News Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

I heard Rush bring this up just yesterday or the day before. I guess someone asked a politician who stated waterboarding is torture "Since you say waterboarding is torture and we use waterboarding on our soldiers as part of their training would you say that it is ok for America to torture its soldiers?"(paraphrased). Unfortunately the politician had no cajones and demured at the question. The answer should have been "Yes", soldiers undergo many procedures that could be defined as torture as part of their training and do so voluntarily. Hell, people voluntarily undergo treatment that could be called torture privately (and even not so privately) for the purpose of sexual gratification, among other reasons. The word "voluntarily" holds a lot of weight legally. Its not so tough a thought to consider.

 

[Phrak]

I remember hearing in the newsback when this first became a big story that some military higher ups had decided to under go waterboarding to determine for themselves what they thought of the practice. Apparently the best time was 12 seconds. I'm sure you can guess how they decided they felt about the procedure.


Different standards of credibility?
Perhaps if they were from Missouri too they would have said "show me" before spending the last year or so discussing the topic from an "uninformed" perspective?

hu-what?

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

For the same reason that it is acceptable for Mancow or Hitchens to submit themselves to waterboarding - they signed up for it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

hu-what?

How long has Mancow been espousing his opinion on waterboarding?
If I spend even a day espousing opinions on economics then read a book on the subject and retract my previous statements does this somehow magically erase the lack of credibility I exhibited the day before?

Edit: Or have I misunderstood whom it was you were referring to?

 

[Phrak]

How long has Mancow been espousing his opinion on waterboarding?
If I spend even a day espousing opinions on economics then read a book on the subject and retract my previous statements does this somehow magically erase the lack of credibility I exhibited the day before?

Edit: Or have I misunderstood whom it was you were referring to?

Sorry to be so obscure. I haven't been very clear in my intent. We seem to agree.

These radio jockeys are the pamphleteers or our time. The Thomas Paines. Talk radio has replaced the political tract. They live and breath, advance their Neilson ratings, and collects their checks on their ability to yank our chains. The ones that survive are the 'cream of the crop'.

To a man, if they can't yank your heart strings any which way they choose, they are failures in the profession of their choosing. They each have their shticks, from the loud mouthed Mancow to whatever works. This is their forte and their profession. No Nielsen ratings, no checkie in the mail. They vanish into obscurity.

So it's not really a matter of the credibility of these guys. They have none that should be recognised. I misspoke. It's more a question of one's immunity to brainwashing. Or put another way, are you as calloused as I?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We seem to agree.
...
Or put another way, are you as calloused as I?

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

I used to allow myself to be brainwashed, primarily on other topics, and when I did some reading and found I had been duped I became far more skeptical. Funny enough it was a determination to avoid what I "ought to" believe that got me brain washed.

 

[Al68]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

The same reason many are tear gassed in training. So they will understand the effect to a small degree.

As far as waterboarding being "torturous", of course it is. Why else would it be used? Why else would a religious zealot betray their own cause, and their God, at the expense of their eternal paradise with a bunch of virgins?

 

[ExactlySolved]

As far as waterboarding being "torturous", of course it is. Why else would it be used? Why else would a religious zealot betray their own cause, and their God, at the expense of their eternal paradise with a bunch of virgins?

We agree that waterboarding is torture, so hopefully we agree that saving *it doesn't matter how many* lives at the expense of our humanity and honor is a fool's trade. Anyone who is so afraid of death that they would commit monstrous acts on others is to be condemed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We agree that waterboarding is torture, so hopefully we agree that saving *it doesn't matter how many* lives at the expense of our humanity and honor is a fool's trade. Anyone who is so afraid of death that they would commit monstrous acts on others is to be condemed.

What I find particularly disturbing is that Cheney is using the "ends justify the means" argument and he doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact he seems to be completely oblivious to it.

 

[mheslep]

I'd love to see that pus-bag Limbaugh waterboarded right alongside the too-snide jerk Cheney and see which one of those creeps broke first. Torture is torture, and the scenery-chewing ravings of these loons does not mitigate that. It would be nice to see them maintain their composure while being tortured though.

