True, he didn't say what techniques were used in "another country".

Take it for what it is worth but I have also read that waterboarding and the rest weren't used, and were never intended to be used, to gain new information. The enhanced techniques were used while asking the detainee questions we already knew the answers to as a way to see when the detainee reached the proper "mindset" to answer questions truthfully.

As I said, take it for what it is worth, but that does make sense to me. As most who object to the enhanced interrogation techniques have pointed out it is well recognized that people would lie to make that treatment stop. This would be a way to demonstrate to the detainees that only the truth would make it stop. It may also explain why KSM was waterboarded as many times as he was. It took that much for him to start telling the truth.

I'm not saying this is what happened, only that it sounds somewhat plausible.

Its also entirely likely that such cross refrencing is worthless since the detainees knew two things about the united states:

We are a nation of blubbering vaginas
We're gonna bitch out on any torture.

Well that's because you have to fill up the entire frame. :lol

Anybody ever watch "Unthinkable"?

Actually what it says, is that the AG lied about where information came from, in order to defend his own actions.

Since when is that news? :lol:

Given your response, it appeared to be news to you.

If you call honoring your word blubbering

Like the Geneva Convention...

Which says that even unlawful combatants are to be treated humanely.

Now, I'm no angel......I'd be tempted to beat up a prisoner in certain circumstances......but maybe that's why it's good that I'm not a jailor, intelligence agent, politician, or DOJ lawyer. Those who are, are responsible for their actions.

I dunno... waterboarding just doesn't seem like much in the way of torture to me...

Well, in that case maybe we shouldn't have cited it as one of our charges against Japanese generals

I guess theyre beyond use of car batteries or fingernail removal now.

Try it sometime. I'm sure we could arrange for a group of strangers to kidnap you off the street, in a plain white van, and subject you to 'not much in the way of torture' for a few days.

Do as I say...

Well, I'm sure it isn't pleasant, but that's sorta the point... I mean if people demonstrate it while the protesting on college campuses and we subject our own operatives to it as a part of their training, is it really bad enough to qualify as torture?

That was my point about abducting you in a white van, first. Having people you trust do it isn't the same thing as having some shadowy enemy do it. It is torture, pure and simple.

I suppose that's why they subject operatives to beatings, disfigurement, electrocution, etc as part of their training... and that's why you see all those kids doing that shit when they are protesting... wait...

Sure, it's probably pretty fucking horrible to experience... but to me, it's not even close to the level:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Severe pain or suffering... means something to everyone, but not necessarily the same thing to everyone... I wouldn't consider waterboard to be severe.

Look at it this way, waterboarding has been employed by the Gestapo, the Kempeitai (basically the Gestapo of the Japanese army during WWII), the Spanish Inquisition (whom nobody ever expects) and the Khmer Rouge.

What do all those organizations have in common?

I'll give you a hint; it's not their delicious pies and cakes.

JC

They feel the need to inure people to torture so they subject them to a form that leaves no lasting physical injury, when performed under carefully controlled conditions. Ironically it also has little chance of causing lasting PSYCHOLOGICAL injury, because it's being performed by 'friendlies.'

Again, I suggest that you partake of it while in the 'care' of people, whom you don't know.

You mean they don't have delicious pies and cakes?

So, you'd be cool with me waterbording your mom, right?

Well, the Gestapo probably had a couple of guys that made a mean Strudel, but the others, not so much.

JC

And the form that's used for interrogation does leave lasting physical injury?

For the psychological standpoint, that's pretty subjective... 1) the guys they waterboarded were trained to resist such things, mitigating the psychological impacts long term 2) they were pretty fucked in the head to begin with... like comparing walking a normal, well adjusted person onto a gruesome battlefield... they'd obviously have long term psychological damage, but put Charles Manson out there and watch him finger paint with entrails. Poor comparison to begin with.

No, I wouldn't be cool with you waterboarding my mom. I also wouldn't be cool with you shooting my mom in the face, but if you caught one of these guys during the raid on Bin Laden's compound... no biggie.

Again, you guys are making terrible comparisons... It's not like they waterboarded hundreds of random people... They did it to guys who were trained specifically to resist that sort of thing, are fucked in the head to begin with, etc...

People make such a big deal out of "lasting physical injury", like as if that's the definition of torture.

I could whip out a knife and give myself a permanent scar, and it wouldn't be all that painful. I'd much rather do that than be waterboarded, or hung from the ceiling in the cold for 18 hours.

So why not just quit pussy footing around and say it; Torture is ok by you, as long as it's only done to assholes we don't like.

JC

OK, so now we know that you're OK with treating a "fucked in the head" human being, in a way you would never consider treating a dog. Being 'trained' to resist torture doesn't make something not torture. When you're trying to obtain a psychological response, in this case capitulation and the release of information, not physically messing up your captive is a plus. That's a feature, not a bug.

It also doesn't happen to, you know, work.

Missing the point... It's not about people I don't like... It's about adjusting the technique to account for the particular person's makeup...


See, I think it does make something torture or not... Playing heavy metal at high volumes and sleep depravation is considered torture by some... Others, it's a good weekend. There's a lot of grey area here, but again IMHO, waterboarding is not torture.

Then, as AMJ stated, you need to look at how many people have been charged with war crimes for doing precisely that. You're wrong.

That makes no sense at all. If someone is trained to resist waterboarding, why do it to them? Seems like a waste of time to me.

