Trump calls for waterboarding, other methods in U.S. fight against ISIS

Trump argued that the “evil” nature of modern times required more robust interrogation techniques, saying that U.S. enemies are thriving in the absence of them.

An ape in an Armani.

The more I hear from this man, the more I think his name should begin with a Ch, not a Tr.

In 1983, Fred told an interviewer that Donald "was a pretty rough fellow when he was small", prompting him to enroll Donald in the New York Military Academy (NYMA). Trump finished eighth grade and high school at NYMA.[23] During his senior year, Trump participated in marching drills and wore a uniform, attaining the highest rank of cadet first captain.[24] In 2015, he told a biographer that NYMA gave him "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military".

Above from Wikipedia. It sounds like Trump's always been a spoiled class bully. Interesting that as a chicken hawk he thinks he knows more about the military than those who've actually served. And large numbers of US Americans actually want him to have his fingers on the button? He's a General Jack D. Ripper in the making at a time when Tsar Putin, Xi and the man next door with the really bad haircut are in power.

Better to be water boarded than caged and burnt alive. I have no sympathy for ISIS, none at all.

I have no sympathy for ISIS or their ilk but torture is something that the US should have never stooped to. Perhaps mr turnip would like to be waterboarded himself? Maybe he'd change his mind. But, fascists is as fascists does.

Better to be water boarded than caged and burnt alive. I have no sympathy for ISIS, none at all.

I agree. At least they're still alive, which is still too good for them.

What nation in war present or past has not tortured. Is water boarding even torture? I prefer water board interrogation over physical pain interrogation or worse. The Iranians humiliated the US sailors recently captured. Not torture per say although humiliating.

Lets have a chat with ISIS over tea and cookies. Thatll work won`t it.

@PTownsend,

99% of the population must be chicken hawks based on your reasoning. Maybe you too? Push the button?? Really? I`m sure he wants to kill most of the world right. So silly to make uneducated comments.

Republicans have been critical of Obama’s decision to eliminate the practice

If Sander or Clinton end up being elected, I hope they will reinstate the policy.

The more I hear from this man

. . . . why? What he's suggesting is NOT unreasonable. What' the big deal?

He's a General Jack D. Ripper in the making at a time when Tsar Putin, Xi and the man next door with the really bad haircut are in power.

Maybe ur right. But look at Obama . . . he cannot stand up to either of those leaders you're mentioning. The US needs a commander-in-chief with some spine.

the man next door with the really bad haircut are in power.

If Trump gets elected, then there'd be 2 leaders of this world that fits just that, including being spoiled by inheritance and being crazy.

“We’re like living in medieval times,”

Listening to the views on science barked by GOP candidates, I fully agree.

Lets have a chat with ISIS over tea and cookies. Thatll work won`t it.

That's what libs would want too. I'm not saying fight fire with fire, but waterboarding shouldn't be taken off the options list.

Trump just wants to green light another Abu Ghraib.

fyi: "During the war in Iraq that began in March 2003, personnel of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency committed a series of human rights violations against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These violations included physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, sodomy, and murder."

That sounds about right, but it will be fabulous torture, like you're sorry it has to end with your death torture because the torture will be so well designed, like a great work of art.

Fabulous torture. Not that cage stuff. American torture, old school.

Only Trump could complain that the current torture policy is too tame. Nice guy.

"What nation in war present or past has not tortured. Is water boarding even torture?"

The US used to severely punish enemies who carried out waterboarding. They evidently thought it was a grievous offence.

The US used to severely punish enemies who carried out waterboarding.

So whats the big deal? The US has committed lots of "unsound" punishments. They're not chopping off heads, burning pilots alive and making a collection of videos to used to instill fear and propaganda. No, IS and those animals like the late jihadi john are.

Trump just wants to green light another Abu Ghraib

Yeah, and those prisoners deserved every bit of that torture for their war crimes. All they had to do was cooperate with the CIA.

@pointedview 99% of the population must be chicken hawks based on your reasoning. Maybe you too? Really? I`m sure he wants to kill most of the world right. So silly to make uneducated comments.

