Questions for Eisboch
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

I've seen more than one CIA operative say that the FBI interrogators
are the best in the world at extracting useful information.
The FBI interrogators don't torture.
There is no debate to be had.
Any discussion about torture is political smoke and mirrors.
Or mental masturbation.
Our founding fathers settled the issue long ago when they created
the U.S. Constitution.
And if waterboarding were tested in the U.S Supreme Court, with
everybody out sick except justice Scalia, I have no doubt he would
rule it unconstitutional.
Well, geez, I hope so, anyway.

--Vic

I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Questions for Eisboch
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:39:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:52:37 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

That's where the argument gets hazy. Look, in the abstract, if torturing
one would save many, I may do what it takes, or, overlook what happens,
but that doesn't excuse torture as policy.

That's a good point - then again, it depends on how you define policy.
A "policy" can take the point of view that in a strictly one-off
situation, it's acceptable. If you take the opposite view, that even
in one-off situations it's unacceptable, that's a different policy.

I acknowledge your point - it's very good and one that would require
some thought with respect to both the nature of policy and what the
potential gains might be.

The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler, Stalin
and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as a
technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats -

So, when the veil of secrecy is finally lifted, if it turns out that that
is exactly what we did? What then? I mean, rumor has it we waterboarded
one guy 183 times.

Well if so, then I would view it as wholly inappropriate if not
criminal - in concept. There is a point where the methodology becomes
useless and, in truth, morally and ethically indefensible even under
the standards of the dirty hands dilemma. Assuming that it actually
happened that is - I don't know that it actually did.

And what was that BS at abu Graib?

Heh - I was wondering when that would rear it's ugly head.

In my view, and I'm operating with the same information that most of
us are which is limited as we weren't there, it has all the hallmarks
of a true one-off situation. In this case, and I'm projecting here
based on personal experience, you had poorly trained troopers under
the direction of an inexperienced chain of command who wholly ignored
the standards set forth in both the Geneva Convention and the US
Military Codes, Standards and Practices that govern treatment of
Prisoners of War.

Karpinski claimed that her hands were tied (no pun intended) and that
she was following lawful orders of her command staff. I find that
suspect because in that situation, in particular being an officer in
the Military Police/Intelligence, she not only had an obligation to
report the abuse of the prisoners, she had a moral or ethical
obligation to resign her post effectively immediately and take the
issue to the civilian command. She was obviously complicit in the
abuse and either condoned it, ignored it or was incredibly naive about
the nature of the acts that were committed - which does not matter
anyway - she was clearly at fault.

Graner and England were clearly unbalanced personalities.
Unfortunately, that can happen even in the best trained and organized
military. Frankly, there are no excuses for what happened there in the
most egregious cases and taken as a whole, Karpinski should have been
held to account for operating what rightly could be viewed as a
chamber of horrors. Demotion wasn't enough.

Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a moral
imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put it is
that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when time
and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

It's arguable, and perhaps, just perhaps, defensible, in a strict one off
way, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking blanket
policy, and from there, it's not a slippery-slope, it's a damn cliff.

True enough, but then again, we're kind of operating in the dark - we
honestly don't know what the threat level was perceived to be at that
time by our intelligence agencies. I do know that there were other
plots exposed by the use of these techniques - why that hasn't been
fully revealed I don't know - bits and pieces have come to light, but
the whole picture has never been revealed.

And I agree with you - it is a very steep slope. We can only trust
that our leaders use common sense and are guided by appropriate
ethical and moral standards.

To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense. The
International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all cohersive
tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as hallucinogens,
"truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep deprivation,
sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day and age of
advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive tactics
should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should be used to
gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

Yeah, but ... those International Conventions aren't for the protection
of our enemies, they are for the protection of our own. The question to
ask is, what tactics do we want our soldiers to be subject to?

Do you honestly believe that our more civilized standards of military
conduct will be adhered to by what is basically a 5th Century
religious movement practiced by what are, to use your term,
barbarians? Do I really have to point out the atrocity perpetrated by
Al Qaeda on Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker?

We only need to look back at our most recent involvement in Vietnam to
put lie that concept. Describe the way our aviators and soldiers were
treated by the Viet Cong and NVA and then describe the way their POWs
were treated by our troops.

No offense but it's a specious argument. This isn't conventional war
here -it's fighting a guerrilla war and those rules are entirely
different. Al Qaeda doesn't play by the same rules as we do.