In addition to content already prohibited by our global forum guidelines, the following are specifically NOT permitted in Politics & World Affairs:
...
2) Statements of a purely inflammatory nature, regardless of whether it is a personal insult or not.

Does this mean anything anymore?

 

[atyy]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

Really? What torture do they go through? I don't know who your "own soldiers" are so could you state the country explicitly?

 

[atyy]

Because they are likely to be subject to torture, by definition by the bad guys, and it will greatly help them handle the pain if it happens. I don't see what's difficult.

I don't see this is necessarily true. Real torture is much presumably much worse than practice torture - to the point where practice may be pointless.

 

[atyy]

We agree that waterboarding is torture, so hopefully we agree that saving *it doesn't matter how many* lives at the expense of our humanity and honor is a fool's trade. Anyone who is so afraid of death that they would commit monstrous acts on others is to be condemed.

Well, if you torture them yourself, and don't get the people you are saving involved, you only sacrifice your humanity for the good of *it doesn't matter how many*. And it's not for your own death, it's for the death of *others*.

How about murder? Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler? Or is murder less monstrous than torture?

 

[humanino]

I don't see this is necessarily true. Real torture is much presumably much worse than practice torture - to the point where practice may be pointless.

Just to clarify, I agree with you. I was just answering "why is it acceptable ?" not "should it be done". They may do it wrong. I may even not find it acceptable myself. If the soldier undergoing torture training thinks it will help him, it's not my business.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, if you torture them yourself, and don't get the people you are saving involved, you only sacrifice your humanity for the good of *it doesn't matter how many*. And it's not for your own death, it's for the death of *others*.

You have betrayed the humanity of those you represent. We are talking about what the law allows here. It is a question of the quality of a nation and what it represents. You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause.

How about murder? Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler? Or is murder less monstrous than torture?

You would kill a man to get information? How does that work? Obviously we are talking about two different situations here.

The question is a bit unrealistic because we have the benefit of hindsight. But even the police can shoot a person who poses a direct and imminent threat to them or someone else. If killing Hitler was the only way to stop him, then it is pretty easy to justify taking him out. But that is not to say that he should be murdered if other options exist, such as arrest and imprisonment.

 

[Cyrus]

Really? What torture do they go through? I don't know who your "own soldiers" are so could you state the country explicitly?

The United States.

 

[phyzmatix]

You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause.

You've just made me think of something else here...why did they torture these people if those so-called "truth drugs" exist? Or are those drugs also unreliable?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You've just made me think of something else here...why did they torture these people if those so-called "truth drugs" exist? Or are those drugs also unreliable?

They're essentially like getting a guy drunk and getting him to talk about how he cheated on his wife. Except they are more powerful than booze. There is no real way to make someone tell the truth, only get them in a state of mind where they are more likely to do so.

 

[atyy]

You have betrayed the humanity of those you represent. We are talking about what the law allows here. It is a question of the quality of a nation and what it represents. You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause.

The argument that torture doesn't work is a separate, practical one. It is so often presented with the moral one, that it appears that those who present the moral one don't believe it sufficiently strong, and need the practical one. If the moral one is not correct, then why not just present the practical one? If the moral one is correct, it should not be weakened by presenting it with an irrelevant (to the moral issue) practical one.

 

[turbo]

The argument that torture doesn't work is a separate, practical one. It is so often presented with the moral one, that it appears that those who present the moral one don't believe it sufficiently strong, and need the practical one. If the moral one is not correct, then why not just present the practical one? If the moral one is correct, it should not be weakened by presenting it with an irrelevant (to the moral issue) practical one.

Good points.

The people who support torture often use another argument - the ends justify the means. The Cheney/Limbaugh crowd like to point to the fact that nobody has flown jetliners into landmark buildings since 9/11 and say that the "War on Terror" including renditions in foreign prisons, torture, etc, have "kept America safe" with NO proof that the information gathered through torture was accurate, meaningful, or related to any significant danger to Americans.

