digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

'Waterboarding broke al Qaeda in 35 seconds' - CIA Agent

dailymail.co.uk — A former CIA agent has defended the use of torture as an interrogation tool, insisting that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, a major al Qaeda figure, got him to talk in less than 35 seconds.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theNazz, on 12/12/2007, -28/+122It's amazing how quickly people confess to war crimes when they know the government and courts support their actions.
    • ConAmoreEFuoco, on 12/12/2007, -9/+58They didn't even have to torture him to get him to admit to war crimes!
      • spinchange, on 12/12/2007, -5/+14I like how ABC and this CIA Agent left that part out.

        "The guy is insane, certifiable, split personality," [Dan] Coleman told a top official at FBI after a few days reviewing the Zubaydah haul....There was almost nothing "operational" in his portfolio. That was handled by the management team. He wasn't one of them...."He was like a travel agent, the guy who booked your flights....He was expendable, you know, the greeter....Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar's Palace, shaking hands."

        ....According to CIA sources, he was water-boarded....He was beaten....He was repeatedly threatened....His medication was withheld. He was bombarded with deafening, continuous noise and harsh lights.

        ....Under this duress, Zubaydah told them that shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda....Zubaydah said banks — yes, banks — were a priority....And also supermarkets — al Qaeda was planning to blow up crowded supermarkets, several at one time. People would stop shopping. The nation's economy would be crippled. And the water system — a target, too. Nuclear plants, naturally. And apartment buildings.

        Thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each flavor of target. Of course, if you multiplied by ten, there still wouldn't be enough public servants in America to surround and secure the supermarkets. Or the banks. But they tried.

        http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu ...


        • TheSabre, on 12/12/2007, -12/+4Oh no! Not noise and lights! The humanity...
        • richpav, on 12/12/2007, -6/+8John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was interviewed by Brian Ross of ABC News, spoke of the interrogation of the same suspect (Zubaydah) and said that his waterboarding led to the disruption of dozens of attacks, but looking back now he thinks that we shouldn't have waterboarded him.

          Here's a hypothetical question, and there isn't a simple answer. If waterboarding one person--a known terrorist who's goal in life is to kill as many infidels as possible--could save the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people in your community, would you do it? Personally, I would, and I'd be willing to accept the consequences. If I could save the lives of thousands, I think that at the very moment when I'm deciding do or don't, I'd accept the possibility of suffering a very serious penalty in the future.
          • ChaosMotor, on 12/12/2007, -5/+14That's a false dilemma, and you're not Jack Bauer.
          • Yoshi39, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5Sure but torture should still be illegal as if there ever was a Jack Bauer scenario where thousands of innocent lives where saved thanks to torture im sure that the torturer would get a presidential pardon
          • thotpoizn, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5Who needs hundreds or thousands? I'd do it without hesitation if it saved even ONE. And if this instance really did lead to the disruption of dozens of attacks - I'd say a certain water-boarding agent was about due to receive a medal.
            (P.S. anyone who reads that and feels the need to explode violently in a froth of indignant retardation, please save us all the time and trouble and just skip ahead directly to the part where you can kiss my ass.)
          • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1What if you were wasting time water boarding some jackass that didn't have anything to do with anything while the real guy was killing people?
    • kooft, on 12/12/2007, -14/+90So the Vietnamese torturing John McCain wasn't a bad thing then. It was morally proper and may have saved countless lives. I'll never feel a pang of sorrow for what he went through again...
      • kevlarbaboon, on 12/12/2007, -19/+13Did McCain ever want you to feel sorry for him?
        • rspeed, on 12/12/2007, -7/+12No, but lacking sympathy is inhuman.
          • gyrfalcon, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2Wooo I'm not human!!!
          • OralCavity, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1you are also twelve.
            when you grow up a bit, get back to us.
        • m0tbaillie, on 12/12/2007, -0/+14For as much as a douche as McCain is, he's still a very ballsy man. He can no longer raise his arms above his head and was beaten so badly on several occasions that he almost ***** died. Oh did I mention he was a POW for 6, almost 7 years?
      • thcobbs, on 12/12/2007, -17/+8Simulated drowning.....

        Sticks under finger nails, beatings, starvation.....

        Odd. They seem soooo similar. But you can fee a pang of guilt for the one tortured by the USA. Just because it saved countless lives doesn't mean you can't feel sorry for what they guy went through.
        • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -11/+9You make simulated drowning sound half decent. Pain as torture is resistable, and many can. Psychological torture is worse, IMO
          • niczar, on 12/12/2007, -10/+9It's (kinda) tolerable if you are certain it won't last too long.
            But those guys in Gitmo have been held for 6 years, have no idea when they're getting out, are treated like f'in dogs, and that's ON TOP of physical torture.
          • Swift2, on 12/12/2007, -2/+9You can break anybody, that's what torturers know. You can make them confess, in medieval times, to sleeping with the Devil. It's not a tool for getting at the truth. It's a tool to oppress and to terrify: a terror weapon. It's what General Pinochet did -- not to find out things about the leftists of his day, but to scare the hell out of students, intellectuals and newspaper editors so his thugs could take over.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -2/+6@ niczar . . . . ". . . treated like f'in dogs . . . . " Interesting choice of words. Considering they are savage rabid animals, this would be appropriate if true. But in fact, they eat better than many poor Americans, have better housing than many poor Americans, absolutely better health care than very many Americans - their living conditions are superior to anything most of them have known. You are aware that many of those who were already released immediately returned to committing acts of terrorism, right? To paraphrase the line from 'Apocalypse Now,' "Looks like the right guys were targeted."
        • Gerz1219, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6How do you know it saved countless lives? Did you use a multiverse transporter to visit the parallel universe in which we didn't torture this suspect and every supermarket and nuclear plant exploded? Or are you just taking the government's word for it?

          It's a counterfactual argument. We torture a suspect, he implicates everyone and his brother in an impending attack, and nothing blows up. It's specious reasoning to assume that we prevented an attack simply because nothing blew up. It's quite possible that nothing would have blown up without the torture.
      • floorman56, on 12/12/2007, -3/+8So the Vietnamese torturing John McCain wasn't a bad thing then
        I guess not ...Many Hollywood people went over the praise NV during the war. No one said stop torturing John McCain. Jane Fonda sat on a AA gun and praised the gun crews. NV is still highly rated in the world so if it's OK for them ...it's OK for us
    • Hickeroar, on 12/12/2007, -3/+17Except this guy didn't do any of it. This is a prime example of a half-article. The guy reported on it later but didn't have anything to do with the waterboarding. He has also stated that he DOES view it as torture. This was all over MSNBC a couple days ago.
      • lilaliend, on 12/12/2007, -12/+10He stated that is was torture, but also said it was effective and lead to a great deal of useful information in the long run. Pretty damn neccessary if you ask me, torture or not.
        • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -4/+13"Necessary"? Are you nuts?

          We sought the unibomber for years in the US. Would you have supported torturing US citizens if they were *suspected* of knowing his whereabouts?

          This is not just a slippery slope, it is an indictment of a nation of people who have thrown aside any kind of moral rudder. People ask how the populace could have stood by while the Germans and Japanese committed atrocious acts against their fellow man. That question is pretty moot these days, when a substantial number of Americans are willing to justify empowering our government to torture people.

          What. The. *****.
        • dcorey07, on 12/12/2007, -12/+4shutup halavais... there is a difference between someone knowing someones wherabouts (unibombers).. and someone being a known terrorist, high in the ranks of one of the worst terrorist organizations of all time
          You are an idiot if you are even trying to compare the two, you irrational *****
        • nihilite, on 12/12/2007, -5/+3payback is a bitch. and these are people who love to pay it back.
        • Swift2, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4But he wasn't there for the waterboarding. It's difficult to tell what's real in this kind of shadow information war, but it seems pretty clear that he may have come up with some "life-saving" information -- of course, torturers always say that, don't they? -- but they also got a lot of weird, "don't torture me, bro" nonsense. Like, remember the troops outside of the financial institutions, uh, the week after the Democratic convention, when Kerry got his bounce? Zubaydah. He gave all kinds of crap, so vague as to be worthless. The administration hauls it out, again and again, as a justification for some politically advantageous clampdown. That's what a torture state is like. Pinochet would be proud.
    • seandaly, on 12/12/2007, -5/+22Waterboarding isn't "simulated drowning"... They actually pour water up your nose and down your throat through a cloth or towel! That IS drowning someone. The only difference is that the torturers stop before enough water collects in the lungs and prevents respiration, where the individual loses consciousness.
      • Mockylock, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4It can't collect in your lungs if you're upside down. It's still ***** though.
        • Terr01, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4Apparently there are different methods over the years that bear a similarity.

          Of course, covering someone's mouth with cellophane while pouring water on them... It's basically repeatedly suffocating them until they confess to something.

