AP Mobile: Internal CIA Report :Interogators threatenned to kill suspects children.

[jkypoo]

So this thread with the liberals appearing to be terrorist sympathizers is still going strong.

I guess if we want the captured terrorists and detainees (people who made a wrong turn on their way to bestbuy and ended up on a battlefield) we can have them watch US Soccer and reruns of those Pride parades in Frisco and NYC, though the soccer games could be on par with water torture and using plier to pull out fingernails.

I don't think a single person has sympathized with terrorists. Either your reading comprehension is off, or you are purposely obtuse as a result of fear. It is a human issue at hand. If you agree to be as vile as those you oppose, then you have accomplished nothing as an end result. Also, the fact is, while you use the wore "terrorist," the US government uses the term "detainee." The difference being that a detainee is not tried or convicted and is held indefinitely without being accused. Ultimately, you should probably read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" and see if the ends justify the means.

[Baculus]

I quoted what you said and responded to it. if I mis understood your point, then type a different sentence.

Baloney. Here is what I asked:

"Anyway, I am sure some of you would be fine if the enemy threatened the family of a captured American soldier, right?"

How hard is this question to understand? It isn't. You know it's a very straight up question. But you just choose not to answer because the reply may undermine your position or make you uncomfortable with the response.

You merely fell into the role of the "uncomfortable side-stepper," which is not too surprising.

laughable- you really think anything we do will change that?

My opinion is the same opinion put forward by Colin Powell and John McCain. There is nothing laughable about the concept of following International Law and the concept of reciprocity in prisoner treatment.

Which, BTW, is one of the reasons why Jessica Lynch was not shot on the spot by the Iraqis.

I'm discussing the topic at hand- the CIA using threats during interrogation.

This was your statement: "The CIA hasn't even come close to what our enemies do."

That has nothing to do with the "topic" at hand. It is some moral relativistic, situational principled statement. We don't base our principles on the enemy "doing worse." It's just some appeal to emotion statement, trying to excuse away any possible CIA conduct.

And no, you are not "discussing the topic at hand" with this statement, because we are discussing the morality of the CIA using threats on children as a viable interrogation tactic.

You want to debate a thousand 'what ifs', then create a new thread for that. I've never said "anything goes", but again- that is nto what this thread is about (or was supposed to be about)

Who said they wanted to debate a thousand "what-ifs"?

I really don't think you really know what this thread is about, judging by your responses.

again, the bolded part- laughable. Our POW's treated decently? Are you serious?? how many examples? 1 or 2? I'm not talking about the civilians butchered on TV- or just the conflict in Iraq- I'm talking about every war, including the Civil War.

Wait. You don't want to talk about a thousand "what-ifs," so you mention the Civil War?

You are just all over the place with your responses.

And again- only a mere sample of what our people go through- and that wasn't all we endured during that training.

That is neither here nor there when it comes to the US policy and to the question at hand: "Is it OK to use the threat of harm to family and children as a interrogation tool?"

I can't even imagine spending months, or years as a POW, enduring what these people endured every single day. And you want to ***** and complain becaus we LIED to get intel? The people living in Gitmo are treated a hell of a lot better than any of our POW's could ever have hoped for.

One of those people who lived though those conditions completely disagrees with you. His name is John McCain.

But, again, you miss the point: The perception to how we treat soldiers can often influence the treatment that our soldiers receive in turn. This isn't me just "****ing," as said in your snarky response. This is the opinion of the US military and past military leaders.

Insisting that we stick to law and our morale principles isn't a "complaint," as you so blithely said. If you don't understand that, then no amount of debating will convince you of it.

Have you talked to a POW? Have you gone to Andersonville and seen evidence of US POW's? or are you just going off some textbook from college?

What in the world are you talking about? So, since you cannot formulate a solid defense to the CIA's use of children as a potential target for a negotiating tool, you are bringing up Andersonville? A point that does NOTHING to support your point of view? A point, that if anything, demonstrates the need for international law in the treatment of POWs?

Everyone one of your replies was a red herring.

