Do You Believe Pelosi?

Russ Pottenger · May 16, 2009

Speaker Nancy Polosi clams that she and Congress was mislead about the use of coercive
interrogation methods such as Waterboarding.

Democratly appointed CIA director Leon Panetta says lawmakers were told about the use of interrogation methods.

Who do you believe? And how do you think this will affect future intelligence work?

tbburg · May 16, 2009

Why, we are to believe Mrs. the Honorable Speaker Polosi, of course. She wouldn't lie to us, the people she serves.

buschwhaked · May 16, 2009

I'm a Democrat, and I don't even believe her!

EDIT: Still doesn't make torture any more acceptable though.

Steve_Moore · May 16, 2009

Hell no.

stewie · May 16, 2009

sometimes torture is needed. its a sad fact but true. i believe that the use of such methods has been greatly exaggerated in current news and events.

if it was your life that was in jeopardy (or even the lives of your loved ones) and a method was available to extract information that could save lives, would you use it? sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

EDIT: no i dont belive that lieing, no good, piece of shit, douche bag XXXX.

tharlanjr · May 16, 2009

X2

Doing what the government did to those terrorist is nothing, they are willing to give up their lives in order to kill as many innocent people as possible.

If they have to be uncomfortable for a while or get hurt, so be it, they are worthless scum.

I don't believe her, but I'm sure Obama will forgive her and it will be put behind us soon...

stewie said:
sometimes torture is needed. its a sad fact but true. i believe that the use of such methods has been greatly exaggerated in current news and events.

if it was your life that was in jeopardy (or even the lives of your loved ones) and a method was available to extract information that could save lives, would you use it? sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

EDIT: no i dont belive that lieing, no good, piece of shit, douche bag XXXX.

FordGuy · May 16, 2009

Well you never know, it's not like that crazy bitch ever listens so she was probably told, just did not listen, Pelosi does think shes God :shocked:

ECKSJAY · May 16, 2009

buschwhaked said:
I'm a Democrat, and I don't even believe her!

Good thing you hate wheeling then.

EDIT: Still doesn't make torture any more acceptable though.

It saves American lives.

muddyrocks · May 16, 2009

I'll second that^^. I'll also add that the media's thirst for attention cost lives.

And to the OP... nope can't be telling the truth, she took a vow against that.

wolfpackjeeper · May 16, 2009

I would not trust her if she told me the sky was blue. With her saying it, I would then automatically assume that the sky was any color other than blue.

buschwhaked · May 16, 2009

ECKSJAY said:
It saves American lives.

Ticking time bomb situations aside, it doesn't. But it's not even about whether it's effective or not, it's about whether we are comfortable with committing war crimes.

ECKSJAY · May 16, 2009

buschwhaked said:
Ticking time bomb situations aside, it doesn't. But it's not even about whether it's effective or not, it's about whether we are comfortable with committing war crimes.

War crimes assume both sides are following the same doctrine. Try again.

buschwhaked · May 16, 2009

ECKSJAY said:
War crimes assume both sides are following the same doctrine. Try again.

So if both sides aren't playing by the rules then neither side can be guilty of war crimes? Nope. In WWII, neither Russia or Germany were playing by the rules yet both committed war crimes. :conceited

And just because the enemy isn't holding themselves to any sort of standard of behavior doesn't absolve us from acting in accordance with both international and domestic law.

Now, I'm not saying we should punish the operators, but those civilians that authorized torture should be held accountable.

XJ98Jeep · May 16, 2009

buschwhaked said:
So if both sides aren't playing by the rules then neither side can be guilty of war crimes? Nope. In WWII, neither Russia or Germany were playing by the rules yet both committed war crimes. :conceited

And just because the enemy isn't holding themselves to any sort of standard of behavior doesn't absolve us from acting in accordance with both international and domestic law.

Now, I'm not saying we should punish the operators, but those civilians that authorized torture should be held accountable.

No, I think we're on to something here. The Geneva Conventions only apply to the armed forces of a country, so all we have to do is ask the terrorists which country they're from. If they say none, or one that hasn't ratified the conventions, then we can torture them. If they DO claim a country, then we'll know where to go.

"To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries, and spies do not qualify."

Call me crazy, but wouldn't wearing civilian's clothing and hiding your weapons to surprise American soldiers NOT be considered wearing a fixed distinctive marking and openly bearing arms?

buschwhaked · May 16, 2009

XJ98Jeep said:
No, I think we're on to something here. The Geneva Conventions only apply to the armed forces of a country, so all we have to do is ask the terrorists which country they're from. If they say none, or one that hasn't ratified the conventions, then we can torture them. If they DO claim a country, then we'll know where to go.

"To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries, and spies do not qualify."

Call me crazy, but wouldn't wearing civilian's clothing and hiding your weapons to surprise American soldiers NOT be considered wearing a fixed distinctive marking and openly bearing arms?

