Author Topic: Human rights groups miffed at Chaney (Read 2579 times)

Brett · « **on:** October 28, 2006, 03:29:01 AM »

I guess the liberals want us to put enemy POWs up at the Hilton and feed them lobster tail and caviar.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-10-27-voa45.cfm

magooch · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2006, 03:54:39 AM »

The so-called "human rights" freaks wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it involved mistreatment of American military prisoners of war. It's all about running down the right and anyone else who would defend America.

Savage .250 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2006, 04:12:19 AM »

What ever it takes, guys. Of course, i`m talking with-in reason here.

Maybe be we should contract with the Israeli Gov`t to do the interrogation.
They do not fool around!

nabob · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2006, 04:40:36 AM »

Two variations on the "straw man" logical fallacy are being being engaged in here in the first two posts. You can read about the type of reasoning being employed by visiting http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

No one has argued for putting up enemy POW's at the Hilton, feeding them caviar or anything like that. Yet the argument is being advanced that since one is against torture, one must be in favor of pampering. That is a straw man argument and a logical fallacy.

Second, the imputation of belief is a straw man because no evidence has been presented that indicates that the human rights movement would allow similar methods if the targets were Americans. This, then, is another "straw man" argument and a logical fallacy.

Relying on logical fallacies to prove one's argument isn't much of an approach, guys.

Brett · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2006, 10:05:19 AM »

An eye for an eye I say. Treat their POWs with the same love and respect that they show to ours.

ironglow · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2006, 03:03:54 PM »

First off, the veep didn't advocate any kind of torture..that was just a straw dog set up by a partisan reporter.
Saw the full context of the interview on FOX..nothing like it has been reported by the activist press..

When the veep was asked if a "dunk in water" is OK, the veep said "it's a no brainer for me..but we still don't torture anyone"..

Now, to my mind a "dunk" is not drowning anyone and even if I were veep a dunk may be a no brainer..but official " no torture" policy was reiterated in the very same sentence. ..But of course, the partisan media wouldn't mention that fact !

Obviously, one man's dunk can be a trouble seeker's drowning...LOL

Frankly; it is a no-brainer for me too... if it will save a few thousand innocent American men, women and kids...I would DROWN those terrorist suckers...

powderman · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2006, 04:05:11 PM »

We are dealing with a bunch of Godless, subhuman scum that see murdering innocents as a blessing from God. If I caught one of these scum and thought that he had information that would save even ONE innocent life, theres NOTHING I would not do to that piece of garbage to get that information. Given the choice of standing naked on a bucket with a pair of pink panties on my head, and being beaten and having my head sawed from my body with a knife in a slow manner, guess what I would choose??DUUUUHHHH. I don't personally care what we do to get these Godless scum to talk. For those of you who say that makes me as bad as them, listen closely, I DON"T CARE. POWDERMAN.

Sheila · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2006, 04:15:53 PM »

Yeah, who cares what we do to this lowlifes, and its non of the Human Right People and UN's buisness what we do to them.

nabob · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2006, 04:22:06 PM »

Of course, you do realize, don't you, that the argument "if it saves just one human life" is precisely the same argument Sarah Brady and the gun control people use to try to take away your handguns.

Oops.

powderman · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2006, 05:03:52 PM »

What in the crap does that have to do with what I said?

?? Absolutely nothing.

. POWDERMAN/

Matt · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2006, 05:25:35 PM »

Quote from: powderman on October 28, 2006, 05:03:52 PM

What in the crap does that have to do with what I said??? Absolutely nothing. . POWDERMAN/

Quote from: powderman

If I caught one of these scum and thought that he had information that would save even ONE innocent life,

Quote

"if it saves just one human life" is precisely the same argument Sarah Brady and the gun control people use to try to take away your handguns

seems quite clear to me.

fe352v8 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 28, 2006, 06:06:52 PM »

Truth…Justice…The American Way

We don’t torture we out-source

Lets teach these godless sub-human scum some wholesome all-American family values, freedom -loving, lessons yes siree; cause might makes right, Gods on our side and we can kick their Talibans into the middle of a God fearing Bible based democracy, amen.