JC

That can work :lol:

Not that I believe anything that comes out of Washington, but do you actually think that the head of the CIA wouldn't lie to to further his/the president's/big oil/whomever-he-needed-at-the-time's aggenda? The CIA has so many un-truths floating at one time that they probably dont even know what the truth is. Not saying the AG isn't lying to protect someone, just saying that I dont think he was owned because you heard it from the Director of the CIA... just saying...

OBAMA ACCUSED OF POLITICIZING KILLING OF BIN LADEN BY KILLING BIN LADEN

WASHINGTON D.C. (SatireWire.com) — Republicans today accused President Obama of needlessly politicizing Osama bin Laden’s death by intentionally being the President at the time of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Arguing that party affiliation doesn't matter, Fox News’ put bin Laden’s death during the Bush presidency.

“The President is using the war on terror as a political tool,” said Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY). “He knows full well the American people will give him credit for killing bin Laden, and yet, despite the obvious political gain, he did it anyway.”

McConnell went on to insist the President was well aware that he was the President and even admitted as much during a late Sunday meeting during which Obama advised Republican leaders of the imminent mission.

“The President told us we were going to kill bin Laden and a hush fell over the room,” McConnell recalled. “We all just looked at each other in disbelief. Then I remember, very pointedly, saying, “But… but if we do it now, you’re the President,” to which the President responded, “I know.”

In the “spirit of bipartisanship,” Republicans then asked Obama if they too could authorize the killing, but were refused.

Obama himself has taken no personal credit for the attack, which Fox News said justifies its network’s coverage of the mission; specifically, that bin Laden died on May 1, 2007 — during the Bush presidency.

Meanwhile, Fox anchor Brit Hume called it a “very strange coincidence” that the President ordered bin Laden to be killed only a few days after the President released his official birth certificate. “The President announces to the world, ‘Hey I’m definitely the President’ just before he authorizes this?” said Hume. “Sounds to me like he wanted us to know he was President. Why else would he do it?”

Democrats defended the President, emphasizing that he achieved what President George Bush, in eight years, was unable to do. But Sen. Richard Shelby, (R-AL), said the previous administration’s failures were what led to the al Qaeda leader’s death.

“It’s like when you’re trying to unscrew the top off the new jelly jar,” Shelby explained. “We worked and worked on that thing for eight years, so when we passed it to Obama, it was probably already loose.”

At a midday press conference Monday, House Speaker John Boehner, (R-OH), summed up the GOP position.

“The truth is, party affiliation does not matter,” said Boehner. “I mean, let’s say a Republican were in charge. In that case, we’d be saying the Republicans killed Osama bin Laden. Let me just repeat that: the Republicans killed Osama bin Laden.”

http://www.satirewire.com/content1/?p=2840

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2...is-killed.html

:lol

:lol:

Well done

Wouldn't doubt some people actually feel that way....






....and they'd probably be white, male, & located in flyover country

Long, but a very good read.

The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed

20 years is 20 years, go back in for 4 more years... You aren't special because you shot Bin Laden. Every service person is expected to give the same time frame to get those benefits...

This.

I will add, if he wasn't aware of his medical benefits getting out, he had no one to blame but himself. I had so many people telling me, or trying to tell me, about my benefits that I got sick of hearing about it.

There was a MASSIVE team effort involved in finding Bin Laden. "The Shooter" was just the last link in a very long chain. Props for your distinguished service. Fuck you very much for thinking you're owed more than, say, the victors of the COP Keating defense.

I hear ya! And I mean no disrespect, as I don't HAVE any experience in the armed forces of any kind, so my opinion means very little, and I know that. But I would think that being the "tool" that finally completed a decade long search for the MOST wanted man in the world, would be one hellova mind-fuck.

Had they just been told this was just a target that had to be eliminated, then it would have been a day like any other day (in their world) but to assign the pressure of who it was?!?!?

It seems more like the author is the one really pushing the whole "Shit out of luck" angle. If the shooter really did get out because he wanted to be with his family and not end up in a body bag then I can't really fault him for that.

I don't either, more power to him, I feel bad he is in that position, but he chose that life.

And the other thing is, people in Special Ops receive certain "intangibles" including camradere and bragging rights that other jobs don't get. I'm quite sure that many of them would do it even for only half the pay.

He would have had to not only chose once, but multiple times to reach Seal Team 6. It was also not just making those choices, but actively pursuing that life throughout his entire career to reach that point. He also had other options besides carrying a gun, the story itself says he could have stayed in the Navy in a support role, rather than as a shooter, to fulfill his 20 but he chose not to. I'm not diminishing or taking away anything he has done, but if my math is correct this guy is in his mid 30s. Is the government expected to give him a comfortable retirement for the next 40+ years?

Everything I have read is those who are in the Seals, particularly those in Team 6, are generally very intelligent. They also tend to have Bachelors and Masters degrees already. If they want to get more education, if they took advantage of the GI Bill, they can have at least a portion of that subsidized too.

The article presents the premise that corporations should be actively pursuing this type of person but aren't. I know of some companies that do look for people like this specifically. There are also headhunter organizations that specialize in dealing with former Officers and NCOs. Before he retired my father used to work with them to fill vacancies since he was much more likely to get someone smart who could be counted on rather than the typical Gen X or Y person who requires a ton of attention, direction, and reassurance.

I respect this guy and what he has done. I also think the author is using his story to try and sell a greater message that may not necessarily be applicable to this guy.