Water Boarding

[Californiaman]

This is it.

This is real.

Children, do not attempt this at home.

Water Boarding

[The Fool on The Hill]

So when is Hannity gonna get waterboarded?

[dc3c46]

Very interesting.

Nobody dies. It works. Everybody talks.Case closed.

If you do not like it: Don't be a terrorist.

[KSG_Standard]

Very interesting.

Nobody dies. It works. Everybody talks.Case closed.

If you do not like it: Don't be a terrorist.

 

+1=d> Well put.

[Californiaman]

Yes, I agree with dc3c46.

Nobody dies. It works. The proof is in the pudding.

[The Fool on The Hill]

I am all for Water Boarding, I am glad you guys are all for it as well because i am starting a petition for congress to make Water Boarding legal for domestic use basically i want Police to water board American citizens when they want information extracted from them, It is only fair for Americans to implement Water boarding in the system since they are water boarding other people and as you conservatives say "It works" so for now on when the police want questions they should have the right to water board you.

 

It is not Torture and it works only fair to make it Legal for domestic use by the Police.

[wicked1]

Yes' date=' I agree with dc3c46.

Nobody dies. It works. The proof is in the pudding.[/quote']

 

Except that our own interrogators managed to get valuable information *without* torturing anybody.

 

If you think it's OK because nobody dies, then tell me--what would be your reaction if a U.S. soldier was waterboarded and "talked" (assuming he gave true information rather than just saying something to stop the torture)? Would that be wrong? Or are you saying that because the U.S. is doing it, it must be OK? Is it OK because we were "attacked"? Did they give up *human* rights by making a choice to attack? And how do we justify holding a Red Crescent worker for 7 1/2 years and torturing him (leaving physical scars)? It would seem that they would be the ones doing humanitarian work rather than committing acts of war.

 

There's a reason why the Geneva Conventions are in place. If we, as a country, don't want to comply with them, we never should've signed them.

 

Funny how a human life is a human life if it is still in the uterus, but once it's out all bets are off.

[wicked1]

Yes' date=' I agree with dc3c46.

Nobody dies. It works. The proof is in the pudding.[/quote']

 

Except that our own interrogators managed to get valuable information *without* torturing anybody.

 

If you think it's OK because nobody dies, then tell me--what would be your reaction if a U.S. soldier was waterboarded and "talked" (assuming he gave true information rather than just saying something to stop the torture)? Would that be wrong? Or are you saying that because the U.S. is doing it, it must be OK? Is it OK because we were "attacked"? Did they give up *human* rights by making a choice to attack? And how do we justify holding a Red Crescent worker for 7 1/2 years and torturing him (leaving physical scars)? It would seem that they would be the ones doing humanitarian work rather than committing acts of war.

 

There's a reason why the Geneva Conventions are in place. If we, as a country, don't want to comply with them, we never should've signed them.

 

Funny how a human life is a human life if it is still in the uterus, but once it's out all bets are off.

[The Fool on The Hill]

 

Except that our own interrogators managed to get valuable information *without* torturing anybody.

 

If you think it's OK because nobody dies' date=' then tell me--what would be your reaction if a U.S. soldier was waterboarded and "talked" (assuming he gave true information rather than just saying something to stop the torture)? Would that be wrong? Or are you saying that because the U.S. is doing it, it must be OK? Is it OK because we were "attacked"? Did they give up *human* rights by making a choice to attack? And how do we justify holding a Red Crescent worker for 7 1/2 years and torturing him (leaving physical scars)? It would seem that they would be the ones doing humanitarian work rather than committing acts of war.

 

There's a reason why the Geneva Conventions are in place. If we, as a country, don't want to comply with them, we never should've signed them.

 

Funny how a human life is a human life if it is still in the uterus, but once it's out all bets are off. [/quote']

 

These conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're ****ed.

[Californiaman]

 

These conservatives are really something' date=' aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're ****ed.[/quote']

 

You know I was going to reply to your post, but since it has nothing to do with the original post, I'm going to move on now.

