Bushies admit waterboarding torture

[gabosaurus]

Yes, the lies continue. "We categorically deny torturing anyone!" "Oh wait, we did torture three people. Our bad!"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20080205-1541-mukasey-torture.html

[theHawk]

Good. They should be able to use waterboarding when its needed.

[gabosaurus]

Good. They should be able to use waterboarding when its needed.

So true. The best way to prevent terrorism is to become terrorists ourselves.

[manu1959]

So true. The best way to prevent terrorism is to become terrorists ourselves.

actualy the best way is to kill them before they can kill you.....

[Mr. P]

So true. The best way to prevent terrorism is to become terrorists ourselves.

Yer right Gabby..I think we should be nice to em too. Give em everything they want. Make em comfy. Big screen tv, a gym, great food and stuff. That'll do er for sure. They'll spill their guts then. Don't ya think? Makes me wanna be a POW, YOU?

[manu1959]

Yer right Gabby..I think we should be nice to em too. Give em everything they want. Make em comfy. Big screen tv, a gym, great food and stuff. That'll do er for sure. They'll spill their guts then. Don't ya think? Makes me wanna be a POW, YOU?

well you could always give them a choice....waterboard or cut their head off on video with a knife dipped in pig shit....or tell me what i want to know....

[gabosaurus]

So you believe that we should have the ability to torture prisoners, but no one else should be able to?

[manu1959]

So you believe that we should have the ability to torture prisoners, but no one else should be able to?

everyone else already does.....and always has....name a nation that the us has gone to war with that hasn't tortured american soilders.....

fuckem...torture our guys and we will what.....stack you naked in a pile...pee on your books....feed you bacon...have girls flirt with you...make you saty up late...play loud music....shine lights in your eyes....no wonder they think they can kick our ass.....

[Mr. P]

So you believe that we should have the ability to torture prisoners, but no one else should be able to?

I donno if your asking me...but....

We all have the ability to torture. The real question is what is torture? The definition will vary by culture...For example, in the USA womens panties placed on a mans head has been determined to be TORTURE vs in the middle east, a slow decapitation of a prisoner with a knife is just a daily event. Go figure.

[Yurt]

So you believe that we should have the ability to torture prisoners, but no one else should be able to?

you're right, we just put em in a room with you for 5 minutes....

[Sitarro]

everyone else already does.....and always has....name a nation that the us has gone to war with that hasn't tortured american soilders.....

fuckem...torture our guys and we will what.....stack you naked in a pile...pee on your books....feed you bacon...have girls flirt with you...make you saty up late...play loud music....shine lights in your eyes....no wonder they think they can kick our ass.....

Yea, they saw off heads with dull knives and burn bodies and the world and our libs say nothing. Mean while, the U.S. is chastised for fraternity pranks that are judged as torture. Typical.

If you want to see real torture Gabit, go to any American prison and talk to the little guys with the black eyes and broken noses that never sit down..

[waterrescuedude2000]

actualy the best way is to kill them before they can kill you.....

And also to kill more of them then they kill of us which is also being done.

[gabosaurus]

So now that the Bushies have copped to torture, it is officially OK to torture.
Isn't that one of the points where we are supposed to differ from the terrorists? Humane treatment of our enemies and all?
Guess not...

[manu1959]

So now that the Bushies have copped to torture, it is officially OK to torture.
Isn't that one of the points where we are supposed to differ from the terrorists? Humane treatment of our enemies and all?
Guess not...

that is the moral ground you claim.....

i see no problem water boarding terrorists....they are terrorists....fuckem

if i was in charge they would be begging for waterboarding....

[Mr. P]

So now that the Bushies have copped to torture, it is officially OK to torture.
Isn't that one of the points where we are supposed to differ from the terrorists? Humane treatment of our enemies and all?
Guess not...

Post #9 geeezzzzzzzzz you libs don't read!

[stephanie]

Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg would probably rather of been tortured and still be alive..instead they got to be videotaped having their heads sawed off and shown all over the middle east t.v., while the people threw parties...
It was so disgusting, they would never dare show it over here..(but I can get a link for all who want to watch it)..

But...I suppose that was the United States and the Bushies fault also.......

I swear some people don't live in the real world..

