I can hold up a rock and say that this rock is a tiger repelent. Now my only evidence is that there are no tigers around. So how much do you want to pay for this rock to take on your vacation to inda?

P.S. this isn't to you toasted, but one of your quotes.

Broke Khalid Sheik Mohammed who confessed about numerous past and ongoing plots. Also, he gave up many contacts. All after waterboarding.

Again, works for me.

Seems you forget the real reason we decided to JOIN this war is because we were hit by terrorists crashing planes into our country! Not because of torture and human rights.

That is true if you are talking about afghanistan. But now if your takling about Iraq thats different Iraq never had any significant ties to terrorists, and as i remember one of the motivators for going to war in Iraq was Hussains horrible human rights record.

doesn't change the fact that it's a crap tactic that's not only inhumane but it also almost never works. go you for giving up your moral high ground

i can't believe anyone will still bring up 9/11 and connect it to iraq. it's been proven that we were lied to, that was known by many people while bush was fibbing.

some people's kids..

We did not go to war because Hussein was a human rights abusers, we went to war because in this new war on terror we decided we could not trade the safety of the US by maintaining dictators who wished us serious harm and had in their hands the tools to do so or give them off to someone else to do. The fact that he had used chem and bio weapons before was just our example as to how he used them before and would likely use them again.

Never did directly connect 9/11 to Iraq. Get your facts straight, stop spinning.

Sorry you feel bad for Khalid Sheik Mohammed that we performed the same interrogation tactic on him that we do our own Special Forces and CIA. I suppose loud music is too harsh of 'torture' for you too, because according to the Geneva Convention that is 'torture' as well.

yes well, according to the politicians who justify water boarding, waiting for your mail is also torture.

go you, antiamerican, yay

lol what kind of statement is that?

Waterboarding is not dangerous nor does it have any lasting physical or mental harm.

What tactics do you believe the government should have to interrogating terrorists captured on the battlefield? Milk and cookies and asking politely?

torture is clearly in violation of the principles this country was founded on

and who are you to say it has no lasting mental harm? what are your qualifications to say that staring death in the face repeatedly is not harmful?

No CIA or Special Forces member has ever spoken out against such effects. They have spoken about everything else, but they will not say such. Until they do I stand by it. If we can test it on our own, use it on terrorists.

Like I just said, what is torture to you?

What if someone knows a bomb is about to go off in your home city, going to completely flatten the place, and your parents, siblings, and other family members are in that city. No time to get out. Only chance you have is to break this one terrorist caught on the battefield and linked to the group believed to be behind the attack?

What do you do?

Do you ask politely Mr. Terrorist who is acting tough and ready to die for his virgins, or do you do anything you can to break this guy?

Cutting, breaking of limbs, shooting, and beating detainees I am totally against for I cannot fathom the tactics and what they exactly entail, yet I trust in the men and women protecting this country to do what they must, to terrorists captured on the battlefield, to get important information out of them. That's my final standing point, I'm not going back and forth on this anymore.

Oh yeah, have you ever heard of tar and feathering? Guess who did such things? The same Founding Fathers who founded the rights for US citizens. These people we captured aren't even US citizens, they are captured either on the battlefield attacking, killing US troops and allies, or supplying enemies of the US.

I can only guess what would a pre-20th Century US would have done to such people, but I am sure it wouldn't have involved a lengthy trial and waiting period for execution.

Wow! These two statements, by the same author in the same thread.. I believe takes the cake for double speak of the day! Maybe we have a future Politician on our hands!

jistme..... The above two quotes are not double talk. They are factual and you are the one who takes the cake for not seeing your nose in front of your face.

What? I never ever directly linked the two.

Went to Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists, Osama bin Laden and others, who were behind the attacks on 9/11.

Went to Iraq because Hussein was continuing to play games with the UN Weapons Inspectors and all intelligence agencies pointed to him still hiding WMD. We never went to Iraq because al Qaeda launched any attacks there, nor was Iraq responsible for 9/11.

Not once did I doublespeak.

And, why I said JOIN the war, is because I am making the point that Osama and Islamofascists had declared war on the US way back, way before the first World Trade Center bombing.

I'm glad you can make this distinction.

In our reality.. these were two separate actions.. Iraq was clearly not started in an effort to fight the war on terror. Until we 'won' the war. Then, of course... all the various terrorist groups then moved to attack a target of opportunity. So.. I suppose if you look on it that way.. The two are now one.

Yet still...
You state this:
"We did not go to war because Hussein was a human rights abusers, we went to war because in this new war on terror we decided we could not trade the safety of the US by maintaining dictators who wished us serious harm and had in their hands the tools to do so or give them off to someone else to do. The fact that he had used chem and bio weapons before was just our example as to how he used them before and would likely use them again."

At what point, did our intelligence community make this distinction? When did anyone ever assess Hussein to be an immediate threat to our Home Land Security? In October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate (in error) suggested that Iraq was actively pursuing a nuclear device with a target date of 2010 and may have had 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical weapons, some short range ballistic and unmanned vehicles and a few mobile biological weapons labs.
The report never stated that he was in collusion with any active terrorist group or an immediate threat in any way to the U.S. soil or its allies. At the time of the report.. just the folks within his country were at risk. Which would clearly be a human rights violation should he choose to use WMD's on them.

Despite this published material (Not the press).. You would appear to believe he was... and therefore ~ always a part of the War on Terror.

So.. in essence, I'm still of the opinion that there is some double speak going on.

I keep hearing about being humane to the captives. (I know im going to take flack for this but I dont care.) Waterboarding is nothing compared to what they do to us. My brother has told me what they do to our captured soldiers. You think waterboarding is bad, try beheading, disembowling, cutting off ther genatials stuffing them in there mouths and making sure they blead to death. Iv seen the argument it should be done some other way. How do you say we do that, sodium pentathol. The info you get from that is a craps shoot. If you want the truth out of someone you take a razor sharp knife and peal there skin inch by inch. Or you could use piano wire to remove there fingers joint by joint. Yes these are brutal tactics but they get results. Now I bet waterboarding dosent sound so bad does it.

no matter how many times you say it does, torture rarely works.