Accountability for Torture Comment

[Dr. Shane]

The Abu Ghraib photos are known around the globe.

Abu Ghraib was not an approved operation. Those that did that were prosecuted. A couple down the road from me chopped up their children with meat cleavers after sniffing glue. They have as much to do with this discussion as Abu Graib does.

[Bravus]

Quote:

There are reports that state exactly the opposite.

Evidence please. I'll link mine, let's see yours.

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/torture-does-not-get-good-information/

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25384340-401,00.html

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirroro...mation-gap.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5716

Plenty more available if you want them.

[Dr. Shane]

Wow, a little context needed.

Quote:

Nancy Pelosi et al do not factor into the current disscussion on accountability of torture from the previous administration. The treaties on "No torture" were established many many years ago.

If Nancy Pelosi was consulted by the previous administration about something she can hardly turn around now and prosecute them for something she agreed to at the time. She certainly factors into this discussion.

The Geneva Convention is a mutual agreement between nations. We do not violate it unless we "torture" uniformed soldiers of other nations that actually signed on to the treaty at well. So that is what does not factor into this discussion.

Recap:

Pelosi does factor in.

Geneva Convention does not factor in.

Quote:

Considering that we did that post WWII

If another nation that signed on to the Geneva Convention captures one of our uniformed soldiers and waterboards him or her, that is a crime - a violation of the treaty. It would also be a crime if they tickle his or her nose with a feather. They are only to ask name, rank and serial number. However in this discussion we are talking about suspected terrorists. They are not uniformed soldiers of another government that signed on to the Geneva Convention.

For the record: I am against torture - including waterboarding. Yet I cannot sit by and let these phony arguments be made. The US shouldn't torture because we set the example of civilization. I have no problem with interrogating these terrorist suspects just like we do criminal suspects. They should receive a military trial and be punished according to their crime. I wouldn't be opposed to doing a pay-per-view viewing of putting them to death and giving the money to a terrorist victims' fund.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

There are reports that state exactly the opposite.

Evidence please. I'll link mine, let's see yours...

Plenty more available if you want them.

Yes, there are plenty available. On both sides of the argument. One side can quote as many reports to support their position as the other side can to support theirs.

Here is the question:

If torture was shown to extract useful information in... say... 20% of the cases when it is used, Or even 10%, Or even 5%, Would we then be justified in using it? Or let's say 1% or 100%. Is there any rate of success that would justify the use of torture?

I say NO!

So it doesn't matter to me if it is effective or not. Since criminal interrogation is effective sometimes, I am sure torture is successful sometimes too. But it doesn't matter. The US sets the example of civilization. We cannot be engaging in torture.

[bonnie]

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977351479

by Joe N.

Member since:

April 1, 2007

Water-Boarding

May 22, 2008 05:05 PM EDT

views: 263 | comments: 1

Interrogation is very important in America's war on terror, some forms of interrogation you might be familiar with are ones like sleep deprivation, false flagging, and water boarding. Currently, the most controversial interrogation method is water boarding. Used only three times since 2003, this method helped fight the war on terror against high profile al-Qaeda involved in the attacks on September 11th 2001. The debating and continuous fighting over if this method is nothing new to America. This issue is constantly brought up by Human Rights Groups, The Senate Intelligence Committee and other groups all across America. The main argument is that water boarding is not effective and that physical damage classifies the method as torture. Statements found during research show that no physical damage is evident and that the process is painless. After further research, it has been shown that water boarding is so effective that detainees being interrogated "break" in minutes and have given valuable information to fight the war on terror. America needs to be protected in order to assure homeland security, effective interrogation techniques are needed. Water boarding is an effective and safe method of interrogation. (Weiner)

When discussing water boarding and the controversy behind it, a lot of people do not know exactly what water boarding is and how it is done. This interrogation technique involves the prisoner being stretched along a wooden board so that his/her back is on the board and straight. Next, their arms and legs are tied to the wooden board and the board is tilted so the prisoner is almost vertical and upside down but only half way. After this, a cloth is placed over the prisoners face covering both the mouth and nose and water is poured in bursts on the cloth. Besides the person pouring water, other assistants rock the wooden board which adding extra prodding to get the person to talk. To some, this method may be new. However, this technique has been used for hundreds of years. Examples of water boarding were documented as far back as the 14th century. It was known as "the water cure". At the time, using water to induce confessions was "a normal incident of law." (Weiner) Water boarding swept across Europe in the 1800s, however it became rarely used until its revival in the 20th century. Reports of water boarding took place during World War II when the Japanese, U.S. troops and the French all used this technique to gain vital information. In most cases it was effective. In the 1930s the British used it against Arabs and Jews in Palestine. In the 1970s it was widely used in Latin America under the military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. Actually, water boarding has not changed much in the last 500 years except for a few modifications and the major coercive factor is to make the prisoner feel that his life is somehow being threatened. Due to the fact that water boarding relies on fear, it proves to be effective compared to other forms of interrogation that use trickery or sleep deprivation. Water boarding intimidates a person into fear. (Weiner)

