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

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

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.