[six-string]

is that anything like boogie-boarding?

[The Fool on The Hill]

 

You know I was going to reply to your post' date=' but since it has nothing to do with the original post, I'm going to move on now.[/quote']

 

So do you agree with me that the police should have the right to water board you and other American citizens when they want the slightest bit of information?

 

I would assume you would since "It works".

[The Fool on The Hill]

 

You know I was going to reply to your post' date=' but since it has nothing to do with the original post, I'm going to move on now.[/quote']

 

So do you agree with me that the police should have the right to water board you and other American citizens when they want the slightest bit of information?

 

I would assume you would since "It works".

[grampa]

Very interesting.

Nobody dies. It works. Everybody talks.Case closed.

If you do not like it: Don't be a terrorist.

 

They will lie. They will say anything to make it stop. The CIA tortures wanted those being iterogated to lie about a connection between Hussien and bin Laden. They knew that those being waterboarded would lie to make it stop.

[grampa]

Very interesting.

Nobody dies. It works. Everybody talks.Case closed.

If you do not like it: Don't be a terrorist.

 

They will lie. They will say anything to make it stop. The CIA torturers wanted those being interogated to lie about a connection between Hussien and bin Laden. They knew that those being waterboarded would lie to make it stop.

[Californiaman]

 

So do you agree with me that the police should have the right to water board you and other American citizens when they want the slightest bit of information?

 

I would assume you would since "It works".

 

Water boarding by this country's police on it's citizens is not the same premise as using it on terrorists who are going to harm the United States.

 

To answer you question though, never going happen.

Our civilian police force would never do that.

Apples and oranges, Fool. Apples and oranges.

 

Do you and grandpa feel a need to repeat yourselves?

[NeoConMan]

Weird....

 

Double double posts from Fool and Grampa.

 

Twice the foolishness - twice!!!!

 

 

 

If they lie under interrogation, you think the CIA won't figure that out?

The captives are going nowhere and if it's discovered that they lied then the fear is REALLY put into them.

Back to the water we go - one more time!

 

Lies will fall away with effective interrogation.

To make it stop, the captives will do whatever it takes to convince you they are telling the truth - and they will.

 

Of course, you two are experts because you read it on the web....

 

:-)

[NeoConMan]

JUST FOR KICKS.....

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

Weird....

 

Double double posts from Fool and Grampa.

 

Twice the foolishness - twice!!!!

 

 

 

If they lie under interrogation, you think the CIA won't figure that out?

The captives are going nowhere and if it's discovered that they lied then the fear is REALLY put into them.

Back to the water we go - one more time!

 

Lies will fall away with effective interrogation.

To make it stop, the captives will do whatever it takes to convince you they are telling the truth - and they will.

 

Of course, you two are experts because you read it on the web....

 

:-)

[LT ED]

Its going to be a long day /evening depending were you are and why is everything so damm slow?

[wicked1]

Weird....

 

Of course' date=' you two are experts because you read it on the web....

 

:-)

[/quote']

 

You mean like YOU did???

 

Unless you're holding out on us, you are neither military or CIA, so you have NO idea what is *actually* happening and whether or not the CIA can figure out if a person is lying.

 

It doesn't *matter* if you got "useful" information or not if you've broken an international treaty to do it. If the reverse were the case, you'd be calling for heads on a platter. You wouldn't be sitting here making excuses for the people in charge of torturing prisoners from the U.S. The only "proof" you have that the information is even useful is that the Bush Administration *told* you it was.

 

Know what, last week I got information that helped me prevent a terrorist attack in Arizona. You should thank me.

[Californiaman]

Lies will fall away with effective interrogation.

To make it stop' date=' the captives will do whatever it takes to convince you they are telling the truth - and they will.[/quote']

 

In my experience, lies often reveal themselves when the person telling it can't remember from one lie to another wheat he or she has told you in the past.