We had a chance to win when it started, as our leaders are more rhetoric than substance, and they are in the midst of changing their rhetoric, it’s over, no matter the election out come, and it will be deja vou all over again, either a Korea or a Viet Nam. The war on terror will become just another talking point for the major parties just like abortion and gun control; opposing rhetoric but no substantive difference.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

magooch · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2006, 04:17:45 AM »

It has always been an incredible concept to me that in war the goal is to vanquish (kill) the enemy, but don't harm a hair on their little heads if you happen to capture some of them. Maybe I'm just not thenthitive enough for this modern thinking. Rules of war--can it get any more ridiculous.

Heavy C · « **Reply #13 on:** October 29, 2006, 04:41:23 AM »

The whole thing is ridiculous! I hope those libs enjoy wearing berkas.

nabob · « **Reply #14 on:** October 29, 2006, 05:45:54 AM »

After they are captured, they are no longer a threat. What would be the purpose of harming them then, except to revenge ourselves.

powderman · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2006, 11:20:53 AM »

Quote from: nabob on October 29, 2006, 05:45:54 AM

After they are captured, they are no longer a threat. What would be the purpose of harming them then, except to revenge ourselves.

Not true. They are a threat as long as they live, breathe, and believe in islam. They are a Godless cult that has been taught to hate and murder since birth. They are a threat as long as they live. Islam is a false religion, and mohamed was a false prophet. Islam is a fast growing cancer, a boil on the butt of the entire world. I hope the world wakes up and sees these Godless scum for the disciples of satan they are, before it's too late. Some of you want to be their buddies, go for it. Take em into your homes and nurture the poor things. POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2006, 11:50:33 AM »

Nabob;

You are right, there is no point in harming them...just to harm them..
...But giving them a bit of special treatment, in order to extract any information we can about their vermin brothers that are still on the loose, now that is another proposition...

You haven't forgot what these low-lifes did on 9/11, have you ? They would do the same again to us on a thousand times scale...if we let them....!

Something tells me that more of the public is with the Veep, rather than with the liberals & terrorists on this one !

nabob · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2006, 01:09:37 PM »

Quote

They are a threat as long as they live, breathe, and believe in islam.

While in our custody, they are no longer a threat to the population of the US nor are they a threat to our national interests. Revenging ourselves on those that do not any longer pose a threat to the US is sadistic.

No, I haven't forgotten what they did to us on 9/11. That's a silly question. "Yes, Ironglow, I've forgotten. Please remind me. What was it again?" C'mon. Why even ask that question unless you want to try to use the attack on 9/11 to justify torturing prisoners? If that is your aim, then we are back to revenging ourselves on prisoners. That is sadistic.

Yep, they'd do it again, if we let them. However, they don't have a chance while in our custody, so using that as an excuse won't wash. Let's also remember, as long as we are remembering things, that much of what Khalid Sheik Muhammad gave us was bogus information, as admitted by our own government, which he gave just to make the torture stop. When the information being obtained is bogus, why continue to use that technique unless torturing people we don't like gives some sort of sick vacarious pleasure?

Sheila · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2006, 02:35:43 PM »

Quote from: nabob on October 29, 2006, 01:09:37 PM

Quote
They are a threat as long as they live, breathe, and believe in islam.

While in our custody, they are no longer a threat to the population of the US nor are they a threat to our national interests. Revenging ourselves on those that do not any longer pose a threat to the US is sadistic.

No, I haven't forgotten what they did to us on 9/11. That's a silly question. "Yes, Ironglow, I've forgotten. Please remind me. What was it again?" C'mon. Why even ask that question unless you want to try to use the attack on 9/11 to justify torturing prisoners? If that is your aim, then we are back to revenging ourselves on prisoners. That is sadistic.