          Would we be equally acceptable if it were an interrogator grabbing them by the throat until they turned blue?
      • tmessing, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3If it were drowning someone they'd be dead.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Many people do die from water boarding. Many people actually break their own bones trying to struggle to escape.
        • nimbleprune, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0thats the idea...amke them think they are going to die...they will talk
      • lintmonkey, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3I guess he didn't want his virgins.
      • TrevorBradley, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I've heard waterboarding described as "simulated dying".
        • nimbleprune, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0yeah I guess drowning is dieing...I suppose you just want it to sound more dramatic...
    • Osjpr, on 12/12/2007, -9/+10Yes, and if I chop off this agents hand leaving him top contemplate a bloody stump, I'm sure he would start to talk. Or perhaps raping or mutilating his wife would do the trick.
      • brianjlowry, on 12/12/2007, -4/+8Good God, man.
      • Swift2, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5That's how degraded torture makes the torturer.
      • Subliminational, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1Hey I'm eating here!
      • nimbleprune, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0He is just talking about what most non western countries do to torture people...yet for some reason noone makes a big stink about it.
    • CheezIt9109, on 12/12/2007, -4/+19I sincerely hope America comes to its senses, and tries all responsible for war crimes, from those performing the actions to the very top level administrators who authorized the use of this method. It's a ***** disgrace.
      • floorman56, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6They why hasn't congress outlawed it? NO ONE has even started a bill
        • chijim70, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2Because americans are complacent... period.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1They did outlaw it, in 2006. Bush of course just made a signing statement ignoring the law.
      • nimbleprune, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0why would anyone want to work in the intelligence field if you get tried for a crime afterwards. People complained about the US having ***** ground intelligence after 911 but when the CIA starts doing what it takes to get that intelligence everyone freaks out. Its the price you pay for having a good intelligence agency.
  • Napoleone, on 12/12/2007, -58/+272We lost the moral high-ground in less than 35 seconds. Quite impressive.
    • Bawk, on 12/12/2007, -61/+16Next time we need information we should just say "pretty please tell us, with sugar on top??" Right?

      Torture gets people to speak, this includes known terrorists. It's evil, but it works.
      • raymondmarble, on 12/12/2007, -10/+50Torture does indeed get people to speak. Of course, it gets the subjects to say what they think the torturers want to hear to end the torture, rather than the truth. But why let the truthfulness of the results stand in the way of a good old fashioned torture, eh?
        • Bawk, on 12/12/2007, -43/+8Then how do you suggest we get the information we need? And the subjects never ever tell the truth, right? It's ALWAYS what the toturers want to hear, right? Sometimes it's the truth, sometimes it isn't. That's why they go on to investigate the information they do get, but you have to start somewhere and that includes getting any kind of leads they can out of terrorist suspects.

          Keep crying about the problem but you're not giving any other solutions.
          • Nougat, on 12/12/2007, -8/+16The level of difficulty of getting dependable intelligence from captured enemies does not justify torture.
          • scorchedearth, on 12/12/2007, -8/+7Torture has never been proven to give reliable information.
          • dcorey07, on 12/12/2007, -7/+4prove that statement scorched... im sure that wasnt pulled out of your ass was it?
          • EarlOfLade, on 12/12/2007, -4/+16A country whos safety depends on torture of prisoners does not deserve any safety!
          • tidu, on 12/12/2007, -4/+2EarlOfLade your comment should be first on this comment tree...
          • Swift2, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4We got all the information we needed in World War II, when we sentenced Japanese to prison for waterboarding. We didn't torture, but people blabbered to us. Why? Because we didn't torture. What's the matter, you don't believe in freedom, the republican form of government, or human dignity? Granted, these terrorists are nasty people. But no worse than the Nazis.
            60 Minutes did a story a long time ago about the Bali bombers. The Indonesian government has rolled up that terrorist network. Indonesia! And how? Because their top instructor in military training saw that bombing and decided it was against Islam to kill civilians. So he went in and ratted them all out. They were convicted in court, where the public had every opportunity to listen to them try to justify themselves. They had been frighteningly popular before that. Their popularity went DOWN through public exposure. And that's how you beat them.
          • thotpoizn, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3@scorchedearth:
            Ah, sorry to burst your Disney themed little bubble there, skippy, but - Battle of Algiers, anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?
        • dyranios2, on 12/12/2007, -27/+9Exactly, compassion is a trait our enemies will not share.
          • Nougat, on 12/12/2007, -4/+21Correct. It is one of the things that should make us distinct from our enemies.
        • bulkhater, on 12/12/2007, -5/+29Bawk and dyranios2
          Actually, there are "Mind game" techniques pioneered by the NAZIs interrogating captured American and British pilots that yielded much better results. The prisoners never even realized they were giving up vital information! The US was so impressed that the CIA had some of it's interrogation manuals written by captured NAZIs.
          Torture is a piss-poor way to get reliable information. Sadly, the best methods require intelligent and trained interrogators. Ham fisted morons resort to torture because movies and TV tell them it works, even though it doesn't.
          • Daedalus81, on 12/12/2007, -2/+21There was a good documentarty on this History channel about this. I remember one part where a German officer and an American pilot were taking a friendly stroll in a park. The officer asked why the pilots used red tracers and the pilot willingly gave the information up as if it were a casual conversation.
          • dcorey07, on 12/12/2007, -11/+3hahaha.... wow nice, yea one of our officers will take a friendly stroll in a park with abadabya or whatever the hell his name is... i am sure he will be so in to the conversation he wont realize he is telling the guy all of al quedas secrets
            Why do you digg assholes have so much sympathy for these ***** Al Queda terrorists
          • ChaosMotor, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6@dcore07,
            Because showing sympathy and compassion to someone is a much better way of getting information, even though it takes more time. History has proven than showing kindness to your captives, and dealing with them on an individual, human, equal level yields much better quality information than attacking them brutally.
          • CeeJayDK, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2I was also thinking ,, why not just let them go ?
            .. and have them followed and bugged.
            The innocent man would likely return to his family - The terrorist to his terrorist cell.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3"Torture does indeed get people to speak. Of course, it gets the subjects to say what they think the torturers want to hear to end the torture, rather than the truth." How do you know other than repeating what people complaining about torture say. Think, "how about we all get together and try some of it on a few people COLLECTED FROM THE BATTLEFIELD and see what it yields." That was the extent of what they did. The guys captured were captured DIRECTLY on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting against our military, or had connections to known terrorists and were part of known terrorist organizations. They then worked the magic on them...sounds fair to me. I would do it in a heartbeat to save my life and those in the USA. I would make no excuses if it had to be done either...and I would never come forward to say I did it.
      • Mononuclear, on 12/12/2007, -3/+25The end justifies the means right? We might as well start doing scientific experiments on people too because then we might make advances in medicine. It's evil but hey it works!!
        • rspeed, on 12/12/2007, -4/+11This is the shocking double-standard that exists in our Federal Government today. They ban embryonic stem cell research because the source of the cells are in a moral grey zone, but at the same time believe that the ends justifies the means for torture.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Mononuclear, we experiment on people for ALL manner of medical treatments right now. What do you call cancer and AIDs treatment? It is all experimental. But if you want to live you take the medicine because some people go on living for decades which is better than the six months you had.
      • Daedalus81, on 12/12/2007, -3/+15We shoot people instead of banning them for stupid comments. Its evil, but it works.
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -2/+6WHAT TERRORIST???? Where are these people willing to die to attack us who haven't been attacking us???

        (hint: $10 + car = Malotov cocktails all over a public place in an hour and the police can't stop you. If there WERE people here willing to die to attack us, THEY'D BE DOING IT. Thus... there are not any!)
        • spawnfree, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3or home made mortars attacks, the culprits are back in their car before it even hits.
          Its very hard to catch these types of attacker. And yet; there are none.

          The terrorist threat is there I'm sure, the freedoms they hate are the freedoms that big companies and the CIA give themselves to behave like greedy dicks.
          Just like we are all going to hate OPEC in the next few years once their monopoly on the oil supply is back in place.
        • Swift2, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2Oh, there are terrorists. There have always been terrorists.
    • killakan, on 12/12/2007, -45/+16And, we gained it back when they started cutting peoples heads off on video and distributing it.
      • xTRUMANx, on 12/12/2007, -7/+20Nope. High ground is still up for grabs.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -8/+15And immediately lost it again when blackwater tapes were distributed.
      • MentalV, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2That's ok... if we allow ourselves to use torture now we might be the ones showing decapitated heads in the future, things balance themselves out no? (sarcasm included)
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1You mean when the CIA was decapitating whistle blowers and blaming it on terrorists?
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -33/+21What moral high ground?

      How many Iraqi civilians have you killed, mutilated, injured, displaced?

      How many American citizens did Al Qaeda kill, mutilate, injure and displace?

