Posted on 11/09/2007 6:14:39 AM PST by RDTF
Who is the main source for this piece? Which august Congresscritter called him to be a witness? What is his axe to grind?
Were there any rebutting witnesses?
We all know that the WaPo has decided which side it is on, and we also know that they will go far out of their way to find people who will be 1.) Immune from attack and 2.) Impressive, at least on paper.
So, what is the background on this? To whom (if anyone) does this fellow give his political donations to?
Inquiring minds...
Oh, and what is torture? I’d say that the question is far more relevant when facing a civilized enemy than an un-civilized enemy. Our enemies have no rules and consider us to be less than animals.
I would extend to them the same courtesy.
Listen I am way to old to be cute....
I wanted to know what you thought torture was...
You gave me a definition, fine..........
I do not care what we do to get the information we need........
In this country we do not torture....period.....I think maybe we should.
I think the first question you'll be asked (if you make it to the pearly gates) is: why didn't you do something to save all those people? And your response will be: "well, uh, I couldn't God. You see, it would've compromised the integrity of our nation to waterboard that terrorist, it was better to let all those good innocent people die a horrible death. I feel really good about my decision God. In fact, I'd make the same decision again." Do you think God will be satisfied with your answer? Do we really care about you "feeling good" about that decision? Or, do we want to save a bunch of people.
The needs of the many, outweigh the torture of one...Spock said that in the Wrath of Kahn, didn't he? ;o)
You are the one with the cute tactics. You whole argument is based on a completely fraudulent accusation. Water boarding in NOW way approaches the normal level of barbarity engaged in by the Terrorists. Your accusation is an utter lie.
We do not stoop to their tactics as anyone who bothers to study the issue rather then flame out on the base of an emotionally hysteric knee jerk ignorance of the topic knows.
In addition, there is no moral equivalence between the attacked and the aggressor. We are responding to, not initiating the aggression here.
Rather then cling to your pseudo intellectual "moral equivalence" dogmas, try actually thinking about the topic for a change.
You’re all falling for the magician’s trick!
“Look over here at this hand!”
The hand you should be looking at is the “we don’t want America to have or use effective tools in the war on terror” hand.
It’s strange...it doesn’t make any sense why this guy would want to go on record saying this, unless he really believes it doesn’t work (people just lie to make it stop) - and feels other forms of torturous interrogation that could be deemed better should be used. But if it is what made Mohammed crumble, then it obviously can work.
More emotion based arguments. Opposing waterboarding is not justifying murder. It’s opposing torture. It stands alone.
Actually, I don't think we use it at all, anymore. I acknowledged that before, and I have no problem with that.
I was addressing the "Do whatever it takes/ticking time bomb" argument. I think our current policy is right on the money.
I also don't think waterboarding is torture, just to be perfectly clear. I think we should be able to set reasonable limits on interrogation techniques without applying false labels or resorting to International Law, whatever that is.
Well, it works. There is undeniable proof that it does.
So we have to look elsewhere for his motivation.
I have thought about the topic. Long and hard. Torture is beneath us, regardless of how you cut it. The only ones being “pseudo-intellectual” are the numbskulls who engage in the “ticking time-bomb” scenario argument style.
I’ve spent about a half an hour reviewing Mr Nance via google.
It seems - but I’m not sure - he owns/leads a contracting firm in Iraq. If thats true - again I’m not sure - I wonder why that isn’t mentioned in this article.
Yes, I must be being tricked. It can’t be that I actually oppose this form of interrogation because i’ve thought it through long and hard.
which one?
Again, just looking for clarity, not agreement.
Except water boarding and the water torture used by the Sovs are two completely different things as anyone who bothers to learn a single fact rather then mindlessly cling to knee jerk emotion based Neo isolationists dogmas knows full well
Nice you have feelings. Your feeling are not facts. Learn the difference. Your ignorant, emotion based posting here demonstrate a serious lack of even a basic understand of the issue.
Improper phrasing of the question. Standing on our principles is just as important as preservation of the nation, in fact, they are one and the same.
See me later post. I am not the one engaging in emotion based arguments.
Look at how the left has acted since 9/11.
EVERY method that the US has used in the war on terror has been opposed. Everything from the massive bombs used in Afghanistan to foreign to foreign wiretapping to aggressive interrogation (including loud Britney Spears).
They either expose it to make it ineffective, or try to get it outlawed.
They deny that they want America to lose the war on terror - but if they DID, how would they act differently?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.