 

And after a few trips to the board, it becomes quite clear what they know and don't know.

[Bowdiddley]

 

Except that our own interrogators managed to get valuable information *without* torturing anybody.

 

Some times you can get info without the aid of enhanced methods' date=' some times it is the only way you will get info.

 

 

If you think it's OK because nobody dies' date=' then tell me--what would be your reaction if a U.S. soldier was waterboarded and "talked" (assuming he gave true information rather than just saying something to stop the torture)? Would that be wrong? [/quote']

 

First off in the interrogation of U. S. Soldiers they have NO LIMITS. They usually behead them or just kill them in an unusually obscene way. If a U.S. Soldier gives info, and he withheld that info to the best of his ability, then he has done nothing wrong. Each man has his own breaking point.

 

Or are you saying that because the U.S. is doing it' date=' it must be OK? Is it OK because we were "attacked"? Did they give up *human* rights by making a choice to attack? [/quote']

 

YES they gave up ALL rights when they attacked the USA. That is war.

 

And how do we justify holding a Red Crescent worker for 7 1/2 years and torturing him (leaving physical scars)? It would seem that they would be the ones doing humanitarian work rather than committing acts of war.

 

Mercy' date=' where do you libs get your info? The "Red Cresent" worker was also contributing to the attack on American soldiers.

 

 

There's a reason why the Geneva Conventions are in place. If we, as a country, don't want to comply with them, we never should've signed them.

 

We haven't broken any agreement to abide by the articles of the Geneva Convention. Just because the Daily KOS or the Huffington Post says we have doesn't make it so.

[grampa]

JUST FOR KICKS.....

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they lie under interrogation, you think the CIA won't figure that out?

The captives are going nowhere and if it's discovered that they lied then the fear is REALLY put into them.

Back to the water we go - one more time!

 

Lies will fall away with effective interrogation.

 

Of course, you two are experts because you read it on the web....

 

 

To make it stop, the captives will do whatever it takes to convince you they are telling the truth - and they will.

 

Neo, have you been brainwashed by the CIA. They are paid to be liars. They lie to us.

The CIA wanted the captives to lie about the Hussein-bin Laden connection.

Under effective interrogation the CIA's lies may "fall away".

The CIA has just recently admitted to the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 in order to set up the Shah, an event that precipitated the "Islamic revolution" of Khomenhi, which led to bin Laden. The CIA is not so smart.

This waterboaring thing was designed to get fake information about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the attack of Iraq.

[wicked1]

First off in the interrogation of U. S. Soldiers they have NO LIMITS. They usually behead them or just kill them in an unusually obscene way. If a U.S. Soldier gives info' date=' and he withheld that info to the best of his ability, then he has done nothing wrong. Each man has his own breaking point.[/quote']

 

So if the *other* guy does it, that makes it ok? And at least one of those "beheadings" happened *after* the guy was already dead and he was not a soldier.

 

YES they gave up ALL rights when they attacked the USA. That is war.

Which is *exactly* what the Geneva Conventions cover. If you just say "that's war" then you can justify anything.

 

Mercy' date=' where do you libs get your info? The "Red Cresent" worker was also contributing to the attack on American soldiers.

[/quote']

 

Which is why he was released after 7 1/2 years without so much a military tribunal. What exactly was his contribution to the attack? Being in Afghanistan?

 

We haven't broken any agreement to abide by the articles of the Geneva Convention. Just because the Daily KOS or the Huffington Post says we have doesn't make it so.

 

So why was it necessary for the White House counsel to issue a memo explaining why the Geneva Convention were "quaint" and we didn't need to worry about what kind of interrogation techniques we used?

[tulsaslim]

Very interesting.

Nobody dies. It works. Everybody talks.Case closed.

If you do not like it: Don't be a terrorist.

 

Yeah. They'll tell you anything you wanna hear (whether it's true or not).

Tool.

 

What would Jesus do, you phony hypocrites?