Perhaps you can make an educated comment on how you interpreted what I wrote to mean that 99% of the world must be chicken hawks (a person who speaks out in support of war yet has avoided active military service) and also why I might be. (I'm not.)

I don't think Tump wants to kill most of the world, but do in fact believe that his extreme egocentrism, narcissism and belligerence suggest a man lacking the reasoning skills required of someone with direct access to the button. He scares me, as do all chicken hawks. Those who want war, regardless of age, physical challenges, etc., should be the ones fighting.

I prefer water board interrogation over physical pain interrogation or worse. The Iranians humiliated the US sailors recently captured. Not torture per say although humiliating.

"Over physical pain"?" An American lieutenant had this to say regarding waterboarding Americans used during the Philippine-American War: "His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown." Please: that is physical pain. Imagine if the Iranians had waterboarded those captured soldiers. Do you honestly think that the American military would have let it slide simply because it is not "physical pain"? Remember, after World War II, the United States tried, convicted, and executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding.

Most importantly, a large number in the American military establishment oppose waterboarding not only due to doubts over its efficacy but because it would give a green-light for other countries to practice the same on Americans.

That we're still having this conversation almost two decades after that nightmare of the GWB administration is atrocious.

@WC Maybe ur right. But look at Obama . . . he cannot stand up to either of those leaders you're mentioning. The US needs a commander-in-chief with some spine.

WC, as a career military pogue, someone who should have some knowledge of military activities, what do you suggest the US President do to show 'some spine'? If you propose boots on the ground, I'm going to assume you'll be first to volunteer. Given your experience you know there are lots of soft jobs in the rear with the gear where anyone of any age or physical condition can be of use. You certainly can't be suggesting someone else's sons and daughters should be doing the fighting for you, now can you?

Having your oxygen cut off and struggling to breathe as someone you do not trust is suffocating you. Laughing at your pancic as they pour water into your lungs, dip your head in a tub, and/or drape wet sheets over your mouth and nose? Your heart hammering overtime trying to extract air from your lungs. That is torture, and it is truly horrible.

@nandakandamanda

I remember the journalist Christopher Hitchens being interviewed about waterboarding after being waterboarded. He of course was being waterboarded just to experience the 'technique' to know what he was writing about on the issue of torture. Despite the fact he could stop the 'technique' at any time, he was still obliged to sign a document making it clear that there was a risk of death from a variety of causes including stroke and cardiac arrest.

He said waterboarding did not simulate the experience of being drowned. He said you are being drowned, slowly.

Republicans love this kind of talk.

At least they're still alive, which is still too good for them.

Depends whom you mean by "them". I suspect many completely innocent people have been waterboarded.

The US used to severely punish enemies who carried out waterboarding. They evidently thought it was a grievous offence.

Yeah, I grievance offense when THEY do it, but we're the "good guys"!

Lets have a chat with ISIS over tea and cookies.

Ah yes, like McCain did, right?

I remember the journalist Christopher Hitchens being interviewed about waterboarding after being waterboarded.

By the way, where is Hitchens these days?

He of course was being waterboarded just to experience the 'technique' to know what he was writing about on the issue of torture. Despite the fact he could stop the 'technique' at any time, he was still obliged to sign a document making it clear that there was a risk of death from a variety of causes including stroke and cardiac arrest.

Believe me, if this is supposed to stir up some sort of sympathy or compassion the only thing I have compassion for are for the victims of these radicals, the harm they inflicted and the damage, death and carnage they caused. I heard enough arguments from people that can completely contradict stories from the anti-waterboarding crowd. It just depends on where you fall on this issue

He said waterboarding did not simulate the experience of being drowned. He said you are being drowned, slowly.

Ok, so that's one persons opinion....

I'm for it all the way.

@MarkGFEB. 08, 2016 - 11:08AM JST

Yes it does. It leaves no marks, I guess, but it actually involves even more base instincts for its effectiveness than what you call "physical pain interrogation", which makes it a stronger form of coercion.

By the way, where is Hitchens these days?

He died of cancer a few years after being waterboarded.

that's one persons opinion.... I'm for it all the way.

Maybe you should try it before slagging off others' opinions?