No, you're correct in that they are not considered an armed forces. But all this clause states is that POW's will be immune from PROSECUTION under the domestic law of whatever country they were captured by. I.E. They can't be charged with murder for killing soldiers. If they are not wearing a uniform, then they are not afforded POW protection status (they CAN be prosecuted). This still does not excuse the use of torture.

Torture does not work and is not effective except for getting one word answers. Unfortunately, HUMINT (human intelligence: detainees, witnesses, spys, etc) is the tool we use to give context, scope, and depth to our picture of the battlefield. This isn't some Jack Bauer shit. You get far more useful intelligence from a detainee that is somehow feels invested in the process than you do a detainee that is terrified or under duress. The idea of torture did not originate with the interrogators, but rather with lawmakers (Bush Administration) 3000 miles away in Washington D.C. If you ever want to know what is going on, ask the guys on the ground. And if you ever run into an interogator who says otherwise (which I doubt you ever will), he's not good at his job. Not to say he's not competent, but interrogations is an art, some have it some don't.

And this argument simply tackles the practical side of torture, not the moral or international ramifications. It is, quite simply, a horribly dangerous concept.

fscrig75 · May 16, 2009

buschwhaked said:
No, you're correct in that they are not considered an armed forces. But all this clause states is that POW's will be immune from PROSECUTION under the domestic law of whatever country they were captured by. I.E. They can't be charged with murder for killing soldiers. If they are not wearing a uniform, then they are not afforded POW protection status (they CAN be prosecuted). This still does not excuse the use of torture.

Torture does not work and is not effective except for getting one word answers. Unfortunately, HUMINT (human intelligence: detainees, witnesses, spys, etc) is the tool we use to give context, scope, and depth to our picture of the battlefield. This isn't some Jack Bauer shit. You get far more useful intelligence from a detainee that is somehow feels invested in the process than you do a detainee that is terrified or under duress. The idea of torture did not originate with the interrogators, but rather with lawmakers (Bush Administration) 3000 miles away in Washington D.C. If you ever want to know what is going on, ask the guys on the ground. And if you ever run into an interogator who says otherwise (which I doubt you ever will), he's not good at his job. Not to say he's not competent, but interrogations is an art, some have it some don't.

And this argument simply tackles the practical side of torture, not the moral or international ramifications. It is, quite simply, a horribly dangerous concept.

I'm a little rusty on what the Geneva convention says but I think what he was getting at is that since they are not from a country they are not affored POW status, which that paragraph defines what is a POW. Since they are not afforded POW status, the rules under the Geneva convention do not cover these insurgents. At least thats how I've always understood it.

Its not just GDUB but Nancy knew too.

But in the end I do agree that we should not be using torture. Most of the insurgents that are captured on a daily basis don't know sh*t. They might know a few safe houses or maybe some ammo dumps but thats it.
Turn their asses over to the Iraqis and let them have some fun, Republican Guard style.

ECKSJAY · May 16, 2009

Who here knows someone who worked in the field when enhanced interrogation/"torture" was used...and said it didn't work?

wolfpackjeeper · May 16, 2009

I can honestly say I do not care. I believe the gray area was artfully crafted for a reason, and worked well. Until it was dragged out into the open for no reason, we all were happy with the results and content to not know how they were obtained.

Legally? If you guys want us to legally abide by international law and the Geneva conventions, then we should just shoot them all. Their legal status is as a spy at best. Give them all one to the head and call it done.

buschwhaked · May 16, 2009

ECKSJAY said:
Who here knows someone who worked in the field when enhanced interrogation/"torture" was used...and said it didn't work?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_co/us_harsh_interrogations

buschwhaked · May 16, 2009

fscrig75 said:
But in the end I do agree that we should not be using torture. Most of the insurgents that are captured on a daily basis don't know sh*t. They might know a few safe houses or maybe some ammo dumps but thats it.
Turn their asses over to the Iraqis and let them have some fun, Republican Guard style.

This is so true it's not even funny. Most of the time detainees would want to help us so they would seem important enough to go with us instead of us leaving them with the IA. This wasn't even a fear we implanted in their mind. But most detainees know very little, but when you do get a high level guy there are tactics that take time, but in the end are way more beneficial. See, the problem with torture is that the detainee will want it to end so they'll give quick and exact answers to questions. However, there are very few scenarios where this would be beneficial. Usually, when interrogating a detainee, you're looking to discover inner group dynamics, hierarchy, and occasionally locational data (when you arrest a high level guy though, locational data is usually garnered too late to be of any use as everyone around him will have altered his pattern of life). There are other methods for tracking down people, places, and names which are far more accurate since they don't come from the filtered and skewed view of the human mind.

Do You Believe Pelosi?

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

Water is dirty

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

Water is dirty

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

Water is dirty

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

Similar threads