[jkypoo]

It's amazing to me how many people take the side of a terrorist's feelings over an American life.

These people threaten the lives and would be more than happy to kill our children on national television just to do it ala Nick Berg.

The difference we threaten to gain info, big freaking woop. They do in the name of allah, to scar Americans/Family members for life.

If Libs are going to whine everytime we make a potential terrorists cry, we need to start gunning them down and not worry about asking questions.

An eye for an eye?

You kill me I kill you back?

You torture us we torture you back?

If a dog ****s in your bed, are you going **** in the dogs bed to teach it a lesson? Do you understand that if you allow your morality to be degraded and influenced, then you lose, they win? That's what the "enemy" wants. They don't want to win a conflict, they want to prove you are what they say you are, and you my friend personify and exemplify that downfall.

[GoSkins561]

An eye for an eye?

You kill me I kill you back?

You torture us we torture you back?

If a dog ****s in your bed, are you going **** in the dogs bed to teach it a lesson? Do you understand that if you allow your morality to be degraded and influenced, then you lose, they win? That's what the "enemy" wants. They don't want to win a conflict, they want to prove you are what they say you are, and you my friend personify and exemplify that downfall.

I will ask you, is making a Muslim watch gay porn, torture?

What about making them eat pork?

[sacase]

An eye for an eye?

You kill me I kill you back?

You torture us we torture you back?

If a dog ****s in your bed, are you going **** in the dogs bed to teach it a lesson? Do you understand that if you allow your morality to be degraded and influenced, then you lose, they win? That's what the "enemy" wants. They don't want to win a conflict, they want to prove you are what they say you are, and you my friend personify and exemplify that downfall.

Moral high ground doesn't win wars. I could careless what my enemy thinks of me. I want them to be scared to set foot on the battlefield. If a dog ****s in my bed, I am doing to rub his nose in it to teach him a lesson.

[Baculus]

An eye for an eye?

You kill me I kill you back?

You torture us we torture you back?

If a dog ****s in your bed, are you going **** in the dogs bed to teach it a lesson? Do you understand that if you allow your morality to be degraded and influenced, then you lose, they win? That's what the "enemy" wants. They don't want to win a conflict, they want to prove you are what they say you are, and you my friend personify and exemplify that downfall.

The guiding principle is moral relativism, which is odd since (neo)conservatives are supposed to have a "moral clarity," at least in their ideals.

[Baculus]

Moral high ground doesn't win wars. I could careless what my enemy thinks of me. I want them to be scared to set foot on the battlefield. If a dog ****s in my bed, I am doing to rub his nose in it to teach him a lesson.

I am not sure if I would totally believe that. I believe that the Union's position, after the Emancipation Proclamation, was a decisive stroke in the American Civil War, in addition to military victories. I would argue that the Ally's moral high ground in World War Two was also a decisive factor.

The moral high ground is important for the socii to support a war. You lose that and the war will become unsustainable. The Romans knew this. Napoleon knew this. And this became evident in Vietnam and the recent Iraqi war.

Even more so, the moral high ground is one of the attributes of the West in the War on Terror. If we do not, indeed, have the moral high ground, do you think it will be sustainable?

I will argue that it will not.

[jkypoo]

I will ask you, is making a Muslim watch gay porn, torture?

What about making them eat pork?

I'm not sure I understand the point of your question. If it is leading question, I would like to know the whole of the question before answering or debating. I mean, in what context?

I will say this, though: As a general rule, why would you make a Muslim do anything? Again, we are talking about detainees, not Muslims or prisoners of war or war criminals. Detainees. Suspects. We are talking about people who are suspected of something, but have not been charged or tried with anything.

The best counter-analogy I can think of would be: Would you consider it torture to force a Cristian to piss on a Bible? To defecate on a cross/rosary/crucifix?

Moral high ground doesn't win wars. I could careless what my enemy thinks of me. I want them to be scared to set foot on the battlefield. If a dog ****s in my bed, I am doing to rub his nose in it to teach him a lesson.