To the contrary, pictures of prisoners being sexually degraded and humiliated, and reports of the US's treatment of prisoners in foreign prisons are the perfect recruiting tools for radical fundamentalist groups. Those reports and images show Americans to be brutal, evil people, and help justify extreme actions against us. Most at-risk are our service-people, who are exposed to asymmetrical attacks, and may be subjected to atrocities if they are captured. I have a nephew who is career-military, as is his wife, and a niece who is a Lt. in the National Guard, and I know many other people in this rural area who have loved ones in the military. It really makes me sick when chicken-hawks who never served root for torture and other abusive treatment of prisoners, when by doing so they are increasing the risks faced by our troops.

Let's add this argument to the "con" side. The US should never torture captives because we don't want our enemies to feel justified in doing the same to our troops.

 

[DaveC426913]

I find the Mancow story interesting from a purely political point of view. I don't think it sheds any additional light on the debate of whether waterboarding is torture.

Mancow seems to be converted before going into the test. Presumably, if he thought he were going to ace it, he would have had more smugness and less nervousness.

Is it possible this is a stunt by torture opponents rather than proponents?

 

[DaveC426913]

The US should never torture captives because we don't want our enemies to feel justified in doing the same to our troops.

Well sure but the idea was to not publicize it. Then it's a win-win situation. The people are happy in their bliss, the enemy doesn't see us being brutal, we don't "ruin" these techniques for future interrogation-hopefuls, AND the Americans get their intelligence.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Well sure but the idea was to not publicize it. Then it's a win-win situation. The people are happy in their bliss, the enemy doesn't see us being brutal, we don't "ruin" these techniques for future interrogation-hopefuls, AND the Americans get their intelligence.

I don't go to church, but I have heard these people use the simple saying that 'integrity is what you do when no one is looking.'

 

[Phrak]

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

I used to allow myself to be brainwashed, primarily on other topics, and when I did some reading and found I had been duped I became far more skeptical. Funny enough it was a determination to avoid what I "ought to" believe that got me brain washed.

Now I understand your avitar a bit better. I've been curious.

 

[Al68]

Well, if you torture them yourself, and don't get the people you are saving involved, you only sacrifice your humanity for the good of *it doesn't matter how many*. And it's not for your own death, it's for the death of *others*.

How about murder? Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler? Or is murder less monstrous than torture?

Killing Hitler would not have been murder. Killing an enemy in war does not meet any historical definition of murder, even if it's considered morally wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't go to church, but I have heard these people use the simple saying that 'integrity is what you do when no one is looking.'

Absolutely. I think the issue is that those who have been charged with protecting the country and its innocent inhabitants are willing to sacrifice themselves to do so. They commit unspeakably immoral acts so the rest of us can live in bliss.

I am not condoning it, or agreeing with it or even saying they have any business acting immorally on behalf of us.

Then again, if terrorism struck at thte heart of the country, and we feel they didn't do enough, we would likely burn them at the stake. So now, they're caught between a rock and a hard place:
Commit immoral acts, "save" the country but be villified.
Eschew immoral acts, do not "save" the country and still be villified.

 

[seycyrus]

How many people were waterboarded? Three. Check out the stats on those guys.

Waterboarding is not a technique that is used as a first measure, but rather as a last.

Russ is exactly right, we are redefining the word torture from what it has historically meant.

Ask any person whether they would rather be waterboarded by the US, or be subject to other more historical forms of torture by your standard extremist.

Care to guess how many people would CHOOSE to end up with wet hair?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many people were waterboarded? Three. Check out the stats on those guys.

What I saw was that one person was waterboarded 183 times in about one month. That would be once every four hours for a month! Show me the evidence that this was a last measure and that useful information was obtained that saved, what did Cheney say, millions of lives? Recall that is same guy who said that Saddam had WMDs.

