It's illegal and the same information can be had by using alternative techniques.
This is proof: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23120362/

Uh, did anyone else read that story? The basic gist was that while it MAY take longer to get information ( months ) even some of the top guys give it.

And the fact that The United States avoided all appearances of wrongdoing, in interrogating these guys in particular, gives a bit of insight to the whole mess at Gitmo. It's just ridiculous.

And spare me the complete lie that this was done this way to avoid the wrath of " liberal lawyers." This was done this way to ensure a conviction. THAT'S important to remember. The others that they have tortured or killed aren't important to anyone. They've been buried - legally and literally and figuratively.

Someday it'll all come out and we'll know the truth. ALL of it.

If you need actionable intelligence, a few months or years, is too long.

This is a war, not a police action.

Confession by waterboarding?

Hell, even I would confess under that torture. I'd probably even say I like George Bush.

Clearly, based on overall performance over recent history, our intelligence community has not provided accurate intelligence no matter what methods they used. Had they, we wouldn't be in this mess. The Shrub is now trying to overperform to secure a legacy, of which he has none. If Congress doesn't watch it, the Shrub will put troops into Iran before he loses power, further complicating the mess we can't currently manage.

Nwokie, did you read the article? Or are you just reacting to what I said?

Yes I read the article, in a war, informations value is often related to how soon it is obtained. Waiting until Stocklhom syndrome kicks in, is too long.

Obviously not, according to the article.

I think that it's just best that I read everything you say and understand the opposite to be accurate. You are just wrong too often.

If you can find "Taxi to the Darkside" playing anywhere, might be worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in5OhVNCokc&feature=related

Nwokie prefers more questionable information obtained inhumanely despite any damage to our national reputation, rather than more solid information obtained humanely that will improve our national reputation, which in the long run could HELP eliminate future terrorist attacks.

Shortsighted view is that we have to protect ourselves from these people at all costs, preferably by killing them. Long view is that we will eventually have to get along with these folks, and the ability to do that is based on the actions we take today.

Nwokie, you may forget that we both joined the Army during the Vietnam war to not only serve under our great flag, but also to defend our country's honor. The military taught me that death before dishonor would be my creed.

Bush has dishonored this country with behavior that violates the Geneva Convention. Sure, he says the detainees were not covered by the convention, because they were not soldiers. But now this country is going to try them as POWs under a military tribunal as though they were soldiers.

They should be tried by our regular courts as terrorists.

So it's OKAY for this to happen to OUR troops???
I'm just sayin'........

That's a big part of what remains when it's boiled down; How would you feel if it happened to our troops? Would you be outraged? Why? Because they got caught? No. Because of the torture that would happen.

You cannot have this both ways.

Exactly! These actions are untenable. This is why we have international laws and treaties on the books that outlaw torture. Those measured steps were taken to insure that all nations do not resort to putting torture on the table as an instrument of war. Our Generals know that sword cuts both ways, but their warnings were unheeded.

Somewhere, deep within our Executive Branch, a small cabal of sadists -- who have never had a day of combat in their lives -- made the decision to torture. Instead of letting our troops do their sworn duty, contractors were hired, secret prisons were established, and we set back the rules of war to the days of the Spanish Inquisition.

That shortsighted and utterly destructive decision has put all of our soldiers at risk. Lying and denying that such programs are in place has only solidified world opinion against us. In fact, by torturing randomly captured innocent folks and dumping them back home, it has heightened the probability of another attack on our own soil.

We must set examples, not make examples of other people. We must defeat our enemies both foreign and domestic within the boundaries of law. When we feel that law does not specifically cover a situation, we must set a new standard for justice, not for cruelty. We must gather intelligence using the soundest methods, not the ones that appear the most entertaining to deviants.

No person who died on 9/11 would be happy to see what has happened to this nation. No victim would want to be a political pawn in a game of endless fear and profiteering. They would be disgusted, knowing that their intense suffering enabled a tiny group of mentally ill millionaires and billionaires to engage in vicarious blood sport.

We are all Americans. We accept the risks that come with that liberty. We know that defending our freedom is a full time job. Still, we would rather take our chances in a free society, with due process, laws and oversight. One day in September should not have changed what we stand for as a nation.

This country is now known for abusing, torturing and disappearing thousands of people. All the while, systematically eroding the rights of their own citizens. That, my friends, is totally un-American.

Saw a report last night that after WWII the U.S. executed 6 Japanese soldiers for using the water board torture.

Nwokie??
Herb???
Any other EXTREME RIGHTs that think water boarding is cool?

It's cool for this to happen to OUR troops?

I'm JUST askin'.....

Actually, their not being tried as POW's.
Their status is still illegal combatant.

So, Nwokie, what about the U.S. opinion of water boarding during WWII?

He won't answer.

But I heard an interesting thing ( I haven't verified it - so I'm not certain it's true ). Instead of just blurting it out, and before you go to try and research it on Google ( or The Onion...ahem ) or whatever, take a guess;

How many times do you think Waterboarding has been used as an interrogation technique during our War on Terror?

POW's which are combatants of one of the belegerants, who was captured while wearing a uniform, or other identifying item, can only be asked name, rank, serial number and date of birth.

Illegal combatents are a totally other matter.

Yeah. Uniforms. Great. Got it.

Do you miss the point of the question, Nwokie? How would you feel about an American soldier getting interrogated by using the same tactics that we employ against any of our captured enemies?

American soldiers are covered by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists want the same protection, they should conform to the standards of war.

Yeah. That wasn't what I asked you.

When the terrorists start trying their members for violations and giving their captives treatment consistent with the Geneva convention, I will agree with giving them better treatment.

Yeah. That's not what I asked you. Not even close.

Nwokie, when we lower ourselves to the standards of the terrorists, we become nothing more than terrorists.

In basic training I was told that while I could not always expect the enemy to respect the Geneva convention, I was required by my oath to serve in uniform to respect the standards of the Geneva convention nevertheless.

Radioblogman is absolutely right. Every member of the Armed Forces is bound by the Geneva Conventions. I am proud to live in a land where (most of) our Veterans remember how important these rules are, not only to our current troops, but to all of us.

I am still interested in an answer to the question posed by Chickenjuggler.

WOW!
Looks at though Nwokie is Larry Craig in disguise... Tapping around the question...
I wonder if Nwokie is also Herb???

I indeed feel so strong about that training that if a gun were held to my head and I was ordered to water board someone, I would take the bullet rather than live with what I would have done to a human being.

Admirable. I hear ya. Sincerely. With a gun to my head, I could do it. I don't know what that says about me or makes me - but it's my truth.

By the way, the stat ( officially ) is 3. THREE. And ONE of them was the guy who killed Daniel Pearl.

Again, I can't find that proof. But it was a pretty staunch Republican who stated it on television.

I admire both of you. I also agree.

If they do squeeze a round into my dome, I will not feel as if I am dying over and over for weeks and months. I will die but once -- as the saying goes.

If I torture, I condition someone to believe they are dying to the point where the very concept of death becomes attractive. If someone is innocent, I would say that is mighty effective way to build a suicide bomber from scratch.

A murder is a murder. The tragedy of Daniel Pearl is gut wrenching, but a homicide nonetheless. One solves a murder with clues that lead to facts. One never solves anything by coercing confessions -- even from the guilty. During torture, solid information is lost in the jibberish of panic, prayer and fear.

Information obtained by water-boarding and other methodology creates reasonable doubt where it may not have ever existed. Benefit of the doubt is one of the many things that separate our courts from the hanging trees of reactionary vigilantes. In the end, torture undermines the strength of the truth.

The reason the guilty deserve due process, and humane treatment is so that we know the system works for everyone. If everyone is guaranteed due process equally, systemic abuses are almost non-existent.

Showing true justice in dealing with our worst enemies is a fundamental principle that sets us apart as Americans. Is torture the example we should be setting for developing countries? We gain nothing by appearing to be only fractionally better than those we criticize for their brutality.

Hey Nwokie, check this out

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/politics-14/1202995446304240 .xml&storylist=topstories

"I wonder if Nwokie is also Herb???"

Thanks for flattering me. I only hope Nwokie doesn't take your comment as an insult!

Herb

Nwokie, how would you feel about an American soldier getting interrogated by using the same tactics that we employ against any of our captured enemies?

An American soldier, would be covered under the Geneva convention, they are not illegal combatents. If someone wants the protection of the Geneva convention and other standards of warfare. They have to conform to the standards themselver.

Its like getting into a fight, and the ther guy pulls a knife, and you still try to fight using the Marquis of Queensberry riles.

That's open to serious question now isn't it?

We used contractors to do a lot of this crap.

Other nations could easily do the same, or simply declare legal being what they say it is and torture away.

Our foolish actions have undermined Geneva. That's a mistake.

At the end of the day, the only thing that really gives any of this stuff any teeth is integrity and trust. We don't have either!

What is wrong with you, Nwokie? I'm not asking for you to jump to a conclusion as to why I am asking you ( mostly because you aren't the one asking the question. So you don't know why I'm asking - as evidenced by your couching ).