[gabosaurus]

I swear some people don't live in the real world..

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin to list two of them...

[stephanie]

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin to list two of them...

You really are a silly little girl..Maybe one day you'll get your head out of that cloud you live in...and join the real world..

[5stringJeff]

I'm no fan of using waterboarding (or any other torturing techniques), but if the Dems really wanted to get rid of it, they'd pass a law banning it, seeing as how they own Congress. Instead, the Dems are using torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, as a political weapon.

So while you can blame the Bush administration for using waterboarding, you can blame the Democrats for not outlawing it.

[retiredman]

I'm no fan of using waterboarding (or any other torturing techniques), but if the Dems really wanted to get rid of it, they'd pass a law banning it, seeing as how they own Congress. Instead, the Dems are using torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, as a political weapon.

So while you can blame the Bush administration for using waterboarding, you can blame the Democrats for not outlawing it.


what makes you think that a bill to outlaw waterboarding would ever get out of the Senate given the democrat's plurality only?

[5stringJeff]

what makes you think that a bill to outlaw waterboarding would ever get out of the Senate given the democrat's plurality only?

I'm pretty sure that the Senate could get 9 Republican Senators to vote for cloture. McCain's one, so they only need eight more.

[manu1959]

I'm no fan of using waterboarding (or any other torturing techniques), but if the Dems really wanted to get rid of it, they'd pass a law banning it, seeing as how they own Congress. Instead, the Dems are using torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, as a political weapon.

So while you can blame the Bush administration for using waterboarding, you can blame the Democrats for not outlawing it.

because it will be a necessary evil when they gain the presidency.....they will need it.....

[5stringJeff]

because it will be a necessary evil when they gain the presidency.....they will need it.....

I disagree that waterboarding is ever necessary.

[manu1959]

I disagree that waterboarding is ever necessary.

it would appear the majority of the pub and dem congress disagree with you....

i have a question for you....did the cia never use waterboarding prior to 2001....

[5stringJeff]

it would appear the majority of the pub and dem congress disagree with you....

i have a question for you....did the cia never use waterboarding prior to 2001....

I don't know, and it's irrelevant. I still don't think it's necessary.

[Nukeman]

I don't know, and it's irrelevant. I still don't think it's necessary.I think the relevancey Manu is going for is why do we bring it up now with Bush but the main stream media don't bother to delve a little deeper to find when it was used prior to Bush. Hell for all we know Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and etc....etc.... used it gain valuable information in their presidencies.....

[5stringJeff]

I think the relevancey Manu is going for is why do we bring it up now with Bush but the main stream media don't bother to delve a little deeper to find when it was used prior to Bush. Hell for all we know Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and etc....etc.... used it gain valuable information in their presidencies.....

OK, that makes sense. But I wouldn't support any administration using it, GOP or Dem.

[manu1959]

I don't know, and it's irrelevant. I still don't think it's necessary.

actually it isn't.....the cia has "tortured" since its inception....and the politicians turn a blind eye to it....till now....modern technology has seen to that.....

it will be interesting to see if our congress will actually do anything.....i somehow think it will simply drift away until the next cell cam video shows up on youtube....

and the reason i believe this is the dems know that good people sometimes have to do bad things to stop evil things from happening....

[retiredman]

and the reason i believe this is the dems know that good people sometimes have to do bad things to stop evil things from happening....


even pissing on the constitution those of us who served swore to uphold? I disagree.

[manu1959]

even pissing on the constitution those of us who served swore to uphold? I disagree.

i am not the one requiring convincing....i am simply pointing out that this is not new and the govt has been doing this for decades....and in my opinion will continue to do it for decades....

[Mr. P]

i am not the one requiring convincing....i am simply pointing out that this is not new and the govt has been doing this for decades....and in my opinion will continue to do it for decades....

I've said it before, I have experienced waterboarding. It's a VERY effective noninvasive non injury tool in interrogation. Based on my experience, I support this method 100%. BTW, I experienced it in 1974.

[jimnyc]

even pissing on the constitution those of us who served swore to uphold? I disagree.

We are discussing waterboarding as implied by the title of this thread, no? If so, it's not unconstitutional, unless some legislation was passed in the past few weeks that I somehow missed.

[retiredman]

We are discussing waterboarding as implied by the title of this thread, no? If so, it's not unconstitutional, unless some legislation was passed in the past few weeks that I somehow missed.

that depends on whether you think that violating article VI is unconstitutional, I guess.

[jimnyc]

that depends on whether you think that violating article VI is unconstitutional, I guess.

I know, you're referring to the "supreme law of the land" with the treaties. The US addition to the treaty you refer to, that our Constitution would see as "supreme law of the land", makes it clear that legislation would need to be passed first. I've posted this several times in several of the waterboarding threads, and put the entire text of the treaty in there. Until such time that Congress declares waterboarding as torture, then there has been no defined torture legislated, and therefore not unconstitutional.

[retiredman]

I know, you're referring to the "supreme law of the land" with the treaties. The US addition to the treaty you refer to, that our Constitution would see as "supreme law of the land", makes it clear that legislation would need to be passed first. I've posted this several times in several of the waterboarding threads, and put the entire text of the treaty in there. Until such time that Congress declares waterboarding as torture, then there has been no defined torture legislated, and therefore not unconstitutional.

that is your interpretation. I realize that many agree with it. I do not. Let's just agree to disagree.

[5stringJeff]

Until such time that Congress declares waterboarding as torture, then there has been no defined torture legislated, and therefore not unconstitutional.

And if one is truly against waterboarding, you can blame the Dems for not outlawing it in 2007, the GOP for not outlawing it from 1995-2006, the Dems for not outlawing it from WWII-1994, etc. etc. Congress needs to act if they want to explicitly ban the practice.

[glockmail]

that is your interpretation. I realize that many agree with it. I do not. Let's just agree to disagree. Why not be a man and just admit that you are wrong? And you wonder why most have zero respect for you.

[retiredman]

Why not be a man and just admit that you are wrong? And you wonder why most have zero respect for you.


I disagree with Jim's interpretation of the enabling legislation. He and I have had the conversation before and I remain unconvinced by his argument... and he remains unconvinced by mine.

and puh -lease...when have I EVER wondered - or worried - about what queerbait, fudgepacking, righteously indignant pedophiliac drama queens like you think of me?

I am confident that the people in my life who I really admire and respect pretty much feel the same way about me. YOU? Trust me. I really could give a fuck. Honest.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Why not be a man and just admit that you are wrong? And you wonder why most have zero respect for you.

That would be a first, as well as an historic occasion

[retiredman]

That would be a first, as well as an historic occasion


you two should get a room!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

you two should get a room!:laugh2:

This is close as you will ever get to fessing up you are wrong

[retiredman]

This is close as you will ever get to fessing up you are wrong

I do not think I AM wrong in this instance. I believe that the enabling legislation for the UN Convention in question does NOT make certain types of torture constitutional.

While you're at it, why don't you regale us again with your wacko scenario where Al Qaeda and Iran jointly invade Iraq after we leave - but then Iran will murder all the AQ fighters....

you are dead wrong on a daily basis and not only will you never admit it, you won't even debate it.

But hey.... your $500 will spend nicely. I am thinking perhaps, a new set of Taylormade woods.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I do not think I AM wrong in this instance. I believe that the enabling legislation for the UN Convention in question does NOT make certain types of torture constitutional.

While you're at it, why don't you regale us again with your wacko scenario where Al Qaeda and Iran jointly invade Iraq after we leave - but then Iran will murder all the AQ fighters....

you are dead wrong on a daily basis and not only will you never admit it, you won't even debate it.

But hey.... your $500 will spend nicely. I am thinking perhaps, a new set of Taylormade woods.:laugh2:

We all know you would rather coddle the terrorist rather then stop an attack

As far as the $500 - I thought you libs said McCain was the one you were most afraid of - he was the one who could beat Hillary or Obama

Seems you libs are turning on McCain sooner then I thought

[retiredman]

We all know you would rather coddle the terrorist rather then stop an attack

As far as the $500 - I thought you libs said McCain was the one you were most afraid of - he was the one who could beat Hillary or Obama

Seems you libs are turning on McCain sooner then I thought

my bet was that a democrat would win the white house and we would increase our seats in both the senate and the house.

And I have NEVER endorsed "coddling" our enemies.... even domestic ones like you.

[red states rule]

my bet was that a democrat would win the white house and we would increase our seats in both the senate and the house.

And I have NEVER endorsed "coddling" our enemies.... even domestic ones like you.

Not so fast

The bet was Dems would hold either the Hosue or the Senate and win the WH

A Republican win in any of those means I win. If McCain wins the WH - I win

The money BTW goes to a charity - not to you or me

[retiredman]

Not so fast

The bet was Dems would hold either the Hosue or the Senate and win the WH

A Republican win in any of those means I win. If McCain wins the WH - I win

The money BTW goes to a charity - not to you or me


the bet was the dems would hold the house and the senate and win the white house. I realize that I lose if the republicans either gain control of the house, control of the senate, or retain the white house.

And YOU said that you would donate your winnings to the local humane society. I NEVER made any such stipulation. I will spend your money any damned way I please - unless, as I have suspected all along, you welch on the bet.

[red states rule]

the bet was the dems would hold the house and the senate and win the white house. I realize that I lose if the republicans either gain control of the house, control of the senate, or retain the white house.

And YOU said that you would donate your winnings to the local humane society. I NEVER made any such stipulation. I will spend your money any damned way I please - unless, as I have suspected all along, you welch on the bet.

Not at all - the money goes to a charity

In your case perhaps Moveon.org or the DNC

[retiredman]

Not at all - the money goes to a charity

In your case perhaps Moveon.org or the DNC


bullshit. you are a liar. go find a post from me where I EVER agreed to do anything with YOUR money other than spend it like I chose.

I KNEW you'd welch.

[red states rule]

bullshit. you are a liar. go find a post from me where I EVER agreed to do anything with YOUR money other than spend it like I chose.

I KNEW you'd welch.

You are the one disputing the terms - you find the post

I will pay up if I lose - but the money goes to a charity - not to one of us

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of the thread........


Rush nailed it this morning with his morning update


While Super-Duper Tuesday dominated coverage, news about the war on terror was largely ignored. CIA Director Michael Hayden, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, acknowledged three Al-Qaeda terrorists -- Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri -- were subjected to waterboarding shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Hayden told the committee that waterboarding was used "against these three individuals because of the circumstances at the time. There was a belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable... and we had limited knowledge about Al-Qaeda and its workings." Since then, things have changed; we know more, and we don't need to waterboard.

Well, reaction to this was swift, my friends. The Senate's second-ranking Democrat, Dick Turbin, immediately called on the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation. He threatened to hold up a Justice Department nominee if his demand isn't met.

Now, we know that as a result of the CIA interrogations of these Al-Qaeda terrorists, several attacks on America were thwarted. This is not in dispute. But why did we know so little about Al-Qaeda in the first place? Well, a key reason is since the Carter Administration, Democrats have systematically dismantled our intelligence capabilities.

Now Democrats want to punish the Bush Administration and our intelligence agencies for saving countless American lives and doing what was necessary to disrupt Al-Qaeda with criminal prosecutions. If you're looking for criminality, Senator, look in the mirror -- if you can stand it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020608/content/01125101.member.html

and

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0HzC22rsazNY3EH2NhxMtOE-1agD8UKIF501

[theHawk]

So true. The best way to prevent terrorism is to become terrorists ourselves.

We're already "terrorists" in their eyes. So who gives a damn what they think of us.

[red states rule]

We're already "terrorists" in their eyes. So who gives a damn what they think of us.

I could not care less what they think

[retiredman]

You are the one disputing the terms - you find the post

I will pay up if I lose - but the money goes to a charity - not to one of us


I KNEW you'd welch on the bet.

If you pay up, you pay up and I get to decide what to do with it. It has NEVER been anything else.

[red states rule]

I KNEW you'd welch on the bet.

If you pay up, you pay up and I get to decide what to do with it. It has NEVER been anything else.

As usual you bellow your BS and can't back it up

[retiredman]

As usual you bellow your BS and can't back it up


you are the one who is claiming conditions on our bet. I say back it up or admit you are a welcher.

We had a bet. 500$.... you'll pay up or you will be a fucking welcher.... take your pick.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=530983&highlight=%24500#post530983

post numbers 33, 34, 35, 36.

read em and weep.