      You don't have a moral leg to stand on.

      And in any case, this isn't new. You did it to Nazis, you did it to the Japanese, to Koreans, to Vietnamese, to the Chinese, you even did it to Americans. So you didn't lose anything, you're just continuing.
      • 01l0, on 12/12/2007, -5/+11FYI this was in 2003
      • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -14/+8You're clueless. Last I checked it was America and not Saddam's Iraq or the Taliban's Afghanistan that people risked life and limb to get to.
        • solidblu, on 12/12/2007, -7/+8Being rich does not make you morally right... You're clueless in the argument and are spewing pro America crap where an argument is suppose to be.
          • nihilite, on 12/12/2007, -6/+5we aren't spoonfed this doublethink "logic" in the US, it is crammed down our throats with a !*@%ing shovel. it doesn't surprise me anymore that the only defense an american can muster is jingoism and moral relativism.
          • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -5/+5You're right, they come solely for the money. Forget the right to speak their mind, own their own property, worship freely...

            Seriously, could some of you be any dumber?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -6/+2"speak their mind, own their own property, worship freely..."

            You mean like in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, France, Beligum, The Netherlands, the UK, Iceland, Australia, Russia, Turkey, Portugal, Brasil, Spain, Thailand, Japan, Mexico, Argentina, etc.?
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6Hey, ElAssoWipo (what an incredibly accurate user name!) -

            Please try being an evangelistic Christian in Turkey or a serious political dissident in Russia . . . then come back and tell us your experiences. You are so consumed with hate you spew irrational verbiage as if you trained as a speech writer for Goebbels.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -6/+3OOOH you found one country where they don't like certain religions!!! That certainly discredited 1/20th of my argument.

            Try to be a communist in America.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5@ ElAssoWipo . . . .
            "Try to be a communist in America."

            The ACLU was founded as a front for Communism in this country, there is still a (pathetically small) American Communist Party and guess what, none of them are beheaded or waterboarded. Keep grasping, you may find a straw in there somewhere.
          • thotpoizn, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4@ElAssoWipo: "Try to be a communist in America"
            ...You seem to be managing just fine.
          • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5"Try to be a communist in America." are you kidding? It isn't 1950 around here. You can be communist in the United States, but who would want too? COMMUNISTS SUCK...even the Chinese and Russians gave up on Communism. The only overtly communist country that I know of is Cuba. And Cuba sucks. If it weren't for Venezuela giving Cuba 3 BILLION in oil subsidies per year they would be starving.

            AssWipeO you are a turd. I wish I could help you out of this world so you would find peace.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1If it weren't for your 60 year old embargo, Cuba would not be poor. Great example of how you ***** on this planet.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3@ ElAssoWipo . . . .
            Considering Castro didn't come to power until slightly less than *49* years ago, it seems your math skills are on a par with your knowledge of history. And if the rest of the world has been trading with Cuba for half a century but Castro's "worker's paradise" is still a fifth-rate ***** hole despite this trade and massive subsidies from the Soviets and now chavez, then you need to look a little closer to Havana for the cause.

            Keep trying . . . or wait until you have finished elementary school and actually have a rudimentary grasp of such matters.
      • ItsMyWii, on 12/12/2007, -15/+11Am i supposed to sympathize? Shut the ***** up. It was completely necessary.
        • ChaosMotor, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3Try saying that when it happens to you.
      • Nougat, on 12/12/2007, -4/+14Moral relativism FTL.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -11/+3Oh noes, I used moral relativism to defeat moral relativist argument!! And it angered the Americans,oooooh.

        What are you going to do about it? Torture me? Bomb my house? Kill my family? Make the argument that I hate your freedoms?
        • Rahodeb, on 12/12/2007, -3/+12ElAssoWipo, find me one country at war that didn't commit atrocities and I might begin to believe that it's just an American thing, and not a human thing. Do I think we've done horrible things in the name of national security? yes. Do I think that we have been worse than all of the others? Not even close.

          This doesn't excuse it, just putting it in perspective. America isn't the all-holy pinnacle of human greatness that it was once touted to be, but it's still better treatment than you'd get just about anywhere else as an enemy combatant.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -6/+2Norway.
          • cloudyprison, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1Only in Kenya! Forget Norway!
          • cloudyprison, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1Only in Kenya! Forget Norway!
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5Ah, yes, great example, ElAssoWipo - Norway, where the Norwegian resistance surgically removed Quislings' tongues to mark them forever as traitors.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2You mean the Norwegian fascists who supported the Nazis?

            Quisling is now the synonym of traitor in Norway btw.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6@ ElAssoWipo . . . .
            "You mean the Norwegian fascists who supported the Nazis? Quisling is now the synonym of traitor in Norway btw."

            No kidding? And here I thought I'd coined a new word entirely at random when I juxtaposed this term to "Norwegian resistance" . . . . Wonders never cease. JFYI, this operation was performed on actual traitors, not simply nor only on those benighted souls who embraced the Nazis. So much for your well-researched example, eh?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -4/+1That's not the point, the point is that these people wanted to commit a genocide and that makes them bad people so it's not really all that bad that this happened to them.

            This is what's fun when comparing hurting people to get information to not hurting people to get information in a context where two sides kill each other to achieve a political, or in this case, insane objective.

            You can relate everything because the question itself is idiotic.
          • thotpoizn, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5Did you hear that, ElAssWipe? It was the sound of you falling off your high horse, slipping down a slippery slope, and landing smack dab in a huge pool of your own verbal diarrhea. They were bad people, so it's not really all that bad that this happened to them? But you're up in arms about some splish-splashing of water up the noses of another group of bad people? Words... fail me... *my head asplode*
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5@ ElAssoWipo . . . . Suggest you come back when you are straight and try again with that last response.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -5/+1Bah, defeated in this moot argument or not, I still win by not being American.

            @thotpoizn

            You completely missed the point of the comment. I don't care about torture. Torture is half way between incarceration and murder. And if there's a war, there's murder. So, with or without torture, war is a 'bad' thing.

            It's like saying you can kill a person but not mess up his hair. It's a ridiculous debate.

            And besides, my original position was that you don't have a moral high-ground. You don't. The rest of this is besides the point anyway, my only mistake was engaging in a fallacious argumentation.
          • Iconoclast25, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5"Bah, defeated in this moot argument or not, I still win by not being American."

            You have no idea how glad I am to know you are NOT American - that raises the average IQ in this nation by some small, but probably measurable, amount - WE win because you are not. Thanks for playing, though.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5"What are you going to do about it? Torture me?" I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Thank you for admitting that you're basically a savage.
      • tyme, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1By assuming that all U.S. Citizens are to blame for the horrible things their government does (despite what is said, the U.S. government IS NOT A ***** DEMOCRACY) you are no better than those in the U.S. that generalize others. It's a cycle, why don't you break it instead of helping move it along.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4The US doesn't generalize, it makes baseless accusations then it rapes countries.

          You live in a representative democratic republic. You, as an American citizen, are entirely responsible for the fate of your country. I think it's absolutely sad that a person could say such a thing.

          You have the responsability to fight your government. That's the whole foundation of your country. CITIZENS NOT ALLOWING POWER TO BECOME CORRUPTED.

          You failed miserably.

          If American citizens are not responsible for the government they pay to represent them, then who is?

          The United Nations perhaprs? Canada? Or, are your government officials not American? Do you not pay these people through taxes? Do you not elect your leaders at every level of government except for the president and vice-president who are elected by people YOU elected?

          If you're not responsible for your OWN REPRESENTATIVE government, then please, educate me, who is?
          • tyme, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1You don't know me, so you obviously have no clue what I've tried or not tried to do - on that alone, you should not make judgements.

            I can't help it that the U.S. government has become corrupt, I alone can do nothing about the fact that the majority of U.S. Citizens are sheep that just watch mass media and believe. I can scream at the top of my lungs, get on the TV and tell every U.S. Citizen that they are being lead by corrupt, money-loving egomaniacs, but if they won't listen, then there is nothing more I can do. My representative government is controlled by lobbyists, corporate interest groups, and all sorts of corrupt persons. The only thing I could do is bring down the entire system, which I can't (at least not alone) and won't do. I do not believe that violence is the answer.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -4/+1http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

            I know you very well. You're a human being. It's the most studied subject in the world.
          • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2Hey AssWipe...why do you hang out here where you are not even wanted on an AMERICAN system of information? I think you find someone to play with in your own piece of ***** country and stay off of Digg.com.

            What are you feeling desperate and in need of reminding yourself of how great the United States of America is? The United States is still the best country in the world in any category you can name.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Lol, an actual "we don't like your kind 'round here!" Thank you for that.
      • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1ElAssoWipo, I only wish I knew what country or town you live in so we can go there next.
      • Dukeye, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1
        Here's some clarification for you; our sanctions of Iraq through the 90's led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Depending on your favorite estimate, we've killed from 100,000 to over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children during this undeclared (illegal) war. We spray depleted uranium around the country, which will raise levels of birth defects and cancer for a long, long time.

        Yes, 9/11 was evil. Any terrorism is. But don't pretend it was unprovoked, don't pretend we haven't caused much more death and suffering. Shock and awe? Remember that? We killed ONLY civilians in that bombing (as there were no 'terrorists' in Iraq prior to that invasion). Take your justifications for stooping to the level of human scum (i.e. might makes right, they're only brown Muslim people, it's been done before) and shove it.

    • slantyeyed, on 12/12/2007, -19/+11the only moral high ground is in the US which is sad because you won't be afforded the same luxury anywhere else in the world.
      • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -6/+12Either somebody tore the pages for Canada and Western Europe out of your Rand-McNally, or you don't have the first bleedin' clue about what life is really like outside the United States.
      • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7That statement *may* have been true at some point in the past. But the US has long lost its place as a beacon for progress. There are countries around the world, though especially in Western Europe, that are more democratic and protect BOTH individual and collective rights better than the US does. Of course, since most Americans have never left their native soil, and trumpet their lack of knowledge of other nations and cultures, it's all to easy to assume that we continue to something better than the rest of the world does.

        I'm a patriotic American, and as such, I want to see our country be the envy of the world. But saying doesn't make it true. You actually have to accomplish something. We've lost that edge, and it's time to look to other countries to find a way to catch up.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Yea right. I believe we really lost it when we decided to clean up the Mideast and went after terrorists in Afghanistan. Note I didn't say there were any terrorists in Iraq...and I really don't care. Sadamm was playing games and would not bow to the majority in the UN. He was cheating in the oil for food program. (Just like Iran.) Europe is a GUTLESS PIECE OF ***** and cannot get out of their own way to protect themselves from Russia and Iran. Just watch and mark my words...the USA will have to extricate Europe the pussies from another travesty when Russia or Iran tries to crush them with oil and the new massive militaries they are building with oil revenues.
    • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -25/+14Oh please. You leftists never believed America had the moral high ground against anyone, including islamic fanatics. Save your phony routine.
      • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -9/+12I notice you didn't actually include any proof to back up your claim. Since your claim is blatantly false, that's hardly surprising.
        • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -7/+9Show me one instance during the last 6 years of war where left wingers gave America the benefit of the doubt over the enemy.

          Exactly.
          • Delphium226, on 12/12/2007, -4/+7Post 9/11. Bush had almost 100% support in hunting down the enemy Bin Laden. Try again.

            Show me one instance of one neocon scumbag who has criticised Bush for not catching Bin Laden.
          • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -5/+6What does Bush's approval rating after 9/11 have to do with giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt, while constantly maligning America?
          • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -4/+2Well, left-wingers are not a uniform group. Nothing applies to all of them. Especially when people like you are defining what left-wing means. Some of us "radical right-wing conspiracy nuts" as we were called in the 90s haven't changed our views much at all, and yet now you call us left-wingers. Being smart enough to doubt whether the smiling anchorwoman is telling the truth, many of us have never considered Iraq to be an enemy. Something about not having done anything to us, not having any ability to, (us crazy people who do our own research knew the news was full of it wrt Saddam's nuclear capacity), and now just fighting to get the US occupation out of their country. You know the soldiers who use torture which you think is okay.So, I for one, have never given the band of criminals that control America, (I would never insult Americans by confusing "the governments actions" with "America's actions"), over that of a group that has never behaved in any way as an enemy to Americans.
          • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1Actually, OC73, the overwhelming majority of liberals supported Bush when he set out to capture bin Laden, and we didn't have a whole lot of complaints when he overthrew the Taliban either. Indeed, one of our biggest complaints is that he abandoned the search for bin Laden and allowed the Taliban to make a comeback. We've got no problem with supporting Bush, when he does the right thing. Unfortunately, it's been ages since that was the case.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -4/+5Good point OC73, left wingers have been consistently right all this time.
        • floorman56, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5I notice you didn't actually include any proof to back up your claim
          Please for over 200 years we have been the "Bastard child" it would be harder to find where leftest ever said where we held the "high ground"
          • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1What exactly would you accept as evidence to the contrary? If you're looking for a liberal to claim that America is morally perfect, then you're right-- no liberal ever made that claim. And if you expect liberals to shout patriotic slogans while ignoring very real problems in American government and American culture, then again, you're right-- no liberal would ever embrace that sort of blindness. But you'll have no problem finding liberals who believe that American values-- as embodied in the Declaration, the Constitution, and other writings by the Founding Fathers and our greatest statesmen-- are *vastly* superior to the philosophies of American's two greatest enemies: Wahhabist Islam and neo-conservatism. I am one such liberal, and you won't have to look far to find many more. Heck, you won't even need to leave Digg.
          • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Digg.com posts are definately antiAmerican in spirit. Posts from www.thinkprogress.org, www.rawstory.com, or www.huffingtonpost.com are right from the antiAmerican, socialist and Marxist manifesto. The majority of stories coming from these three locations are NOT written in a neutral news reporting way.

            I rarely see anyone bashing someone for running down the USA. Even of you don't think what is happening is right on the money I do not agree that you have to go the limit with negative comments. So what is a negative comment or negative endorsed post?

            I consider posts that are positive for Kucinich or Ron Paul antiAmerican. This is because they are both taking positions that are antiAmetrican in nature. I also see that the only time anyone mentions Joe Biden on Digg.com is when he wants to impeach Bush or Cheny. Impeachment is a very antiAmerican thing to be beholden too. Especially when there is no reason to impeach. And don't go through the list because there are arguments on either side of the isle that would support in as much as they would not support an impeachment.

            Then there are the antiCIA, antiNSA, antiFBI, and everything else that happens to be antiCongress from either Democrat to Republican. NO. Digg.com followers and posters are in spirit and mind UNUSUALLY antiAmerican.

            What would be interesting would be to have a university track the all of the posts and comments for the period just ended from lets say October the first week through December the first week and tell us what the ratio of negative antiAmerican posts and comments there are to positive posts and comments.
          • robberry, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1"Digg.com posts are definately antiAmerican in spirit."

            Well, EditorResponse, given the incredibly broad way you've defined "antiAmerican", that's hardly surprising.

            Look at your post. You've defined the following as anti-American:

            1. Anything posted on Digg
            2. Anything posted on Raw Story
            3. Anything posted on Huffington Post
            4. Anything that is "socialist", by whatever definition of socialism you use (and I'm willing to bet it's considerably broader than the definition that socialists themselves use)
            5. Anything that is "Marxist"
            6. Any "negative comments" involving the USA
            7. Any post that is pro-Kucinich
            8. Any post that is pro-Paul
            9. Any post discussing Joe Biden's desire to impeach Bush and Cheney
            10. Any post discussing anybody's desire to impeach anyone
            11. Any post that argues for impeachment
            12. Any post that is critical of the CIA
            13. Any post that is critical of the FBI
            14. Any post that is critical of Congress

            Now sure, if we choose to define "anti-American" as anything that meets any of the above criteria, then yes, most Digg posts are anti-American. But so what? We can "prove" all sorts of things if we're allowed to change our definitions willy-nilly, with no regard for the customary usage of the English language. For example, I could define "anti-American" as "anything involving red and white stripes", and then go on to prove that the American flag is anti-American. Or I could define vegetables as anti-American, and go on to prove that there are millions of anti-American cookbooks infiltrating our kitchens. Or I could define really hot women as anti-American, and then prove that the Victoria's Secret catalog is anti-American. And so forth.

            The problem is that you've pretty much defined "anti-American" as "anything I don't like," But to be useful to anybody but yourself and your own little clique, your definition of the phrase "anti-American" has to fall with the linguistic conventions of the English language. Those conventions state that "anti-" means "against or opposed to", and "American" (as an adjective) means "of or pertaining to the people, territory, infrastructure, institutions, and/or commonly shared values of the United States of America". With that in mind, let's re-examine your list.

            1. Anything posted on Digg

            Um, no. Digg is not dedicated to publishing anti-American articles, or any other type of article for that matter. It covers topics as varied as politics, environmentalism, video games, celebrity sex scandals, lolcat pictures, time management, healthy eating, not-so-healthy eating, and the latest adventures of those wacky, wacky ladies at 2girls1cup.com. To claim that Digg is anti-American because it occasionally features stories critical of America is like claiming that the dictionary must be racist because it contains the word "*****".

            2. Anything posted on Raw Story

            Raw Story describes itself as "the world's largest progressive news portal, for aggressive, investigative and fast-paced reporting", and also emphasizes the way it frequently "scoops the media" on "alleged GOP malfeasance". The American progressive movement as a whole is dedicated to improving America, not destroying it, so merely being progressive doesn't make it anti-American. They do seem to be highly critical of the GOP, and my own experience with Raw Story would suggest that they are critical corporate corruption and governmental abuse of power as well. But America is not synonymous with the GOP, and I certainly *hope* it isn't synonymous with corporate corruption and governmental abuse of power, so there's no basis for claiming that that Raw Story is somehow anti-American.

            3. Anything posted on Huffington Post

            Wikipedia describes Huffington Post as "a politically liberal online news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring hyperlinks to various news sources and columnists." A quick look at today's front page includes links to article with titles such as "Lesson II: Checks on Beef and Pork Abuses", "Bush: I Didn’t Know We Were Destroying Evidence", "Top Lebanese General Assassinated In Car Bombing", "Wal-Mart Yanks Saucy Pink Panties From Shelves", "6 People Shot After Leaving Vegas School Bus", "Waterboarding Our Democracy", "Major Porn Producer Sues X-Rated YouTube Knock-Off", "Alex Trebek Suffers Heart Attack", and "Janice Dickinson Defends Hewitt In A Bikini: 'Tyra Banks Is Fat'". Not exactly a hotbed of anti-American sentiment, eh? There are many articles criticizing Bush, his cronies, the GOP, and neo-conservatism in general, but there are just as many article focusing on celebrities, pop culture, and non-political news. And I couldn't find any articles endorsing the destruction of America, the death of her people, or the wholesale abandonment of her values. Clearly it's unreasonable to label anything published on Huffington Post anti-American.

            4. Anything that is "socialist"

            There are many philosophies and schools of thought that fall under the "socialist" category, ranging from Stalinist Communism to the lifestyle of the Old Order Amish. I certainly agree that some of these, such as the aforementioned Stalinist Communism, are inimical to American values and could therefore be rightly considered anti-American. However, there are many other schools of socialism-- the Amish, the social democrats of Europe, the American progressive movement, the Israeli kibbutzim, etc.-- do not call for the destruction of American and her people, nor are they incompatible with the values expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration, and so forth. Some of these latter movements certainly call for a change to the status quo, but wanting to change America is not the same as wanting to destroy it. (Certainly the Founding Fathers never saw it that way; if they had, they wouldn't have implemented a method for amending the constitutions.) Clearly, then, merely being socialist does not make something or someone anti-American. They are only anti-American if they belong to one of the schools of socialism that is explicitly anti-American, such as Stalinist Communism. (And I might as well point out that no pro-Stalinist articles have appeared anywhere on Digg recently.)

            5. Anything that is "Marxist"

            This is the one item in your entire list where I'm inclined to agree with you. (Surprise!) Marxism in practice has been extremely destructive to the liberties that Americans value, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I haven't seen any specifically pro-Marxist articles posted to Digg lately, but I'm willing to agree that such articles are anti-American, at least insofar as they are opposed to the values that Americans hold dear. (I'm not, of course, saying that Marxists as a whole are out to kill Americans or decimate American territory. I suspect that most Marxists actually have good intentions, and that they genuinely believe that Americans would actually be better off if they abandoned American values and became Marxists.)

            6. Any "negative comments" involving the USA

            With all due respect, I'm guessing that as a child you never learned the difference between insult and criticism. An insult is intended to hurt the target by expressing disapproval in an offensive way. Criticism, however, is just the opposite-- it actually promotes improvement by pointing out areas that need to be improved. The best teachers in school are not the ones who give you gold stars on each and every assignment; they're the ones who point out your errors and show you how to correct them. The best coaches aren't the ones who say "attaboy!" no matter how badly you perform; they're the ones who ride your ass over and over and over again until you finally get it right. The best friends aren't the ones who stand by smiling while you destroy your life; they're the ones who intervene when you're screwing up. The same principle applies to American government and to American culture-- the most loyal patriots aren't the ones blinding chanting "USA! USA! USA!" They're the ones pointing out America's flaws, and working to fix them.

            Yes, some "negative comments" are clearly anti-American. When a person says "Death to America"-- and does so out of a sincere desire to see Americans die, and not just out of frustration with some idiotic policy of the American government-- then that's clearly anti-American. But many negative comments involving America are not insults, but criticisms, intended to identify a problem, and maybe even suggest a solution. Even many apparent insults are actually criticisms-- a person who says "American is a goddamned terrorist state" usually means "I am frustrated because the Bush administration is adopting many policies that reflect the values of our terrorist enemies, rather than the values expressed in our Constitution." Such a person certainly needs to find a more productive way to express himself, but he's not anti-American, even though he seems to be at first.

            7. Any post that is pro-Kucinich

            Kucinich has never expressed any desire to destroy America or kill Americans en masse, and his political values are firmly in line with the values expressed by the Constitution. To label any pro-Kucinich post as anti-American is therefore not only wrong, it's absurd.

            8. Any post that is pro-Paul

            Like Kucinich, Paul has never expressed any desire to destroy America or kill Americans en masse, and his political values, while quite different from Kucinich's, are also firmly in line with the values expressed by the Constitution. To label any pro-Paul post as anti-American is therefore not only wrong, it's absurd, as was the case for Kucinich. (I am willing to concede, however, that the sheer bulk of uncritical pro-Paul posts on Digg is highly annoying.)

            9. Any post discussing Joe Biden's desire to impeach Bush and Cheney

            It's ludicrous to label Biden's desire to impeach Bush and Cheney as anti-American unless you can prove that a) Biden wants to destroy America, kill her people, and/or wipe out the constitution, and b) Biden thinks impeaching Bush and Cheney is the best way to accomplish this.

            10. Any post discussing anybody's desire to impeach anyone

            Impeachment was a remedy specifically crafted by the Founding Fathers. To label impeachment as anti-American is to label the Founding Fathers as anti-American, which in turn would mean that American itself is, somehow, anti-American. Reductio ad absurdum.

            11. Any post that argues for impeachment

            See 10.

            12. Any post that is critical of the CIA

            See post 6. Also bear in mind that in this case, we're not talking about America as a whole, but about a single section of the federal government-- a section which is not mandated in the constitution and whose existence was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It's silly to suppose that constructive criticism of one department of the federal government is somehow equivalent to hating America as a whole; you might as well claim that anybody who critiques the latest Britney Spears album hates music as a whole.

            13. Any post that is critical of the FBI

            See post 12.

            14. Any post that is critical of Congress

            See post 6. Again, criticism is not the same as hatred-- if I tell my wife I think she looks better with her hair up, it doesn't mean I plan to knife her while she sleeps. Criticism can be constructive, and those who criticize Congress usually intended their criticism to be taken as such. They don't want Congress to be offended by their criticism; they want Congress to implement their suggestions.

            So there you have it. Out of the 14 items you included as "anti-American", only one of them truly deserves the label. As for the rest, they are indicative not of anti-American attitude on the part of the poster, but on your own inability to distinguish between vile insult and constructive criticism, and your own refusal to admit that maybe, just maybe, somebody can still love America even thought they disagree with your vision of how America ought to be run.
      • Delphium226, on 12/12/2007, -11/+8Don't tell me that you, a proto-fascist, have even the vaguest notion of what moral high ground actually means.
        • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -2/+14"Proto-"?
          • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -5/+9Left wingers have a habit of throwing words like proto, neo and geo in front of words in an attempt to make them sound intelligent.
          • nihilite, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4OC73: how is the "left winger" label treating you?
            pot,kettle,black.
          • Delphium226, on 12/12/2007, -4/+5@OC73

            A bit too complex for you? Let me help you.
            'Proto' in this context means 'indicating a precondition or an early stage of development'. I know, a lot of multi-syllable words in there. Don't sweat it, use a dictionary and you'll be ok.
          • Delphium226, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5@robberry

            Yeah, proto probably isn't accurate, 'full blown' is probably more applicable.
          • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2Actually, OC73, "neo-conservative" is a term invented by neo-conservatives themselves, in order to distinguish themselves from both liberals and old-school conservatives, with whom they had significant disagreements. The term "neo-conservative" only became an insult once the evils of neo-conservatism became apparent. Basically, the term is suffering the same fate that befell the term "communist", and for the same reason-- nobody wants to be associated with a repressive, anti-human political philosophy.
      • amoro99, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7Now being anti-torture, pro-civilized behavior is "leftist". Apparently then the center and right wing are pro-torture, by your characterization. I would disagree with that statement, but unfortunately recent findings (or inferences because of destroyed evidence) give your argument weight. The left FTW.
    • robberry, on 12/12/2007, -9/+36"We lost the moral high-ground in less than 35 seconds."

      While simultaneously creating dozens, perhaps hundreds, of new terrorists in the process. These enhanced interrogation techniques are amazing.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Maybe that is their goal. Then they can justify endless war forever and ever amen.
    • max420, on 12/12/2007, -13/+11If the pain and suffering of a few is required to save the lives of many... torture on... torture on.
      • J4k3, on 12/12/2007, -7/+6Exactly.
      • silverwolf761, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4What about suspected terrorists? Torture one to save the lives of none? It's not like the Bush Administration has never made any mistakes :/
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4If terrorists existed and torture worked you might have a point.
        • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5You might want to look up what happened in New York City on Sept 11, 2001. It seems terrorists are actually *GASP* real!
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Isn't that exactly the same idea that justifies terrorist attacks?
    • snatchmstr, on 12/12/2007, -6/+7We are not talking about people here. We are talking about terrorists that want YOU dead. If waterboarding a few of these scum produces information to foil other attacks. (which is the case) then go for it.
      • directrix13, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4Well... no actually we are talking about people here. People who have had no chance to be PROVEN guilty or innocent of aiding terrorism in any way shape or form. We are talking about a government expecting us to give them the absolute power of blind faith to predetermine who should be tortured. We are talking about people for sure. And if this continues I hope some day we will be talking about you.
        • snatchmstr, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4Look, we are not talking about genocide here. We are talking about scaring some possible terrorists into giving up info.
        • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -4/+5Being caught on a battlefield trying to kill US soldiers is enough proof for me.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2@cornswalled

          There is not and has not been a single "battle field" in either afganistan or iraq in the entire 6 year occupation.

          99.9% of the people we have in gitmo are innocent people who were turned in for reward money by the terrorists.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1"We are talking about a government expecting us to give them the absolute power of blind faith to predetermine who should be tortured." Well that's stupid don't you think? That is what we have a government for. What are we going to do put them on TV, tell everyone what they have been found guilty of...like THEY ARE ON THE BATTLEFIELD KILLING AMERICANS and we decided to "torture" then to see if they would tell us their field ops? I would torture then too and I trust them to make that call.

          What do you need to be satisfied a call in show on TV?
          • directrix13, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0A chance to defend themselves in court before being tortured. You know the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I thought my point was fairly clear.
    • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4It really is amazing that forcing these terrorists to TAKE A SHOWER forces them to confess in 35 seconds.
    • nicepants, on 12/12/2007, -5/+5So the people who flew planes into the WTC and killed thousands now have the moral high ground? I think not.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2I have yet to see any trial that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Certainly over 1/3 of the people the government claimed to have been behind the suicide attacks on that day have turned up alive and well and with no association to any terror groups.
      • Dukeye, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Osama bin Laden has never been charged with 9/11 because the FBI has stated that there is not enough evidence to do so. Yet, we continue to fight two conflicts...lies on top of lies. Look it up.
  • mightydavefish, on 12/12/2007, -39/+97I bet if they'd beaten his child in front of him it would have been quicker.
    I guess the right wing assholes will be cheering this confirmation that being evil gets results.
    So now how will the right wingers rationalize being evil to sooth their cowardice?
    • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -11/+10They'll say that God doesn't consider it a sin if they only torture those who worship Allah.
      • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -8/+8And I'll say that Allah is God translated into arabic
        • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6The people digging him down just prove that anything that isn't mentioned in the mainstream media is completely unknown to them. "Al" is Arabic for "the" and "ilah" is Arabic for "god". They call him "Allah" to emphasize a belief in just one god. The mainstream media prefers to not mention this, as the last thing they want is for people to not see Muslims as different.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I'm right wing and I would torture you in a heart beat if I thought I could get information out of you related to a terrorist attack that was to be in the USA, and I do not believe in God at all...with a capital G or not. F*K you and your fake make believe friends...I'll fry you..
    • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -21/+10Actually, you and your fellow leftists are the cowards, since you're more worried about how you're perceived by "The world" than whether thousands, possibly millions, of American lives are saved.
      • Focher, on 12/12/2007, -6/+9Actually, some of us are more worried about how we are perceived by ourselves. I like how most defenders of torture don't even bother with the lies of the Bush administration of "we don't torture" but are happy to move directly to "we happily torture".

        By the way, "leftists" are not unilaterally opposed to the use of torture under any circumstances. It's a position that crosses pretty much all political boundaries.
        • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -6/+13Nonsense. It's overwhelmingly left wingers who are always looking out for terrorists. Be it the ACLU or whomever, they're the first to file a suit, take to the streets in protest, you name it.
        • FredFredrickson, on 12/12/2007, -11/+4OC73, crawl back under your rock.
        • dcorey07, on 12/12/2007, -6/+9quit ***** calling waterboarding torture... it was deemed by the government as not being torture... Sure i am sure it blows to be waterboarded, but we are not talking about your run-of-the mill 25 year old caucasion americans getting waterboarded... these are ***** terrorists
      • scorchedearth, on 12/12/2007, -6/+8When you start blaming mysterious 'left wingers' for all these problems, it makes you sound like you are mentally ill. Get over the persecution complex already.
        • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5And I'm sure you say the same thing to all the dingbats screaming "neocons!' constantly.
          • scorchedearth, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1They fall into the same category.
      • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -7/+4No, progressives believe that life is worth protecting, whether or not it is American. The Iraq Invasion has cost more lives *each year* than the 9/11 attacks did. Why would you support a policy with that result?
        • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -4/+7Actually the war has saved the lives of millions of Iraqis for generations.
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -6/+2Yeah, yeah. Our government has to be evil in order to prevent the world from ending. We must give up our liberties or the boogey man will get us. Al-Mannuel bin Goldstein is hiding in our underwear drawer. Your attempts to frighten us into supporting things like torture and big brother surveillance were cliched long before the US was even a country.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2I'm a conservative republican and I oppose torture.
    • skuk, on 12/12/2007, -7/+7No one is doubting it got results. But how do you know the results it got were any good? Do you know of any single particular attack that was stopped, or any life that was saved as a result of this?
      Problem now is, how many people might now justify a roadside bomb.

      "yeah we torture, but they are terrorists and don't deserver any better"

      "yeah we use roadside bombs, but the other side kidnaps and tortures people"
      • snatchmstr, on 12/12/2007, -5/+9The article said it produced information to avoid other attacks. Did you read it before you posted like so many diggers.
        • skuk, on 12/12/2007, -7/+3I read it, and it provided no examples at all. The guy says "dont drive down xxx road, there will be an attack" do they don't go.
          Attack foiled? or ***** successful?
          • lgfaphile, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4You must be kidding...because the CIA isn't telling YOU what information they got, you don't believe it? You aren't dealing with reality very well.
    • lgfaphile, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Actually, the CIA has reported several attacks stopped with the information gleaned, but MightDaveFish must be right, the better thing would be to let them destroy a city or two and keep "the moral high ground". How incredibly suidical.
    • Zacktopia, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Lots o' diggs for davefish's child-beating idea. It's amazing what comes crawling out from under the rocks in anonymity.
  • Hellman109, on 12/12/2007, -37/+160And wheres the proof that what he said had any value?

    Tourture me and Im going to say something, what that is doesnt matter.

    "Where is Osama?"
    "Not telling!"
    *tourture*
    "OK OK, stop, hes really George W Bush, hes just in disguise!"
    "Lets get him!"
    • kooft, on 12/12/2007, -9/+40That's the irony, the CIA destroyed the proof just recently. So now they can claim torture saves lives, but they can never back it up.
    • killakan, on 12/12/2007, -18/+7"If you are lying, what we do next will be 10 times worse."
      • bulkhater, on 12/12/2007, -8/+23Actually, there are "Mind game" techniques pioneered by the NAZIs interrogating captured American and British pilots that yielded much better results. The prisoners never even realized they were giving up vital information! The US was so impressed that the CIA had some of it's interrogation manuals written by captured NAZIs.
        Torture is a piss-poor way to get reliable information. Sadly, the best methods require intelligent and trained interrogators. Ham fisted morons resort to torture because movies and TV tell them it works, even though it doesn't.
        • fulibs, on 12/12/2007, -8/+10And you know this because you speak from experience, or some other source of information?
        • gn0stik, on 12/12/2007, -6/+7THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!!

          /Jean Luc Picard
        • hansk, on 12/12/2007, -4/+2@gn0stik No! there are 5! *zap*
        • gyrfalcon, on 12/12/2007, -2/+6Torture can easily get reliable intelligence from a captured enemy... You just need to know how to do it.

          If I knew you had the password to something, it wouldn't be very hard for me to get that info using torture. Unless of course you were willing to die to protect it and had a extremely high tolerance to pain and misery.
        • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5Making people take showers and listen to bad music can't be called torture.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4@ cornswalled . . . .
          "Making people take showers and listen to bad music can't be called torture."

