Carly Fiorina: Waterboarding Helped ‘Keep Our Nation Safe’

a reply to: Salander

Not at all.

The thread is about enhanced interrogation.

You asked about bombing a hospital.

Much like enhanced interrogation, bombing a hospital would be legitimate under the right circumstances. Like when your side uses it as a base or a site for a weapons platform.

You then compared the MSF/DWB clinic to a hospital (which it is not). Which would not be thread drift, but would be off topic.

When you help my enemy upon the field of battle you must assume there is going to be risk. You cannot, as an adult, think that anyone can say " this site is going to be a free space from the war". And then allow the enemy access to medical care and free access to controlled zones during an armed conflict. The very concept of that is ludicrous. If MSF/DWB wants to be a part of the insurgent movement and provide aid and comfort to terrorist organizations the should do it outside the controlled zones and within the zones of influence of those organizations.

a reply to: 200Plus

What does 18USC2441 say about 'enhanced' interrogation? The answer to that is "nothing at all".

Enhanced interrogation is sophistry created by John Yoo and other members of the Bush Administration. It is bull#, a political tool meant to fool the very gullible souls amongst us.

I assume you are a man who operates and honors the rule of law. Am I correct in that assumption?

a reply to: Salander

I am a sheepdog that crossed the line into wolf territory and has to live with it for the rest of his life.

It's easy to say "follow the rule of law", it's next to impossible when you've lost 8 out of 14 men in the preceding seven months. After that everyone not "us" becomes "them" and what happens to "them" starts having less and less meaning.

My conscious is clear about torture though as I never physically tortured anyone for any reason (my charges of CAH/VoLLW were Capitol in nature).

a reply to: 200Plus

If nobody defends the rule of law, does it really exist?

I'm glad your conscious is clear, whatever that means, but I wonder if your conscience is equally clear about your oath to defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?

a reply to: Salander

Spell check

My conscience is clear about everything except two incidents and I get therapy for that.

I did and will uphold the Constitution. Again, please make clear your question. What do you envision happened that was not constitutional?

originally posted by: 200Plus
I do however believe the you can strike such fear into the heart of a man using psychological methods that he has no means of resistance. Rapid, targeted, fear inducing trauma, will gain significant real world intel and does not need to leave the target with long lasting effects.

I will not go into the specifics here. I understand the mentality of "pics or it didn't happen" so believe what you will.

From what little I know on the subject, these methods seem to be the best. People resist them worse, they're less violent, and the results are better. The only drawback (and I do believe this is a drawback to certain people) is that arresting them and then beating them for revenge is an option taken off the table.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Salander

Spell check

My conscience is clear about everything except two incidents and I get therapy for that.

I did and will uphold the Constitution. Again, please make clear your question. What do you envision happened that was not constitutional?

Thank you for your candor. Please understand there is nothing personal about this. I do not mean to intrude into your personal affairs.

Did you ever check 18USC2441? I assume you know what that is, the federal law used to help encode US support of certain international treaties including Geneva.

After you do check that, I would like to see the part where "enhanced interrogation" is mentioned, if you don't mind, especially that part that says "waterboarding is OK". Without that citation, you have only the words of John Yoo to support your claim that "enhanced interrogation" is OK.

This is still going on? I said it before.

Waterboarding = Torture.
Torture = Illegal. War Crime.

End of discussion. It is not justified under any circumstances because as far as I am aware there are is no clause stating "Torture is banned, unless you really need to do it, in which case it is fine."
"Enhanced Interrogation" is a lie, at least in the case of waterboarding specifically. It's made up by politicians and war criminals to attempt to avoid what they have actually done. It's just torture. What was that Shakespeare quote, again? "A rose by any other name..."