Waterboarding is not a technique that is used as a first measure, but rather as a last.

Prove it. Beyond that it doesn't matter. Would it be okay to hook high voltage to someone's genitals if it was a last meaure? Would it be okay to burn a person with cigarettes as a last measure? How about just cutting off their limbs one by one, or gassing them as a last measure? The order of events is irrelevant. What matters is if you are willing to stoop to the level of those whom we consider to be the bad guys. Are you better than the terrorists, or not?

Russ is exactly right, we are redefining the word torture from what it has historically meant.

Except that the evidence says otherwise.

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

Ask any person whether they would rather be waterboarded by the US, or be subject to other more historical forms of torture by your standard islamic extremist.

That isn't even an argument. We are supposed to be the good guys, remember? You are only arguing that there are people worse than Dick Cheney.

 

[seycyrus]

What I saw was that one person was waterboarded 183 times in about one month. That would be once every four hours for a month!

And the magnitude of that number did not raise an eyebrow? No wonder people so blindly believe the palestinians/Georgians when they inflate the number of casualties by a factor of 100.

KSM was not waterboarded 183 times. As he himself stated he was wb'd 5 times. 183 times is the numebr you arrive at if you count every trickle of water. The redcross memo explicitly states that no more than 2 sessions occurred in a single day.

Show me the evidence that this was a last measure and that useful information was obtained that saved, what did Cheney say, millions of lives? Recall that is same guy who said that Saddam had WMDs

None of the accounts indicated that it was used as a first course measure. KSM himself indicated that he talked only after waterboarding.

...Would it be okay to hook high voltage to someone's genitals if it was a last meaure? Would it be okay to burn a person with cigarettes as a last measure? How about just cutting off their limbs...

I see that you are fully capable of realizing that waterboarding is a rather tame method of interrogation compared to others that are practiced by our enemies.

The order of events is irrelevant. What matters is if you are willing to stoop to the level of those whom we consider to be the bad guys. Are you better than the terrorists, or not?

As you seem to indicate above, you inherently realize the difference between waterboarding and the other atrocities you mentioned. There was no stooping. Your question does not apply.

 

[seycyrus]

...
That isn't even an argument. We are supposed to be the good guys, remember? You are only arguing that there are people worse than Dick Cheney.

It directly adddresses the central theme of my argument, which is that waterboarding is a mere annoyance compared to the torture methods used by our enemies. This theme was apparent. Do you ever discuss things in good faith?

 

[lisab]

It directly adddresses the central theme of my argument, which is that waterboarding is a mere annoyance compared to the torture methods used by our enemies. This theme was apparent. Do you ever discuss things in good faith?

That's because they're the bad guys. We must not let the inhumane things they they do define what is right and wrong for us.

 

[seycyrus]

That's because they're the bad guys. We must not let the inhumane things they they do define what is right and wrong for us.

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

Do you think they would bother with "simulated" drowning? Or would they just hold a guys head underwater for 5 minutes over and over again?

Is there a difference? Bet they think so. it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

 

[turbo]

Has anybody else read the Telegraph today? According to Major General Antonio Taguba, who headed up the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse investigation, the photos that Obama blocked from public release include sexual abuse and rape, including the rape of an Iraqi woman by a male soldier and pictures of an Eqyptian translator sodomizing an Iraqi teenager. Just "softening them up" before moving on to harsh treatment, I suppose.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.
“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.
“The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

The nit-picking regarding "is waterboarding torture" is pretty small potatoes in light of the atrocities that were committed at Abu Ghraib. We may never know what happened in other prisons unless we are willing to listen to what the detainees say about their treatment. The only reason that we know about the Abu Ghraib atrocities is that staff discipline and security were woefully inadequate, and the staff were allowed to photograph the abuse for their own entertainment.

 

[lisab]

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

Do you think they would bother with "simulated" drowning? Or would they just hold a guys head underwater for 5 minutes over and over again?