[red states rule]

you are the one who is claiming conditions on our bet. I say back it up or admit you are a welcher.

We had a bet. 500$.... you'll pay up or you will be a fucking welcher.... take your pick.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=530983&highlight=%24500#post530983

post numbers 33, 34, 35, 36.

read em and weep.

I see where you did not accept the terms I asked for

Like I said, libs are always talking about helping others - as long as it is with other peoples money

[retiredman]

I see where you did not accept the terms I asked for

Like I said, libs are always talking about helping others - as long as it is with other peoples money

no. you said what you would do if YOU won, you did not make it a condition of our wager that I do the same thing. The record is clear:

maineman:

hey...this is a bet between you and me...when I win, I will decide what to do with MY winnings.

I take in stray dogs and cats.... I do enough for the SPCA already. I'll probably buy a new set of fairway woods with my winnings


red states drool:

"Spoken like a true lib

"Don't do as I do - do as I say"

The only winnings you will have if you layff this bet with a win for Rudy

The Dems do have anyone who can win the Electoral College. Remember we "hicks" vote in huge numbers and if Hillary is your choice, the "hicks" will turn out in record numbers to defeat her"

but like I said...I knew you'd be a fucking welcher anyway.:laugh2:



oh...and speaking of the poor dogs and cats...here is a wonderful post where you had the chance to win $1000 for your local humane society and wouldn't (couldn't) bring yourself to do it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=594927&postcount=221


:laugh2:

[glockmail]

I disagree with Jim's interpretation of the enabling legislation. ... So convenient that you can ignore facts like that.

[retiredman]

So convenient that you can ignore facts like that.


you need to understand the difference between fact and opinion...and when you CLAIM a fact, you need to be able to back it up. :lol:

[glockmail]

you are the one who is claiming conditions on our bet. I say back it up or admit you are a welcher.

We had a bet. 500$.... you'll pay up or you will be a fucking welcher.... take your pick.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=530983&highlight=%24500#post530983

post numbers 33, 34, 35, 36.

read em and weep.

You're the one weeping. I just read up to post 40 and there was never an agreemant that RSR would do anything with the money other than donate it to SPCA. It looks like you'll have to fill your liquor cabinet some other way.

[glockmail]

you need to understand the difference between fact and opinion...and when you CLAIM a fact, you need to be able to back it up. :lol:
I always do. But in this case, it is Jim you lost to.

[retiredman]

I always do. But in this case, it is Jim you lost to.


I have recently reread the text of the senate resolution passed on 10/27/90 that ratified the UN convention in question. I do not see how waterboarding is excluded. I lost to no one.

[glockmail]

I have recently reread the text of the senate resolution passed on 10/27/90 that ratified the UN convention in question. I do not see how waterboarding is excluded. I lost to no one. If waterborading is included then so are barking dogs and panties on the head. Those poor, sensitive Muslims! :lol:

[retiredman]

If waterborading is included then so are barking dogs and panties on the head. Those poor, sensitive Muslims! :lol:


It is obvious that YOU have not read the text of the Senate resolution.

why am I not surprised?:laugh2:

[glockmail]

It is obvious that YOU have not read the text of the Senate resolution.

why am I not surprised?:laugh2:
That's why we keep you around: to read all kinds of boring shit and tell us your interpretation. We then know that the opposite is true. It saves us a lot of time. :lol:

[retiredman]

That's why we keep you around: to read all kinds of boring shit and tell us your interpretation. We then know that the opposite is true. It saves us a lot of time. :lol:

YOU don't keep me anywhere, queerbait.

I keep you off of ignore simply for the humor value. It is fun to watch a clueless buffoon bumble around with NO facts and NO documentation armed with only his own highly overestimated sense of "wit".

[glockmail]

YOU don't keep me anywhere, queerbait.

... We keep you just where we want.

[retiredman]

We keep you just where we want.

:lame2:

[glockmail]

:pee:


:lame2:

[red states rule]

That's why we keep you around: to read all kinds of boring shit and tell us your interpretation. We then know that the opposite is true. It saves us a lot of time. :lol:

He is good for some mild comic relief. Those DNC talking points flow like a river from him