And contemplate the opinion that if it's OK for America to do it, America has no grounds to complain when its enemies are for it all the way when it's American troops on the receiving end.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808

Okay, show of hands here: If America permits waterboarding and other countries subsequently use it against American troops, who would be okay with that? If not, why not?

He died of cancer a few years after being waterboarded.

I was being facetious.

Maybe you should try it before slagging off others' opinions?

Or maybe not, that's my personal opinion.

And contemplate the opinion that if it's OK for America to do it, America has no grounds to complain when its enemies are for it all the way when it's American troops on the receiving end.

That goes with the territory, most soldiers understand that there could be a possibility that if captured, they could be subjected to waterboarding, regardless of how the general public feels about it. I say go all the way and there are many people that will agree, even if a few on JT do care.

"I heard enough arguments from people that can completely contradict stories from the anti-waterboarding crowd. It just depends on where you fall on this issue"

Please share them. I'm being sincere. I'd like to hear them.

Let me get what you said to Laguna's point straight. Your reaction to US soldiers being waterboarded would be something like "It's an occupational hazard"? Are there any other forms of enhanced interrogation/torture you'd shrug your shoulders at if US soldiers were captured?

Please share them. I'm being sincere. I'd like to hear them.

I'm being sincere when I tell you there are too many people to jot down and write who said what, when and where, needless to say, there are some people that are for it and some against it. We can sit here all day debating this, like with abortion and religion, it's not a winnable debate.

Let me get what you said to Laguna's point straight. Your reaction to US soldiers being waterboarded would be something like "It's an occupational hazard"?

Not Necessarily, but it is something that soldiers need to be aware of.

Are there any other forms of enhanced interrogation/torture you'd shrug your shoulders at if US soldiers were captured?

Not really, but there is a difference between enhanced interrogation to find out vital Intel or to torture people just for the sheer pleasure of it. That's not what the US is doing.

@Bass

No need for details. Just give me a quick idea. I'm genuinely interested in these ideas which contradict what Hitchens said about waterboarding.

You're being very unclear here with your "not necessarily" and "not really". It seems that you are saying you'd be fine with US soldiers being waterboarded by enemies as long as the enemies were doing it to extract information and not for perverted sadistic pleasure. Is that right?

And the right accuse the left of being fuzzy thinkers....

You're being very unclear here with your "not necessarily" and "not really".

No, that's just how you interpret it.

It seems that you are saying you'd be fine with US soldiers being waterboarded by enemies as long as the enemies were doing it to extract information and not for perverted sadistic pleasure. Is that right?

No, the opposite.

And the right accuse the left of being fuzzy thinkers....

But the left can't accuse the right of not at least being honest.

"It seems that you are saying you'd be fine with US soldiers being waterboarded by enemies as long as the enemies were doing it to extract information and not for perverted sadistic pleasure. Is that right?"

"No, the opposite."

The opposite? So, you're saying you'd be fine with US soldiers being waterboarded by enemies as long as the enemies were not doing it to extract information and we're doing it for perverted sadistic pleasure?

I don't think even Trump is going that far.

This argument reminds me of Cruz' statements that he would "carpet bomb" ISIS "into oblivion". Even after many with military knowledge pointed out that the multitude of "smart" weapons the Pentagon possesses has made carpet bombing as obsolete as, say, dumping buckets of hot pitch, Cruz wouldn't back down. Seems two things about being being a GOP presidential candidate are that you have to take idiotically tough (even if everything you've said comes straight from your butt), and you can never back down (even if the former has been pointed out by those with actual knowledge).

Like this guy, Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the commander of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, who differs (and, given his position, who likely knows about a zillion percent regarding these matters than Cruz). MacFarland said that carpet bombing whole regions - including, presumably, unlucky civilians - into oblivion is "inconsistent with our values." He added,

At the end of the day it doesn't only matter if you win. It's how you win. We're the United States of America. We have a set of guiding principles. Indiscriminate bombing, where we don't care if we're killing innocents or combatants, is just inconsistent with our values.

I assume he has similar feelings about water boarding. But then, perhaps America has learned nothing from the Iraq debacle, and perhaps a GOP Commander-In-Chief would set America back on the course it was on under Bush. All of the GOP front runners - Trump, Cruz, Rubio - have stated their revanchist policies to clearly to backtrack. Soon it will be time for Americans to choose.

