CIA Confirms: Waterboarding Prevented Attack on Los Angeles

[jonesthecurl]

The Bay of Pigs was against Cuban law, the bombing of Cambodia was against Cambodian law, the Revolution was against Britsh law, torturing Iraqi suspects in Iraq was against Iraqi law, and there's plenty more.
By your logic, Gabon, anything which a foreign country does to an American citizen while they are in that country is fine. Anything they do to their own citizens is fine, or against their neighbours (unless they're Mexico or Canada). I think you've just removed any last vestige of justification for the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

[GabonX]

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

[jonesthecurl]

Only in the revolution was America at war with the countries in my examples above. And that was I guess a civil war until the Declaration.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I understand what the downside is to granting rights to prisoners regardless of their criminal status. Why give Manson certain rights but not KSM?

[GabonX]

Manson is an American, not an enemy combatant.

Manson is not part of an organization which still threatens Americans.

I'm deeply sympathetic to the interrogators who were told "you will know soon," implying that another major terrorist attack was on the way, who acted on their best instincts to protect innocent people.
I have much more sympathy for them than I do KSM.

[SultanOfSurreal]

There were no legitimate laws in Iraq as the administrators in power were illegitimate.

Regardless, even if international law was a tangible subject the US could never be in violation of it on account of UN vetoe powers.

Are you beginning to see why the concept of international law is completely and utterly flawed?

all i'm beginning to see is how much of a genuine retard you are

NO..

..YOOUU'REE STUUPID!

ooh vicious burn dude

no but seriously you are a moron with regressive and scarily orwellian opinions, the world would probably be a better place if you moved to the mountains to live as a hermit under a permanent vow of silence, or failing that you could simply fall off a very tall bridge

[GabonX]

There were no legitimate laws in Iraq as the administrators in power were illegitimate.

Regardless, even if international law was a tangible subject the US could never be in violation of it on account of UN vetoe powers.

Are you beginning to see why the concept of international law is completely and utterly flawed?

all i'm beginning to see is how much of a genuine retard you are

NO..

..YOOUU'REE STUUPID!

ooh vicious burn dude

no but seriously you are a moron with regressive and scarily orwellian opinions, the world would probably be a better place if you moved to the mountains to live as a hermit under a permanent vow of silence, or failing that you could simply fall off a very tall bridge

NOO..

..YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU'RRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

......................
..
..................
...............
..
Seems to be about the level of this exchange

[Juan_Bottom]

Manson is an American, not an enemy combatant.

Manson is not part of an organization which still threatens Americans.

No doubt you saw the news that today a trial began in Peoria IL.... of an American who was classified as an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, and held for 5 years without being charged with anything... or evidence for that matter...

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

Tell that to the UN. Which the US funds. And we never declared war.

The US government must be above even itself?

[Neoteny]

Manson is an American, not an enemy combatant.

Manson is not part of an organization which still threatens Americans.

No doubt you saw the news that today a trial began in Peoria IL.... of an American who was classified as an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, and held for 5 years without being charged with anything... or evidence for that matter...

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

Tell that to the UN. Which the US funds. And we never declared war.

The US government must be above even itself?

It's a conspira... wait...

[PLAYER57832]

Manson is an American, not an enemy combatant.

Manson is not part of an organization which still threatens Americans.

Now, this is true, but it was not true when he was incarcerated.

[PLAYER57832]

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

Every nation that signed onto the Geneva conventions agreed otherwise, inclluding the US.

We have to remember two things. In any war, the majority of soldiers are just doing the job their country asks. Did you know that a large number of Germans captured as soldiers (ordinary ones, not SS) wound up emigrated back to the US legally? In part because of what they saw when they were here?

Second, whatever stick we use against "them" can be used against our own soldiers. This is why the retired generals were among the first to caution against violating the Geneva conventions

[InkL0sed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep6hvIi-LDw

[GabonX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep6hvIi-LDw

Oh..

Well now that I see it on MSNBC...

[InkL0sed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep6hvIi-LDw

Oh..

Well now that I see it on MSNBC...

Of course, now that you have all your arguments completely discredited by a former member of the CIA, on a leftist show whose host Media Matters (which only watches right-wing media) named 2005's Misinformer of the Year, your only response is "well, it was on MSNBC, so it must be wrong."

You are a fucking hypocrite.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

Every nation that signed onto the Geneva conventions agreed otherwise, inclluding the US.

We have to remember two things. In any war, the majority of soldiers are just doing the job their country asks. Did you know that a large number of Germans captured as soldiers (ordinary ones, not SS) wound up emigrated back to the US legally? In part because of what they saw when they were here?

Second, whatever stick we use against "them" can be used against our own soldiers. This is why the retired generals were among the first to caution against violating the Geneva conventions

Really? The Geneva Conventions are violated by the US not continuing to implement Sharia law in Afghanistan?

Perhaps we could have a specific article quoted to us, maybe even with a commentary from a legal expert supporting your view?

Or does your vast life experience as an economics student/scientist/greenpeace activist/abortion expert qualify you to make unsubstantiated yet wild claims about international law?

[Napoleon Ier]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep6hvIi-LDw

Oh..

Well now that I see it on MSNBC...

Of course, now that you have all your arguments completely discredited by a former member of the CIA, on a leftist show whose host Media Matters (which only watches right-wing media) named 2005's Misinformer of the Year, your only response is "well, it was on MSNBC, so it must be wrong."

