to independently verifiable information. Its is misleading to point to the cases where torture does NOT work and imply that it means that torture doesn’t provide ANY useful information.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

Sure will if we let you frame the debate on your terms.

Let’s start with “Torture is bad, and it shouldn’t be done”. A considerable number of peope, likely even a solid majority, agree with this premise, largely because of our long-standing delusion that we have not done, nor condoned, torture.

You want to frame the question as an issue of immediate urgency, if we don’t torture Achmed Evil, the LED timer on the nuclear anthrax bomb will digit down to zero and we lose Akron! In that dramatic scenario, hardly anyone wouldn’t accept torture in such an *extreme and exceptional * circumstance, i.e., a desperate emergency. Then, of course, we have admitted that we approve of torture and thinks it entirely hunky-dory, and we repent of our hypocrisy…

Not so fast. We all pretty much accept the principle of emergency exception. If you need to get a child to the hospital at once, you might “steal” a car, for instance. Simply because we recognize that rare exceptions may exist does not mean we must abandon the rule. Far from it, the rule emphasizes the gravity of the exception, if you’re going to break a law of humanity and commit a war crime, you better be damned sure you know what you’re up to.

Besides, how likely is it that you will have so much information about a plot, enough intel to know precisely whom to torture, and yet still not know enough to thwart the plot? How is it that our adversarys, knowing we have such a person in our custody, would proceed with a plot that is likely “blown”?

Torture as a technique for routine intelligence gathering or to provoke a confession of guilt is obscene and impermissable. It is conceivable, but barely, that an extreme exception, an urgent emergency, might provoke someone to break that rule. Let him be accountable, let him answer for the crime and prove his crime justified. Otherwise, he should suffer consequences commensurate with the crime.

Using your rationale, we wouldn’t need any sort of law because everyone would recognize the use of torture in specific instances as an “emergency situation.” What about less exigent situations:

Location of Osama bin Laden
Names and location of al Queda recruiting and training centers
Information on al Queda’s structure and plans

Maybe all of these things would get a pass (after, where would you find an American jury that would convict for torture that lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden) and we just don’t need a law specifically allowing torture if it weren’t for the pesky torture insurance premiums.

[Miller]

@Evil One

Which party and ideology suffered in the wake of 9/11? Defense and Intelligence spending went up and a new doctrine of preemtive intervention was instituted among other developments.

And if there’s another terror attack, it’ll show that all those efforts have been either misconceived in the first place, or improperly implemented the entire time. And who was it that conceived and implemented them? Not the Democrats.

If another attack on a similar scale happens, who do think will suffer then? The Republicans who have managed to prevent one for over five years? Or will it be the Democrats who are making a stand on not being able to aggressively interrorgate captured terrorists? The same Democrats who are trying to misrepresent the NSA surveillance program from listening in to foreign terror suspects overseas into trying to make people think they are listening to you order pizza in Iowa?

If there’s another major terrorist attack, I would say the blame will fall on the Republicans who failed to go six years without keeping the US safe. You really think it would reflect poorly on Democrats? You’ve got your precious torture law, despite the protests that we’re selling our morality on the cheap for something that won’t work. If there’s another terrorist attack, it will be because of the failure of your torture initative, the failure of your attempt to secure our safety at the price of our civil liberties. Another terrorist attack means that everything we’ve sacrificed on Bush’s altar of national security was for nothing. You really think that’s going to reflect worse on the Democrats than it will on the Republicans?

If more American blood is spilled on a 9/11 scale do you really think that a majority of voters will embrace what the Democrats are selling on terror policy?

Do you really think they’ll keep buying the bullshit being marketed by the Republicans? Whatever the Democrats offer will look pretty good, because their plan won’t be the one that has been proven in the most awful way imaginable to be totally ineffective.