Yep, they'd do it again, if we let them. However, they don't have a chance while in our custody, so using that as an excuse won't wash. Let's also remember, as long as we are remembering things, that much of what Khalid Sheik Muhammad gave us was bogus information, as admitted by our own government, which he gave just to make the torture stop. When the information being obtained is bogus, why continue to use that technique unless torturing people we don't like gives some sort of sick vacarious pleasure?

They are wasting our tax dollars.

ironglow · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2006, 04:14:10 PM »

Let's also remember..much of what Kahlid Sheik Mohammed (or whatever his name is) gave us..led us to other terrorists that are now either in jail or "feeding the flames" of Hell.....

Kinda wondered what they thought when they didn't find their "72 virgins"...LOL

powderman · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2006, 04:14:38 PM »

nabob. Maybe you could repatriate some of those non dangerous poor souls at gitmo. I'm sure they are not a threat, maybe adopt a few of them, you probably have a guest room don't you??? Every day you could sit down with ahab and his buds and blame the United States govt for all of their troubles.
Several of those we have released have been killed or captured on the battlefield as they went right back to killing innocents. Their word is no good. Releasing them just means more innocents will die. Do you support that??? I have no compassion for people who believe that God will bless them for murdering ANYBODY that is not muslim, I meant them, not you. I wonder what you would do if one of those Godless scum had info that would save the life of your son, daughter, wife, or other loved one. Would you still want RULES?

I wouldn't. He would talk, one way or the other, he would talk. I'm a peace loving man, but have no tolerance for scum like them. Islam is sending millions to hell, and they want to murder as many innocents as they can. We are not dealing with rational human beings here, human is even debatable. This is a war we MUST win. It's islam against the world, good, vs evil. God, against satan. There, I said it, now you can flame all you want, but I speak the truth, It's God against satan. If the lives of your loved ones were at risk, and they are, I believe you would change your tune. POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2006, 04:18:05 PM »

Right on Powderman..absolute truth..couldn't have said it better myself...OOHHRAH !!!

nabob · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2006, 11:51:04 PM »

Quote

Let's also remember..much of what Kahlid Sheik Mohammed (or whatever his name is) gave us..led us to other terrorists that are now either in jail or "feeding the flames" of Hell...

Let's also remember that nontorture could just as easily have given us this information. However, terrorists in hell is a consummation devoutly to be wished...

Quote

They are wasting our tax dollars.

So do farm subsidies. Let's kill the farmers!!

Quote

Maybe you could repatriate some of those non dangerous poor souls at gitmo. Several of those we have released have been killed or captured on the battlefield as they went right back to killing innocents.

No one is talking about letting them go, so that is a fairly irrelevant comment. Typical, though, of someone who apparently feels the need to revenge himself against people, not just remove the threat.

Quote

I wonder what you would do if one of those Godless scum had info that would save the life of your son, daughter, wife, or other loved one. Would you still want RULES?

Probably not, but I remember hearing from your vaunted Republican party during the Clinton impeachment hearings that we are a nation of laws, that no one is above the law. I agreed. Now, it seems, when you get angry, you want to no longer have any rules so you can indulge your need to obtain pleasure by torturing those you detest? Not a healthy thought, powderman.

Quote

It's islam against the world, good, vs evil. God, against satan.

What conception of God would condone revenging one's self against people that are in our custody just for the sheer satisfaction of it? No God of mine would do that. What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?

magooch · « **Reply #23 on:** October 30, 2006, 02:55:49 AM »

TM7, what's your point?

powderman · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2006, 03:43:34 AM »

nabob. You just don't get it do ya. Extracting information from the Godless ones would give me no pleasure, but I would do whatever was necessary to get the needed information. I might not sleep well for quite some time, maybe even go throw up, but rest assured, they would not be allowed to hide behind the pc crowd holding information that would save the life of a loved one. See life as it really is and take off those rose colored glasses, cause it clouds your vision. POWDERMAN.

nabob · « **Reply #25 on:** October 30, 2006, 12:38:39 PM »

Perhaps you are the one who needs to take off the rose-colored glasses, powderman. If you did, you'd see that many professional interrogators discount the value of information obtained by torture. According to many, you get more and better information faster using non-physical techniques. Why are you so insistent on using ineffective techniques unless it satisfies some inner need to brutalize those you detest?