Waterboarding is torture.

At least it WAS when the Japanese military was doing it to Allied prisoners. In fact, in the war trials after WWII, several Japanese were executed for it.

Funny how it no longer becomes torture when the US does it.

The opposite? So, you're saying you'd be fine with US soldiers being waterboarded by enemies as long as the enemies were not doing it to extract information and we're doing it for perverted sadistic pleasure?

You're not funny. I'm perfectly content of US solidiers use Enhanced interrogation techniques of high value like Khalid Sheik Muhammad in order to extract vital Intel and as long as that's conducted solely for that purpose, I'm all for it.

I don't think even Trump is going that.

You might be wrong. So far, we've all been wrong to peg the man down.

@bass

Just answer the question. It's very simple. If it's okay for the US to use 'enhanced interrogation', is it okay for enemies of the US to use it against the US? If not, why not?

I was being facetious.

About a man dying? To what point?

most soldiers understand that there could be a possibility that if captured, they could be subjected to waterboarding

And in your world, they would have no reason to expect their leaders back home would do much more than shrug their shoulders?

I say go all the way and there are many people that will agree, even if a few on JT do care.

At least you admit that you don't number yourself among those who do care what happens to the people you're so eager to send out and fight for you. Good of you to be so honest.

Okay, show of hands here: If America permits waterboarding and other countries subsequently use it against American troops, who would be okay with that?

Yeah, imagine if Iran had waterboarded the US marines they detained recently. Some were complaining that they were simply filmed, so imagine if they were waterboarded.

I have problems with people volunteering to be waterboarded and then claiming it was no big thing. The thing is that when real detainees get waterboarded, they don't have the same assurances that they will not be drowned, they actually think they might drown. Imagine being captured by ISIS and they enact a beheading, you feel and believe they are actually slicing your neck, but its not a real knife. That would be torture...

at were recently detained by

What about burning to death in cages like ISIS did to that Jordanian pilot?

What about burning to death in cages like ISIS did to that Jordanian pilot?

Okay, yeah, that was an utter atrocity. But so what? Are you arguing that ISIS atrocities gives the US leeway to do whatever they want as long as their methods are a smidgen less atrocious? As if America could burn people to death but not in cages or burn people in cages but not to death and then point to their relative restraint as a sign of their benevolence?

I'm sorry, but torture is not relative.

Just answer the question. It's very simple. If it's okay for the US to use 'enhanced interrogation', is it okay for enemies of the US to use it against the US? If not, why not?

Rhetorical question? Not up for me or anyone to decide. If the enemy uses it to try and extract information, that goes with the territory of war, you just might get captured and either be killed, tortured or interrogated. Irrelevant what my personal beliefs are.

About a man dying? To what point?

No, the joke about Hitchens.

And in your world, they would have no reason to expect their leaders back home would do much more than shrug their shoulders?

Not in my world, unless you can do a prisoner exchange, which seems to be the norm these days with this admin. or some other form of concessions, it's very hard to say what the Pentagon would do behind the scenes. In the old days, Americans weren't targets because we didn't negotiate with the enemy, now we have spineless president, soon to leave office thankfully and hope the next president doesn't do the same idiotic mistakes this blundering fools has been doing for the last 7 years.

At least you admit that you don't number yourself among those who do care what happens to the people you're so eager to send out and fight for you. Good of you to be so honest

Sorry, that's not what I said, nice try my dear, but I know the risks, been to Iraq and I knew the risks going there on assignment, but I had a job to do and thankfully I was lucky. Every soldier and journalist, mercenary and contract worker knows this. Has nothing to do with caring for my fellow countrymen.

Waterboarding is torture.

That's your opinion, in my opinion, I don't think it is at all and even if it were, when it comes to terrorists, who cares?

At least it WAS when the Japanese military was doing it to Allied prisoners. In fact, in the war trials after WWII, several Japanese were executed for it.

That's Japan and most Japanese used it as a means to torture and not to gain pertinent information, mostly.

Funny how it no longer becomes torture when the US does it.

Because it's not.

Bertie: "it WAS when the Japanese military was doing it to Allied prisoners. In fact, in the war trials after WWII, several Japanese were executed for it."

