I want to challenge Snipe

[Archaea]

I can understand that Mike objects to it at the personal level. However, it does NOT appear to be broad-based.

Note:

"
While some media accounts have described the locations where these detainees are located as a string of secret CIA prisons -- a gulag, as it were -- in fact, sources say, there are a very limited number of these locations in use at any time, and most often they consist of a secure building on an existing or former military base. In addition, they say, the prisoners usually are not scattered but travel together to these locations, so that information can be extracted from one and compared with others. Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said.
The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.
According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level -- by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use."



Again, because the techniques are unreliable, they should not be used. However, governments are not people and should not be held to the same standards for individuals not guaranteed Constitutional civil liberties.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can understand that Mike objects to it at the personal level. However, it does NOT appear to be broad-based.

Note:

"
While some media accounts have described the locations where these detainees are located as a string of secret CIA prisons -- a gulag, as it were -- in fact, sources say, there are a very limited number of these locations in use at any time, and most often they consist of a secure building on an existing or former military base. In addition, they say, the prisoners usually are not scattered but travel together to these locations, so that information can be extracted from one and compared with others. Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said.
The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.
According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level -- by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use."



Again, because the techniques are unreliable, they should not be used. However, governments are not people and should not be held to the same standards for individuals not guaranteed Constitutional civil liberties.

Source?

Archea showing his true colors.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There are a whole slew of things that I would refuse to be subjected to that aren't remotely considered to be torture.

A very succinct way of exposing the logical fallacy at play here.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can understand that Mike objects to it at the personal level. However, it does NOT appear to be broad-based.

... which is part of the reason I'm okay with it. It appears to be reserved for a select few.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Source?

Archea showing his true colors.

Source is Mike's source.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866

Sometimes, unlike you, I actually read the links provided. I doubt they have article reviews summarizing the article, so I guess you're out of luck.

My objection to the techniques is pragmatic. They don't work.

However, if somebody is to act histrionically, I wish to examine the cause of the histrionics. For example, since I did not believe our country would condone wide-based wide-use of "torture", I decided to have an open mind to examine Mike's sources provided by him.

The language of his source stated, even the harshest critics, admit it was tightly controlled. It didn't sound like a country on the verge of becoming tyrannical. In fact, it appeared to be a nation intellectually considering it from all options. Some, like Mike, object to it in all its forms and at levels. Others who are closer to their Grecco-Roman empirical roots examine the cost benefits.

As an observer of the governmental process for more than thirty-five years, I note, and I suppose I could dig up some papers to support it, that it is naive to believe governments will behave the same way as individuals, nor should we expect it.

Secondly, civil liberties extend to citizens and lawful aliens. Nonlawful aliens should not receive the same liberties, especially enemy combattants. Because torture does NOT work, it should not be used.

As a warrior soul hearkening back to my cultural roots of Grecco empirical rights, I am comfortable with my position, and find the positions of others understandable but naive.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Source is Mike's source.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866

Sometimes, unlike you, I actually read the links provided. I doubt they have article reviews summarizing the article, so I guess you're out of luck.

I am probably the only one here who subscribes to the New Yorker and I regularly post links to it. It actually made me think maybe I do occasionally make some minor impression here when I saw Mike posting a link by Seymore Hersh in the New Yorker.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Source is Mike's source.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866

Sometimes, unlike you, I actually read the links provided. I doubt they have article reviews summarizing the article, so I guess you're out of luck.

My objection to the techniques is pragmatic. They don't work.

However, if somebody is to act histrionically, I wish to examine the cause of the histrionics. For example, since I did not believe our country would condone wide-based wide-use of "torture", I decided to have an open mind to examine Mike's sources provided by him.

The language of his source stated, even the harshest critics, admit it was tightly controlled. It didn't sound like a country on the verge of becoming tyrannical. In fact, it appeared to be a nation intellectually considering it from all options. Some, like Mike, object to it in all its forms and at levels. Others who are closer to their Grecco-Roman empirical roots examine the cost benefits.

As an observer of the governmental process for more than thirty-five years, I note, and I suppose I could dig up some papers to support it, that it is naive to believe governments will behave the same way as individuals, nor should we expect it.

Secondly, civil liberties extend to citizens and lawful aliens. Nonlawful aliens should not receive the same liberties, especially enemy combattants. Because torture does NOT work, it should not be used.

As a warrior soul hearkening back to my cultural roots of Grecco empirical rights, I am comfortable with my position, and find the positions of others understandable but naive.

Wasn't it revealed that the intelligence extracted via waterboarding with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was very accurate?

Furthermore, the link you provided indicates that all waterboarded information was cross-referenced against the information given by other inmates, so it wasn't exactly accepted on blind faith.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I am probably the only one here who subscribes to the New Yorker and I regularly post links to it. It actually made me think maybe I do occasionally make some minor impression here when I saw Mike posting a link by Seymore Hersh in the New Yorker.

I had New Yorker subscription for years, but I let it lapse.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I had New Yorker subscription for years, but I let it lapse.

If even Elaine Benes can get a cartoon published there, how good of a magazine could it really be?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If even Elaine Benes can get a cartoon published there, how good of a magazine could it really be?

Trust me, you wouldn't like it.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So what you're saying is Mike and others should be willing to hand their own children over to terrorists to be killed rather than use waterboarding on a known terrorist.

First of all, false dichotomy. Your argument depends a relationship that does not of necessity exist: that is, that waterboarding a known terrorist WILL result in lives being saved, and to not waterboard is to place your children on the altars of Moloch.

Second, waterboarding known terrorists will engender the kind of feelings that will create more known terrorists.

Third, many of the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Gharib are not exactly "known" terrorists.

But beyond all those points, I still say that if we cannot protect this country in a way that preserves the ideals upon which the nation is founded, we will not have a country worth protecting. I would hope of myself that if, pressed by the crisis, I would be willing to give up my life that this nation might not only live, but be worth living in.