Exactly! You do not counter **** with ****! You can be as scary, bad-ass, gun-ho as you want, but you owe to yourself to think better of yourself and humanity than settling on the level of those we war with. It is not a matter of what the enemy thinks of you; It is a matter of what you become. If the end product is a wash, if you do nothing but replace filth with filth, then what is the point?

[GoSkins561]

Since terrorism is a Muslim issue, and since the world doesn't have a major problem with Christians blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus, we can leave Christianity out of this.

If we needed to get information out of someone with known AQ ties, would you have a problem with making them watch gay porn or eat pork if we thought it might help extract information?

[jkypoo]

Since terrorism is a Muslim issue, and since the world doesn't have a major problem with Christians blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus, we can leave Christianity out of this.

If we needed to get information out of someone with known AQ ties, would you have a problem with making them watch gay porn or eat pork if we thought it might help extract information?

I didn't know McVeigh and Nichols were Muslim?

I didn't know the IRA was fundamentally Muslim?

Terrorism is not only a Muslim issue. Plus, we are not talking about torturing terrorists; We are talking about torturing suspected terrorists who the government has deemed detainees, who are not charged, tried, or convicted of anything, even terrorism.

If we want to define issues, we should define this as a human rights issue. Not American human rights or Muslim, Christian, or Terrorist human rights, just human rights. Because that is what we are dealing with here: Humans who are suspected of something (not always terrorism) and are being detained indefinitely and tortured for information they may not even have. I understand that it is easier to think of them as terrorists, but that is not the case, definitely not in all cases. The government refers to them as suspects and detainees for a reason. They also let the masses propagate false ideas about what those terms mean for another specific reason.

And would still like to see where your moral compass points by having you answer the "Christian torture" question first. Then I will share my feeling on the "gay porn/pork" torture question.

[ljs]

Baculus- your question is pointless. They do it- they do more than that. Do I like it no? but its life. there is your answer, I'm not side stepping anything. I'm debating the topic the thread was started on- using threats as a means of interrogation. I've answered how I feel on that. You want to discuss all the other possiblities, then start a thread on that and I'll speak to those other points.

[GoSkins561]

I didn't know McVeigh and Nichols were Muslim?

I didn't know the IRA was fundamentally Muslim?

Terrorism is not only a Muslim issue. Plus, we are not talking about torturing terrorists; We are talking about torturing suspected terrorists who the government has deemed detainees, who are not charged, tried, or convicted of anything, even terrorism.

If we want to define issues, we should define this as a human rights issue. Not American human rights or Muslim, Christian, or Terrorist human rights, just human rights. Because that is what we are dealing with here: Humans who are suspected of something (not always terrorism) and are being detained indefinitely and tortured for information they may not even have. I understand that it is easier to think of them as terrorists, but that is not the case, definitely not in all cases. The government refers to them as suspects and detainees for a reason. They also let the masses propagate false ideas about what those terms mean for another specific reason.

And would still like to see where your moral compass points by having you answer the "Christian torture" question first. Then I will share my feeling on the "gay porn/pork" torture question.

Wow you picked two terrorists and the IRA barely exists, how many more do you have to compare to the 10's of thousands of Muslim terrorists that would fine plenty of joy in chopping your kids heads off on live TV?

Apples and Oranges, nice try though.

I have asked the question a couple times in this thread, and now you want me to answer your question first, whatever I am not playing this stupid game.

[jkypoo]

Wow you picked two terrorists and the IRA barely exists, how many more do you have to compare to the 10's of thousands of Muslim terrorists that would fine plenty of joy in chopping your kids heads off on live TV?

Apples and Oranges, nice try though.

I have asked the question a couple times in this thread, and now you want me to answer your question first, whatever I am not playing this stupid game.

A spade is a shovel. Just because the OK city bombing and the decades of bombings at the hands of the IRA don't fit your simplified and prejudiced model of the world, it is not my fault.

So...wow. "10's of thousands?" Really? You personally know of "10's of thousands of Muslim terrorists that would fin[d] plenty of joy in chopping [my] kids heads off on live TV?" Really? If you truly believe that, then you live in world of ignorance and fear and it is leading you down a road of misplaced prejudice and hate.

