George W Bush Defends Waterboarding

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by Hugh McManners, Nov 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. George W Bush's decision (fully admitted by him) to water board al-Qaeda suspects following 9/11, was ill-conceived with political (rather than tactical) motives, and gave the terrorists additional success.

  2. We should do more than waterboarding to gain information off these scumbags. Britain will never do it though as we're ran by a bunch of pussies.
  3. No, he didn't. That is lies. You have chosen to misrepresent what has been widely printed in the MSM in order to further your own pathetic political views. You obviously think the people on this site are as pig shit ignorant as you are!

    Waterboarding??? a version of that was part of my E&E training as a 16 year old at Shorncliffe, you total tosser!

    As has been stated, who apart from all you liberal marxist fuckwits gives a shit anyway. I'd toast the **** over an open fire if I thought he would cough.
  4. In the interview I saw tonight, Bush defended the use of waterboarding. He said it was only used on three individuals, out of all those captured. And that waterboarding these terrorists provided information that prevented attacks on Heathrow and Canary Wharf, saving British lives.

    I don't recall him saying Waterboarding was only used for political purposes, or that it's use was ill-conceived. Quite the opposite, in fact.
  5. The extract posted here isn't what the article said at all. But on the other hand, if you were waterboarded at the age of 16, I'd agree that there's probably no point reading anything I've got to say on the subject.
  6. What the F***k ?? are we supposed to ask them nicely over a cup of tea ?
    We should use any means to gain intel from these terrorists .
  7. So why post it?

    And, it came from your blog.

    Bye then, ******!!
  8. I didn't post it - as it's an RSS feed which ARRSe takes from my blog.

    I'd suggest ACAB read my blog before sounding off, but judging from your response that would be a waste of time. so goodbye to you.

    For others reading this thread, it's generally accepted that torture produces unreliable information, so a President ordering it is extraordinary.

    It's also an acceptance that legal methods aren't working, and that the government is losing control, which is exactly what the terrorists are trying to achieve. GW Bush went on to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq - all as part of his response to 911, which I think was misguided.
  9. Crap, it's generally accepted that 'moderate' torture provides very reliable information. However, the more extreme the torture the more 'extreme' the responses become IE: in an attempt to get you to remove the battery clips from his testicles he will tell you what he thinks you want to know, not what is true. Waterboarding (which produces a sensation of panic as opposed to physical harm) scores about 1 out of 10 in the Good Torturers Cook Book.

    As to legal methods aren't working, couldn't agree more. Get rid of the ECHR Act and break out the pliers and tyre irons
  10. Whatever your thoughts on waterboarding, and I don't agree with it, I would want to see the evidence that it does work, George Bush certainly didn't say what's being claimed in this thread. I saw him on the television when he was talking about it and he resolutely defended his decision to sanction it's use saying that it was a lesser form of pursuasion than others that had been suggested to him. He also said that waterboarding had saved American and British lives and that in terms of saving American lives, that was his job as the POTUS.
  11. I'd just like to repeat that the 'posting' which started this thread, which ARRSe took by RSS feed, is a totally inaccurate summary of what I said in my blog. I will take this up with the moderators tomorrow.

    ACAB ought to do a bit more research. I think we can pretty sure that he's not talking from personal experience. The CIA’s so-called "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, which dates from 1963 and was published after a Freedom of Information Act law suit in 1997, states that pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, and that a far more effective use of pain is that which the prisoner seems to inflict upon himself – for example by being told to stand at attention for long periods. This avoids contests between torturer and prisoner. It also says that threats of violence by interrogators are seen as being more effective than actual violence.

    The CIA manual says that actual torture is quite likely to produce false confessions, as a means of escaping from distress, which have to be investigated. The prisoner can use this time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. The manual also discusses the use of drugs and hypnosis.

    I suppose it's regarded as OK to talk about pliers, tyre irons and bulldog clips while sheltering behind the anonymity of usernames here on ARRSe. I'm new here so if that's what you do, crack on. You do your thing - and I'll do mine.
  12. Rather, old chap. I don't want to come over all voyeur ... oh my ... but do post the photographs when you've done yours.

  13. ACAB doesn't need to any more 'research'. I'll leave research to the likes of you.

    Significantly, torture has been 'de rigeur' for centuries. You don't have to agree with it but don't say it's not effective. I was on a course about a decade ago headed by a man who is a 'doyenne' of the defence barrister types in what is, or is not, classed as torture. He should know as he freely admits torturing a number of arabic type individuals in the 50s. He NOW states that torture is 'inhumane' and 'ineffective'. I asked him if he felt that at the time. I also asked if he was happy for Ops to commence on the intelligence he had obtained, by his own admission, as a result of torture. His reply was 'next question'
  14. 'Where shall I apply these electrodes?'
  15. But a good point mate. Needless to say, he has gone on to make rather a tidy wad by rubbishing the very ethos he once swore by.

    Hypocrites, don't you just love them!