From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RobS, did you read the citation? It says "Mr Cheney implied that the technique - a form of simulated drowning - was used on the alleged September 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantánamo Bay."-AmesGyo! 14:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but this isn't Wikipedia. Under WP:Verifiability, you can add that kinda garbage despite the fact that the actual radio transcript PROVES it is a false citation from the Guardian, as well as the other link that was removed. RobS 14:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Show me the transcript.-AmesGyo! 14:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here. [1] RobS 14:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I read it. He says, "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation." I'm putting the line back, but with the quote. You'll like it.-AmesGyo! 15:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I added this - "In a recent interview, Vice President Dick Cheney described waterboarding as a "very important tool" in the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but said that he did not consider it torture h[ttp://]" No doubt it's factual, it's straight from the interview. Cut out the middle man. Take that, BBC!-AmesGyo! 15:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It reads,

...our ability to interrogate..."; says nothing about waterboarding and continues with,
"The Congress recently voted on this question of military commissions and our authority to continue the interrogation program. It passed both Houses, fortunately. The President signed it into law, but the fact is 177 Democrats in the House -- or excuse me, 162 Democrats in the House voted against it, and 32 out of 44 senators -- Democratic senators voted against it.

and as he concludes in the next sequence,

" We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

So even as the Guardian stated, "implied" is clearly false. And the Christian Science Monitor article is pure defamatory, disinformation, wholey without a shred of credible merit, and patently false. Any claim on any subject from any of these organizations, or the authors involved, is henceforth suspect RobS 15:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

He said, "we don't torture," because he doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Why would he say it was a "very important tool" in that investigation, had it not been used? -AmesGyo! 15:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The question posited by the host on behalf of listeners was
if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we [the good folks in the Heartland] are all for it, if it saves American lives."
The Guardian conventiently left off both the hypothetical nature of the question, more specifically, and most importantly, the qualifier, "if it saves American lives". Neither the "No brainer" headline they ran with, or the article abstract, carry the qualifier to the hypothetical, "torture is a no-brainer if it saves American lives." Thus by no tortured reasoning now can any of these sources, including the White House transcript, be used in this article. RobS 15:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, why can't we use a White House transcript to say what Dick Cheney said? You seem to be slightly off base on a lot of these arguments, but I really fail to see why a primary source of what Dick Cheney said doesn't properly explain what Dick Cheney said.-AmesGyo! 15:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Have to agree w/ Ames on this one. Why can't a WH transcript suffice? Flippin 15:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
It's too late. This is nothing more than an effort to defame a living person, and does not address the subject matter of this article. RobS 15:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

To defame a living person with what he said on the record? Do you censor everything bad anyone you like does or says? Becuase I bet that keeps you busy - it'd keep me busy.-AmesGyo! 16:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It does become a chore to defend against false defamations, having to prove a negative. Let's call it responding to left-wing McCarthyism and McCartyite-style smears. RobS 16:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It becomes copious and valueless to fight with you on this topic. You seem unable to acknowledge the points presented against you. As such, it is a waste of my time. Could a reasonable sysop resolve this debate please?-AmesGyo! 16:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry but I just have to disagree with you; simply because the Guardian and Christian Science Monitor peaked your interest in defaming Dick Cheney with bald face lies gives no reason whatsoever to keep talking about it. And rewarding readers with appetites for lies with more contortions to try and make these lies credible is scandalous, IMHO. RobS 16:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps both sides need to cool off. Ames, please review Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. --Ed Poor 16:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ed, I think you're right. Could you look at the debate, though? The question is whether a White House transcript of an interview with Dick Cheney may be used in an article on waterboarding.-AmesGyo! 16:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


Try Debate:Is waterboarding torture?. It might help to bring clarity of thinking. Then we can resume work on the article. --Ed Poor 16:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry Ed, but that is not the issue here under discussion. RobS 16:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, you mean I have to actually read all that talk above? :-( --Ed Poor 16:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I can summarize it. Two prominent mainstream publication printed false information with the express intent to defame the VP of the US. It has been proven false, with damage to those publications reputations. Discussing it any further serves no purpose, IMO. RobS 16:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was more, Rob and I disagree as to the interpretation of a VP's statements in a transcript. As a result, he would like to strike any mention of it from the article. -AmesGyo! 16:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless it's an urgent matter, it might be preferable to let it go for a few days. We can always insert it later if the 3 of us can agree on a wording. --Ed Poor 16:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds cool.-AmesGyo! 17:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, none of its going in. And the case is laid out above, as well as in all the source material. We can rehash as much of it as you like, but in the end, none of it belongs here. RobS 17:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

"mildest forms of torture"

Unless there is some citation for this, it should be removed. Torture is torture.--Dave3172 16:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I really don't understand...