Are you aware that there are anywhere between 2 and 7 million Muslims in the United States? That they are your neighbors? Their children attend school with your children? They shop at the same stores, pump the same gas, and walk down the same streets as you? Do you consider these Muslim-Americans threats? You know, though, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that question.

And, I will say it again: We are not talking about terrorists. We are talking about suspected terrorists. Detainees. That is what this thread is about and that is what I am trying to clear up. There is a huge difference between what you perceive and what is real. Just because someone is Muslim does not make them a terrorist. Just because someone is detained does not make them a terrorist. Just because you think someone is a terrorist does not make them a terrorist.

I refuse to answer your question because I do not see how it relevant to the topic. What does tormenting Muslims have to do with this any more than tormenting Christians? The topic is about torturing suspected terrorists, who the government conveniently terms as detainees. Again, people who have not been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime, including terrorism. I don't know why that point is continuously washed over. Oh, and this is no game.

[Toe Jam]

Since terrorism is a Muslim issue

You're way, way off base with this post.

There are plenty of terrorists out there that represent almost every group you can think of.

And it's funny to me how what should be a humanity issue has become another conservative/liberal issue.

[jkypoo]

You're way, way off base with this post.

There are plenty of terrorists out there that represent almost every group you can think of.

And it's funny to me how what should be a humanity issue has become another conservative/liberal issue.

I've been trying to clear up both of these points...

With very little success.

[Smoot Point Really]

Can you explain to me what definition you're using, in which threatening to kill a child isn't threatening a child?

Something a bit clearer than "it isn't"?

Can you explain to me what definition you're using, in which NOT threatening to kill a child IS threatening a child?

Something a bit clearer than "it IS"?

You see, Perry Mason... I can play this game all day. Please add something substantive to the discussion. I've called you on this before, but you can't seem to break this very bad habit you've formed. You aren't Socrates... You'll have to actually contribute your own thoughts to the discussion instead of pretending people will automatically come to your conclusions by asking them the same damned questions in different ways while you continue to ignore their answers.

Have you (or JMS) actually read the 109-page CIA report? That is what this thread is about, isn't it? I don't see many posts actually talking about THIS report, but I do see a few people (especially JMS) calling former members of the Bush Administration "torture boy" and such... I guess he doesn't care about credibility. It's more important to hate Bush/Cheney and cite totally irrelevant sources to the actual report.

Allow me to provide you a link to the 109-page CIA report.

First, the section that you and I are talking about is under "Specific Unauthorized or Undocumented Techniques"... This section is pertinent to the "threatening of a child" discussion you and I are having, but the other "scary" methods that people seem to focus on are also in this section. That probably means they were "unauthorized or undocumented"...

In the subsection entitled "Threats", the part about the "child" is mentioned...

Here is that text:

95. An experienced Agency interrogator <blacked out> reported that the <blacked out> interrogators threatened Khalid Shaykh Muhammad <blacked out>. According to this interrogator, the <blacked out> interrogators said to Khalid Shaykh Muhammad that if anything else happens in the United States, "We're going to kill your children." According to the interrogator, one of the <blacked out> interrogators said <blacked out>. With respect to the reports provided to him of the threats <blacked out> that report did not indicate that the law had been violated.

Here are my thoughts on this:

1) It wasn't a threat to the child, it was a threat to the father that involved the child.

2) It also was fairly open-ended as to what or who would actually cause the child to be killed. From this text (which is the only text we have), you do not know if he is talking about KSM's children specifically or if he's talking about the children of his country. Innocent civilians are casualties of war, and you can imagine if we are attacked again that their will be war (or at least I would expect Obama to lob a few cruise missiles and act tough).

3) The threat to KSM (not his children) is conditional... Therefore, if a threat was made to an actual child... A condition would have to be met that is totally unrelated to actions of the actual child. Whenever someone is threatened, conditions are placed on their actions. No child was threatened during this interrogation. KSM was threatened.

I also saw one NPR article that complained that the "blacked out" portions of text proved that the CIA was doing all sorts of horrible things they didn't want to disclose...

