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.

 

Here's one example of a man tortured and held there for six-years under a false charge. That should give your statement pause.

 

In the United States nearly 300 people have been exonerated from death row after DNA has proved them innocent since the early 1990s. That means they were given due process - arrested, charged, tried with an attorney, a jury of their peers convicted them of murder, and their appeals were reviewed and denied - before DNA proved authorities had the wrong person. You believe that in the complete absence of all of those safeguards every person in Guantanamo is guilty, particularly when one of the reasons they are often held there is because there is no evidence?

Here's one example of a man tortured and held there for six-years under a false charge. That should give your statement pause.

 

In the United States nearly 300 people have been exonerated from death row after DNA has proved them innocent since the early 1990s. That means they were given due process - arrested, charged, tried with an attorney, a jury of their peers convicted them of murder, and their appeals were reviewed and denied - before DNA proved authorities had the wrong person. You believe that in the complete absence of all of those safeguards every person in Guantanamo is guilty, particularly when one of the reasons they are often held there is because there is no evidence?

 

It is brutally bad when someone is wrongly convicted. It's equally brutal when they are out on parole or they don't get convicted of something and they hurt or kill civilians. I don't know what the answer is, but there are many people that believe the key to getting the best info is the small timers like drivers and newer members of the terror groups. That makes a lot of sense to me.

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

 

FWIW

The fact that Rumsfeld said this should really stick out! If some one like him who held such a high position under Bush would say this, people should listen. The others however who say differently, it should be viewed as they are just trying to use this situation to show the enhanced techniques should be used.

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

 

So does that make the score waterboarding 2, no waterboarding 2?

Neither are "volunteered" information obtained by offering candy.

If that was a technique that was actually being used, that comment would have some value ...

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.

 

You deeply disappoint me.

You deeply disappoint me.

Why is that?

It's a good thing that President Obama listened to President Bush instead of Senator Obama.:sssh:

Delete

Those of you who are so against it, do realize that the elite group of US military personel, like these SEALS and the select Army Rangers, are put through many these same advanced techniques as part of entrance in to the programs.

 

It is very intense, it is more mentally than physically angushishing, although it is both. It is designed to wear you down to the point that you will finally talk.

It's a good thing that President Obama listened to President Bush instead of Senator Obama.:sssh:

 

 

I thought Senator Obama voted against invading Iraq and was or invading Afghanistan to go after OBL. Am I wrong in thinking that?

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

 

There is no fantasy involved in that statement.

 

 

What do you consider torture? Obviously Water-boarding but do you think other harsh techniques that they use such as sleep deprivation, making them listen to extreme loud music, standing for long periods of time or getting rough with them every once in a while?

What do you consider torture? Obviously Water-boarding but do you think other harsh techniques that they use such as sleep deprivation, making them listen to extreme loud music, standing for long periods of time or getting rough with them every once in a while?

Waterboarding, yes.

 

The other stuff you mention, no ... of course, some of that depends on what "getting rough" entails.

I thought Senator Obama voted against invading Iraq and was or invading Afghanistan to go after OBL. Am I wrong in thinking that?

Obama wasn't in the Senate when the Iraq vote was made ... at the time, he was still a state legislator in Illinois.

 

However, I believe his position has consistently been that he was for the action in Afghanistan but not for the action in Iraq.

I am a Democrat.

 

Were the Democrats wrong? Maybe. My belief is that if there wasn't a Gitmo there would be somewhere else where we house the criminals. Or we'd just kill them. I have a hard time believing that without Gitmo we still wouldn't be pursuing intelligence through captured terrorists regardless of the White House press release saying otherwise.

 

I am not opposed to torture and don't care how it makes us look. War is war to me. You get caught then you pay the price. War is not pretty or fun and for me personally all bets are really off when you start killing innocent people.

 

Might not be politically correct, but I'm with you.

 

Surprisingly enough so am I.