Good old George uses his veto

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Dog-faced-soldier, Mar 8, 2008.

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. Ah, another noble moment for that shining city on a hill, bastion of freedom and decency ... another stain to besmirch America's reputation, inflicted by none other than the incoherent, draft-dodging chimp himself.

    We love you, America, really, but please employ some better examples of wisdom, decency and intelligence to represent your country, because the current joke has gone too far.
  2. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    I doubt that The Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended the Presidential Veto to be used in that way.

    Bad call, GW ... still, not much longer to go now.
  3. Television sure does its job well.
  4. If he does not consider waterboarding torture, I suggest we try it out on him, and then see what he says. :roll:
  5. Waterboarding is effective and is used judiciously. I definitely support the President on this issue. Yes I have experienced waterboarding its unpleasant but nothing like having your bones broken or the other torture that our troops have experienced at the hands of AQ.
  6. Well, if it is not so bad after all, I truly encourage your president to have it demonstated on himself on national telly. Sure and there would be a huge audience for this and we would all get to see how it does not equate to torture at all.
  7. One of the more disturbing things about this embrace of torture by the US is that John McCain (who by the way should know better than most) supports the Torturer-in-Chief.

    If McCain can justify the torture of others, then I am sure someone else can justify his days at the Hanoi Hilton. He can't have it both ways. Touting his courage as a POW in the face of torture until recently, and now that he has to placate the heatless masses that are the GOP, he is pandering to the ''kill 'em all crowd."
  8. I wonder how many countless lives, both of civvies and our soldiers, have been saved because of the information we've taken from scum bags who wish us dead, would love to rape our women, smack our kids heads on stones and steal our countries if they could?

    It is our enemies who are the ones trying to prevent us from getting this information out of prisoners.

    Let's look at this another way. If someone has my wife and kids locked up in a dark cellar and is planning to torture them and murder them and I catch them, am I going to ask them nicely to play ball? Nope, I'm going to f*ck them over with every conceivable torture going until I find out where my family is. And when I get the information and my family is safe, I'm going to drop a large rock on his head and let my wife and kids watch when I do it.
  9. Big words from a small man.
  10. But torture doesn't work - anyone will say anything when faced with certain...situations.

    Interesting article on it...

    The Torture Myth

    By Anne Applebaum
    Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

    Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let's also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse "cruel and unusual" methods. In advance of confirmation hearings for Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales last week, the Wall Street Journal argued that such scenarios must be debated, since "what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians." Alan Dershowitz, the liberal legal scholar, has argued in the past that interrogators in such a case should get a "torture warrant" from a judge. Both of these arguments rest on an assumption: that torture -- defined as physical pressure during interrogation -- can be used to extract useful information.

    But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

    By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

    Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

    Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

    An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

    Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

    Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.
  11. Waterboarding has only been used on three terrorists.
  12. I agree. Furthermore, the interrogation methods (previously) used by British forces aren't "torture" either. Many of us have experienced it as a normal part of our training; stress postions, white noise etc certainly do put the individual into a state where they're susceptible to questioning, but they're a thousand miles from physical harm, whether it's a fist in the face or a knife through the windpipe. Unfortunately, the propaganda of our opponents has been extremely successful in limiting our use of such aids to interrogation in the past few decades, to our* detriment.

    *the free, democratic nations.
  13. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    @ KevinB ... the theory sounds great.

    And, once you've stopped beating the "remaining four" and you find out they have lied, what do you? Beat them more, and get more lies? ... they might get tired of that cyclic process and confess? Or say, "OK, you know nothing" and let them go?

    I am generally persuaded that the psychological approach is most likely to be productive, but who has the time and resources to exploit fully the potential of that [inevitably slow] process? Especially when a bomb is ticking somewhere ... ?