Another common argue is that in many cases, water boarding causes physical damage and is therefore defined as torture. This is quite the contrary to statements found during research that prove the process is actually painless, other research shows that it does not cause any physical damage. The prisoner is hit by bursts of water, not a consent stream. This fact is commonly overlooked and misinterpreted. If the water was at a constant stream, it would lose its purpose of causing fear and it would then be considered torture. After reviewing the statements found from eyewitness accounts and court records in past cases indicate that the process is painless. In 1947, a World War II Japanese war criminal, Chinsaku Yuki, was accused of torture and the murder of Philippine civilians and convicted for life. In a transcript of the court proceedings, an American prosecutor Col. Keeley asked various questions involving water boarding to Ramon Navarro who was subjected to this method by Yuki. Col. Keeley asked Navarro if the process was painful and if he was physically hurt in any way. Navarro said it was not painful and he did not experience any physical damage. Of course in this case Navarro would feel physically endangered in this case because Yuki used water boarding as a torture method and did it completely different than the C.I.A. does it to find answers. Still, after the fact that Navarro was exposed to a more torture like water boarding situation, it was still painless and no physical damage was evident according to the statements. (Weiner)

Since the introduction of the new Army manual in 2006, military officials are banned from using any interrogation that involve water boarding due to the Scandals at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the passing of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 that "prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees." (Q&A: Water-boarding) The common question that arises is "why is the C.I.A. allowed to use it?" In July of 2007, President Bush excluded the C.I.A. from restrictions with an executive order. This order stated that the C.I.A. program of detentions and interrogation complied with the Geneva Conventions making that division legal as well as in compliance with the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. President Bush stated that if he did not veto the ban of water boarding in the C.I.A., it would take away "one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." (Q&A: Water-boarding) President Bush also argues that there is a major difference between the Military and the C.I.A. because the C.I.A. is the organization dealing with counter-terrorism worldwide and needs "specialized interrogation procedures." (Q&A: Water-boarding) The next point that is brought up often is the effective-ness of water boarding. Obviously President Bush has faith in the system and that is why he vetoed the ban and is allowing the C.I.A. to continue the use of it but, that does not help show the effectiveness of water boarding. In many instances during research, there have been reports of how quick water boarding helps bring answers from the prisoner. According to an ex-C.I.A. officer John Kiriakou, the al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah "broke" within half a minute. (Q&A: Water-boarding). Also, while discussing the effectiveness of water boarding, C.I.A. Director Michael Hayden said after water boarding three high profile Al-Qaeda that "There was a belief that additional catastrophic attacks were inevitable. We had limited knowledge about al-Qaeda and its workings. Those two realities have changed" (US 'may' use water boarding again). The process that takes place before someone is interrogated through the C.I.A. has improved in many ways. According to White House spokesman Tony Fratto, if the C.I.A. wanted to water board a suspect in the future, the head of the C.I.A. would discuss the circumstances with the attorney general, who would then determine if this is the path to take, and then would have to get confirmation from the President. The process is strict and involves levels of authorization which makes the program even better and safer.

After the research that has been done and the various statements looked over, water boarding has been proved to provide answers during interrogation while not violating the guidelines of torture. It has been proven to be an effective interrogation technique that causes no physical harm and has also been proven to be effective to the war on terror. Limiting the C.I.A. to handle all interrogation also helps in many ways by concentrating one division on terror and by limiting any problems with safety. The process that the C.I.A. goes through before a prisoner is water boarded provides a major advantage to prevent any errors that would produce negative attention and cause controversial issues. The method will continue to produce information, safely, efficiently, and will be done thoroughly. As long as the C.I.A. continues to conduct the proper steps to use the method, its efficiency can not be argued. Although this method will always be controversial and protests will be conducted by Human Right Groups, it is still needed to help protect America.

