Waterboarding Rocks!

[SezMe]

Then why did you substitute the word "integrity" for the link to The Washington Post Fort Hunt article in your original reference to this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...25#post4657525

Geeeze, Cicero, it's just a matter of personal style. You tend to insert links in full as in the quote above. My preference is to use a word or two to point to a url. Don't try to read tea leaves from an empty cup.

I used "integrity" for my link word because I thought the article showed guys on the front lines displaying just that while I thought BAC was notably absent that quality. You jumped in to defend the same position that BAC holds so I added you to the reading list.

So your editorializing of the link was not provided as evidence to support your position? You sure were eager to insure a response to this article.

I didn't "editorialize" the link. I highlighted the point I hoped BAC would get if he read the article.

Now that the article has been fleshed out, do you still regard it as the Holy Grail of benign American interrogation methods of POW's during WWII?

See, Cicero, this is precisely how you get into so much hot water. I cited the article because I thought it made a good point in the context of this thread. YOU have raised the importance and scope of the article beyond my simple citation. YOU have chosen to put words in my keyboard about "the Holy Grail". You're the one whose fervid imagination depletes the world's supply of straw. I am allergic to strawmen so, no, I won't be responding to your utterly asinine claim.

I'm not sure what the 2006 Fort Hunt article represents as far as WWII interrogations, never mind what their significance is to the CIA interrogations at GITMO.

Oh, let me take a wild ass stab at something like how honorable, patriotic men conduct themselves in times of stress. When the main thing they have to cling to in the face of extraordinary pressure is their, well, integrity. Gee, where I have seen that word before?

 

[SezMe]

These two guys are proof that waterboarding was not the order of the day after 9/11. After these interrogators felt the need to unburden themselves, we are still left with the 3 detainees that were waterboarded by the CIA interrogators. We already know this.

The title of this thread is "Waterboarding Rocks". From the OP

Awesome! A little water in the nostrils is very effective

So kallsop, who started this thread and who is too damn cowardly to return to defend his position, thinks waterboarding is not only ok, but "Awesome!".

I find that position disgusting. Since this thread has evolved into a general discussion of the advisability, legality and morality of torture I think the two articles I have cited are highly relevant to my position. They're not authored by Keyboard Kommandos like you and I but by highly professional people who are on the front lines. They know what they are talking about, have hands-on experience, and the author of the latter article has sufficient gravitas to have been called before the Senate Judicary Committee. I was also going to cite the testimony by Soufan but the good Dr. A beat me to it.

We are not talking about whether the CIA engaged in waterboarding. They did and you acknowledge that fact.

What is your view of that fact, Cicero? Since waterboarding is illegal, should those who performed and authorized it be held responsible? Should we continue to engage in the practice? Why or why not?

And so forth. Do try to keep up.

 

[Cicero]

Geeeze, Cicero, it's just a matter of personal style. You tend to insert links in full as in the quote above. My preference is to use a word or two to point to a url. Don't read tea leaves from an empty cup.

I used "integrity" for my link word because I thought the article showed guys on the front lines displaying just that while I thought BAC was notably absent that quality. You jumped in to defend the same position that BAC holds so I added you to the reading list.

The Fort Hunt interrogators were NOT on the front lines.

I didn't "editorialize" the link. I highlighted the point I hoped BAC would get if he read the article.



See, Cicero, this is precisely how you get into so much hot water. I cited the article because I thought it made a good point in the context of this thread. YOU have raised the importance and scope of the article beyond my simple citation. YOU have chosen to put words in my keyboard about "the Holy Grail". You're the one whose fervid imagination depletes the world's supply of straw. I am allergic to strawmen so, no, I won't be responding to your utterly asinine claim.

When you used "integrity" for your link you are certainly implying that the CIA interrogators of the three detainees have no integrity.

Oh, let me take a wild ass stab at something like how honorable, patriotic men conduct themselves in times of stress. When the main thing they have to cling to in the face of extraordinary pressure is their, well, integrity. Gee, where I have seen that word before?

Those G.I.s marines, sailors, and covert agents who did not always fight according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules are no less honorable, patriotic, or lacking in integrity.

 

[SezMe]

When you used "integrity" for your link you are certainly implying that the CIA interrogators of the three detainees have no integrity.

There you go again. I did not imply anything. You inferred your own conclusions by reading between the lines. There is a HUGE difference between "imply" and "infer".

There is nothing wrong with your drawing inferences from my posts. Knock yourself out. But at least take responsibility for your own thoughts and leave my implications to myself.

 

[Cicero]

There you go again. I did not imply anything. You inferred your own conclusions by reading between the lines. There is a HUGE difference between "imply" and "infer".

There is nothing wrong with your drawing inferences from my posts. Knock yourself out. But at least take responsibility for your own thoughts and leave my implications to myself.

Well, in the interest of accuracy, do you believe the CIA interrogators have integrity?

 

[SezMe]

What is your view of that fact, Cicero? Since waterboarding is illegal, should those who performed and authorized it be held responsible? Should we continue to engage in the practice? Why or why not?

Well, in the interest of accuracy, do you believe the CIA interrogators have integrity?

Complete evasion noted. You first, Cicero.

Sheesh, I feel like on the kindergarten playground here.

 

[Upchurch]

*cough*

The CIA couldn't use torture either, yet they did.

The question remains: Should the CIA have used torture?

What do you think, Cicero?

 

[Praktik]

There's no need. John Kiriakou has stated that it is his opinion that the information obtained from waterboarding "probably" was useful but that he doesn't know of any specific examples. I believe him on that. There's nothing inherently dishonest about holding an incorrect opinion. He has honestly stated that he wasn't actually present for the water-boarding, only knows about this through what he has read and been told, and doesn't know of any examples in which water-boarding obtained useful information for foiling terrorist plots.

Kirakou now has admitted his opinons were unsupported by the evidence:

"What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," [Kiriakou] writes. "I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence."

But never mind, he says now.

"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time."

In a word, it was hearsay, water-cooler talk.

"Now we know," Kiriakou goes on, "that Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied."

Indeed. But after his one-paragraph confession, Kiriakou adds that he didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything relating to CIA torture routines, and still doesn't. And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: "In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own."​