Several members on these threads enjoy trying to intimidate other members
by using sophomoric tactics such as demeaning, belittling and bumptiousness
because their views provide no reasonable recourse. Of course, it never
works, but they continue to behave opprobriously.

That's why we have the "ignore".

Probably, yes. Waterboarding was used 3 times. Which of those times did the waterboarding prevent a terrorist attack?

All these are fairly empty arguments. We don't know what attacks were thwarted, if any. There is some dispute as to whether the techniques work - I've always heard they did not but some muckety mucks are saying otherwise so I doubt if we know. This is a very shadowy area and if we think we know much about it, I'm betting we don't know nearly as much as we think we do.

John McCain knows about torture and he is against "torture." We don't live in a perfect, peaceful world. Some people would never give up much of anything under torture and then there are people like me who would start handing off my wedding ring, children's baby books and map to where my dog lives if they looked at me while they were grouchy. I don't think you can make accurate blanket statements this this works or that doesn't work. Fact is, I'm betting we just don't know on a given situation.

It is not like we are going out and grabbing guys off the street and torturing them to see if, by chance, they have information. They are working over guys who they have reason to think might know something. It troubles me to use these techniques. Hell, the idea of slapping some guy makes me cringe. SHOUTING at people makes me cringe. But I have to say this, and I have said it before, if I thought someone knew something about an attack that was going to seriously harm my child, I would do Japanese-type torture to get that information. Personally. I am not proud of that but I am a mom.

The president of the United States has a duty to protect us. I am not sure how far this one will go to do that. I am not even sure how far I want him to go. But if he saved my children from an attack, I have to be honest that I would not say a word about the techniques. What does it say about me that I might complain about the techniques used to save your kids but saving mine is fine? I don't know.

> I might complain about the techniques used to save your kids but saving mine is fine?

Not gonna grouse on an oh so human response. Dads get that way too.

Anybody notice how some are trying to portray McVeigh as a 'liberal?" Amusing how, given enough time, people can reinvent a monster to reflect the evil they project on others rather than the evils the monster reflects on them.

Actually, there has been an enormous amount of research done on this over the past 50 years. So, I think we can make a valid judgment.

However, all the research in the world can be discounted should you get a command that wants to torture.

Actually, we have done quite a bit of this exact thing. The number of people who are in gitmo or other similar places for being guilty of nothing other than being Arab in the wrong place at the wrong time is shockingly high.

I have a good friend who is a criminal defense attorney and has taken a few gitmo prisoners as clients. One was a taxi driver working the wrong part of the town and the other was just a guy living in the wrong neighborhood.

I'm sure most of them had stories like this - "I was just walking along minding my own business, passing out candy to the children when all of a sudden a guy runs by and asks me to hold his rifle for a minute. The next thing I know I'm face down in the sand with zip ties on my hands."

I would rather trust the judgement of those those that captured them. I'm not saying that mistakes never happen, but it's likely that the vast majority deserve to be where they are. I have a good friend who interacted with Iraqis every day at checkpoints and he had all sorts of stories about how they would find explosives, ammo, and other such contraband in the vehicles of the nicest people who were as sincere as could be that they were simply set up. Riiiight. That 7.62mm ammo just accidentally found it's way into their kid's diaper bag and in the uphostery and even inside a spare tire.

Which has nothing to do with anything. Yes, bad guys lie. Duh.

That was not what ECO said. She said, "its' not like we are rounding people up..." but that does indeed happen.

I'm not even casting judgement on those who do. It is part and parcel of asymmetrical war that you can't tell the guilty from the innocent.

When did this happen? Which people tried to portray McViegh as a liberal?

Someone on this thread was trying to make him out to be a Christian. That's
laughable.

McVeigh was a kook. Neither liberal or Conservative.

Rove reported that over 50 percent of the information we obtained on al quaeda after 911 was obtained by those waterboarding "tortures",

Caboose, excuse me for misquoting you. You called me an extremist this time, not a liberal.

