Rep . King says that the garnered info came from waterboarding.

Rumsfeld and Sen Graham said no waterboarding or enhanced techniques were used.

 

FWIW

 

Rep . King says that the garnered info came from waterboarding.

 

Now Leon Panetta is saying that info from waterboarding was used.

Will the people that oppose it and what it represents propose a new place to put these terrorists?

 

Guantanamo Bay is that place where our moral authority begins to erode.

 

My family has a close friend who served at Guantanamo. He would laugh at this statement. Water-Boarding has been used on 3 people. That is it. The kind of crap that the guards have to go through and water-boarding a few people doesn't compare.

Will the people that oppose it and what it represents propose a new place to put these terrorists?

 

 

 

My family has a close friend who served at Guantanamo. He would laugh at this statement. Water-Boarding has been used on 3 people. That is it. The kind of crap that the guards have to go through and water-boarding a few people doesn't compare.

Three people is still three too many, since waterboarding is considered torture and is still of questionable interrogation value.

 

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't the location, but what is or has been done there.

Three people is still three too many, since waterboarding is considered torture and is still of questionable interrogation value.

 

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't the location, but what is or has been done there.

 

"Questionable" only in your own mind. Enjoy your fantasyland.

Personally, I don't agree with "enhanced torture" or even commonplace torture. Above all, it conflicts with my religious beliefs and moral values. Recent events don't change my mind even one iota.

Will the people that oppose it and what it represents propose a new place to put these terrorists?

 

If they were all terrorists we would have the ability to charge, convict, and sentence them. Many there are held in Guantamamo - with no evidence against them or under the mere suspicion of having information - because they can be held indefinitely without trial or recourse.

Three people is still three too many, since waterboarding is considered torture and is still of questionable interrogation value..

 

You and I have a strong difference in opinion when it comes to torture. Its not like we're stretching their limbs, breaking their bones, electrocuting them or making them walk on fire. You are telling me you wouldn't water board if-god forbid- a family member of yours went hostage to some lunatic and you have a person who may know the whereabouts of them? I just don't see that happening, then again I don't know you.

 

Its nice and philosophical to say through this method we lose our moral authority, we've started to put ourselves in the same category as those we oppose and all the bologna but when it comes down to it, we're in a war. Crap happens. Water-boarding in no way shape or form puts us in the same category as them. They fly planes into buildings killing thousands. I'm not seeing the correlation. If I can save lives by making it appear to someone that they are going to drown and scare them, I'm gonna do it and thank President Bush for making the call to have it happen.

 

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't the location, but what is or has been done there

 

Like I said earlier, The kind of crap that the guards have to go through and water-boarding a few people doesn't compare.

If they were all terrorists we would have the ability to charge, convict, and sentence them. Many there are held in Guantamamo - with no evidence against them or under the mere suspicion of having information - because they can be held indefinitely without trial or recourse.

 

So are you for closing Gitmo for that reason? If so, where would you place the accused?

Those that are opposed to "enhanced interrogation techniques" are so because of what they represent, a loss of our moral authority. This country was built on freedom and the respect of individual rights, values that are even employed in the implementation of our criminal justice system. We're supposed to be the country that doesn't torture its "enemy combatants" ... when we do, we've started to put ourselves in the same category as those we oppose.

 

To many people, Guantanamo Bay is that place where our moral authority begins to erode.

 

 

A lot of stuff has changed including laws since the country was founded. Our enemy combatants used to line up in a straight line row after row and try to beat us fair and square. this enemy not so much.

So are you for closing Gitmo for that reason? If so, where would you place the accused?

 

It depends. If they attacked the United States they could be charged and tried here, for instance, like Khalid Sheik Muhammad should have been. The problem with Guantanamo is not that its existence in and of itself is wrong, but that it's used as a legal ruse to escape the United States' and international legal standards.

"Questionable" only in your own mind. Enjoy your fantasyland.

I've read the pros and cons ... "confessions" obtained via torture techniques aren't always reliable.

 

There is no fantasy involved in that statement.

If nothing else works, torture away. I have no sympathy for anyone who has put themselves in those situations. They don't waterboard you for shoplifting Skittles.

"confessions" obtained via torture techniques aren't always reliable.

 

Neither are "volunteered" information obtained by offering candy.

If nothing else works, torture away. I have no sympathy for anyone who has put themselves in those situations. They don't waterboard you for shoplifting Skittles.

:lol: