On 100th day in office, Obama denounces waterboarding

Thursday 30th April, 06:09 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 93 Total Comments Show All

likeitis at 03:46 PM JST - 1st May

Super: I'm just not willing to take your word on it.

Then don't. Humanity has quite a long history, and torture has always been a part of it. So...

If there's information that will save lives, and there's a reasonable expectation that it will save lives, then waterboarding should be allowed.

What is with all these gosh darned hypothetical scenarios??? If you cannot produce at least three real world examples in history where torture saved lives, then what makes you think you have any basis for supporting it? We would all love to see those examples. Really looking forward to it.

I'd do it. So would you. The only difference is that I'm honest about it.

You have been laying some real whopper accusations at people lately. You really should lay off calling people liars and supporters of terrorism.

Now how about that historical evidence to replace these Jack Bauer scenarios?
teleprompter at 03:51 PM JST - 1st May

Again, if "torture" didn't work why has Obama blocked release of the memos Cheney and others have said include proof that it did even though he has allowed for release of photos showing prisoner abuse in Afghanistan?
SuperLib at 04:15 PM JST - 1st May

likeitis: That too. I never ruled that out. But even religious zealots CHOOSE their targets. Putting us in their sights is much like saying "bring it on!", and no, I do not want my country to be a morally dubious one just to spite zealots.

Your link between torture and 9/11 is absurd. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

likeitis: If you cannot produce at least three real world examples in history where torture saved lives, then what makes you think you have any basis for supporting it? We would all love to see those examples. Really looking forward to it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact is that Obama is not releasing the information obtained from waterboarding. And since you can obviously give me 3 real world examples where waterboarding did not produce any worthwhile information from someone who had it, then please do. My guess is you wouldn't issue the challenge to me unless you could do it yourself. Really looking forward to it.
goodDonkey at 07:08 PM JST - 1st May

skipthesong said:

telepromter, its ok to torture Nazis, its not ok to torture Muslims! You know well that had these guys not been Muslims, there wouldn't be a peep about it.

Please find one liberal who says that torture is ok as long as they are not Muslims. Or did I misinterpret your post. I'll let others decide. If what you are saying is true let see you find an example of someone who feels that way.

So many posters on JT lack any sense of honesty or integrity. It is obvious to anyone who would read your posts that what you are saying is false when you make spurious claims, about what others would do, when they have clearly taken a position against such practices as torture. It is obvious to the many readers that saying "You know well that had these guys not been Muslims, there wouldn't be a peep about it" is the same as saying that we are lying when we say we are against torture. It is the same as saying our only purpose is to protect Muslims. I know many in higher learning who would say that borders on bigotry. That claims of advocating for those in need of such protections because they now happen to be a select group, would in fact be a thinly veiled way of attacking that group by saying we are not in favor of eliminating torture but rather in protecting only a select group. It may only be a few that can make that connection but it is clear to those of us who can, that it begs the question.

Everyone with half a brain knows that the liberals are not protecting the Muslims. They understand the rules would apply across the board to protect everyone from torture. It was the Democrats that fought for equality for those of different races, ethnicity and religion in civil rights laws. I personally believe we need to keep the spirit of the U.S Constitution. Rights like due process should not be reserved for the privileged.

The Republicans have gone on and on about how they want to spread democracy. I guess they want to reserve the good parts for themselves. They are promoting Democracy Lite.
rajakumar at 11:54 PM JST - 1st May

Next 4 or 88 years any time better than last 8 years.

What happens after Obama administration, will be even better,if we get more calibre people into power.

Higher calibre is the way forward.
zurcronium at 12:44 AM JST - 2nd May

This is quite interesting. It seems that so called religious people favor torture at the highest rate of any group. Since Jesus died by torture you would think they would be against waterboarding and other forms of torture. But no, not the case. And those that dont go to church regularly, more Jesus like in their approach to torture. Amazing.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21.
rogerbentham at 09:35 AM JST - 2nd May

go waterboarding:
likeitis at 11:51 AM JST - 2nd May

SuperLib, I asked you first. Come on, you got all of history to play with, not just America's post 9-11 torturing.

Stop copping out. This is your baby. Prove it works. Give us 3 real world examples of torture saving lives.
likeitis at 10:21 PM JST - 2nd May

Give us 3 real world examples of torture saving lives.

Waiting....
VoXman at 01:44 AM JST - 3rd May

Zurc said

This is quite interesting. It seems that so called religious people favor torture at the highest rate of any group. Since Jesus died by torture you would think they would be against waterboarding and other forms of torture. But no, not the case. And those that dont go to church regularly, more Jesus like in their approach to torture. Amazing.

A ridiculous comparison. Terror suspects were or may have been tortured at GITMO for the purpose of retrieving information about future attacks planned on the US and her allies.

Jesus was tortured for the sake of being tortured. It was a normal part of the Roman way when they sent a man to be crucified. Its partly to humiliate the prisoner in front of the locals and to show them that they may share the same fate.

In order for your example to work, the US would have to televise the torture for all of the Islamic world to see.
teleprompter at 01:45 PM JST - 3rd May

Give us 3 real world examples of torture saving lives.

I guess you can't read.

Waterboarding worked on the three Islamofascists that this manufactured controversy involves.They cracked and provided intel that the CIA and security experts report saved lives. That the lives saved were American may bother you to a point where you discount or ignore what official reports conclude but this is your problem.
goodDonkey at 09:00 PM JST - 3rd May

Of course there is no evidence that torture saved lives.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Tell that to scientists working on vaccines! Every hard science eventually uses cases of an "absence of evidence" as proof. Using a case of not being able to prove a negative in no way supports the completely different claim of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Thank goodness we have a president who now relies on science, logic, and facts. The American people are tired of the lame justifications given by control freaks who want special rules to apply to America. Americans were more than sick of Dick Chenney who didn't know grass from a hole in the ground; if you know what I mean.

Bottom Line: Any method we use to extract information will eventually be used on our military on.
zurcronium at 10:34 AM JST - 6th May

In order for your example to work, the US would have to televise the torture for all of the Islamic world to see.

AbuGhraid is my one word answer. He shoots, he scores, game over. Anyway, Jesus died from torture and the faith-based community of Palinistas seem to want more of the same for others who may as well be innocent of any crimes. Amazing hypocrisy.

Waterboarding worked on the three Islamofascists that this manufactured controversy involves.They cracked and provided intel that the CIA and security experts report saved lives. That the lives saved were American may bother you to a point where you discount or ignore what official reports conclude but this is your problem.

Telepromter, there is no evidence of any lives saved. None. Besides Cheney and Bush were torturing to try and link 9-11 to Iraq, that is why they did it. They needed something even if it was all based on torture and lies. They tortured to try to justify killing millions in Iraq in the failed phony invasion.
teleprompter at 10:37 AM JST - 6th May

How they miss Bush and Cheney...
teleprompter at 01:24 PM JST - 8th May

They just lie and lie and lie and prevaricate and spin and dodge and lie some more:

ABC News:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.