The frequency with which folks throw around labels here is such that it is hard to keep track.

Regardless, McVeigh's politics seem quite close to yours so I'm certain it is hard to own up to the despicable elements in your own world view.

Then my despicable is your respectable so, carry on.

I assure you, however, I do not condone Mcveigh's' actions under any circumstance or ideological pretense.

Earlier, Fire wanted us to buy the notion that Sirhan Sirhan was a "leftist" and attributed virtually all political murders committed during the past few hundred years as an action of the "left." Of course, that idea was predicated with the convenient defining of all political extremists as part of the "left" regardless of their specific view.

I meant your comment to be placed in that silly category.

In that, the comment stands.

If you have any evidence that I advocate indiscriminate killing in the name of politics, please present it and I will own up to my words.

Otherwise, stand tall freindly underdog. And I mean that as your friend.

Sept. 11 planner waterboarded 183 times: report

Wow, maybe a little extreme?!?

Granted - this guy was a total lunatic. My beef is with the innocent people that got tortured

This is just the whine-du-jour. Actually...it's not even that important anymore because it's been replaced by Obama shaking Chavez's hand. lol Since when did it become such a huge security secret that the U.S. won't torture their prisoners? Wasn't that pretty much a given prior to the Bush administration? DUH!

This is Karl Rove you're talking about. First off, "50 percent" sounds like a made up number. Even if it's not, did Rove indicate how reliable that information was? If that were a positive side of his story, you think he'd be talking about that.

Everyone knows we have done this. That we were using harsh interrogation methods was one of the worst kept secrets of all time. That we come clean now and stop doing it is good for the U.S. image abroad.

Keep in mind that the U.S. doing the 'right' thing even when that' s the harder thing to do is something which has won us our biggest battles in our most recent wars. The Anbar Awakening, for example was all because the Sunni leaders in Iraq realized that life with Al Quaeda was much worse than life with the new coalition government.

Image does mean something and image is key to getting results. This war isn't about breaking things and killing people. It's about changing attitudes and cultures.

This morning on Fox News, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded to the startling information — first noted by blogger Marcy Wheeler — that detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. “It’s unacceptable,” McCain said, adding:

One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can ensure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.

Cheney: US gained information from interrogations

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney says the U.S.
government gained valuable intelligence from its aggressive interrogations
of high-value detainees after the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

The government's methods are described in documents newly released by
the [sic] current administration and have drawn new scrutiny over what
might be appropriate treatment - or what might be construed as torture.

Many of the old interrogation methods - including so-called "water
boarding" - have been banned. Waterboarding involves putting a person in
the prone position and pouring water on a wet towel over his face to
simulate drowning. Other tactics entail stripping a detainee naked, depriving
him of sleep, physically striking him and putting a hood over his head.

But in an interview with Fox News Channel, Cheney said Monday that
what hasn't been revealed publicly is what the U.S. gained as a result
of these activities.

"I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we
learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were
for the country," Cheney said.

And Cheney can be completely trusted because he's never misled the public before.

I'll trust McCain over Cheney without reservation.

Yes, Cheney can be trusted.

McCain was giving his opinion of torture. Cheney was simply presenting the
facts that valuable information was obtained via aggressive interrogation.
BO can't afford to have that information revealed. His credibility already
stinks to the ionosphere, he and the democrats certainly can't let this get
out.

That might be the funniest thing I've ever read here.

Seriously? Usually you post well thought out arguments...but trust Dick freaking Cheney?

x2. Hmm - trust a former POW or Cheney...

Seeing as how Cheney's and McCain's comments didn't contradict each other I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

That McCain has some credibility in the area and Cheney has a history of not telling the whole truth. I realize it was McCain's opinion and Cheney had the inside info.

You are implying that they are making conflicting statements that it would require us trusting one or the other. Their statements do not conflict so why are you having to decide which one to trust?

Trust was a bad word. All I am saying is that I'll take a former POW's opinion over something Cheney said. That's my personal opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone.