Cheney: Waterboarding works (YouTube)

[zqt3344 21]

Sure Waterboarding works, it is a mild humane form of extracting important information without tainting the goods. Wonder how you liberal waterwalkers from the school of Ovomit would handle being tortured? Also wonder how come you liberal lovers are not going off on all these radical muslim terrorist states that deploy much harsher methods of extracting information from prisoners. No we will never hear that will we, just your whiney liberal lame drivel about America and how bad it is.

While the jury is still out on if it is right or wrong....

It's hard to argue with success, as to the question of "does it work"?

Actually Danno, experienced interrogators will tell you that you cannot get reliable information by force, plain and simple. In fact, interrogation is the least productive way to find out important information. Intelligence and spying are the most effective ways, but the Bush Administration focused their attention on interrogation while neglecting intelligence and spying.

[Danno 1,228]

While the jury is still out on if it is right or wrong....

It's hard to argue with success, as to the question of "does it work"?

Actually Danno, experienced interrogators will tell you that you cannot get reliable information by force, plain and simple. In fact, interrogation is the least productive way to find out important information. Intelligence and spying are the most effective ways, but the Bush Administration focused their attention on interrogation while neglecting intelligence and spying.

I think I showed opinions range on "methods which work best".

"Spying" and intelligence takes years to develop, one can't wait for years when the operations are underway now.

I will slam Bush when it's deserved but really the lack of this program (and Language training) should have been in the works 5=6 years before Bush was even sworn in.

Waterboarding... while no fun day at the park, is still mild, infact most agents doing it have had it done to them. We even have reporters taking a trail run at it, look up Chris Hitchens vid.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's not a definite as to whether it works. Sometimes the consequence is what they want to hear versus the truth.

In order to use waterboarding effectively, you must be 100% certain without a doubt that the candidate is the perpetrator. If they are not, it does pose a problem because you'll get false information.

They have confirmed that 100% that the candidate was the one who mastermind. It works with that.

But, if there is a shred of doubt that the candidate is not the one. It will not work. The only information you'll get is what the assessor will want to hear instead of the truth.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Niels Bohr

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While the jury is still out on if it is right or wrong....

It's hard to argue with success, as to the question of "does it work"?

Actually Danno, experienced interrogators will tell you that you cannot get reliable information by force, plain and simple. In fact, interrogation is the least productive way to find out important information. Intelligence and spying are the most effective ways, but the Bush Administration focused their attention on interrogation while neglecting intelligence and spying.

I think I showed opinions range on "methods which work best".

"Spying" and intelligence takes years to develop, one can't wait for years when the operations are underway now.

I will slam Bush when it's deserved but really the lack of this program (and Language training) should have been in the works 5=6 years before Bush was even sworn in.

Waterboarding... while no fun day at the park, is still mild, infact most agents doing it have had it done to them. We even have reporters taking a trail run at it, look up Chris Hitchens vid.

Danno, find some respected interrogation experts who are saying that coercion is a reliable way to extract secret information? I'm sorry, but you won't find any. Not any that actually have years of experience in the field of interrogation.

The elephant in the closet is this - the Bush Administration chose to engage in such interrogation techniques for two reasons - to try and get an admission of guilt from the detainees....and to try and scare enemy combatants still out on the loose. That's what they really were trying to do. And you know what - you'll get an innocent man to say he's guilty just to get the pain to stop. So the end result is this this false satisfaction that the Bush Administration was really going after bad guys. It was silly and nonsensical and unethical and most importantly, ineffective.

[웃 910]

It's not a definite as to whether it works. Sometimes the consequence is what they want to hear versus the truth.

On the previous page I already ripped to shreds the notion that the terrorist suspect will be giving false information if water boarded. The simple solution is to hook the person up to a lie detector machine while water boarding them. In case you are wondering if the lie detection software will be able to detect a lie while the person is being water boarded, there is a solution to that too. After the person is done spilling the beans, you have them repeat the information again while connected to a lie detector.

Now the only way to dispute my ingenious idea is to say that there are some people that can pass lie detectors while lying. Well, I have a solution for that too: This is not treated like a civil case in the US where you take only 1 lie detector test and if you pass you will never take another. If our CIA counter-terrorism experts, who I am assuming can detect lies by body language, feel that the potential terrorist is lying but the guy passes the lie detector test, then you just give the guy more lie detector tests (give him one when he first wakes up in the morning, wake him up in the middle of the night and give him another L.D. test), if he continues to pass each one than he is telling the truth.

Seriously though, I think I would make a good CIA Director---Why does my idea not come up when the media tries to say that the suspected terrorist will give false information when being water boarded?? It is the #1 argument against water boarding and I single handedly laid it to rest.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Confucian

[Danno 1,228]

While the jury is still out on if it is right or wrong....

It's hard to argue with success, as to the question of "does it work"?

Actually Danno, experienced interrogators will tell you that you cannot get reliable information by force, plain and simple. In fact, interrogation is the least productive way to find out important information. Intelligence and spying are the most effective ways, but the Bush Administration focused their attention on interrogation while neglecting intelligence and spying.