[Key Guy]

We have gotten away from the intent of 'torture' as the US uses or used it. It was (is?) to extract information for the purpose of saving lives.

Does any of us know how far we would go to save the life of a loved one? In the heat of the moment, who among us would state flatly that the would not inflict any kind of pain on another to prevent or stop the harming or killing of someone we know and love?

That's on a personal level.

On a national level, we trust those that are sworn protectors of our country to do all in their power to save lives from threats, foreign and domestic.

That is why I have no problem with the US using torture. The pain (if there even is any) inflicted on a godless criminal terrorist to extract information that saves the lives of my fellow Americans is worth it to me.

[Neil D]

The Geneva Convention is a mutual agreement between nations. We do not violate it unless we "torture" uniformed soldiers of other nations that actually signed on to the treaty at well. So that is what does not factor into this discussion.

Quote:

Considering that we did that post WWII

If another nation that signed on to the Geneva Convention captures one of our uniformed soldiers and waterboards him or her, that is a crime - a violation of the treaty. If would also be a crime if they tickle his or her nose with a feather. They are only to ask name, rank and serial number. However in this discussion we are talking about suspected terrorists. They are not uniformed soldiers of another government that signed on to the Geneva Convention.

Ok, so LEGALLY, you don't think that we violated the Geneva Convention.[i preferr to go by the spirit of the law, not by legality]..Granted, these terrorists are criminals, at the very least...We can agree on that, right?

We don't do torture against criminals even when they shoot/kill cops, and we don't do forced confessions under duress for soldiers...So, in spirit, we are against the concept of torture....We have prosecuted others during WWII for waterboarding, and condemned it. Why do you want to allow it for the terrorist? Personally, I believe that it's the old "eye for an eye" concept..."You kill 3000 people, and every so called terrorist has the right to experience a bit of torture before we kill ya"...a concept whose roots are in retrobution, not in justice...

[Neil D]

We have gotten away from the intent of 'torture' as the US uses or used it. It was (is?) to extract information for the purpose of saving lives.

Does any of us know how far we would go to save the life of a loved one? In the heat of the moment, who among us would state flatly that the would not inflict any kind of pain on another to prevent or stop the harming or killing of someone we know and love?

That's on a personal level.

On a national level, we trust those that are sworn protectors of our country to do all in their power to save lives from threats, foreign and domestic.

That is why I have no problem with the US using torture. The pain (if there even is any) inflicted on a godless criminal terrorist to extract information that saves the lives of my fellow Americans is worth it to me.

This thread origional post was on the use of ROUTINE waterboarding, for the purpose of "extracting information" in the hopes of saving lives....We, as a nation, have condemned in the past, the use of waterboarding and have prosecuted persons accused of War Crimes for waterboarding...Waterboarding is considered torture and is illegal to use against soldiers of foreign countries.

The situtation that you have described is a different circumstance...It is immediate and it's different than ROUTINE interogation....It still, imho, would be wrong to torture thru the use of waterboarding, or some other method...We can use sodium pentithol if need be, or some other less streneous method to extract information. But to use torture and induce the fear of dying, drowning, is torture...

[Key Guy]

Quote:

We don't do torture against criminals even when they shoot/kill cops, and we don't do forced confessions under duress for soldiers...So, in spirit, we are against the concept of torture....We have prosecuted others during WWII for waterboarding, and condemned it. Why do you want to allow it for the terrorist? Personally, I believe that it's the old "eye for an eye" concept..."You kill 3000 people, and every so called terrorist has the right to experience a bit of torture before we kill ya"...a concept whose roots are in retrobution (sic), not in justice...

We don't do torture to extract confessions. I am opposed to that. What's done is done. What's in the future is what I'm concerned with.

By the way: My opinions are mine. I speak, not for the gov't, but for myself and how I view what I think the gov't does or should be doing.

I do not speak for America, but I speak as an American.

[bonnie]

Quote:

We don't do torture against criminals even when they shoot/kill cops, and we don't do forced confessions under duress for soldiers...So, in spirit, we are against the concept of torture....We have prosecuted others during WWII for waterboarding, and condemned it. Why do you want to allow it for the terrorist? Personally, I believe that it's the old "eye for an eye" concept..."You kill 3000 people, and every so called terrorist has the right to experience a bit of torture before we kill ya"...a concept whose roots are in retrobution (sic), not in justice...