Some links:

Ex FBI agent with a son in Afghanistan punctures the torture mystique.

Or, you could go to msnbc.com and find this gem about KSM and the usefulness of torture against him:

Quote

In recent interviews with NEWSWEEK reporters, U.S. intelligence officers say they have little—if any—evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture. It is clear, for instance, that Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. His interrogators even threatened, à la Jack Bauer, to go after his family. (KSM reportedly shrugged off the threat to his family—he would meet them in heaven, he said.) KSM did reveal some names and plots. But they haven’t panned out as all that threatening: one such plot was a plan by an Al Qaeda operative to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge—with a blow torch. Intelligence officials could never be sure if KSM was holding back on more serious threats, or just didn’t know of any.

Or you could peruse some academic research on the effectiveness of torture and the timeliness of the information obtained at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=820467 If you read the essay, you'll see that the author debunks the Hollywood-influenced image of torture as an effective tool.

But then, you'd kind of have to rethink your opinion on this subject and realize that the world is not a Rambo movie. It would also mean having to give up such a nice tool for revenge. I doubt anyone so interested in the use of torture as you would want to do that.

And since you don't know ahead of time if anyone actually knows anything, you run the risk of torturing people that do not have any information to give you. Your post assumes that we know conclusively that a person we consider a terrorist has information that will save someone's life. Yet how do you know that to be true before questioning? You don't. So, your view seems to be that we should engage in torture as a matter of course, for everyone, to see what can be squeezed from them. All this, despite the fact that we will end up torturing people for no good reason because they have no useful information, and despite the questionable effectiveness of torture.

Seems to me that I had your viewpoint pegged from the start - you just enjoy the idea of hurting people you don't like.

ironglow · « **Reply #26 on:** October 30, 2006, 01:02:20 PM »

A little bit of common sense here please...

One man's rigorus questioning is some sob-sister's "torture"..

If rigorous questioning did not get any results for "professional interrogators"...they wouldn't waste their time at it !

Their credibility and career...depend on RESULTS !!!

Nabob..
You seem to resent farmers for their subsidies "wasting" tax dollars tax dollars..so you suggest we should "kill the farmers !"

First off Nabob..can you tell the difference between farmers and terrorists.. HINT:: Terrorists do their best to kill Americans..farmers do their best (with good food) to keep Americans alive and well...

You sure know how to " bite the hand that feeds you !"...LOL

BTW:I saw nowhere in this thread where anyone suggested KILLING imprisoned terrorists..

so please refrain from suggesting doing such to our farmers...

nabob · « **Reply #27 on:** October 30, 2006, 01:18:34 PM »

OK, let's be accurate. We'll just torture the farmers. Better now?

If everything is relative, there are no moral precepts we need to follow. That's a decidedly odd viewpoint for someone like you who is a Christian. I wonder how that would go over in a debate with Jesus: "Well, I know you said to love your enemies, but you know, that seemed a bit vague for me and I decided that one man's enemies are another man's friends, so I decided it was all relative and pretty much ignored what you said."

Good luck with that.

The argument that because torture is used, it must be effective is nonsense. By that same argument, since people believe in lucky charms, they must also be effective. How about doing a bit of research on the subject before jumping to a conclusion. Seems to me that plenty of doubt exists, which makes me wonder why people are so adamant that these techniques be used. I have to conclude that it is because they address the needs of the person contemplating just how loud the screams will be and just how much pain another human being will be in.

powderman · « **Reply #28 on:** October 30, 2006, 01:56:47 PM »

nabob. Torture would of course be a last resort. Easy, or hard, that would be the Godless ones choice. If the easy didn't work, the hard way would be applied. I pity your family if any of them ever come in harms way. By the time you got done pacifying the scum, your family would be dead. POWDERMAN.

Sheila · « **Reply #29 on:** October 30, 2006, 03:03:13 PM »

Nabob is a bleeding heart libral.