The one american who has had this done to him, the one who knew he would not die, called it torture. If you've never been waterboarded, Wavels, and all the people who have say it's torture, what light can you shed?
I suppose you could cite someone again who's never been tortured, but that wouldn't really lend you much credibility.
Isn't this a paradox: You say that if they know they won't die, then it isn't torture. Yet for torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" to work, they must believe they're going to die. If waterboarding is meant to fill this role, but they know they won't die, then it can't be effective in threatening death and accomplishing its purpose. So why do we do it?
Numerous intelligence officers have stated that they believe it to be counterproductive and unreliable. The thought is that we may perhaps get useful intelligence, and that takes extremely short-sighted precedence over the rights of all human beings the US claims to respect. We don't. That fact is not debatable. So you and Vi can stop pretending to be defending something beautiful or extraordinary and reassess whether or not your flavor of patriotism has crept past the forgetful and ridiculous and into jingoistic paranoia.
One other point, though, on this War on Terror, which this tactic is a part of. How is it that the administration can continue to claim triumphant success in defeating more and more of the enemy, but their "regeneration" is the reason we must stay and fight?
Journalist: "Mr. President, is the threat less than before? Are we safer?"
Bush: "Yes, there's less of a threat. We have killed tons of people. 70% of Al-Qaeda is dead."
Journalist: "Mr. President, does that mean that we will be withdrawing?"
Bush: "The threat of Iraq becoming a terrorist safe-haven demands continued American supervision and support."
Besides, Bush has already said that Baghdad's future is one of "relative peace." So when he says we'll withdraw when there is a stable democratic society, he's really saying: we're not ever going to leave. Maybe you guys will figure out that the people you defend couldn't give a shit less how many troops die. They have other, more important, priorities. And that doesn't include obeying the Constitution.
How sad that people like that garnish American support. Even though this war will have costed every American $8,000. What a waste of time and life. And you eat this shit up, Wavels...
Or do I have you all wrong?
I suppose you could cite someone again who's never been tortured, but that wouldn't really lend you much credibility.
Isn't this a paradox: You say that if they know they won't die, then it isn't torture. Yet for torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" to work, they must believe they're going to die. If waterboarding is meant to fill this role, but they know they won't die, then it can't be effective in threatening death and accomplishing its purpose. So why do we do it?
Numerous intelligence officers have stated that they believe it to be counterproductive and unreliable. The thought is that we may perhaps get useful intelligence, and that takes extremely short-sighted precedence over the rights of all human beings the US claims to respect. We don't. That fact is not debatable. So you and Vi can stop pretending to be defending something beautiful or extraordinary and reassess whether or not your flavor of patriotism has crept past the forgetful and ridiculous and into jingoistic paranoia.
One other point, though, on this War on Terror, which this tactic is a part of. How is it that the administration can continue to claim triumphant success in defeating more and more of the enemy, but their "regeneration" is the reason we must stay and fight?
Journalist: "Mr. President, is the threat less than before? Are we safer?"
Bush: "Yes, there's less of a threat. We have killed tons of people. 70% of Al-Qaeda is dead."
Journalist: "Mr. President, does that mean that we will be withdrawing?"
Bush: "The threat of Iraq becoming a terrorist safe-haven demands continued American supervision and support."
Besides, Bush has already said that Baghdad's future is one of "relative peace." So when he says we'll withdraw when there is a stable democratic society, he's really saying: we're not ever going to leave. Maybe you guys will figure out that the people you defend couldn't give a shit less how many troops die. They have other, more important, priorities. And that doesn't include obeying the Constitution.
How sad that people like that garnish American support. Even though this war will have costed every American $8,000. What a waste of time and life. And you eat this shit up, Wavels...
Or do I have you all wrong?
crazy mother fucker