This argument reminds me of the Beirut kidnappings. Two diplomats were
kidnapped at the same time - one US and one Russian. As the story was
told in the press at the time, the Russians basically told the
kidnappers through what ever channels they had that they knew who the
kidnappers were, where their families were and suggested in the
strongest possible way that their guy needed to be returned ASAP or
else. Six hours later, he was released. Our guy spent five months in
captivity while we fiddled around with "diplomacy".

Questions for Eisboch
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

Good point.

Questions for Eisboch
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

Good point.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ing/index.html

All I know is as soon as I heard the water sloshing around in the
bucket, I would have confessed to every terrorist attack committed in
the last 50 yrs. I would also provide them the details of every
terrorist attack we were planning, we might be planning or that we will
plan in the future. Whatever you want to know, I will tell you.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Questions for Eisboch
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:43:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:



I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

I did. We're on the same wavelength. Whatever that means
technically, let's not go there. We agree.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

As am I. And I'll throw in all the spineless Dem worms with that
crowd.
I'm conflicted on how/if to proceed with prosecutions.
On the one hand I want an example set, so torture is never considered
again, because once it's countenanced not a one of us is immune from
it.
On the other hand who needs more domestic turmoil for the likes of
those worthless ragheads that were tortured.
Though I reject torture, nobody deserved it more.
From what we've been told anyway. Which is an entire other problem -
lawlessness being cloaked by "state secrecy."
Forces larger than us will determine what comes of it.
Anything but a whitewash will satisfy me, so long as torture is
rejected, finally and irrevocably.
Part of this problem is the acceptance of the notion of the
"Imperial Presidency."
That should be laid to rest too.
Having a constitutional lawyer as President might help there.
But who knows? Seems like getting the WH gig comes with an
air hose to stick in your ear and inflate your head.

--Vic

Questions for Eisboch
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:13:00 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:43:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:



I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

I did. We're on the same wavelength. Whatever that means
technically, let's not go there. We agree.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

As am I. And I'll throw in all the spineless Dem worms with that
crowd.
I'm conflicted on how/if to proceed with prosecutions.
On the one hand I want an example set, so torture is never considered
again, because once it's countenanced not a one of us is immune from
it.
On the other hand who needs more domestic turmoil for the likes of
those worthless ragheads that were tortured.
Though I reject torture, nobody deserved it more.
From what we've been told anyway. Which is an entire other problem -
lawlessness being cloaked by "state secrecy."
Forces larger than us will determine what comes of it.
Anything but a whitewash will satisfy me, so long as torture is
rejected, finally and irrevocably.
Part of this problem is the acceptance of the notion of the
"Imperial Presidency."
That should be laid to rest too.
Having a constitutional lawyer as President might help there.
But who knows? Seems like getting the WH gig comes with an
air hose to stick in your ear and inflate your head.

--Vic

I think Obama is pretty confident already and less likely to have
smoke blown up his ass.

Cheney had a permanent tube installed in W's ass so he could blow
anytime. Swear I saw smoke coming out of W's ears once when Cheney
was sitting beside him.

Questions for Eisboch
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:22:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

Good point.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ing/index.html

All I know is as soon as I heard the water sloshing around in the
bucket, I would have confessed to every terrorist attack committed in
the last 50 yrs. I would also provide them the details of every
terrorist attack we were planning, we might be planning or that we will
plan in the future. Whatever you want to know, I will tell you.

Jesse Ventura asked for an hour with Cheney and a waterboard and
promised he could get Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

The technique has been used by many to force false confessions for use
as propaganda. I believe this is what was behind Cheney's support.

He wanted to force a confession that Iraq and bin Laden were in
cahoots prior to our invading Iraq.

Questions for Eisboch
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
snip
I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's
of terrorist activities that were in the works. I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

snip --
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.


Sounds like waterboarding might do you some good...we might finally get some
truth out of you.

Questions for Eisboch
 

On May 13, 3:21*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in messagenews:1pKdnYINmKNdXJfXnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@gigan ews.com...
snip
* I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's

of terrorist activities that were in the works. *I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

snip --
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

Sounds like waterboarding might do you some good...we might finally get some
truth out of you.

Hoooboy, Harry's lover Don talking about truth.....

Questions for Eisboch
 

Don White wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
snip
I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's
of terrorist activities that were in the works. I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

snip --
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.


Sounds like waterboarding might do you some good...we might finally get some
truth out of you.



Gee, is that the real p.o.s. Smithers or another faked Smithers, not
that I give a ****?