You are a fucking hypocrite.

Then again, in all fairness, a whole load more CIA experts attested to the fact that not only does torture work, but it saved thousands of lives in the case Gabon was so kind as to bring to our attention in the title post.

Even if it "doesn't work" according to one CIA expert, surely if we're arguing purely from a utilitarian perspective, we should give CIA experts the theoretical right to torture known terrorists just in case it should ever prove useful and let them use their own discretion as to whether or not the obtained intel is valid?

So sadly, even taking that line, you're very quickly forced back into the deontological field if you want to argue against use of torture.

[InkL0sed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep6hvIi-LDw

Oh..

Well now that I see it on MSNBC...

Of course, now that you have all your arguments completely discredited by a former member of the CIA, on a leftist show whose host Media Matters (which only watches right-wing media) named 2005's Misinformer of the Year, your only response is "well, it was on MSNBC, so it must be wrong."

You are a fucking hypocrite.

Then again, in all fairness, a whole load more CIA experts attested to the fact that not only does torture work, but it saved thousands of lives in the case Gabon was so kind as to bring to our attention in the title post.

Even if it "doesn't work" according to one CIA expert, surely if we're arguing purely from a utilitarian perspective, we should give CIA experts the theoretical right to torture known terrorists just in case it should ever prove useful and let them use their own discretion as to whether or not the obtained intel is valid?

So sadly, even taking that line, you're very quickly forced back into the deontological field if you want to argue against use of torture.

You clearly didn't see the video.

I know that because:

1) It isn't just his opinion. He says he is part of the majority of the CIA who think torture is worse than ineffective.

2) There in fact has not been "a load" of CIA experts who have attested to this story of another plot getting shut down, according to Baer.

[Napoleon Ier]

OK. I'm willing to contend that all that's true.

But none of that affects the validity of the argument I outlined. The very fact that some intel obtained from torture was put to good use, or indeed that some CIA agents believe that to the extent that they are willing to carry out enhanced interrogation techniques, would suggest we should, from a strictly deontology-blind perspective, give agencies the right to torture known terrorists.

[InkL0sed]

Except saying that they may sometimes have the right to torture in extreme circumstances is just opening the door to abuse and precedence. The point is that it's almost always not only useless, but counterproductive.

There's really no reason to ever torture someone.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, I rather think the point of Gabon's original post was to give you an example in which there really was very good reason to torture someone, and I'm sure we're all thankful that the CIA did what they had to do.

I mean, as for the thin end of the wedge argument, maybe you have a point: but provided you had sufficiently strong guidelines in place, I'm sure you could prevent abuses.

[PLAYER57832]

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

Every nation that signed onto the Geneva conventions agreed otherwise, inclluding the US.

We have to remember two things. In any war, the majority of soldiers are just doing the job their country asks. Did you know that a large number of Germans captured as soldiers (ordinary ones, not SS) wound up emigrated back to the US legally? In part because of what they saw when they were here?

Second, whatever stick we use against "them" can be used against our own soldiers. This is why the retired generals were among the first to caution against violating the Geneva conventions

Really? The Geneva Conventions are violated by the US not continuing to implement Sharia law in Afghanistan?

I, of course, said no such thing.
The rest of your comment is equally garbage.

[PLAYER57832]

Really? The Geneva Conventions are violated by the US not continuing to implement Sharia law in Afghanistan?

In the context of the conversation, I said no such thing.
The rest of your comment is equally garbage.[/quote]

[Napoleon Ier]

Nations are not obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another.

Every nation that signed onto the Geneva conventions agreed otherwise, inclluding the US.

We have to remember two things. In any war, the majority of soldiers are just doing the job their country asks. Did you know that a large number of Germans captured as soldiers (ordinary ones, not SS) wound up emigrated back to the US legally? In part because of what they saw when they were here?

Second, whatever stick we use against "them" can be used against our own soldiers. This is why the retired generals were among the first to caution against violating the Geneva conventions

Really? The Geneva Conventions are violated by the US not continuing to implement Sharia law in Afghanistan?

I, of course, said no such thing.
The rest of your comment is equally garbage.

Well, you just said above that the "Every nation that signed onto the Geneva conventions inclluding the US" agreed that "Nations are obliged to uphold the laws of other nations, particularly when at war with one another."

So... much as you probably do have several awards when it comes to trying to slip out of some of the more dumbfoundingly stupid comments you frequently make, this time, you're pretty much caught with your pants down.

[Snorri1234]

Then again, GabonX was talking about how the US doesn't have to follow international law because....well I don't know why. He said terrorists violated american law so deserve no trial or something and that the laws of Iraq can't be violated because they're not legitimate or....man I don't know what his point was.

But it's good to know you only call player out on things, nappy.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Then again, GabonX was talking about how the US doesn't have to follow international law because....well I don't know why. He said terrorists violated american law so deserve no trial or something and that the laws of Iraq can't be violated because they're not legitimate or....man I don't know what his point was.

But it's good to know you only call player out on things, nappy.

GabonX is a barely-functional moron writ large, no joke

and the US' continued occupation of afghanistan actually is pretty imperialistic to be honest, and the perception in this country of it being the "good" war is pretty much the most ridiculous thing ever