I think I showed opinions range on "methods which work best".

"Spying" and intelligence takes years to develop, one can't wait for years when the operations are underway now.

I will slam Bush when it's deserved but really the lack of this program (and Language training) should have been in the works 5=6 years before Bush was even sworn in.

Waterboarding... while no fun day at the park, is still mild, infact most agents doing it have had it done to them. We even have reporters taking a trail run at it, look up Chris Hitchens vid.

Danno, find some respected interrogation experts who are saying that coercion is a reliable way to extract secret information? I'm sorry, but you won't find any. Not any that actually have years of experience in the field of interrogation.

The elephant in the closet is this - the Bush Administration chose to engage in such interrogation techniques for two reasons - to try and get an admission of guilt from the detainees....and to try and scare enemy combatants still out on the loose. That's what they really were trying to do. And you know what - you'll get an innocent man to say he's guilty just to get the pain to stop. So the end result is this this false satisfaction that the Bush Administration was really going after bad guys. It was silly and nonsensical and unethical and most importantly, ineffective.

Oh Fancy you are so wrong so often it is a little humorous... really.

Do you think the Bush admin was using waterboarding to get confessions?

Of course this confession (without specific unknown info) would be worthless.

Of course if you twist my arm... or make me drink decaf coffee, I would admit

"you are brilliant" but really, of what use would that be under those circumstances?

Now on the other hand if I claim I am a shoe salesman and have nothing to do with acts of terror, then after waterboarding me (or making me listen to rap music) I admit my deeds

AND NAME NAMES, DATES PLACES AND METHODS WHICH a SHOE SALESMAN COULD NOT POSSIBLY MAKE UP, .....TO STOP THE DISCOMFORT (Or music), then you might be getting somewhere.

Where do you get the impression that we don't already have intel to compare and "test" the authenticity of information gained?

Have you not even watched a few police shows on TV?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Sure they use techniqes that dont work. That makes sense

[Niels Bohr 72]

George Tenent the former CIA director had a degree in liberal arts. Not really a technical person. Worked during the Clinton Administration.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While the jury is still out on if it is right or wrong....

It's hard to argue with success, as to the question of "does it work"?

Actually Danno, experienced interrogators will tell you that you cannot get reliable information by force, plain and simple. In fact, interrogation is the least productive way to find out important information. Intelligence and spying are the most effective ways, but the Bush Administration focused their attention on interrogation while neglecting intelligence and spying.

I think I showed opinions range on "methods which work best".

"Spying" and intelligence takes years to develop, one can't wait for years when the operations are underway now.

I will slam Bush when it's deserved but really the lack of this program (and Language training) should have been in the works 5=6 years before Bush was even sworn in.

Waterboarding... while no fun day at the park, is still mild, infact most agents doing it have had it done to them. We even have reporters taking a trail run at it, look up Chris Hitchens vid.

Danno, find some respected interrogation experts who are saying that coercion is a reliable way to extract secret information? I'm sorry, but you won't find any. Not any that actually have years of experience in the field of interrogation.

The elephant in the closet is this - the Bush Administration chose to engage in such interrogation techniques for two reasons - to try and get an admission of guilt from the detainees....and to try and scare enemy combatants still out on the loose. That's what they really were trying to do. And you know what - you'll get an innocent man to say he's guilty just to get the pain to stop. So the end result is this this false satisfaction that the Bush Administration was really going after bad guys. It was silly and nonsensical and unethical and most importantly, ineffective.

Oh Fancy you are so wrong so often it is a little humorous... really.

Do you think the Bush admin was using waterboarding to get confessions?

Of course this confession (without specific unknown info) would be worthless.

Of course if you twist my arm... or make me drink decaf coffee, I would admit

"you are brilliant" but really, of what use would that be under those circumstances?

Now on the other hand if I claim I am a shoe salesman and have nothing to do with acts of terror, then after waterboarding me (or making me listen to rap music) I admit my deeds

AND NAME NAMES, DATES PLACES AND METHODS WHICH a SHOE SALESMAN COULD NOT POSSIBLY MAKE UP, .....TO STOP THE DISCOMFORT (Or music), then you might be getting somewhere.

Where do you get the impression that we don't already have intel to compare and "test" the authenticity of information gained?

Have you not even watched a few police shows on TV?

Danno, remember that our basic principles of law didn't apply to the detainees such as habeas corpus as written by the Bush Administration's legal counsel. Why would you think that a confession of a detainee could not be used against them if you are saying that other information they give would be reliable but not a confession? Secondly, in countries like China, it is a common practice. This whole notion of coercion to get reliable, important information was a silly ruse....all one has to do is look at how many of the detainees have been released and how many of them have been put to trial after all these years.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone to post a respected interrogation expert who claims that coercion techniques do in fact provide reliable information.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While the jury is still out on if it is right or wrong....

It's hard to argue with success, as to the question of "does it work"?