Bass: "That's Japan and most Japanese used it as a means to torture and not to gain pertinent information, mostly."

Bertie: "Funny how it no longer becomes torture when the US does it."

Bass: "Because it's not."

So, the Japanese used waterboarding as torture but it isn't torture?

After all the head scratching over drowning by inches vs. execution by fire the only point that matters from the article is a simple one anyone can understand.

Donald J. Trump, haberdasher and television personality, endorses and demands torture in the name of every American Citizen. That's sick, and most American will not agree, AWOL's Bush's torture squads spoiled the game at Abu Ghraib.

(Now Trump will have Americans build their own Abu Ghraib on the Mexican border?)

And, according to Trump, Americans should cheer wildly his stupidity and feather bed ferocity. Trump is a fraud who ran from war and blames veterans for being captured and held prisoner.

Now, he, Dictator Trump, demands the practice of torture and the GOP Shia-Tea cheering look like the most ignorant because they haven't the mental firepower to want anything except Trump's categorically illegal use of torture.

the joke about Hitchens

Sorry, that must have gone right over my head. What joke?

Not in my world, unless you can do a prisoner exchange, which seems to be the norm these days with this admin. or some other form of concessions

Can't say I understand the American military psyche, but I'm willing to bet most captured soldiers and their families would much prefer a prisoner exchange to any of the alternatives.

In the old days, Americans weren't targets because we didn't negotiate with the enemy

You mean back when towers were being flown into? That was better?

Sorry, that's not what I said

Sorry, but that's exactly what you said: I say go all the way and there are many people that will agree, even if a few on JT do care. - which means you are not one of the few who do care. Unless you got your sentence so mixed up you wrote the opposite of what you intended, which is hard to believe of one with your long and distinguished career in journalism.

most Japanese used it as a means to torture and not to gain pertinent information

Your source, please. At the Tokyo Trials following WWII, Japanese soldiers were charged with torture, including 'water-based interrogation' - waterboarding. Why do you think the Bad Guys torture people? Just for the fun of it?

R. John Pritchard, a historian and lawyer who is a top scholar on the trials, said the Japanese felt the ends justified the means. "The rapid and effective collection of intelligence then, as now, was seen as vital to a successful struggle, and in addition, those who were engaged in torture often felt that whatever pain and anguish was suffered by the victims of torture was nothing less than the just deserts of the victims or people close to them," Sounds a lot like your own expressed opinion, bass. Chillingly extreme.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/

Y'all may like to know, while Americans are evenly split on the use of 'enhanced interrogation', the Republican party is not. Republicans overwhelmingly favor torture.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/slim-majority-wants-bush-era-interrogations-investigated.aspx

So, here's Trump, reading the polls and saying what he needs to please his audience. Which he will then flip flop if he gets to the general election.

The man is anything but a straight shooter. He is an opportunisitc carnival barker, saying what many Republicans want to hear.

Yet again we see Trump has neither the character nor the temperament to be the President.

"Republicans overwhelmingly favor torture." Like pulling teeth and fingernails (with no anesthesia)?

Water-boarding doesn't set a good precedent.

That said, let's have another show of hands here. Who thinks Martin Shkreli should be water-boarded? Not to find out what he knows, just to make him suffer. I think I'd actually pay good money to see that. Maybe Mr Trump is listening and can pick up my idea as a new reality show.

Republicans: party of torture.

Might as well not have "torture" at all because it's not real torture, compared to what a Mexican drug cartel would do to its enemy. Is anyone kidding? USA's standard of "torture" is a joke. And in that case don't even have "enhanced interrogation".

Is this where the GOP is at these days? Torture, carpet bombing, and a ban on Muslims? Seems pretty extreme to me. I'm not sure how you can win the hearts and minds of regular Muslims with such policies, and we need those people to help us combat extremism. You'd have to be pretty short sighted to not see that.

I'm sure you can be short-sighted and insane.

So, the Japanese used waterboarding as torture but it isn't torture?

If you define it as torture, then maybe for you it is. I don't see it as torture, I see it when it is applied as such to obtain information, uncomfortable, yes. If it is not used in the process for fun or to purposely murder a person for pleasure, in that sense, then it wouldn't be torture.

