Bush is so full of shit... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

farglebargle -> Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 1:12:47 AM)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/20/BL2007122001419_pf.html

quote:


Q: "Mr. President, there's ambiguity in the statement that you have no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. Why can't you say yes or no about the tapes and their destruction? And, regardless, do you think the destruction of the tapes was the responsible thing to do?"

Bush: "I -- it sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have -- the first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That's pretty clear. Secondly, I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the [attorney general] and the [inspector general] of the CIA, coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened.

"And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts. I know I'm going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes on. I'm just going to prepare you; until these inquiries are complete, until the oversight's finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from the podium."


As President, he *could* order the people involved to tell him the truth, and then he could tell us.

Of course, he'd have to be arrested later the same day, because torture is a crime.



Termyn8or -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 11:50:21 AM)

Too long, but I did get the pertinent part.

It never ceases to amaze me how much stupidity there really is. Haven't these people ever done anything illegal [before] in their lives ? Anyone with ½ a brain can tell you that you don't want any witnesses. Videotaping your dirty deeds must be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

We have heard of rapists videotaping their crimes, obviously to relive the event later. But as we could seemingly guess, a rapist is driven by something dark and nasty.

Sometimes I think the same applies to this issue, and how can they be sure there was only one copy ?

Many things people do indicate what their motivations were, but this one stumps me unless there is a great deal of stupidity involved.

Not that I condone the (nonconsentual) torture, I just can't see any reason in hell to videotape it.

Yes I would tie you up, pierce your nipples, burn you with a candle or blowtorch if you prefer, but that is different. If I were told to torture someone for real, I would refuse.

What would you do ? Your job and pension are on the line, but then so are your morality and integrity. If any. If any.

If Ron Paul gets in, there might be an investigation, but all the rest are in the old boy club and are not going to do it. Kinda makes you hope there is an afterlife doesn't it ?

T



popeye1250 -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 12:18:08 PM)

You're just realising this now?



awmslave -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 2:55:24 PM)

Torture while interrogating prisoners? How else would they tell you anything? 



RazorJAK -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 3:36:37 PM)

Historically,  torture is the least useful form of information retrieval.

What rare bits of truth one derives from the practice is drowned out by the majority who will simply tell you what you want to hear ... whether it is the truth or not.

The average human will do pretty much anything once the pain threshold has been passed.  Up to and including giving names of people who have nothing to do with whats going on.  ANYTHING in order to get the pain to stop.

Add in the fact that this administration has shown itself to have a complete hardon for "islamofascists".

So lets say five men get rounded up.  They're all tortured.  We'll let one be of the rare ilk who doesn't crack under torture.  Two will scream out repeatedly that they're not members of a group but know who is and give names of people that they don't like.  One will know nothing but give the name of someone who actually is an informant for the thugs.  And the last will give the name of someone who actually IS involved but is tied to the House of Saud.  Which names do you think will be next on the list to round up?




bipolarber -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 3:49:00 PM)

How would they tell you anything? Hummm... there's drugs, there's threatening them with knowledge of their familie's whereabouts, there's trickery, there's faking them out.... then there's... boredom. How long can you stay in a cell with no human contact before you break?



Termyn8or -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 4:17:25 PM)

JAK, I must admit I like the way you think.

I have no idea what you might have done but I can tell you this. When the tough get going around here we all have our story straight. We always think it out all the way through, and all the stories match. They get nothing else.

Now comes the second round, they might arrest some innocent people, but it wasn't us.

So now I wonder the extent of the the blunder, that is erroneous actions taken based on the words of such captives. How many innocents have been tortured in the "second wave" ? How many of them really knew nothing ? How many made up more bullshit to stop the torture ?

You know, in light of these facts, I am getting more suspicious. A competent and crooked shrink can really get the truth with drugs. This entails no physical harm nor discomfort, and the results are alot more reliable. But they don't do that, at least what they let us know.

So resorting to physical tortue is either intended for effect or that fact might be that they really do not want to know the truth. Which do you think it is ?

Perhaps they do want to go on a wild goose chase after red heerings. That goal actually seems to match their actions.

Fucking shame, but that looks like how it is.

T



Owner59 -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 4:37:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

Torture while interrogating prisoners? How else would they tell you anything? 


"How else would they tell you anything?" 

The problem,....is that they`ll ~tell you anything~,to stop the torture.This isn`t rocket science.The info isn`t true,they`ll just say yes,or no or whatever, to make it stop.

How is it you torture types, are so sure you`ll have the right guy,or that he knows anything?

We went to war in Iraq,in part due to bad info that was gotten from torturing the wrong guy.



lazarus1983 -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 5:15:06 PM)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that interrogators have probably caught on to the fact that the first round of information gotten out of a prisoner is fake. Call me crazy!

But still, they take that information and check it against what they know. They might even send a Delta or SF team to check it out. When it comes back negative, they go back to the source and keep on going. They keep chipping away, chipping away, and chipping away until they get to the truth. Again, they check it against what they already know, they check it against other intelligence gathered, and then they might act on it or again, send a team out to investigate.

And psychological torture, while a much longer process, is much more accurate.


Although if you're dealing with terrorists, if they follow the terrorist cell setup, then you'll be hard pressed to get a lot of information out of them. At best, the names of the other people in their cell, and maybe a couple battle plans. Rarely will you stumble on a goldmine of information.



Griswold -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/26/2007 5:26:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/20/BL2007122001419_pf.html

quote:


Q: "Mr. President, there's ambiguity in the statement that you have no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. Why can't you say yes or no about the tapes and their destruction? And, regardless, do you think the destruction of the tapes was the responsible thing to do?"