          Well, yes it can because it drives away their pet fleas and they can't blend in with the goats any more. Today's popular "music," though - yeah, torture!
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -7/+20Osama tried to surrender twice but your government refused.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDvVZ2Gn-9g
      http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article16 ...
    • OC73, on 12/12/2007, -6/+8Where's the proof? Did you forget Kalid Sheik Mohammed?
      • vertinox, on 12/12/2007, -7/+7He confessed from everything from 9/11 to trying to assassinate Pope John Paul. Hell... If you torture a man long enough you can get him to confess to killing Jesus himself.

        The real point of this, did torturing help stop any of those things he confessed he was going to do or was he just making ***** up to make the people stop.
      • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -5/+3There is no proof that the information about KSM was gleaned through the torture of this particular prisoner. All we have to go on is the word of a group of people who thought torture was justified. The documentary proof (recordings of the information) were conveniently destroyed. If they think torturing someone is justified, do you really believe that they have moral peccadilloes about lying?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Well this is how it works: they're looking for an answer.

        They hurt the guy until he gives them that answer. That's torture.

        They're don't ask general questions. Let's say they think Mr. X did Y.

        Now they interrogate Mr. Z who is affiliated to Mr. X.

        "Did Mr. X do Y?"

        Prisonner: "no".

        Inflict pain.

        "Did Mr X do Y"

        "no."

        Inflict pain.

        "Did Mr X do Y?"

        "Yes"

        And then they make him sign a pre-written confession immediately.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Hey AssWipe....you really need to be here with AMERICANS don't you? You own countrymen would give you nothing because they suck so you hang here with AMERICANS. Americans Rock don't we AssWipe!
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Actually, I'm here for too reasons:

          1. I like arguing.
          2. Idiots make me laugh.

          Since you're stuburn idiots, this is like heaven for me. I can laugh and argue at the same time. I espescially like the religious Americans, they're like the abominable snowman character in bugs bunny, big and dumb.
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -4/+2Where's the proof the Khalid was a terrorist, or that there even is an Al Qaeda? Where's the proof that what he said actually stopped an attack?
        Oh yeah, Bush said so, and the news refused to speculate that it might not be true, (go figure!). So I guess that's all you need.
    • JettaMan, on 12/12/2007, -10/+9That "I'll say anything" argument is largely irrelevant because they are asking specific information and can check to see if it is accurate afterwards.
      • unmarked, on 12/12/2007, -3/+10It's not irrelevant. The *point* was that if you are tortured, you'll say anything to stop being tortured. You'll confess to whatever they want you to confess to. In the good ol' days we used to do that with suspects. Beat them until they confessed. That was until our Supreme Court said you can't beat a confession out of someone because they'll tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop.
        • gyrfalcon, on 12/12/2007, -2/+6Are you trying to prove his point? If I ask you where your buddies are hiding and you tell me "in the outhouse"... and I check the outhouse and no one is there, then you get tortured.

          Then I ask you where your buddies are again, and you tell me "in the basement"...which I check and they're still not their.

          So I REALLY torture you and you finally give in and tell me they're "in the attic" ... which I check, and then I find them.

          It's not rocket science!!! They ask for specific information and check it for accuracy. If you lie the torture continues till they get what works. Such as a password, or your buddies hiding in the attic.



      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Wow, so we let one jack ass tie up dozens of agents and hundreds of soldiers in wild goose chases? Someone could keep us distracted and delayed for weeks this way.
  • wishninja, on 12/12/2007, -21/+48Wow great! So effective now coming to a police department near you. We do a host of morally unconscionable things to people in our own cities as it is. I know the cops are just itching to try this. Effective as the tasers are.
    • gn0stik, on 12/12/2007, -4/+4slippery slope much?
    • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -5/+10That's a great idea! I bet if we used waterboarding we could easily win the war on drugs and save thousands of lives!
      /sarcasm
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3We're sorry about your son ma'am. Sometimes, when a person is ill or has a medical condition ordinary techniques for extracting information prove to be deadly. It's just one of those things that happens. We want you to know that you shouldn't blame your son for this. He did not stubbornly hold out as long as he could, forcing the interrogators into a bad situation where they needed to make the tough decision about whether to apply more advanced methods. He bravely decided to take responsibility and face the consequences early on. He admitted to personally burning a plant and inhaling some of the smoke it gave off. Even though we already had enough evidence to prove he did so, he wasn't aware of that and so it was brave of him to tell us. In fact he did even give us some information about it we did not have, such as information which has led to us finding 12 other people who have burning plants and inhaling the smoke that we can now bring to justice. By doing so, we will be saving countless lives. I know nothing I say can take away the pain of having lost a son, but perhaps as your contemplating how God can allow these kinds of things to happen to one so young, how one day he could be alive and the next through nobody's fault he was dead, you might find it comforting to remember that he did not die in vain.
      • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I think it could be useful. You just need to use it on the higher ups and you could crack the drug problem. Thanks for the idea. Wish I worked for the DEA.
    • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4I don't have any problems with beating a kidnapper to force him to tell us where he hid his latest victim.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3How about when it turns out that you accidentally grabbed the innocent guy in the next house over and just beat him for 2 days? Cause you do know that cops serve warrants on the wrong house at least weekly in the US.
  • Groovemaster, on 12/12/2007, -23/+78"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." -- Oscar Wilde.

    Looks like America returned to barbarism...
    • NickyBatts, on 12/12/2007, -11/+4Good, maybe we can do it right this time!

      Also, I bet any money Oscar Wilde never said that.
    • slantyeyed, on 12/12/2007, -10/+3Outsiders criticizing the US, that's nothing new . . . but no balls to do anything about it way back then.
    • blackhawk919, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4"Looks like America returned to barbarism"

      and the decadents are very upset.
      • ZenMojo, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3No, civilization came after decadence. Like the fat drunken Romans cheering on gladiators, the decadents are applauding the torture. The civilized are horrified.
    • aadnk, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2Uncyclopedia called, they want their quote back!
  • sicamore, on 12/12/2007, -19/+73This is great! we can start using these on all other crimes now, imagine all the time and money we can save on all that legal smegal stuff like due process.

    I'm disgusted people are standing up for this.
    • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -4/+4A child has been kidnapped, and one of the kidnappers captured. Do you REALLY see a problem with getting his face a little wet as part of forcing him to tell us where the child is BEFORE she's raped and murdered??
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5A child has been accused of terrorism and captured. Do you REALLY see no problem with torturing her as part of trying to force her to tell us where a bomb might be hidden BEFORE it explodes??
      • Groovemaster, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3The ends do not justify the means.

        What if the "kidnapper" was actually an innocent hostage himself, who the real kidnappers threatened to kill if he didn't act as a scapegoat?

        Think outside the box, if you can find a way out.
  • onetimer, on 12/12/2007, -20/+88Waterboarding is torture, period. How can we denounce the actions of others that engage in torture as inhumane and evil when we are selves do the same?

    There isn't even any proof that it's any more effective than standard interrogation techniques. To this day not one bit of information has been released to the public regarding an attack that torture may have prevented.

    The ends NEVER justify the means.
    • chriskzoo, on 12/12/2007, -12/+3...pacifier?
    • lilaliend, on 12/12/2007, -13/+2I think these ends completely justified the means.
      • MacEnvy, on 12/12/2007, -4/+6Yes, but you're wrong. Don't forget that last part.
      • brianary, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5Nope. Torture isn't a reliable source of info. It's great if you want to generate a realistic-sounding stream of constant terror threats to distract a nation, though.
        • cornswalled, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2How's the fit on that tinfoil hat? It seems a bit tight.
          • brianary, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, because Glorious Leader Busholini has NEVER used terrorism to distract from his own scandals.
          • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4Does your Bible have a verse saying "And anytime someone doubts the honesty or good intentions of their government and their mainstream media, thou shalt suggest they wear a tin foil hat."?
    • yngtimmy, on 12/12/2007, -9/+2"The end never justifies the means"
      Part of the reason the US kept winning battles in the Revolutionary war was because they weren't fighting like "men". They tried doing the whole rank and file technique but were losing badly. Finally they decided to use guerrilla warfare and they started kicking ass. The British were all upset at the savageness of the US army...
      All that to say - The ends sometimes and often justify the means.
      • unmarked, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8Torture is NEVER justified in a civilized world. War crimes are war crimes
        • gyrfalcon, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1We live in a "civilized world", hahaha...
          ahhahahah
          ahahah
          ahah
          ahah
          (breath)
          ahahahahahahahahaa!!!!
          • gyrfalcon, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Yeah digg me down... then go back to planting your pansies.
      • hakr89, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Even when we were fighting that wat during the revolutionary war, we still didn't completly make it without outside help. It's not that we won, it's that we refused to lose.
        • gyrfalcon, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1No you're wrong because sponge bob square pants lives under the sea.