Sorry, that must have gone right over my head. What joke?

It did, sorry that it went over your head.

Can't say I understand the American military psyche,

Then there is no need to comment.

but I'm willing to bet most captured soldiers and their families would much prefer a prisoner exchange to any of the alternatives.

Sure, but until this president came along, our policy for decades was to NEVER negotiate with terrorists, that's why we never had a problem with abductions, but that's changed now recently. Because once you give in to that, the price for Americans goes up knowing now these terrorists have something to gain and this will encourage more kidnapping.

Sorry, but that's exactly what you said: I say go all the way and there are many people that will agree, even if a few on JT do care. - which means you are not one of the few who do care. Unless you got your sentence so mixed up you wrote the opposite of what you intended, which is hard to believe of one with your long and distinguished career in journalism.

Cleo, if you care, that's fine. Do I care about my countrymen, I do. Do I know the risks involved as to what can happen if you are abducted, I do. Does that mean if we have a terrorist because some people think we should make a ham sandwich and talk to them, have them give us faulty information and go around the block and play mind games with them, I absolutely do not. You do whatever it takes to extract information, I firmly stand by that position and there are many people that will agree and some that won't. I am for whatever it takes to stop any attack on the country and if some people on JT disagree....Oh, well.

Your source, please. At the Tokyo Trials following WWII, Japanese soldiers were charged with torture, including 'water-based interrogation' - waterboarding. Why do you think the Bad Guys torture people? Just for the fun of it?

I am saying most of the waterboarding that was done was not to extract information, I didn't mean all of it, this was from various allied soldiers that were held as POWs and as far as what we know MOSTLY so far historically speaking that is what happened.

R. John Pritchard, a historian and lawyer who is a top scholar on the trials, said the Japanese felt the ends justified the means.

Ok, so what's your point. That's what they did, I understand.

"The rapid and effective collection of intelligence then, as now, was seen as vital to a successful struggle, and in addition, those who were engaged in torture often felt that whatever pain and anguish was suffered by the victims of torture was nothing less than the just deserts of the victims or people close to them," Sounds a lot like your own expressed opinion, bass. Chillingly extreme.

Still doesn't change my position on the matter, I believe it is a tool, we should use when it is necessary and No, I don't have any sympathy for any terrorist, the same people that would kill you in a heartbeat no matter how you try to defend the tactic. Also, I don't buy that Obama and his minions would not use enhanced interrogations, if the man where pushed to do so, as sneaky as he has been with his so called military advisors which are actually Special Ops engaged in a military conflict, but chooses NOT to use the euphemism.

"Republicans overwhelmingly favor torture." Like pulling teeth and fingernails (with no anesthesia)?

Whatever it takes to get the information.

Republicans: party of torture.

Democrats: party of capitulation and weakness.

Is this where the GOP is at these days? Torture, carpet bombing, and a ban on Muslims?

If the actions are appropriate to safeguard the country from radical Islam, then so be it. I hope so.

Seems pretty extreme to me.

To the majority of liberals, probably.

I'm not sure how you can win the hearts and minds of regular Muslims with such policies, and we need those people to help us combat extremism. You'd have to be pretty short sighted to not see that.

But we can't go by what they think, we have to go by what is in the best interest for the country. The difference is the GOP is honest about it and the liberals will do it behind closed doors.

@Bass came along, our policy for decades was to NEVER negotiate with terrorists,

Stope revising history: Reagan's Iran Contra-gate? Or are you going to give him the 'he had Alzheimers' out?

Stope revising history: Reagan's Iran Contra-gate? Or are you going to give him the 'he had Alzheimers' out?

Stope? Anyway, so once again, let's go through the liberal time warp machine in order to make an irrational argument.

If it is not used in the process for fun or to purposely murder a person for pleasure, in that sense, then it wouldn't be torture

You're saying torture isn't torture so long as it's used for interrogation? Even by the Bad Guys?

I am saying most of the waterboarding that was done was not to extract information

For the second time of asking, sources, please.

we can't go by what they think, we have to go by what is in the best interest for the country.