Don't answer a bunch of questions I am not asking. Try the one I am;

How would you feel about an American soldier getting interrogated by using the same tactics that we employ against any of our captured enemies?

He WOULDN'T answer for me nor anyone else so why in God's name do you think he would answer you?
Just like Herb, he will not answer the HARD questions because there answers generally are not based on fact.
That's what MOST of here have seen....

Wouldn't like it, it would also be a violation of the Geneva convetion, which the US should follow, as long as the other side follows it, including the rules to wear identifying markings.

However, the Iraqi terrorists, and other Al Queda not only don't follow the geneva convention, they are themselves not coveed by it.

CJ, are you beginning to feel like Sisyphus?

Give you an example, in Vietnam an American Pilot was shotdown, and a bunch of N V farmers were going up to him, he put up his hands in a sign of surrender, then saw an American Copter coming to his rescue, he drew his service revolver, and shot a couple of the N/V. farmers, made it to the chopper and got away.

He was court Martialed, for violating the Geneva Convention. After surrendering, you can not continue fighting.

Think the N Vietnamese court martiled any of their people for violating the Geneva Convention?

These terrorists have no country, wear no uniform, kill innocent women and kids and would slice your throat in a second if they had a chance.

I'm with Nwokie.

Herb

Chickenjuggler asked:

"How would you feel about an American soldier getting interrogated by using the same tactics that we employ against any of our captured enemies?"

(Randy once said it was all about the processing, so I figured I'd give it a try. LMAO @ Edselehr!)

Nwokie, thank you for answering the question. I have no idea why that was so hard for you.

OK.

So you wouldn't like it. I don't care about Geneva Convention. I'm not asking about protection. Now follow closely;

Give me your #1 reason why you would not like it.

Your #1.

While we await that #1, it's worth pointing out what other nations do is not what we do.

We do what we know to be right. Doing that regularly and with some effort and conviction is our national advocacy to the rest of the world. We are better than they are --and we know it and are not afraid to show it.

We then have the high ground, which makes all sorts of greater things possible.

Eg: some nation does not abide by Geneva. So, our guys get the hard treatment. Do we return the favor? No. Why? Because Geneva matters and we know it as do a lot of other nations. As a bloc then, we shun and apply pressure to the non-compliant ones. They get hungry, fail to innovate and lose favor in the world generally.

We take them through the process and convict them of violating Geneva. Lock some people up, kill a few of them, if needed, and that's that. We have laws for these things and we have a process for rendering judgment and executing punishment. So we either honor that and benefit from it, or we don't.

If everybody says, "we don't", then we really don't have a process!

Those non-compliant nations might pick fights, but we can count on help with those fights because nobody wants to support a below the belt dirty fighter, but for the other dirty fighters. If most of the world does not play ball with dirty fighters, then there will be less of them and with that comes less conflict and all of that sends a clear message to the people for change.

Eventually they want it badly enough to start to do something about it and things progress.

If we do a tit-for-tat thing, we then have no high ground, largely because somebody always starts something, and with no high ground, there is no need to improve the state of things, leaving us in a pure power and war play.

Sound familiar? It should. That's exactly what this administration is all about.

In that scenario, it's a he said, she said thing that's largely futile for all but those who can profit from the conflict. Look at the growth of our private war industries! Also look at the sharp decline most everywhere else.

There is no building toward a better playing field, no help on principle, only profit, and no Geneva because it has no teeth, if there are no boundaries. No boundaries without people willing to stand for what is right period.

Without that, there can be no resolution.

We can get along. The alternative is extremely grim, and for me personally, life is just way too short for that crap.

It wasn't hard, I have spent the last 4 days rebuilding 2 servers, for a company that had no idea what a "backup" meant.

Well the time it took for you to post yet not address what I was talking about didn't seem to be in short supply.

Much like your last post.

Nwokie, I was just trying to have a two-way conversation with you. You seem to be in a place where you aren't really interested in that. As evidenced by, once again, typing out only things you want to say - but never really talking about what the given topic is to someone else. Not a big deal. But let's not pretend that we are having a conversation when you do that.

So, given that, I'm sure you will understand why it's fruitless to try and engage you on any level beyond what you have to say - instead of listening to what someone else might have to say too. That, obviously, doesn't make you some bad guy. It's just that sometimes you almost seem like you might be interested. But really, you're not.

I get that now with you. Took me a while. But I get it.

Carry on.

Hey CJ, you need this:

http://www.kenlarson.net/large/banghead.gif

I don't think it matters what one's designation is. Torture is wrong and the US shouldn't be using it. Those that justify it based on the title we apply to a human are evil doers just the same.

Very well said Vit.