CP believes in avoiding polite euphemisms, like "militants" for "terrorists." Why avoid the use of the word "torture?" There was a great article awhile back in, I think, the Atlantic (hold on for just a minute...) that was the argument in FAVOR of these kinds of techniques, but even the quotes from those in favor from inside the intelligence community called it "torture." Aziraphale 14:10, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Use of "Opponents of the US" phrase

Seriously, how does being opposed to waterboarding make one anti-American? Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, necessary or unneccesary, I find calling people opposed to waterboarding "opponents of the US" a moronic leap of illogic. Being opposed to waterboarding make one an opponent of waterboarding. Patriotism has nothing to do with it, and to try to frame all opponents of waterboarding as anti-Americans is inflammatory, untruthful, and simpleminded. --John 15:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

  • As a former Sysop here, John, one might think your language would be a bit more temperate. If you could save 100 lives, or 1000, by torturing someone, just one person, would you do it? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
What does that have to do with being an opponent of the US? Your response is irrelevant to the question I posed. I'm not talking about whether torture is effective, or whether it should be done. I'm talking about whether it's anti-American to hold views that differ from yours.--John 15:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The problem with this article is, and remains, no one can cite a credible source by name that says the US is using waterboarding as an interogation technique. All the charges amount to rumor and innuendo. The only citations that have ever been offered, anywhere, worldwide, stem from (a) escaped or released internees, or (b) anonymous sources attributed to being CIA employees. And as we all know as a result of the Valerie Plame Affair (1) CIA employees can become involved in partisan politcs (see Valerie Plame Wilson Campaign contibutions)and (2) it is illegal to ever disclose their names. Hence, the citations can never be attributed. See the new book, Sabotage: America's Enemies Within the CIA,Rowan Scarborough, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (July 16, 2007). ISBN-10: 1596985100. RobS 15:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Is the Director of the CIA 'reputable' enough for you? --Gulik5 23:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Gulik, is there some urgent reason you are responding to a post nine months old? More to the point, linking to something where the CIA Director says:
"We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,(immediately following 9/11)" Mr Hayden 
told the Senate Intelligence Committee."
That connotes nothing at odds with what RobS posted whatsoever, you pointing to a statement about something that happend to only three people, 7 years or so ago. --₮K/Talk 23:42, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Because I wasn't looking at the date, and this is the one anyone's managed to get them to admit to. What do you think the odds are that they stopped there? RobS wanted a 'credible source', I provided one. --Gulik5 01:03, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Prosecutions secured using information gained through waterboarding

Have any prosecutions been made through information gained from waterboarding? If so, they should be listed. --TonySidaway 11:07, 18 January 2009 (EST)

  • Tony, I am fairly certain my good friend, Ed Poor, let you know this isn't WP. I personally don't know if "any prosecutions" have been made through waterboarding interrogations. Nor do conservatives care! The fact is, the verifiable facts are, information was gained that saved thousands of lives. The prime directive of our government is to secure domestic tranquility and keep citizens safe, no? Please don't use CP articles as yet another vehicle for Bush-Cheney bashing, or trying to "prove" with typical liberal non-logic, that somehow terrorists deserve legal rights. They don't. I would say that a common Possum is more deserving of Constitutional protections. --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:54, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Why is this article here?

The entire point of this article seems to be that waterboarding can not technically be defined as torture, which is pretty obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells(no lasting physical harm). But then why is this article listed in the category "Instruments and methods of torture" and the page on torture also links here. We should remove those links and only include thing that actually are torture, so that people don't get confused and just say that waterboarding is listed as a method of torture on the CP torture page.