It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Anyone else get this mental image when Bush speaks?
Yosemite Sam!
Originally posted by Double Eights
If torturing is "okay" in order to "get information," would anyone be against me kidnapping President Bush and Vice President Cheney and spending a couple hours shoving bamboo sticks up their fingernails, in order to see what kind of "information" they have about 9/11?
I mean, it's for our safety!
Originally posted by jsobecky
There was a case several years ago, A terrorist was being interrogated by the US to no avail.
The CIA blindfolded him, put him on a plane, flew around for some time, then landed. When they took off the guy's blindfold, he was in a room staged to look like he was in Saudi Arabia, complete with Saudis getting ready to use their own "interrogation techniques" on him.
They never had to touch him, the guy sang like a bird.
Originally posted by jsobecky
What if there were a foolproof "truth serum" drug with no adverse side effects? Would you condone the use of that to gather information?
Originally posted by Alxandro
Then why are they able to capture even more of these well known terror suspects using the information obtained during the torture process?
Originally posted by goosdawg
reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN
Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Anyone else get this mental image when Bush speaks?
Yosemite Sam!
LOL!
Except Yosemite Sam always winds up getting his ass kicked, repeatedly, before the cartoon is over.
Originally posted by goosdawg
Thanks for making the point that physical torture nets little reliable data, whereas, psychological methods do in fact yield quantifiable results.
Originally posted by goosdawg
Even though I would posit that you in fact "fudged the facts' of why the subject actually spilled the beans, according to what I understand to be the case.
Originally posted by jsobecky
What if there were a foolproof "truth serum" drug with no adverse side effects? Would you condone the use of that to gather information?
Originally posted by goosdawg
Who wouldn't?
What more humane method could be devised to interrogate a suspect?
Surely you aren't suggesting that such a technique would somehow, in some remote way, be vaguely comparable to physical torture?!?
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
since they added a rider to a bill last year that granted amnesty and immunity to all Bush Cabinet members and others acting on behalf of them from prosecution for war crimes, I doubt you will ever see anyone pay for what the have done to us all...
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dubiousone
Originally posted by dubiousone
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dubiousone
The difference is, Clinton lied while under oath.
When the President lies to Congress it doesn't matter whether he is under oath or not.
Not true.
Wrong.
See 18 USC Section 1001.
Link: www.law.cornell.edu...
Yes. What I see wrong with it is he is called stupid, a chimp, and many other derogatory terms here. Certainly, a man that stupid is not clever enough to fool the entire Congress, is he?
He is called these things because those who use these derogatory terms in describing him are frustrated to the limit by his incessant lies and betrayal of the Constitution and their beloved country (or, as this administratioon likes to call it, the "Homeland").
His intentionally false statements to Congress and the rest of us are crimes whether or not anyone is fooled by them.
Will you sing the same song after Bush is out of office and the next President, a Democrat, lies to Congress in order to get their agenda moving?
It appears that you defend Bush's total lack of integrity, or am I not reading you accurately? I use the word integrity in the broader sense of the term. I am certain that Bush could be considered as acting with complete integrity when judging his words and actions against his personal code of ethics (which doesn't include honesty toward or concern for the interests of most of us in this country or on this planet).
[edit on 4/13/2008 by dubiousone]
[edit on 4/13/2008 by dubiousone]
Originally posted by jsobecky
The difference is, Clinton lied while under oath.
When the President lies to Congress it doesn't matter whether he is under oath or not.
Not true.
Originally posted by dubiousone
Wrong.
See 18 USC Section 1001.
Link: www.law.cornell.edu...
Yes. What I see wrong with it is he is called stupid, a chimp, and many other derogatory terms here. Certainly, a man that stupid is not clever enough to fool the entire Congress, is he?
Originally posted by dubiousone
He is called these things because those who use these derogatory terms in describing him are frustrated to the limit by his incessant lies and betrayal of the Constitution and their beloved country (or, as this administratioon likes to call it, the "Homeland").
Originally posted by dubiousone
Will you sing the same song after Bush is out of office and the next President, a Democrat, lies to Congress in order to get their agenda moving?
Originally posted by dubiousone
It appears that you defend Bush's total lack of integrity, or am I not reading you accurately?
Originally posted by Tweaked
Hasn't anyone noticed how hard ALL the news media seem to be trying to get McCain elected? No one's digging up anything about him this week, are they? When there's a Republican in Office, the media gets a "pass" and when the Republican screws up, the media has a field day. They really don't want a Democrat in Office; it would be bad for business.