We don't do torture to extract confessions. I am opposed to that. What's done is done. What's in the future is what I'm concerned with.

By the way: My opinions are mine. I speak, not for the gov't, but for myself and how I view what I think the gov't does or should be doing.

I do not speak for America, but I speak as an American.

I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that CIA operatives and similar professions are not head up by the boy scout manual.If one side takes advantage and snickers at your boy scout manual,the instructions are worthless

Quite by accident I heard the recording of the beheading of the young man in Iraq. I was not expecting anyone to be so callus and unfeeling as to play that. I quite literally almost hit another car when realized what I was actually hearing. I could only hope and pray his parents had never heard the last few moments of their sons life.

It sounds so christian,so civilized to be opposed to extracting information to prevent this and more.If you say please nicely and they don't respond, let them go.

I do not believe a one of you that is opposed to waterboarding if that were a recording of your son or daughter. I don't care how it sounds, anyone that can do that to another human being is on par with an animal. When confronted by a rabid dog you best be doing something other than making nice.

I do not believe the pious rantings of Nancy Pelosi and her call for an investigation if that were her son that was having his head sawed off.

[phkrause]

Thanks for the link. I'm not for torture per say. But I know from the many reports that came after 9/11 that it did produce results in keeping us from having another attack here in the USA and other countries as well.

pk

[bonnie]

Thanks for the link. I'm not for torture per say. But I know from the many reports that came after 9/11 that it did produce results in keeping us from having another attack here in the USA and other countries as well.

pk

Mindless torture or extreme discomfort because we can is wrong. For revenge is wrong.

I just would like all the ones with the lofty ideals stand up and say,"My son or daughter having their head cut off,no problem"

Unless they respond to polite questioning let the chips or the "head" fall where it may

[carolaa]

I don't understand this obsession with linking waterboarding with beheading.

[carolaa]

Waterboarding is a tool and a pretty good one. There are other tools that are used by interrogators, too. They know how to mix and apply as needed.

The problem with that argument is that the waterboarders were not professional interrogators. They only knew one tool. Most true interrogators agree that torture does not provide reliable accurate information. In fact, the FBI had already been getting good information using traditional interrogation techniques.

[bonnie]

I don't understand this obsession with linking waterboarding with beheading.

Because that is what these boy scouts do. Or they maybe would just drag them thru the streets.

Not an obsession. Had they had someone in custody that had information as to location at the time this young man was beheaded,you say no waterboarding. Until and unless it was your son.

In your world they could not have done anything but ask questions.

Daniel Pearl's wife might be able to explain it to you as well.

[bonnie]

If the visual of beheading is to much,compare waterboarding to 9/11.

The pictures of innocent people,on fire jumping from the towers.

If a incident of water boarding has a chance to prevent your son/daughter/family member from being one of the ones as a human torch jumping in fear/panic/horrendous pain what would you have to say then.

Most would not think twice

[carolaa]

If we don't want it done to our soldiers, then we shouldn't do it to others.

[olger]

true

[bonnie]

If we don't want it done to our soldiers, then we shouldn't do it to others.

What we want and what we get are two different things.

We didn't want human torches jumping from the towers either.

This has been done to our operatives as part of their training.

If they can handle it to be prepared a terrorist should be able to handle it till he talks.

The fact still remains that it would be seen differently if any of you had to choose.

Have your loved one a human torch or waterboard to gain the information to stop the slaughter

I don't want to see our soldiers shot so perhaps they should not shoot back. Lay down their weapons.

If it is a strong conviction of your you should have no problem standing behind the desire to see the previous admin prsecuted and that it never be used.

As long as that conviction stays firm even if faced with another day like 9/11.

If you can view those type of pictures and say no water boarding even if this happens,that is a true conviction and should be accepted.

If you can say in the face of a young man being beheaded,Stop,no water boarding even if he knows and won't tell. Very few will honestly say they would accept the pictures of 9/11 if it meant sparing a terrorist being waterboarded

more power to you

[Planey]

When does the end justify the means?

There have been some absolutely abhorrent things done in recent years. There were some absolutely abhorrent things done in past ages. The difference is that with modern media (such as video cameras contained in cell phones) we can see and hear some of these things.

If it were someone dear to me who was the victim of these atrocities, would I want to do anything to stop it? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. But does that make it right? To what lengths would I go to prevent such a thing from happening?