Actually Danno, experienced interrogators will tell you that you cannot get reliable information by force, plain and simple. In fact, interrogation is the least productive way to find out important information. Intelligence and spying are the most effective ways, but the Bush Administration focused their attention on interrogation while neglecting intelligence and spying.

I think I showed opinions range on "methods which work best".

"Spying" and intelligence takes years to develop, one can't wait for years when the operations are underway now.

I will slam Bush when it's deserved but really the lack of this program (and Language training) should have been in the works 5=6 years before Bush was even sworn in.

Waterboarding... while no fun day at the park, is still mild, infact most agents doing it have had it done to them. We even have reporters taking a trail run at it, look up Chris Hitchens vid.

Danno, find some respected interrogation experts who are saying that coercion is a reliable way to extract secret information? I'm sorry, but you won't find any. Not any that actually have years of experience in the field of interrogation.

The elephant in the closet is this - the Bush Administration chose to engage in such interrogation techniques for two reasons - to try and get an admission of guilt from the detainees....and to try and scare enemy combatants still out on the loose. That's what they really were trying to do. And you know what - you'll get an innocent man to say he's guilty just to get the pain to stop. So the end result is this this false satisfaction that the Bush Administration was really going after bad guys. It was silly and nonsensical and unethical and most importantly, ineffective.

Oh Fancy you are so wrong so often it is a little humorous... really.

Do you think the Bush admin was using waterboarding to get confessions?

Of course this confession (without specific unknown info) would be worthless.

Of course if you twist my arm... or make me drink decaf coffee, I would admit

"you are brilliant" but really, of what use would that be under those circumstances?

Now on the other hand if I claim I am a shoe salesman and have nothing to do with acts of terror, then after waterboarding me (or making me listen to rap music) I admit my deeds

AND NAME NAMES, DATES PLACES AND METHODS WHICH a SHOE SALESMAN COULD NOT POSSIBLY MAKE UP, .....TO STOP THE DISCOMFORT (Or music), then you might be getting somewhere.

Where do you get the impression that we don't already have intel to compare and "test" the authenticity of information gained?

Have you not even watched a few police shows on TV?

Danno, remember that our basic principles of law didn't apply to the detainees such as habeas corpus as written by the Bush Administration's legal counsel. Why would you think that a confession of a detainee could not be used against them if you are saying that other information they give would be reliable but not a confession? Secondly, in countries like China, it is a common practice. This whole notion of coercion to get reliable, important information was a silly ruse....all one has to do is look at how many of the detainees have been released and how many of them have been put to trial after all these years.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone to post a respected interrogation expert who claims that coercion techniques do in fact provide reliable information.

Certainly the way its been used it pretty unjustifiable. Not only the fact that people released without charge have technically been subjected to a government abuse by being held in total contradiction to one of the founding principles of civilised government, but even completely innocent people - like that German guy who was subjected to the Extraordinary Rendition by the CIA. Even in that instance - where the CIA made a totally unjustifiable mistake, they are still protected from any legal action from the victim.

There seems to be a lack of accountability here. I guess we can all look forward, once again, to the days that the CIA #######'s up military coups and causes international crises.

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

The simple solution is to hook the person up to a lie detector machine while water boarding them.

that sounds like a winner of an idea.

[HAL 9000 96]

It's not a definite as to whether it works. Sometimes the consequence is what they want to hear versus the truth.

On the previous page I already ripped to shreds the notion that the terrorist suspect will be giving false information if water boarded. The simple solution is to hook the person up to a lie detector machine while water boarding them. In case you are wondering if the lie detection software will be able to detect a lie while the person is being water boarded, there is a solution to that too. After the person is done spilling the beans, you have them repeat the information again while connected to a lie detector.

Now the only way to dispute my ingenious idea is to say that there are some people that can pass lie detectors while lying. Well, I have a solution for that too: This is not treated like a civil case in the US where you take only 1 lie detector test and if you pass you will never take another. If our CIA counter-terrorism experts, who I am assuming can detect lies by body language, feel that the potential terrorist is lying but the guy passes the lie detector test, then you just give the guy more lie detector tests (give him one when he first wakes up in the morning, wake him up in the middle of the night and give him another L.D. test), if he continues to pass each one than he is telling the truth.

Seriously though, I think I would make a good CIA Director---Why does my idea not come up when the media tries to say that the suspected terrorist will give false information when being water boarded?? It is the #1 argument against water boarding and I single handedly laid it to rest.

Tearing a theory to shreds like electrocuting your prisoner? ...

The simple solution is to hook the person up to a lie detector machine while water boarding them.

that sounds like a winner of an idea.

beat me to it...

[Danno 1,228]

I'm still waiting for you or anyone to post a respected interrogation expert who claims that coercion techniques do in fact provide reliable information.

Are you saying Brian Ross is lying about the success reported directly to him by the CIA?

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

[HAL 9000 96]

Reported to him by whom?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If its on TV it must be true. Don't ya know...

I had an interesting convo with a kid in my high-school who insisted that Return of the Living Dead was a true story - because it said so at the start...