Just for a change of pace

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??

Already cleared this up.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Already cleared this up.

true

[brianwspencer]

Though, he also said "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

Implicit in that statement is that we may have jumped right to it, straight to torture, without even trying anything else.

What happened happened, but it doesn't mean we have to keep doing it. If it was all so sweet and wonderful, why is it that interrogation tapes were intentionally destroyed? If it was so wonderful and productive, shouldn't those tapes have made great training material...since they were legal techniques being used and all?

That's admittedly mild conjecture on my part, but it's not really that tough to logically connect the dots. If everything was legal, then there'd be nothing to hide. And if it was both legal and productive, you KNOW they'd have been singing it from the rooftops and using it to teach other people how to do it.

Just thinking out loud. Can't know everything, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion, and it doesn't take a "typical liberal," either. Just some common sense that people don't destroy things like that if there's nothing to hide.

[hi_im_god]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

interesting history of the haphazard manner we came to embrace water boarding after previously prosecuting it as a war crime.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

It's one thing to separate people from others, AND IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING TO TORTURE THEM. I think they were correct in doing it here during WW2. It should of been done in a way that made sure none of the Japanese Americans lost any property or valuables etc., but I think that's an example of a necessary evil done to protect a nation at war. Yea, we kept some citizens from being able to roam freely for a couple years. Big deal. Torturing people without even a trial? That's gunna keep us from ever electing a Texan for president again. That's was the last fkn Hee Haw in charge..ever!

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

It's one thing to separate people from others, AND IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING TO TORTURE THEM. I think they were correct in doing it here during WW2. It should of been done in a way that made sure none of the Japanese Americans lost any property or valuables etc., but I think that's an example of a necessary evil done to protect a nation at war. Yea, we kept some citizens from being able to roam freely for a couple years. Big deal. Torturing people without even a trial? That's gunna keep us from ever electing a Texan for president again. That's was the last fkn Hee Haw in charge..ever!

Add a guy from Wyoming- Cheney
and a guy from Illinois - Rumsfeld

Doubt Bush stumbled on to this without their input.

[hi_im_god]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/bu...torture&st=cse

just an article about how the debate was framed. interesting how so many of the arguments heard here in support of torture mirror the misinformation spread in this single interview.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Add a guy from Wyoming- Cheney
and a guy from Illinois - Rumsfeld

Doubt Bush stumbled on to this without their input.

No more messes from Texas.