Questions and opinions on torture/insurgent "rights"

Nov 01, 2007 11:04

OK, I am going to ask a few questions on this hot topic of torture and the rights of captured insurgents ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

(The comment has been removed)

cdat1ad November 1 2007, 17:41:07 UTC
As far as uniforms go, should terrorist cells such as Al Qaeda adopt ranks and symbols? Would this really make a difference in their goals? Ridiculous notion.

Actually this is a tenant of the Law of Land Warfare not mine. I just subscribe to its treatment of non-uniformed combatants. In past wars like the US Revolution, being caught in action out of uniform was a death sentence as a spy. A local Confederate named Sam Davis was hung for this very offense.

Reply

melvin_udall November 1 2007, 20:44:28 UTC
1. No. Torture is ineffective

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is documented as having been broken and providing information. Former CIA Chief George Tenet and the CIA official in charge of the Bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer say it works and has saved lives ( ... )

Reply

hawkorhandsaw November 1 2007, 21:52:59 UTC
Yes, torture works occasionally, but far more often you get the tortured telling you whatever you want to hear. You can't tell which information is really and which information is given in order to stop the pain.

Reply

melvin_udall November 1 2007, 22:06:10 UTC
I am continually disappointed by the preponderance of people who communicate via a written medium yet consistently fail to utilize one half of the necessary skills.

Reply

hawkorhandsaw November 1 2007, 22:12:21 UTC
So, you don't have an answer for whether the inconsistency of torture makes torture a less than useful information gathering technique?

Reply

melvin_udall November 1 2007, 22:25:06 UTC
I'm sorry. My fault. That was too many big words I guess.

Read the post, fucknut. I addressed this. I'm sorry you are too fucking dim to have grasped that.

Should I cut and paste how I already addressed it? Maybe increase the font size and bold it? Will that make you manage a little reading comprehension before jerking your Liberal knee at the keyboard and sounding off sharing with all the conservatives in conservatism your Liberal wisdom?

Reply

hawkorhandsaw November 1 2007, 22:27:57 UTC
Regardless of how many times you accuse me of this, I'm still not a liberal.

Reply

melvin_udall November 1 2007, 22:33:06 UTC
Nor are you, apparently, able to focus and read.

Would you prefer "jackass?" It doesn't make any diference to me what the fuck your ideology is when you won't fucking read.

Reply

langostino November 1 2007, 23:47:21 UTC
Flying in the face of all the deniers is the fact that if it didn't work it wouldn't be an issue. Our military and intelligence services are more results oriented than to waste time on a practice with this many deniers and out-to-crucify detractors that yielded no results. It flies in the face of common sense.

. . . which is exactly why the experienced career intelligence officers were the ones who were against the use of torture, right?

Reply

melvin_udall November 1 2007, 23:52:16 UTC
When you don't like the truth, just pretend you didn't read it and change the subject. Neat.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

melvin_udall November 2 2007, 01:46:56 UTC
I'm none too fond of it either, assuming we're talking about real torture, not the Liberal definition of harsh language. I prefer the good old days when the CIA had patriots instead of betraying Liberal lifetime bureaucrats, and they did all the necessary dirty work that has always been happening and always will behind closed doors.

The moment a Democrat is President the press and the always vocal Liberals will suddenly have nothing to say about rendition, that practice conducted without Liberal protest under Clinton, and "torture."

But either way, all I'm asking is that we avoid the "doesn't work" canard the Liberals too often pull out after their own kind testify to that on behalf of the ideology. It works. We know it works. We know how to do it. It's saved lives. And we're getting better at it (more effective, less harmful) with this enemy the more we do it.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up