[elucidator]

A terror attack on the US shouldn’t favor one party over the other, but it would, and the Pubbies are the absolute masters of deception. They would win, because they have nothing to sell but fear itself. The fact that the Bushiviks have followed the AlQ playbook right down the line leads me to the conclusion that they would prefer that the Bushiviks stay in power.

And that makes me nervous.

[Der_Trihs]

@elucidator

A terror attack on the US shouldn’t favor one party over the other, but it would, and the Pubbies are the absolute masters of deception. They would win, because they have nothing to sell but fear itself. The fact that the Bushiviks have followed the AlQ playbook right down the line leads me to the conclusion that they would prefer that the Bushiviks stay in power.

And that makes me nervous.

IIRC there was a leaked memo from the CIA claiming that Osama does support Bush, down to timing the release of his videotapes to give Bush a bump in the polls when he needed it. I can’t find a cite, however. It certainly makes sense; Bush is the greatest gift terrorism ever had.

[Evil_One]

@Miller

Whatever the Democrats offer will look pretty good, because their plan won’t be the one that has been proven in the most awful way imaginable to be totally ineffective.

It really is a simple concept. Which party supports ways to get information from and about terror suspects and which party is opposing those efforts?

And if another 9/11 scale attack comes after these stands have been clearly made, who will moderate voters (those few that exist) blame? And when they make that decision, who will be left on the short end of the statistical stick?

[Der_Trihs]

@Evil One

It really is a simple concept. Which party supports ways to get information from and about terror suspects and which party is opposing those efforts?

Easy, the Republicans oppose getting information from terror suspects. Torture victims say what their torturers want them to say, not the truth. That’s one of the reasons Republicans like torture, besides being evil; it lets them “validate” their lies and delusions. The last thing they want is actual information.

[Evil_One]

@elucidator

A terror attack on the US shouldn’t favor one party over the other, but it would, and the Pubbies are the absolute masters of deception. They would win, because they have nothing to sell but fear itself. The fact that the Bushiviks have followed the AlQ playbook right down the line leads me to the conclusion that they would prefer that the Bushiviks stay in power.

And that makes me nervous.

I’ve always felt that the 9/11 attack was the biggest mistake Osama could have made. He killed 3000 people and glitched the economy for about a year. No big deal to an economy the size of ours. But the net effect from his grand plan was to unite the country, shift the focus sharply to defending ourselves and his having to hide for the rest of his life. It would have been smarter for him to satisfy his Wahabbi desire for “infidel blood” by attacking overseas targets. That way a large portion of our population would continue to navel-gaze while he consolidated and built his organization. And since it’s been five years since the attack, the navels of some of our folks have started to become hypnotic once again.

I think Osama’s goals are better served with GWB in power. He was President when 9/11 happened, he authorized the Iraq war and he makes a great villian to point at when they are trying to recruit ignorant suicide bombers with promises of glory and virgins.

But when he leaves office, we will still be the “Great Satan”. That means phones will still have to be tapped and captured terrorists may have to be sent to bed without dessert.

All the sound and fury against GWB’s terrorism policy is a waste of time. The Wahabbis have been teaching that we all need to die for twenty years and they will continue to do so when January of 2009 rolls around. If we are aggressive, we stand a better chance of minimizing or preventing attacks. If we choose to ignore reality for the sake of ideological comfort, the attacks will still come. It won’t matter who is in the White House.

[Der_Trihs]

@Evil One

I’ve always felt that the 9/11 attack was the biggest mistake Osama could have made. He killed 3000 people and glitched the economy for about a year. No big deal to an economy the size of ours. But the net effect from his grand plan was to unite the country, shift the focus sharply to defending ourselves and his having to hide for the rest of his life.

It was a massive victory for him. It kept Bush in the White House and promoted Bush’s agenda; by doing so Osama got rid of Saddam, ruined America’s reputation, built his up, destroyed Iraqi secularism, discredited the Arab/Muslim moderates, and has rallied people to him who otherwise would not have listened.