My point is: what makes an action right or wrong?

Am I justified in doing a wrong action because someone else does something worse?

The Bible says something about laying down one's life for a friend. Does it say anything about laying down someone else's life? Or tortueing someone else for a friend?

Just questions but I must admit that they trouble me.

Graeme

[bonnie]

When does the end justify the means?

A little problem with war of any kind isn't it? Soldiers and citizens on each side of a war has been fought with winning in mind. Winning means stopping the other guy.

It isn't a game of war,it is war,people die,so can that be justified.

Maybe not in your mind but I am thankful to a lot of people that I did not have to learn german.

Did the end they achieved justified going to war???

War is not the ideal way to settle a problem,at times it is the only way. These terrorist do not understand or abide by normal behavior and reasoning

There have been some absolutely abhorrent things done in recent years. There were some absolutely abhorrent things done in past ages. The difference is that with modern media (such as video cameras contained in cell phones) we can see and hear some of these things.

Not anymore so that in years past. There are bad among our operatives and soldiers as well Most are not. The difference is the US is not required to be an ordinary country with ordinary problems. It is expected to be perfect on all counts

If it were someone dear to me who was the victim of these atrocities, would I want to do anything to stop it? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. But does that make it right? To what lengths would I go to prevent such a thing from happening?

All of us probably would,

but I did not say we should do anything.

We were speaking of waterboarding. A technique that our own operatives go thru in training.

My point is: what makes an action right or wrong?

There is no reason this country cannot defend it's citizens. None whatsoever. I am not going to pretend to armchair the dealings with terrorists. I will leave that to men that place their lives on the line protecting mine.

Am I justified in doing a wrong action because someone else does something worse?

A wrong action is shooting someone as well. Would I shoot someone trying to kill mine,in a heartbeat.

The Bible says something about laying down one's life for a friend. Does it say anything about laying down someone else's life? Or tortueing someone else for a friend?

The bible does not say anything about a lot of issues. Again you refer to torture. If this is torture in your mind a great many have of our own have been tortured in training.

No one is speaking of laying down the life of someone else. It is waterboarding,remember.

But all that aside,when Nancy Pelosi step forward and explains where she is now on her righteous rant and lying again

Maybe you can ask her. Now that she can make political hay out of it,she is not for it. She was in 2002 and up till now

Just questions but I must admit that they trouble me.

Graeme

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

If we don't want it done to our soldiers, then we shouldn't do it to others.

What we want and what we get are two different things.

We didn't want human torches jumping from the towers either.

This has been done to our operatives as part of their training.

If they can handle it to be prepared a terrorist should be able to handle it till he talks.

The fact still remains that it would be seen differently if any of you had to choose.

Have your loved one a human torch or waterboard to gain the information to stop the slaughter

I don't want to see our soldiers shot so perhaps they should not shoot back. Lay down their weapons.

If it is a strong conviction of your you should have no problem standing behind the desire to see the previous admin prsecuted and that it never be used.

As long as that conviction stays firm even if faced with another day like 9/11.

If you can view those type of pictures and say no water boarding even if this happens,that is a true conviction and should be accepted.

If you can say in the face of a young man being beheaded,Stop,no water boarding even if he knows and won't tell. Very few will honestly say they would accept the pictures of 9/11 if it meant sparing a terrorist being waterboarded

more power to you

Our enemies atrocious acts, which must be punished, never justifies us using torture. I firmly stand on the fact that we must be different. We must walk the higher road. We must not lay down and "take their abuse" but neither must we become the abusers. No, I do not think there is wide-spread abuse in our military but ANY abuse that happened with our military to anyone friend of foe, should not be tolerated. It is very simple. What the enemy does to does to us does not justify us torturing them. It does demand punishment and somehow making sure they do not do it again, to the best of our ability, but no amount of torture or punishment will ever "pay" them back for what they have done, the crime is too great. Just ask the person who has had a daughter raped and murdered by some terrible criminal. Later those parents attend the electric chair killing of the murderer...expecting to feel finally at peace as "justice has been served.". What they feel is "relief that he can't do it again to someone else", but other than that the anger, loss, bitterness is still there and somehow there is no "relief". You can't make others pay enough for such sins. Yes we need to keep society as safe as possible but not through torture of our enemies. We are to "love our enemies and pray for them". Now that doesn't mean we "condone" what they do. It doesn't mean there isn't something called "tough love which lets them face the consequences of their decisions" but it means they are treated as humans for whom Christ died and not like some non-human. God says "Vengance is mine", we can leave the "final punishment" which will "completely take care of the problem" in God's hands.