          You completely missed refuting his point by just continuing to babble about unrelated subject matter. Also, "refused to lose"??? You either lose or you don't.
      • brianary, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2And after the Sons of Liberty terrorists founded this country, we just end up torturing. There are no "ends", only "means" that never end.
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2You have a lot more in common with the loyalists than you do with the revolutionaries.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1You do realize that your argument justifies the terrorist style attacks right?
    • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8Remember when we said we invaded Iraq because Sadam was a torturer. (That was after the whole WMD pretense.)

      We've now killed more Iraqis that Sadam did, and are torturing people to get information. There is something seriously wrong with America when Sadam could claim moral high ground.

      I love America, but at some point, you have to ask what has made us so sick? What has led us to become a morally corrupt nation? Why are we so willing to throw away the ideals that generations fought for? When did we allow cowardice to become a virtue?
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2The problem with your thinking... is that the government is not "us". Many of "us" are not sick, but most of those in government are. The ones of "us" who are so sick are that way largely as a result of media programming.
    • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2"we are selves do the same?"

      Don't blame me for this. "We" didn't do it. The band of criminals in charge did.
  • DesertDude, on 12/12/2007, -13/+46I'm sure US torture is moral and could "save" lives. Just like Nazi and Fascist Italian torture saved the lives of good German and Italian citizens. Torture is always immoral when *someone else* does it.
  • chris9902, on 12/12/2007, -17/+43"got him to talk in less than 35 seconds"

    and what did he say that was of any value? He just said what they wanted him to say. That's not success that's torture.
    • noahhoward, on 12/12/2007, -9/+7You were there and you know right? You heard it all? It's easy to jump to conclusions.
      • Focher, on 12/12/2007, -2/+9Actually, the so-called "analyst" who claims he talked in 35 seconds wasn't even there. Sorry if many of us doubt the accuracy of any claim that torture is an effective tool from those who used it. For all we know, he never said anything. That's the great benefit of secrecy - you get to claim whatever you want and it cannot be challenged.
      • chris9902, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2You were there and you know right? You heard it all? It's easy to jump to conclusions.
      • chijim70, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Good sheeple. Just keep towing the line for us while we do the thinking because you need to get back to shopping and leave it all to us. People like you would make any dictator proud.
    • carpespasm, on 12/12/2007, -2/+8it would have been torture even if the guy had known and given up the GPS coordinates and cell phone number of osama bin laden and the top 20 friends of his.
    • shawnanigans, on 12/12/2007, -6/+2Waterboarding is where they hold you underwater until you have almost drowned. My question is: Who the hell can't hold their breath for more than 35 seconds?
  • gmarie624, on 12/12/2007, -23/+14What's interesting, though not surprising, is what this article did NOT report. That Zubaydah decided to give details of a dozen planned attacks - which were then thwarted, saving hundreds? thousands? - after he was visited by Allah, and he realized that he could save his 'brothers' from suffering if he cooperated. Now, if only he would expand his definition of 'brothers'...
    • bulkhater, on 12/12/2007, -16/+5Actually, there are "Mind game" techniques pioneered by the NAZIs interrogating captured American and British pilots that yielded much better results. The prisoners never even realized they were giving up vital information! The US was so impressed that the CIA had some of it's interrogation manuals written by captured NAZIs.
      Torture is a piss-poor way to get reliable information. Sadly, the best methods require intelligent and trained interrogators. Ham fisted morons resort to torture because movies and TV tell them it works, even though it doesn't.
      • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 12/12/2007, -4/+12Oh! It's you again ctrl-c, ctrl-v boy
        • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Whining because ignoring the counter argument didn't make it go away?
    • Mononuclear, on 12/12/2007, -4/+7How do you know he didn't just make up a dozen supposedly planned attacks and the government ended up thwarting nothing?
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That too. But the terrorists usually know when a big wig is captured and do a little thing called "Changing their plans." Within 24 hours of anyone important being captured all current or planned operations are modified to make any intelligence captured from the guy useless.
  • DesertDude, on 12/12/2007, -12/+43So if an American is caught in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Israel/etc., that means it's ok to waterboard him/her. Gotcha, John.
    • Waiting2awake, on 12/12/2007, -2/+17 Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Somalia/ Israel/ Detroit/ New York/ Cali / etc/etc/etc
    • psg188, on 12/12/2007, -12/+6They don't waterboard, they just decapitate.
      • SpaceParanoids, on 12/12/2007, -4/+7Well, we might as well start getting serious then. Let's sever limbs. As long as it's not decapitation, it must be morally and ethically reasonable. That's the point you're trying to make, right?
      • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -8/+2they've also killed thousands of innocent people, so if we kill a few less we're still ok right?
        • source1984, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4no, we've killed FAR MORE civilians. sorry buddy, but we're winning there.
          • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3I guess my sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect.
          • elipabst, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3 If you look at those Iraqi casualty figures stating 600,000 to a 1 million deaths, only 30% are attributed to coalition troops, the rest are due to sectarian killings or insurgents. Not that makes any of it ok, but let's at least be honest about what's going on over there.
          • unmarked, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3If we start a riot but don't actually kill anyone in the riot, are we responsible for the deaths from the riot? We actively created the conditions to allow the sectarian violence to flourish. We knew what would happen (Cheney 1991 said doing so would create a "quagmire inside Iraq"). So let's really be honest about it.
          • elipabst, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1"If we start a riot but don't actually kill anyone in the riot, are we responsible for the deaths from the riot?"
            Does that make the people who did kill in the riot innocent of murder? No, they're still charged with murder and you'd be charged with inciting a riot. That doesn't make you a murderer. With your logic, you could argue that the US "incited" the Tanzania and Kenya bombings or virtually every other terrorist attack, are they "responsible" for them as well?
          • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1@ elipabst

            Yeah, because we didn't do anything to destablize Iraq and cause all the violence and the recruiting of thousands of terrorists there.
      • Shiftgood, on 12/12/2007, -4/+4psg just stated a fact and you're attacking him for it. These other groups use techniques that are far more severe.

        Is that an argument FOR water boarding? no. But is it a fact? yes.
        • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2In other words, he didn't make an implied argument there? OK. In that case he might as well have said "most frogs are green," as it is equally irrelevant to the discussion here.
          • Shiftgood, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1am i taking crazy pills?.. The fact he stated is totally relevant.
      • psg188, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4The point I'm trying to make is that the person I'm replying to said that since we waterboard if we get captured by them then it is ok for them to waterboard us. I am simply stating that they are far beyond what we do to them and that the inclusion of waterboarding in their repertoire wouldn't make much of a difference considering they already straight up murder their prisoners on live TV.

        so it's not irrelevant.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That isn't al queda beheading people, that is the CIA.
        • DesertDude, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1"they".
    • elipabst, on 12/12/2007, -8/+9I think most Americans capture in any of those countries would be happy to just be waterboarded. Currently they get beheaded/tortured to death or just summarily shot.
      • halavais, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7Again: totally irrelevant. I started with the idea that the US had progressed beyond the kind of idiocy more common in middle eastern dictatorships. "We're better than Hitler," really isn't much of a rallying cry.
      • unmarked, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5This old saying sums it up: Two wrongs don't make a right.
      • NonServium, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2How would you know? Oh yeah, the news said... right.
    • bl4h, on 12/12/2007, -4/+6THEY DO. cept they use drills and large knives
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1THEY are death squads ran by our own CIA.
    • slantyeyed, on 12/12/2007, -6/+1if waterboarding was common with local police and FBI, there'd be absolutely no crime in the US.
      • unmarked, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4yeah, like there was no crime in Russia when the KGB could do whatever it needed? or like there was no crime in our own past when we were allowed to beat confessions out of suspects?
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Since torture is a crime, there would be millions of more criminals than there are now. Only difference is that the criminals would be in charge and if you gave them any trouble they would go after you with torture until you confessed to a crime.
  • davewashere, on 12/12/2007, -11/+28If it's such a good technique, why aren't they considering waterboarding for domestic interrogations of suspected criminals? I think deep down everyone knows this is torture, but some people condone it because the suspected criminals are not American.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/12/2007, -18/+2I think if we knew lives were in the balance when interrogating domestic criminals, then these enhanced techniques would be used.
      • bulkhater, on 12/12/2007, -5/+8Actually, there are "Mind game" techniques pioneered by the NAZIs interrogating captured American and British pilots that yielded much better results. The prisoners never even realized they were giving up vital information! The US was so impressed that the CIA had some of it's interrogation manuals written by captured NAZIs.
        Torture is a piss-poor way to get reliable information. Sadly, the best methods require intelligent and trained interrogators. Ham fisted morons resort to torture because movies and TV tell them it works, even though it doesn't.
      • nblsavage, on 12/12/2007, -2/+13Therein lies the trap of that way of thinking. "we will just use it on suspected terrorists", "we will just use it on domestic criminals...if lives are in the balance","we will just use it to get a confession".

        Thanks for pointing out the "slippery slope" argument so well Bohica.
        • B