I think most people understand that NOT turning the majority of moderate muslims against America would be very much in the best interests of the country.

so once again, let's go through the liberal time warp machine in order to make an irrational argument.

Bass, looking at history to determine whether a 'we never did *whatever' in the past' statement is correct or not, is not making an irrational argument. It's countering one. It takes only one historical example (like Contra-gate) to prove that the 'we never' claim is incorrect.

@Bass Sure, but until this president came along, our policy for decades was to NEVER negotiate with terrorists, that's why we never had a problem with abductions

let's go through the liberal time warp machine in order to make an irrational argument.

You've written before that in rightwingland history began 7 years ago. Reagan negotiated with terrorists: reality. Were you in Iraq working for MSM, or is that still secret?

"Republicans overwhelmingly favor torture." Like pulling teeth and fingernails (with no anesthesia)?"

"Whatever it takes to get the information."

Wow. Whatever it takes....

Jimizo et al

Take a big breadth. The more Republicans talk about about just how American torture is, the easier it is for Democrats to get elected.

Doesn't the Geneva convention prohibit torture?

You're saying torture isn't torture so long as it's used for interrogation? Even by the Bad Guys.

No, I'm saying, regardless of what or how you want to define it, I think it's a very essential tool to use when you're doing interrogations.

For the second time of asking, sources, please.

I already explained my point, please go back and read what I wrote for the second time.

I think most people understand that NOT turning the majority of moderate muslims against America would be very much in the best interests of the country.

And they wouldn't, especially if they know it's in the best interest of national security, taking the emotional aspect out of the argument.

looking at history to determine whether a 'we never did *whatever' in the past' statement is correct or not, is not making an irrational argument.

That's your point of view and depend on what "You" personally find as irrational.

You've written before that in rightwingland history began 7 years ago. Reagan negotiated with terrorists: reality. Were you in Iraq working for MSM, or is that still secret?

No, it wasn't and the level of extortion and negotiation for a rouge regime such as Iran that is bent on destroying the US and Israel would not have been something Reagan would have went into.

Wow. Whatever it takes.

Exactly.

Take a big breadth. The more Republicans talk about about just how American torture is, the easier it is for Democrats to get elected

"April 1st" is stil a couple of months away. LOL

Doesn't the Geneva convention prohibit torture?

Seriously, who cares what a useless empty vessel organization like the UN thinks? Sorry, they do a very nice job when it comes to distributing money for humanitarian efforts.

No, I'm saying, regardless of what or how you want to define it, I think it's a very essential tool to use when you're doing interrogations.

So you'd agree its an essential tool when American soldiers are being interrogated, correct?

Seriously, who cares what a useless empty vessel organization like the UN thinks?

Where did I say anything about the UN? America thinks this - which is why America is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Are you saying we shouldn't care what America thinks?

So you'd agree its an essential tool when American soldiers are being interrogated, correct?

I'm not here to speak for ANY foreign government. It's irrelevant what I think when it comes to foreign countries capturing and interrogating them. I know once their captured the same thing can happen to them. They know this going in. If your a pilot and you get shot down behind enemy lines and you are captured, you know and understand that you could possibly be subjected to their interrogations. For us, it's been a very essential and valuable tool, for others, I can't say.

Are you saying we shouldn't care what America thinks?

If the people don't, it's ok, as far as governments are concerned, the majority do care. Especially if they need and want our money.

I'm not here to speak for ANY foreign government. It's irrelevant what I think when it comes to foreign countries capturing and interrogating them.

No, it's entirely relevant. Just as you justify using torture because the enemy uses torture, so will other enemies justify torture against US soldiers. By bringing the US down to that level, you invite other enemies to bring them down to the level of the US.

I know once their captured the same thing can happen to them. They know this going in.

Right now they know that their country has signed the Geneva Convention prohibiting torture, and therefore only the most despicable of enemies will use torture against them. If the US starts using torture against enemies, the soldiers will know that even more enemies will be using torture against them.

Have you ever even asked a soldier what they think of the idea of using torture against enemy combatants? And if they are ok with it, knowing that this increases the risk of themselves being tortured?

it's a very essential tool to use when you're doing interrogations

And also when the bad guys are doing interrogations? Then why were the Japanese water boarders found guilty of war crimes and executed? For doing what was essential at the time?

