BF2S Forums Bush vetos anti torture measures.

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

As much as I would always side with the anti torture league, the following scenario keeps popping up in my mind and makes me uncertain. Consider this, a hypothetical example which although unlikely, is a possibility:

A member of your family is kidnapped and held by a militant extremist group for ransom. The consequence of not meeting their demands is painful death of your family member. The Forces on the ground have captured one of the men associated with the group and are certain he knows the location of your family member. As you would expect, he hates the force that he thinks has invaded his country, and he isnt talking. Would you support Allied forces using extra ordinary methods ( ie torture/waterboarding etc) so that the location of your family member is divulged?

I hate to say it, but if that situation arose in my life I would probably want Allied forces to use pretty much any means necessary to get the info that may save my family members life. In fact I wouldnt feel bad if they used a blowtorch and and a hammer to extract info that would lead to the safe release of my family member. I really feel dirty, and kinda evil for thinking that but thats how I would probably act in that situation.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-03-10 03:55:54)

KylieTastic wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Anything that doesn't leave a permanent scar is fine by me. Waterboard the fuckers all you want U.S. government.

Make up your mind!

wikipedia wrote:

Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

As much as I would always side with the anti torture league, the following scenario keeps popping up in my mind and makes me uncertain. Consider this, a hypothetical example which although unlikely, is a possibility:

A member of your family is kidnapped and held by a militant extremist group for ransom. The consequence of not meeting their demands is painful death of your family member. The Forces on the ground have captured one of the men associated with the group and are certain he knows the location of your family member. As you would expect, he hates the force that he thinks has invaded his country, and he isnt talking. Would you support Allied forces using extra ordinary methods ( ie torture/waterboarding etc) so that the location of your family member is divulged?

I hate to say it, but if that situation arose in my life I would probably want Allied forces to use pretty much any means necessary to get the info that may save my family members life. In fact I wouldnt feel bad if they used a blowtorch and and a hammer to extract info that would lead to the safe release of my family member. I really feel dirty, and kinda evil for thinking that but thats how I would probably act in that situation.

My sister is in the Middle East at the moment, and although she is in a reasonably safe environment, we as humans often dream up worst case scenarios. Before answering, or flaming, put yourself in the hypothetical situation I mentioned above. Think about it for a bit then reply.

Bush knows about alot of shit going on that you aren't privy to.

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

As much as I would always side with the anti torture league, the following scenario keeps popping up in my mind and makes me uncertain. Consider this, a hypothetical example which although unlikely, is a possibility:

A member of your family is kidnapped and held by a militant extremist group for ransom. The consequence of not meeting their demands is painful death of your family member. The Forces on the ground have captured one of the men associated with the group and are certain he knows the location of your family member. As you would expect, he hates the force that he thinks has invaded his country, and he isnt talking. Would you support Allied forces using extra ordinary methods ( ie torture/waterboarding etc) so that the location of your family member is divulged?

I hate to say it, but if that situation arose in my life I would probably want Allied forces to use pretty much any means necessary to get the info that may save my family members life. In fact I wouldnt feel bad if they used a blowtorch and and a hammer to extract info that would lead to the safe release of my family member. I really feel dirty, and kinda evil for thinking that but thats how I would probably act in that situation.

My sister is in the Middle East at the moment, and although she is in a reasonably safe environment, we as humans often dream up worst case scenarios. Before answering, or flaming, put yourself in the hypothetical situation I mentioned above. Think about it for a bit then reply.

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bush knows about alot of shit going on that you aren't privy to.

Yup, like how much money he and his friends are making out of the 'war on terror'.

Seriously GTFO, you dont stay on the topic at hand, and when you do you post false statements, not based on any facts, GTFOver BUSH hes an idiot, you cant blame all of USA's problems on him...

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Does he also know a lot of shit going on that the United States Congress does not? Because it was their bill he vetoed.

FEOS wrote:

Yes.

Dilbert_X wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Does he also know a lot of shit going on that the United States Congress does not? Because it was their bill he vetoed.

FEOS wrote:

Yes.

Source?

Most SAPs start out as Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (USAP), better known as black projects. The F-117A Nighthawk and the B-2 Spirit are examples of projects that started out as Unacknowledged SAPs. A DOD manual describes a USAP as follows:

"Unacknowledged SAPs require a significantly greater degree of protection than acknowledged SAPs... A SAP with protective controls that ensures the existence of the Program is not acknowledged, affirmed, or made known to any person not authorized for such information. All aspects (e.g., technical, operational, logistical, etc.) are handled in an unacknowledged manner." (2)

If questioned about a particular USAP, the persons involved are under orders to deny such a program exists. It is not allowed to react with a "no comment", because that would immediately fuel suspicions that something is being hidden and is likely to cause further inquiries. Officers not accessed for a USAP, even superior ones, are to be given the same response. The more sensitive the program, the more protection the commanding officer can demand. He could even subject his personnel to regular lie detector tests to see whether or not a person has compromised the project. According to a 1997 Senate investigation:

"Additional security requirements to protect these special access programs can range from mere upgrades of the collateral system’s requirements (such as rosters specifying who is to have access to the information) to entire facilities being equipped with added physical security measures or elaborate and expensive cover, concealment, deception, and operational security plans." (3)

There are two versions of the Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. The first one is the regular USAP. These regular USAPs are reported in the same manner as their acknowledged versions. In closed sessions, the House National Security Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the defense subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations committees can get some basic information about them. The Secretary of Defense, however, can decide to 'waive' particularly sensitive USAPs. These are unofficially referred to as deep black programs. According to Jane's in January 2000:

"Among black programs, further distinction is made for "waived" programs, considered to be so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress. The chairperson, ranking member, and, on occasion, other members and staff of relevant Congressional committees are notified only orally of the existence of these programs." (4)

FEOS wrote:

Among black programs, further distinction is made for "waived" programs, considered to be so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress. The chairperson, ranking member, and, on occasion, other members and staff of relevant Congressional committees are notified only orally of the existence of these programs."

Dilbert_X wrote:

usmarine wrote:

YOU have fun with that when we invade your asses for oil...........and tim hortons.

We're your ally remember?
Still, in 30-40 years according to the projections every American will be too fat to walk.
If you can get here the Abos will have fun eating your troops. Yum yum long pig.

Normally, it's activities, not assessments. If the assessments are derived principally from those waived activities, then the assessment themselves could fall under the same waived caveat. Protection of sources and methods.

And canucks aint that skinny babe.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-03-11 06:24:34)