Is there a difference? Bet they think so. it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

You missed my point. Just because they do worse doesn't mean it's right for us to do wrong.

You could post all day about the horrible things they do...it's irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

Do you think they would bother with "simulated" drowning? Or would they just hold a guys head underwater for 5 minutes over and over again?

Is there a difference? Bet they think so. it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

Can you point to any examples of terrorists electrocuting, amputating or disemboweling their hostages?

 

[BoomBoom]

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

I think generally speaking, torture is something done to get information or a confession out of someone. AFAIK, terrorists have no reason to "extract information", therefore I do not believe they really practice torture as you seem to claim they do. They just like to kill random people in spectacular fashion to get media attention.

The only chopping off of bodyparts I've heard of them doing is someone's head...and that would result in death so I'm not sure it could be classified as torture.

In the end though, even if they did practice torture (which they don't), then it is still a moot point because WE DO NOT! WE are better than that...

 

[seycyrus]

You missed my point. Just because they do worse doesn't mean it's right for us to do wrong.

You could post all day about the horrible things they do...it's irrelevant.

No it is not. It sheds light on the relative level of "harshness", if you will.

To say that if we waterboard, we will be no better thanthose who do far worse, is absurd.

 

[seycyrus]

Can you point to any examples of terrorists electrocuting, amputating or disemboweling their hostages?

I admit that I brought up those practices in response to Ivan bringing them up without a specific citable example in mind. I also believe that turbo's post highlights the existence tactics of a similar nature.

Are you stating that you don't believe that our enemies use such tactics? I believe there is footage available online, for example, of Saddaam's sons inflicting torture on captives.

 

[seycyrus]

...

In the end though, even if they did practice torture (which they don't), then it is still a moot point because WE DO NOT! WE are better than that...

Pearl was tortured before he had his head chopped off.

You are claiming that our enemies don't torture? Absurd. They torture, then kill.

 

[lisab]

No it is not. It sheds light on the relative level of "harshness", if you will.

To say that if we waterboard, we will be no better thanthose who do far worse, is absurd.

To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

 

[turbo]

I admit that I brought up those practices in response to Ivan bringing them up without a specific citable example in mind. I also believe that turbo's post highlights the existence tactics of a similar nature.

My post highlighted torture, rape and other abuses of detainees' human rights while in US custody, as reported by the general who headed up the Abu Ghraib abuse probe. Abusing and torturing prisoners gains us nothing, while empowering radicals who already hold anti US views.

Want more of our soldiers killed or wounded in suicide bombings? Keep abusing detainees, keep them locked up without evidence or charges, and offer them no access to legal protections. Best of all, have the Cheney/Limbaugh torture-cheerleading play out in public. The right-wing just doesn't get it.

 

[BoomBoom]

You are claiming that our enemies don't torture? Absurd. They torture, then kill.

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming.

You were asked to cite examples of the multitude of torture techniques that you claim terrorists use, and you couldn't. You may be able to dig up one or two isolated examples, but this would not be the norm, it would be an exception.

By contrast Bush/Cheney had a policy of torture...talking of "absurd".

 

[seycyrus]

To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

My morals and ethics have not been recalibrated. I have always known that waterboarding and the other forms of torture we have discussed are NOT equivalent.

 

[seycyrus]

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming.
You were asked to cite examples of the multitude of torture techniques that you claim terrorists use, and you couldn't. You may be able to dig up one or two isolated examples, but this would not be the norm, it would be an exception.

You know very well that the US enemies would not be in the practice of providing evidence of their torture.

By contrast Bush/Cheney had a policy of torture...talking of "absurd".

Waterboarding was used on 3 guys.

You claim that if i came up with "one or two" examples, they would be isolated incidents and not indicative of anything?

So, 3 - 2 = *1* is what you use as your differentiator?

Ridiculous!

 

[seycyrus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002540.html

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060620_kidnapped_soldiers_tortured_killed/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34730

 

[seycyrus]

My post highlighted torture, rape and other abuses of detainees' human rights while in US custody, as reported by the general who headed up the Abu Ghraib abuse probe. Abusing and torturing prisoners gains us nothing, while empowering radicals who already hold anti US views.

