jerryzflies 0 #51 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteSort of. The part that some want to ignore is, IMHO, more important: QuoteTherefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. That is the politically correct thing to say. Even Obama was just left with saying that we may have obtained the info without the enhanced interrogation techniques. Seems like the police are successful in getting confessions and info from suspects with the techniques. Shouldn't the CIA/military be able to do the same? If they want FALSE confessions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge the evidence is overwhelming that information obtained by torture is unreliable. Chicago is still paying the price.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #52 May 7, 2009 >we aren't allowed per the Army Field Manual to do any of the things that >even Billvon thinks should be allowed. I didn't say it should be allowed. Confiscation of all guns isn't torture; doesn't mean that therefore it should be allowed. If all the torture supporters were content to even follow the Army Field Manual we wouldn't be so deep in this problem today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #53 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Where did Billvon write that they should be allowed? He did agree that it wasn't torture. THAT is NOT the same thing. Armed robbery is not murder, but it still shouldn't be allowed. Now you're competing with Billvon for crappy analogies. He said: Quote ...Wouldn't it be great if that's the worst we had done? We'd be able to speak out against torture worldwide without looking like hypocrites. Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that it means he thinks it should be allowed, so be it, but I think it is reasonable. Do you think those things should be allowed?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #54 May 7, 2009 Quote >we aren't allowed per the Army Field Manual to do any of the things that >even Billvon thinks should be allowed. I didn't say it should be allowed. Confiscation of all guns isn't torture; doesn't mean that therefore it should be allowed. If all the torture supporters were content to even follow the Army Field Manual we wouldn't be so deep in this problem today. Another really crappy, useless analogy! It is really pathetic that we can't treat enemy combatants as harshly as criminal suspects.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #55 May 7, 2009 >Another really crappy, useless analogy! Of course. Because you support one angle and not the other, so it's a crappy analogy. >It is really pathetic that we can't treat enemy combatants as harshly as >criminal suspects. It is sad that you don't see enemy combatants as suspected criminals. I think they are - and should be treated as such. The Constitution works just fine when used to deal with the likes of Timothy McVeigh; throwing it out because people feel good about torture is pretty shortsighted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #56 May 7, 2009 QuoteIt is sad that you don't see enemy combatants as suspected criminals. I think they are - and should be treated as such. The Constitution works just fine when used to deal with the likes of Timothy McVeigh; throwing it out because people feel good about torture is pretty shortsighted. Criminals just want to get money or something like that. The ENEMY we now face wants our society to collapse. Quite different, I think. Even Obama doesn't treat them like criminals, and doesn't think the constitution applies to them. If he did, he could transfer all the Gitmo prisoners to some federal prison and put them on trial in regular federal court. But of course he can't, and he doesn't. If regular rules of evidence were imposed on them, they would most likely go free.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #57 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhere did Billvon write that they should be allowed? He did agree that it wasn't torture. There's quite a lot in that excerpt from the field manual; some things are forbidden because they are illegal, some because they are ineffective, and some that are both. One of your examples, speaking harshly. When you say that that is not allowed, I assume that you are talking about the FM prohibition on threats? The FM makes it quite clear that threats of violence are not banned because they're nasty, but because they are ineffective. The inability to carry out a threat if called on it removes the authority of the interrogator. Some of the things that you are so unhappy to see excluded are excluded because the FM is concerned with using techniques that work. Also note that verbal trickery, psychological ploys and ruses are explicitly allowed.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #58 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote I'm dissapointed in all of you....including the Christians who support torture. You're all the same. Why? What I said is true. it doesn't matter if you're a Christian extremist, Zionist or Islamist, if you believe that the others are less deserving of Gods love and are hellward bound its easier to justify poor tretment of them. Wether that be torturing them in a CIA black prison, breaking their arms with rocks or cutting their heads off with a kitchen knife. Christianity does NOT say that anyone is less deserving of God's love! There may be Christians out there that believe that but that is not what the Bible teaches! Many here flat out think they are better than a Christian because they think they are more "intelligent" for not having a faith at all but I don't fault other people without a faith because some that may share their beliefs are wrong or unkind.Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #59 May 7, 2009 Quote I would think that a very high percentage of good American church going christians support anything that punishes those who they believe to be the evildoers as they were identified by the Bush Administration. I would think that a very high percentage of good Americans make up claims as they go along just to support there position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #60 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote I would think that a very high percentage of good American church going christians support anything that punishes those who they believe to be the evildoers as they were identified by the Bush Administration. I would think that a very high percentage of good Americans make up claims as they go along just to support there position. YOU would of course think that.. since its a derogatory statement against your Incompetent in Chief and his merry men. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #61 May 7, 2009 >Criminals just want to get money or something like that. How much money did Timothy McVeigh want? Or Popalowski? Or Dylan Klebold? I think you have to face reality. There are people out there who just want to kill for their own twisted reasons - their religion, their hatred, their paranoia. If they do that, they are criminals, no matter what their reason. Treating people differently because of their motive, rather than what they did, is a mistake. It leads to "hate crimes" that are somehow different than regular crimes and Gitmo instead of your regular prison. We have a justice system in this country that is good enough to deal with our criminals. If you don't think it is, then fix it. If it's good enough, then use it for what it was intended for. >Even Obama doesn't treat them like criminals, and doesn't think the constitution >applies to them. Obama: "But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #62 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I would think that a very high percentage of good American church going christians support anything that punishes those who they believe to be the evildoers as they were identified by the Bush Administration. I would think that a very high percentage of good Americans make up claims as they go along just to support there position. YOU would of course think that.. since its a derogatory statement against your Incompetent in Chief and his merry men. Your post are so funny. Also, if you are referring to Bush when you say "your Incompetent in Chief", I didn't vote for him either time. But keep those made up claims coming, it is very entertaining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #63 May 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote I would think that a very high percentage of good American church going christians support anything that punishes those who they believe to be the evildoers as they were identified by the Bush Administration. I would think that a very high percentage of good Americans make up claims as they go along just to support there position. YOU would of course think that.. since its a derogatory statement against your Incompetent in Chief and his merry men. Your post are so funny. Also, if you are referring to Bush when you say "your Incompetent in Chief", I didn't vote for him either time. But keep those made up claims coming, it is very entertaining. QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #64 May 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteSampling theory suggests that the sample size was plenty large enough to have quite reasonable confidence limits. I'm pretty sure you just made that up. There are 218 million adults in the U.S. How does a 1 to one million sampling ratio imply any sort of statistical significance, when it comes to the opinions of a large population? Mabe you should do some reading on the statistics of sampling before making such a claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #65 May 7, 2009 Quote It is really pathetic that we can't treat enemy combatants as harshly as criminal suspects. Which US police force waterboards its suspects, and slams them into walls? When a Chicago cop (illegally) tortured his supects, he managed to obtain a whole lot of false confessions that in some cases led to innocent people being sentenced to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #66 May 7, 2009 QuoteMabe you should do some reading on the statistics of sampling before making such a claim. Already did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) Feel free to point out where it says that's a good ratio for public opinion.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #67 May 8, 2009 Quote Quote Mabe you should do some reading on the statistics of sampling before making such a claim. Already did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) Feel free to point out where it says that's a good ratio for public opinion. Apparently you didn't understand what you read. Try this, and point out where RATIO has anything to do with it.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