[bonnie]

[quote

Quote:

Our enemies atrocious acts, which must be punished, never justifies us using torture. I firmly stand on the fact that we must be different. We must walk the higher road. We must not lay down and "take their abuse" but neither must we become the abusers. No, I do not think there is wide-spread abuse in our military but ANY abuse that happened with our military to anyone friend of foe, should not be tolerated. It is very simple. What the enemy does to does to us does not justify us torturing them. It does demand punishment and somehow making sure they do not do it again, to the best of our ability, but no amount of torture or punishment will ever "pay" them back for what they have done, the crime is too great. Just ask the person who has had a daughter raped and murdered by some terrible criminal.

It seems we have to different topics here. One,prevention of another 9/11 or having our citizens abused and or beheaded ,or paying back and getting even. I don't think that has been part of this converstaion.

We cannot punish them,if they do not confess we must let them go. Anything other than that will be defined as torture.

We are not talking after the fact but before trying to prevent

Quote:

Later those parents attend the electric chair killing of the murderer...expecting to feel finally at peace as "justice has been served.". What they feel is "relief that he can't do it again to someone else", but other than that the anger, loss, bitterness is still there and somehow there is no "relief". You can't make others pay enough for such sins. Yes we need to keep society as safe as possible but not through torture of our enemies. We are to "love our enemies and pray for them".

We are not speaking of retribution or justice being served tho are we? Nor are we asking that others pay enough. Placing it on the level of payback is not accurate or even difscussing the topic at hand.

No one is stopping you from loving your enemies but I believe there are a lot of people out there hoping you love them and theirs even half as much

Quote:

Now that doesn't mean we "condone" what they do. It doesn't mean there isn't something called "tough love which lets them face the consequences of their decisions" but it means they are treated as humans for whom Christ died and not like some non-human. God says "Vengance is mine", we can leave the "final punishment" which will "completely take care of the problem" in God's hands.

I think that some members of CA should sign on to keep our country safe and give tough love.

Keeping them imprisoned is not acceptable here. Nor is obtaining information that might protect someone else unless of course when we ask nicely they feel obligated to answer honestly. Somehow I don't think it works that way

You still are on a totally different subject with this.......

God says "Vengance is mine", we can leave the "final punishment" which will "completely take care of the problem" in God's hands.

No one has advocated vengence have they?

Those that are so bent on the "end doesn't justify the means"

will of course put that into their daily life.

Eliminates the possibility of calling 911 if you are being attacked.

If your family member was in danger,do not call 911. Use tough love. By calling 911 you are giving the permission for a swat team to kill another human being. Let God take care of the problem calling for help.

We had a case in MN where a woman being attacked by her estranged husband. Somehow she was able to call 911. When they arrived she had a knife held against her throat,he had already drawn blood. She was pleading for her life. A swat team had been dispatched and he was shot and killed.

Guess who was blamed for the death of her suddenly dearly beloved. She was a african amercian and sued the swat team. They could have talked him down,they shot him she was sure because he was african american.

The point is if you expect that it should all be left to God then that is your opinion. Do not ever call for helpif you or yours are ever in that position. You know very well someone could die and by doing so you are pulling the trigger as well

[carolaa]

There is no reason this country cannot defend it's citizens. None whatsoever. I am not going to pretend to armchair the dealings with terrorists. I will leave that to men that place their lives on the line protecting mine.

The ones making the decisions about torture are not the ones who are placing their lives on the line to protect yours.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

There is no reason this country cannot defend it's citizens. None whatsoever. I am not going to pretend to armchair the dealings with terrorists. I will leave that to men that place their lives on the line protecting mine.

The ones making the decisions about torture are not the ones who are placing their lives on the line to protect yours.

This really doesn't make sense. I would assume that those that have these terrorists in custody would quickly and automatically give the information to the operatives to use.

Those as navy seals and other specially trained military do put their lives on the line on a regular basis,

Without those that are in a position to gain information the special ops has nowhere to go.

You may think this is done for fun and nothing expected except water boarding an enemy. I don't think so.

I am sure it has happened and I am also sure those that do this don't advertise or let others know. We don't have a perfect military and never will,but we have seen that military that does this has been prosecuted