I assume from your questions that you would agree with the author of this particular article. Of course, you don't actually need to read the report to draw your own conclusions. Do you?

BTW, I'd be interested in hearing your own thoughts... You've already heard enough of my thoughts. It's funny how easy it is for you to criticize the thoughts of others (very trollish) and limit the exposure of your own opinions through this "Larry-method". I don't consider that much of a contribution.

[sacase]

I didn't know McVeigh and Nichols were Muslim?

I didn't know the IRA was fundamentally Muslim?

Terrorism is not only a Muslim issue. Plus, we are not talking about torturing terrorists; We are talking about torturing suspected terrorists who the government has deemed detainees, who are not charged, tried, or convicted of anything, even terrorism.

If we want to define issues, we should define this as a human rights issue. Not American human rights or Muslim, Christian, or Terrorist human rights, just human rights. Because that is what we are dealing with here: Humans who are suspected of something (not always terrorism) and are being detained indefinitely and tortured for information they may not even have. I understand that it is easier to think of them as terrorists, but that is not the case, definitely not in all cases. The government refers to them as suspects and detainees for a reason. They also let the masses propagate false ideas about what those terms mean for another specific reason.

And would still like to see where your moral compass points by having you answer the "Christian torture" question first. Then I will share my feeling on the "gay porn/pork" torture question.

How clueless do you have to be. I would estimate well over 95% of the people we have picked up were picked up after direct confflict with our troops. Once again, war is not a law enforcment action. You really need to quit with this, suspected, evidence, charging and convicting crap. Our soldiers do not go out and "collect evidence" on the battlefield. The reason they are classified as detainee's is because they do not fall into POW status according the the Geneva convention. If you actually read the Geneva convention they don't fall into ANY status.

Terrorism IS a muslim issue and your a fool if you believe otherwise. A large Majority of the worlds terrorist attacks in the past 20 years have been committted by Muslims. Islamic terroism is a HUGE issue, quit trying to pretend its not.

I will be blunt, if Joe picks up a terrorist on the Battlefield and says Haji was shooting at me. I am going to be Joe. If Haji gets roughed up a little bit after he is captured by Joe I am not going to care. The real problem is people like you. You give the terrorists reason to think that we are weak. They know when they get picked up for shooting and blowing up American soldiers all they have to say is that they were tortured and people like you will come screaming to defend them. They play you for fools and you don't even realize it.

I will answer your christian question. I could give a rats ass if they pissed on a bible. Its not skin of my back and yes I am chistian. Crap like that doesn't offend me. I already know they hate any religeon that is not Islam. They don't respect anything about anyone but themselves so why should I give them any respect.

How many Muslims do you actually know? Worked with? Friends with? I agree there are a ton of good muslims out there, in fact a large majority of them are good. The problem resides with the 1% that have perverted the religion and have been using it for their own personal power gains. It is the extreamists that are the problem.

[Larry]

How clueless do you have to be. I would estimate well over 95% of the people we have picked up were picked up after direct confflict with our troops.

He's shown you where he's getting his "90% innocent" number.

I'd ask where you're getting your 95% number, but I think we both already know, and I'd rather not have it confirmed.

I will observe that in the case of the famous 12 year old, that he was captured after direct conflict with our troops who had kicked in the door of his home.

Is that our definition of "terrorist" now? "Anyone who fights back when our army attacks them"?

I was under the impression that the standard term for "someone that our Army is currently fighting against" is "enemy". And that mour country not only has rules for dealing with enemies who have been captured, but that we've spent decades demanding that everybody else agree with the rules, too.

[ross3909]

What if one of your children were kidnapped and they had caught one of the guys, and he admitted that he helped do it. Would you approve any enhanced interrogation techniques to save your child? Or would you stick to no psychological manipulation, raising of voices, and no lying to the criminal to get the information needed to help you child. These people are mass murderers and hardened criminals that would cut off your head in a heartbeat, they do not respond to politeness.

[GoSkins561]

You're way, way off base with this post.