This is pure poppycock that is being repeated ad nauseum by the liberals. Newsflash: The US wasn't popular in the muslim world EVER. 911 happened before abu grahib!

Want more of our soldiers killed or wounded in suicide bombings? Keep abusing detainees, keep them locked up without evidence or charges, and offer them no access to legal protections. Best of all, have the Cheney/Limbaugh torture-cheerleading play out in public. The right-wing just doesn't get it.

Better check out Obama's plans for "preventative detention".

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002540.html

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060620_kidnapped_soldiers_tortured_killed/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34730

Well, 3 of these articles are about the same two soldiers, and I didn't find reference to the forms of torture used. What if they were "merely" waterboarded?

The fourth article also mentions torture but not what kind. (I may have missed something.)


If you're going to take a stance that "their torture" is worse than "our torture", you're going to have to demonstrate that it is so. Until then, the argument doesn't fly.

Which means we're back to "we're the good guys so let's not torture".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I admit that I brought up those practices in response to Ivan bringing them up without a specific citable example in mind.

I brought them up because you were indicating that using something as a last resort makes it okay. So I was asking what else is okay to use as a last resort.

Doesn't the ticking time bomb argument justify the more extreme forms of torture mentioned? By that logic, isn't it justified to use any form of torture necessary if we can "save a million lives", or even one life? Why should we draw the line at waterboarding?

What's more, shouldn't we waterboard kidnappers in order to find a child? Or, shouldn't we be willing to dismember a person who is hiding information about a serial killer - say the killer's mother? Why draw the torture line with terrorists? Why not apply it anytime another innocent life is in jeopardy?

Are you stating that you don't believe that our enemies use such tactics? I believe there is footage available online, for example, of Saddaam's sons inflicting torture on captives.

For the record, Saddam's sons were tyrants, not terrorists.

 

[turbo]

This is pure poppycock that is being repeated ad nauseum by the liberals. Newsflash: The US wasn't popular in the muslim world EVER. 911 happened before abu grahib!

Liberals like FBI and Air Force interrogators? If they think that our use of torture helps recruit terrorists, then they must be "liberals"?

In fact, military and FBI interrogators have stated that terrorists have employed the United States' use of torture and harsh interrogation techniques as a recruiting device. For instance, using the pseudonym Matthew Alexander, an Air Force senior interrogator who was in Iraq in 2006 wrote: "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Alexander further wrote in his November 30, 2008, Washington Post op-ed that "t's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse."

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Torture degrades our image abroad and complicates our working relationships with foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were the director of marketing for al Qaeda and intent on replenishing the ranks of jihadists. I know what my first piece of marketing collateral would be. It would be a blast e-mail with an attachment. The attachment would contain a picture of Private England (sp) pointing at the stacked, naked bodies of the detainees at Abu Ghraib. The picture screams out for revenge and the day of reckoning will come. The consequences of coercive intelligence gathering will not evaporate with time.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904200002

News flash! Not everyone who wants to stop using torture is a "liberal" - the people quoted above are experienced agents and military officers with first-hand knowledge of the damage being done, and the increased risks our military personnel face as a result. I have younger relatives in military service (as is common in this rural state) and it DOES matter to me if our treatment of prisoners makes foreign deployments more hazardous. For the record, my cousin's daughter, with whom we are very close, was prepared for deployment to Iraq when she found out that she was pregnant. She was a lieutenant in the National Guard outfit that was sent to take over Abu Ghraib after the abuses by the previous soldiers came to light.

 

[BoomBoom]

You know very well that the US enemies would not be in the practice of providing evidence of their torture.

Quite the contrary, any torture that was engaged in by terrorists would be widely publicized. Their main mission is to get media attention to spread fear, so of course they would want us to know all about their "torturous ways".

You know very well that terror groups are "publicity whores".