Bush: "I -- it sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have -- the first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That's pretty clear. Secondly, I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the [attorney general] and the [inspector general] of the CIA, coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened.

"And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts. I know I'm going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes on. I'm just going to prepare you; until these inquiries are complete, until the oversight's finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from the podium."


As President, he *could* order the people involved to tell him the truth, and then he could tell us.

Of course, he'd have to be arrested later the same day, because torture is a crime.


I'm sorry....I'm missing something here...

This is news that Bush is full of shit?



farglebargle -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 12:28:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

And psychological torture, while a much longer process, is much more accurate.


Torture, in any form is a Federal Crime.



awmslave -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 12:49:37 AM)

quote:

The problem,....is that they`ll ~tell you anything~,to stop the torture.This isn`t rocket science.The info isn`t true,they`ll just say yes,or no or whatever, to make it stop.

 I do not buy the argument. Torture works. They say something and it can be verified. Otherwise I see no reason them to say anything.



lazarus1983 -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 1:05:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

And psychological torture, while a much longer process, is much more accurate.


Torture, in any form is a Federal Crime.


Indeed it is. But it's also been around forever, and is an indispensable tool for gaining information, especially in wartime.

Picture capturing a higher up Nazi officer during WWII, do we sit there and go, "You have information we could use to win a battle, turn the tide of this war, or maybe even end it. Are you going to tell us? No? Please? Well, shucks, we tried. Off to a prison camp you go."

It's a part of the dirtier, darker side of things that we'd rather not think about, yet its potential usefulness cannot be denied. Only lately it's been pulled out into the light and stood up on a pedestal for political means, so we can't be blissfully ignorant of it any longer.



RazorJAK -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 3:31:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave
quote:

The problem,....is that they`ll ~tell you anything~,to stop the torture.This isn`t rocket science.The info isn`t true,they`ll just say yes,or no or whatever, to make it stop.

 I do not buy the argument. Torture works. They say something and it can be verified. Otherwise I see no reason them to say anything.


I can think of quite a number of people who lived in New England who might wish to argue that point with you:

Bridget Bishop,
Sarah Good,
Rebecca Nurse,
Susannah Martin,
Elizabeth How,
Sarah Wilds,
George Burroughs,
John Proctor,
John Willard,
George Jacobs, Sr.,
Martha Carrier,
Giles Corey,
Martha Corey,
Mary Eastey,
Alice Parker,
Ann Pudeater,
Margaret Scott,
Wilmott Reed,
Samuel Wardwell,
Mary Parker,
Sarah Osborne, 
Roger Toothaker,
Lyndia Dustin,
Ann Foster


All those people were either hung or died in prison due to information extracted from torture.  If you claim that this information was verifiable then you're also claiming to believe in witchcraft.  Since that is what they were all accused of.

Want to try again about information gained from torture being accurate and verifiable.  Want to try again about people being tortured not saying untruths in order to have the pain end? 




farglebargle -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 7:02:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

And psychological torture, while a much longer process, is much more accurate.


Torture, in any form is a Federal Crime.


Indeed it is. But it's also been around forever, and is an indispensable tool for gaining information, especially in wartime.



Of course, that RATIONALIZATION FOR TORTURE could only be valid *IF* Congress had Declared War -- which they haven't.

quote:


Picture capturing a higher up Nazi officer during WWII, do we sit there and go, "You have information we could use to win a battle, turn the tide of this war, or maybe even end it. Are you going to tell us? No? Please? Well, shucks, we tried. Off to a prison camp you go."


Perhaps. The CLEAR ISSUE is: "Does the person who MAKES THE CHOICE TO VIOLATE THE LAW and torture a prisoner, get held accountable to The Law"?

If Sgt XZY decided he needs to torture someone, Sgt XYZ needs to be MAN ENOUGH to report to the MP's and ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES of his choice to violate the law.

I'm not seeing THAT HALF of the formula here.

The President shouldn't *EVER* sanction it, nor should the DOJ *EVER* neglect to prosecute the crime.

That's supposed to be the difference between THEM and US. *THEY* hate us because of our Civilization.

If you don't prosecute torturers, are you Civilized at all?



FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 8:42:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RazorJAK


All those people were either hung or died in prison due to information extracted from torture.  If you claim that this information was verifiable then you're also claiming to believe in witchcraft.  Since that is what they were all accused of.

Want to try again about information gained from torture being accurate and verifiable.  Want to try again about people being tortured not saying untruths in order to have the pain end? 


You are failing to make an important distinction.

"Torture" to get a "confession", is far from interrogation designed to extract useable tactical and strategic information.

Certainly, if you wish for someone to "confess" for show-trials, you can indeed make them admit anything using torture.

If you goal is to extract information that can be effectively used in operations, then it's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Firm



caitlyn -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 9:02:08 AM)

I have to go with fargle on this one, which is rare indeed. The ends do not justify the means.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 9:50:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I have to go with fargle on this one, which is rare indeed. The ends do not justify the means.


I have to admit, I rarely read fargle's post anymore, so I'm not sure what he has said.

I am pretty certain that I didn't say that the ends justify the means, however, as a blanket statement. Some have made the claim that "torture" or even harsh interrogation "always" gives bad or incorrect information. I dispute this claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

Firm



caitlyn -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 10:01:39 AM)

Information obtained by torture will always be 'bad' even when the information is correct.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush is so full of shit... (12/27/2007 10:07:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Information obtained by torture will always be 'bad' even when the information is correct.


You mean "Morally tainted"?

Firm



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125