There are plenty of terrorists out there that represent almost every group you can think of.

And it's funny to me how what should be a humanity issue has become another conservative/liberal issue.

How about this,the vast majority of terrorists and terrorist groups are muslim. And yes Jypoo, there are 10's of thousands. I don't know how to copy and paste from my phone so I will update my facts later.

I don't care about my Muslim neighbors, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We are discussing the treatment of people that we have picked up fighting along side terrorist groups such as AQ and the Taliban aka Terrorist Organizations.

[helptheSKINS]

What if one of your children were kidnapped and they had caught one of the guys, and he admitted that he helped do it. Would you approve any enhanced interrogation techniques to save your child? Or would you stick to no psychological manipulation, raising of voices, and no lying to the criminal to get the information needed to help you child. These people are mass murderers and hardened criminals that would cut off your head in a heartbeat, they do not respond to politeness.

LOL, read back through the last 3-4 pages. Good luck getting them to get an answer on this one. I've tried this one multiple times in this thread and others. The same people avoid the question. They will say you are making up fantasy/extreme situations. They know as soon as they answer yes, which any parent would their argument is finished. While the scenario is different, it goes back to saving lives. I gave them the chance to answer a the "terrorist attack is imminent" situation as well. Again, no answer. I have NEVER got an answer from any of the high morality crowd on this site.

A applaud your effort but they have never directly responded:chair:

[rdsknbill]

I will say this. If they are combatants that have attacked our troops, they are fair game. You guys act like this kind of thing didn't go on before. The Revolutionary War through the Vietnam conflict, these tactics were commonplace.

Now because the media and the ****ing internet tell us when some general wipes his ass, there is this feigned outrage that fuels a thread like this.

From CNN to Fox News. doesn't matter. The media has become a cancer that IMHO has become a detriment to national security. :2cents:

[ljs]

the whole "what would you do if the terrorst did this to us.." scenarios are completely irrelevant. you know why?? There is no what if. They do it already? It's war, war is ugly. People get killed. People get beat to ****. Of course I don't like when it happens to our guys, what idiot would say they do?

and the question of -"what if the terrorist lied to our guys?" question is also irrelevant. They do that, and a hell of a lot worse, hence my posts about our own POW's. I'm not worried about some stupid lie to get intel. And if anyone thinks our troops are treated fair, equal and with respect if they are captured, well- you have your head in the sand.

[rdsknbill]

the whole "what would you do if the terrorst did this to us.." scenarios are completely irrelevant. you know why?? There is no what if. They do it already? It's war, war is ugly. People get killed. People get beat to ****. Of course I don't like when it happens to our guys, what idiot would say they do?

and the question of -"what if the terrorist lied to our guys?" question is also irrelevant. They do that, and a hell of a lot worse, hence my posts about our own POW's. I'm not worried about some stupid lie to get intel. And if anyone thinks our troops are treated fair, equal and with respect if they are captured, well- you have your head in the sand.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well said

[Larry]

LOL, read back through the last 3-4 pages. Good luck getting them to get an answer on this one. I've tried this one multiple times in this thread and others.

And they aren't going to. Because they don't want to join you in your fantasy world.

For the same reason that you won't answer my completely artificial, made-up, hypothetical:

You have a person. This person, as far as you know, has never harmed a single person. As far as you know, the closest he's ever been to a violent act was when a bunch of combat troops kicked in his door.

But he might know something.

He might not. And whatever he knows might turn out to be useful. Or it might not. Odds are, even after you find out what he knows, you still won't know if it's useful or not.

But there's a chance that maybe, days or weeks or months from now, something he says might fit with some other thing that somebody else said, which could turn into something bigger, which could turn into something really important.

But he won't talk to you. Frankly, he didn't like you folks before you kicked in his door. He isn't gonna tell you doodoo, just because he doesn't like you.

Now, you can beat it out of him.

But, whatever you do to him, 50 years from now, secret government police will be doing to American citizens who might know something about someone who disagrees with the government.

What do you do?

See? I can invent a magical, imaginary, universe where you have to agree with me or be a liar, too.