I already explained my point, please go back and read what I wrote for the second time.

I read what you wrote several times over, I still see nowhere where you give any sources for your claims that most Japanese used it as a means to torture and not to gain pertinent information and I am saying most of the waterboarding that was done was not to extract information, I didn't mean all of it, this was from various allied soldiers that were held as POWs and as far as what we know MOSTLY so far historically speaking that is what happened. It shouldn't need to be pointed out to you that 'bass sez so, so that's how it is' is NOT a legitimate source.

No, it's entirely relevant.

How so?

Just as you justify using torture because the enemy uses torture, so will other enemies justify torture against US soldiers.

I'm aware, it's always been like that through history.

By bringing the US down to that level,

So how should they extract the intel if they don't use coercive interrogation methods? Make a cozy room, pillow, perhaps a hm or Nutella sandwich?

you invite other enemies to bring them down to the level of the US

I want an America that is powerful enough to scare the terrorists so bad, thinking about touching an American will be a very serious nightmare for them.

Right now they know that their country has signed the Geneva Convention prohibiting torture, and therefore only the most despicable of enemies will use torture against them.

If you think so.

If the US starts using torture against enemies, the soldiers will know that even more enemies will be using torture against them.

Then we will just have to perpetuate the cycle until one emerges the victor and by best estimate from the firepower, we have, it would be us.

Have you ever even asked a soldier what they think of the idea of using torture against enemy combatants?

Yeah, half of my family and friends in my neighborhood. They're all for it and then some.

And if they are ok with it, knowing that this increases the risk of themselves being tortured.

That's the sad and harsh reality of war.

And also when the bad guys are doing interrogations? Then why were the Japanese water boarders found guilty of war crimes and executed? For doing what was essential at the time?

I can't speak for Japan, but I remember they did bomb Pearl Harbor. So go figure.

I read what you wrote several times over,

Please go over it a few more times.

I still see nowhere where you give any sources for your claims that most Japanese used it as a means to torture and not to gain pertinent information and I am saying most of the waterboarding that was done was not to extract information, I didn't mean all of it, this was from various allied soldiers that were held as POWs and as far as what we know MOSTLY so far historically speaking that is what happened.

Yes, that's correct.

It shouldn't need to be pointed out to you that 'bass sez so, so that's how it is' is NOT a legitimate source.

If you think so, then that's what you think. I have no problem with your personal opinion. But I reject it, that's my stance.

Agreed. The damned beast is ravenous.

The damned beast is ravenous.

Well, then let's hope the rope and choke chain can restrain Clinton.

There's just so much fear and anger on the GOP side. They scoff at the notion of building coalitions on international issues and instead choose endless strong-arm tactics for both our enemies and our allies. They just don't understand how the world works today.

Is announcing a return to waterboarding and more really the key to defeating ISIS? It's going to drive a wedge between us and our allies. It's going to be a distraction, will probably cause endless lawsuits, will be mentioned by China and Russia on a daily basis, will be used as radical propaganda, the list goes on and on. In exchange we get the off-chance that we have a terrorist and he has actionable information and gives it up only after waterboarding. (Because I'm assuming you don't just start off with that, but I wouldn't put it past some people here.)

"Well, then let's hope the rope and choke chain can restrain Clinton." For years you wanted Obama arrested for his crimes. But how do you feel since he was never arrested? And if Clinton is never arrested what are you going to do?

And if Clinton is never arrested what are you going to do?

Denial.

It's like a mom to them.

It's funny that two people who tried to go against Planned Parenthood have been arrested. The same pattern can be seen with Terry Lakin trying to go against Obama for believing he faked his BC (a major crime) and Lakin ended up with prison time while Obama just laughed it off and pointed to Laken saying "there's stupid". Let's see what happens to anyone who takes it to the extreme with trying to take down Clinton.

Trump calls for waterboarding, other methods in U.S. fight against ISIS.

I recommend forcing people to endless listen to and watch AKB47. That would break anyone.

Anyone.

Black SabbathFeb. 09, 2016 - 03:24AM JST

"Republicans: party of torture."

Last I checked it wasn't the Republicans sawing peoples heads off.